Design Review Board Regular Meeting Minutes

1025 S. Gilbert Road

July 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 Bob Pazera, Planner Matt Everling

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

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
CONSENT DR01-31 2 APPROVED
CONSENT DR01-102 2 APPROVED
CONSENT DR01-35 3 APPROVED
CONSENT DR02-36 4 APPROVED
CONSENT DR02-49 5 APPROVED
MR. EVERLING DR02-20 5 APPROVED
MS. EDWARDS DR02-37 6 APPROVED
MS. CADAVID DR02-29 9 APPROVED
MS. CADAVID DR02-33 10 APPROVED
MS. CADAVID DR02-39 12 APPROVED
MR. EVERLING DR02-31 13 DISCUSSION

< —- > = Deleted text Bold = Added text in stipulations

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Darrell Truitt called the meeting to order at 5:40 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that they wanted to move DR02-20 and DR02-37 to the Public Hearing. He requested a motion to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member Bob Deardorff 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 Board⬔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.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson approve the consent items.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Minutes ⬠Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2002.

DR01-31 ⬠Approval of one (1) standard plan (5015) proposed by Shea Homes for Trilogy 4 of Power Ranch.

Staff recommends approval of the DR01-31, standard plan 5015 to be developed at Trilogy 4 of 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 at the July 11th, 2002 public hearing.

This plan (5015) shall adhere to all conditions of the original DR01-31 Design Review Board approval.

Plan 5015 shall adhere to the standard house plan conditions adopted by the Design Review Board by resolution on December 14, 2000.

DR01-102 ⬠Approval of the interior Open Space and plat Design for Seville Parcel 5, zoned PAD with the underlying zoning district, R-CH (Single Family Cluster Homes).

Staff recommends approval of DR01-102, the subdivision design and the open space plan for parcel 5 of Seville subject to the following conditions:

The design of the subdivision shall be in conformance with the subdivision exhibit approved by the Design Review Board on 07/11/02 (Exhibit 1).

Landscaping/hardscape construction documents for parcel 5 of Seville shall conform to the exhibits (sheets 1 and 2 ⬠open space plan for Seville parcel 5) and conditions approved by the Design Review Board on July 11, 2002.

The lighting fixtures in the Ramada shall be concealed up into the structural elements of this structure. Location of the bollard style lighting fixtures used within the open space area (tract C) shall be depicted on the construction Landscape Plan and approved by the Planning Department prior to approval of the improvements plan.

The minimum number, size and finish for the pedestrian amenities in tract C shall be as follows:

One 20⬔ x 20⬔ Ramada structure with the columns to have the cultured stone veneer finish used on the subdivision wall.

Two - 6⬔ long tables

Two - 60″ benches in the proximity of the tot lot

Two bar-b-que grills

Bollard lighting every 50⬔ along the trail that connects this parcel with the open space system of the master plan

Lighting fixtures proposed in on the trellis structures shall be recessed up and not visible from outside the structure

The cap of the entry monument wall portion framed by the pilasters shall be softened by incorporating a gentle arched top to highlight the area where the sign will be affixed.

DR01-35 ⬠Re-approval of the standard plans, which expired on June 14, 2002, for Arbor Walk Condominiums located 1/8 mile west of Gilbert Road on Juniper Avenue. The site is zoned R-4 (Multi-Family Residence) Planned Area Development (P.A.D.)

Staff recommends re-approval for the site plan, landscaping, standard plan elevations, and entry/wall design for Arbor Walk, located approximately 1/8 mile west of Gilbert Road on Juniper Avenue, DR01-35, subject to the following conditions:

The previous approved stipulations for this property/project: Z99-29, DR00-38, & SP641 shall be in effect, except for those concerning the standard plans or as modified below:

The site plan, landscaping, four (4) standard plans, and entry/wall design are approved for Arbor Walk zoned R-4 (Multi-Family) and shall be built per the approval by the Design Review Board at the public meeting of July 11, 2002. Any changes shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a permit.

Treatment around all the windows shall be consistent with the design of the main entrance window treatments. A standard band around the windows will not be allowed. This shall be a standard feature on all windows, including the first floor windows, and clearly shown on the construction documents and reviewed by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

Plans 803, 804, & 805 shall provide for a window or glass block within the kitchen areas to provide articulation along these elevations and light into the kitchens. This shall be clearly identified on the construction documents for each plan and shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

Clipped roof on both side elevations for Plan 805 shall be provided to mitigate the massiveness of that wall plane. This shall be clearly shown on the construction documents.

No similar elevation shall be built adjacent to or across from one another. Across is defined as any lots having common frontage.

A minimum of three (3) different garage doors shall be offered as a standard feature for each standard plan. Different designs may include short vs. long panels and decorative, divided-light panels.

Detailing (i.e. veneer stone, brick, shutters, window mullions, decorative corbels, etc) as shown on the approved elevations shall be standard and clearly labeled on the construction documents.

All ground-mounted mechanical equipment must be screened by a finished wall, as shown on the wall plan, to match the color/design of the building.

The applicant shall place on the cover sheet on each individual standard plan construction documents submittal to the Town of Gilbert both the approved design review stipulations above and the approved zoning development standards.

DR02-36 ⬠Approval of the site plan, grading and drainage plan, landscaping, and building elevations for the Mainly⬔s Land of Maz located at the southwest corner of Boxwood Avenue and Acacia Drive.

Staff recommends that the Board approve the site plan, grading and drainage plan, landscaping, and building elevations for the Mainly⬔s Land of Maz (DR02-36) subject to the following stipulations:

1. Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented to the Design Review Board on July 11, 2002.

2. All project signage shall be submitted to Planning Staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a sign permit.

3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan to the Planning Department prior to construction plan review showing horizontal articulation for the parking screen wall along Boxwood Avenue and Acacia Drive.

4. Prior to construction plan review, the applicant shall submit a screen wall detail to the Planning Department showing the same split-face “cap” on the screen wall as on the main building.

5. Prior to construction plan review, the applicant shall submit cut sheets and a revised site plan showing the locations of parking lot lighting to the Planning Department for review and approval.

6. Standard industrial stipulations apply. The construction site plan document submittal shall include the list of Standard Commercial and Industrial Site Plan Notes.

DR02-49 ⬠Approval of (1) one additional standard plan, Plan 8 proposed by Fulton Homes located in Vintage Ranch. The Subdivision is located at the northwest corner of Pecos and Lindsay Roads and is zoned P.A.D. with an underlying zoning designation of R1-10 (Single Family Residential).

Staff recommends approval of DR02-49 Fulton Homes at Vintage Ranch one additional standard plan, Plan 8 (2511), subject to the following conditions:

1. All standard plans shall meet requirements set forth in the Resolution of the Design Review Board adopting standard residential house plan conditions approved on December 14, 2000.

2. Standard plan 8 (2511) shall be built per exhibits approved by the

Design Review Board as presented at the public hearing of July 11, 2002 subject to staff stipulations.

3. The additional standard plan 8 (2511) is approved for 307 lots, lots 1 through 307 within the Vintage Ranch P.A.D. Any additional standard plans or major revisions to the approved plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.

4. Standard plan 8 (2511) shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1211 as amended by Ordinance No. 1282. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

DR02-20 ⬠Approval of 14 standard plans for Trilogy at Power Ranch Unit 4 located south of the southwest corner of Queen Creek Road and Power Road.

Board Member David Gibson referred to elevation 9B, and suggested that they continue the gable to the right in order to obtain more mass. He thought that the window could remain the same, or could be centered. He commented that there was a column on the elevation that was shown as 4″ wide, but the plan showed it as 12″.

Planner Matt Everling asked if the width of the column was addressed to Board Member David Gibson⬔s satisfaction on stipulation number three.

Board Member David Gibson suggested that they keep stipulation number three to address the column width, but change the requirement to 12″ instead of 16″.

Chairman Darrell Truitt invited the applicant to come forward.

Robert White, 4322 E. Chestnut Lane, Gilbert came forward. He agreed with the revised stipulations and stated that they would make the necessary changes.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if anyone 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 David Gibson, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson to approve DR02-20, subject to Staff stipulations; adding stipulation five to state that the entry column on elevation 9B shall be widened and the adjacent window shall be moved over to be centered in the wall; changing stipulation three to state that the columns be 12″ instead of 16″.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Staff recommends approval of DR02-20, for fourteen (14) standard plans by Shea Homes for lots 488-808 (321 total lots), for Trilogy at Power Ranch Unit 4, located south of the southwest corner of Power and Queen Creek Roads, subject to the following conditions:

All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public meeting of July 11, 2002.

These standard plans are approved for lots 321 lots, 488 through 808 within Trilogy at Power Ranch Unit 4. 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.

Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised elevations to the Planning Department for review and approval showing revised patio columns to be no less than 12 inches wide to correspond to the scale of the patios.

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

The entry column on elevation 9B shall be widened and the adjacent window shall be moved over to be centered in the wall.

DR02-37: Approval of the open space and landscape plan, wall plan and amenity package for Power Ranch Neighborhood #6 located at the southwest corner of Ranch House Parkway and Germann Road.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards informed the Commission that the Staff and the applicant had a difference of opinion on a couple of items in DR02-37. She commented that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the previous evening there was a stipulation that was agreed upon that she wanted to bring to the Board⬔s attention. She pointed out Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 on the site plan. The Commission determined that the park, Tract DD, would be built in Phase 1. She referred to stipulation three that required that bollard lighting was required to be extended along the trail system to include the area around the volleyball court. She used the visual aid to demonstrate where the lighting was required. She pointed out that other neighborhoods within Power Ranch did not have lighted areas and volleyball courts, therefore the applicant was asking for consistency to not require that bollard lighting not be required in stipulation three.

Ms. Edwards discussed stipulation number five, the requirement for the construction of an add ional Ramada. She explained that the applicant had suggested that the placement of a Ramada in the area might overdue the amenity package. She reviewed the amenities that were proposed for the small pocket park.

Ms. Edwards reviewed stipulation number six that required that the theme wall be built up to Germann Road. She noted that the applicant was concerned that Coronado Ranch, adjacent to the west, might build the wall first. Based on stipulation six, the applicant was concerned that they would be required to build the wall as well.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the Staff agreed to strike stipulation five.

Ms. Edwards replied that the Staff agreed to strike stipulation five.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked what the Staff felt about stipulation number three requiring the bollard lighting.

Ms. Edwards felt that the lighting was not needed, as it was a passive area, unless the Board felt that lighting was needed for safety reasons.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid explained that the linear park was only a connection between two active parks and should be lit to make the path safe. She agreed that the bollard lighting might be too extensive and expensive, but she felt some lighting might be needed for safety.

Board Member Chris Lindahl suggested that they explore other lighting fixtures since bollard lighting don⬔t provide that much lighting and they could perhaps find another low level light that was shielded.

Board Member Bob Deardorff pointed out that residents might not want lighting in their backyard.

Board Member David Gibson inquired about what kind of fencing was proposed for the homes along the tract.

Ms. Edward replied that the fencing was proposed to be view fences.

Board Member David Gibson asked what the optimal minimum setback was from the tennis court lights to the adjacent residential lots.

Ms. Edwards answered that the minimum setback from the tennis court lights to the adjacent residential lots was 100⬔.

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

Sean Walters, 4734 E. Queen Creek Road, Gilbert with Sunbelt Holdings came forward. He provided some background information on the project. He explained that the first phase of Power Ranch did not have any lights in the pathway system. Bollard lighting and pathway lighting was recently required in Neighborhood five. He commented that they wanted to come up with a master plan for the lighting in the pathway system and pointed out the areas that they decided to light, the major pathways that connected the major parks. However, the area that was required to be lit in stipulation three wasn⬔t in the lighting plan since it connected a passive area and an active area. The applicant felt that the residents would not use the pathway in the evening nor would people outside the community come in through that passageway.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the Staff if the Police Department had looked at the lighting plan for safety.

Ms. Edwards explained that the plans were sent to the Police Department at a master plan level, but not at a neighborhood level.

Chairman Darrell Truitt suggested that the issue regarding the lighting was not function, but security. He felt that the Police Department would be better suited to answer that concern.

Mr. Walters thought there was enough lighting in the path with the ambient housing lights and any bollard lights would be an intrusion into the rear yards.

Board Member Chris Lindahl asked what the view fence looked like.

Mr. Walters described the view wall as being two-foot split face block with four-foot rod iron. He referred to the Staff report, which showed what the fence looked like. Regarding stipulation six, he thought that they would build their project prior to Coronado Ranch, but asked to have the stipulation changed so they would not be required to tear down another wall or build a second wall if there was one already in place.

Chairman Darrell Truitt stated that his inclination was on item three to put a phrase in the beginning of the statement to state “If required by the Gilbert Police Department,”. He suggested that they require the bollard lighting, which was a design issue, if the Police Department felt it was necessary for safety reasons.

Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if Coronado Ranch were to build their wall first if the applicant would be able to change the wall so it matched Power Ranch⬔s theme.

Mr. Walters replied that he was sure they would stain the wall to match their other walls in the development.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if anyone 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 David Gibson, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson to approve DR02-37, subject to Staff stipulation; amending stipulation number three to begin with the words “If required by the Gilbert Police Department,” and striking the words “Bollard style”; striking stipulation number five; adding to stipulation number six “unless there is a wall constructed on site already”.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Staff recommends approval of the Open Space Program for Neighborhood 6 of Power Ranch subject to the following conditions:

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

Outdoor lighting for the tennis courts shall be limited to six (6) fixtures per court and to a maximum height of 14 feet. Outdoor lighting shall not be permitted for the multi-use play field, the volleyball court, and the ramada structures. Location of the bollard style lighting fixtures used within the open space area and arroyo trails shall be shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan and submitted to the Planning Department for its review and approval.

If required by the Gilbert Police Department Bollard style lighting shall be extended along the trail system to include the area around the volleyball court.

A corrected equipment legend with the correct quantities shall be provided to the Planning Department for its review and approval.

Construction of an additional ramada in the sand tot lot area south of Manzanita Drive shall be required.

The perimeter theme wall with an 8″ stone veneer inset band near the top shall be constructed along the western boundary line within the open space area adjacent to Germann Road where the adjacent Coronado Ranch lots back onto this open space area, unless there is a wall constructed on site already.

DR02-29 - Approval of the site plan, building elevations, grading/drainage plan and landscape plan for the addition to Schwab Sales, Inc. on lots 23-24 and 29-31 of Fiesta Ranch.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Board that DR02-29 was coming back to the Board from last month as it was continued due to the request of the property owners associations of Fiesta Ranch. The applicant worked with the property owners and representatives and was providing the exhibit that was before the Board that evening. She explained that the applicant had upgraded the proposed vertical flat metal siding at the request of the adjacent property owners. The upgrade would be done on the addition and existing structure. Staff received a letter from the lady that represented the property owners stating that they had reviewed and approved the revised submittal. She concluded that the Staff recommended approval of the project and asked for questions.

Chairman Darrell Truitt invited the applicant to come forward.

Gerald M. Cook, 505 W. McDowell Road, Bldg. C, Phoenix with Cook Associates Architects came forward. He stated that they agreed to the stipulations and did not have any comments.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if anyone 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 Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to approve DR02-29, subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Staff recommends approval of the site plan, grading and drainage, landscaping, building elevations and lighting for DR02-29, subject to the following conditions:

Construction documents for the site plan, landscape plan, building elevation and lighting shall conform with the exhibits presented to the Design Review Board at the July 11, 2002 public hearing.

The standard notes for commercial/industrial projects shall be incorporated on the construction site plan document prior to issuance of a building permit.

DR02-33: Approval of the site plan, landscaping, grading and drainage, elevations and conceptual signage for a new Jack-in-the-Box restaurant proposed east of the northeast corner of Guadalupe and Cooper Roads. The site is zoned PAD with the underlying zoning designation of C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial).

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Board that DR02-33 was a request of approval of the site plan, landscaping, grading and drainage, elevations and conceptual signage for a new Jack-in-the-Box restaurant proposed east of the northeast corner of Guadalupe and Cooper Roads. The site was zoned PAD with the underlying zoning designation of C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial). She noted that the Use Permit was approved the previous evening by the Planning and Zoning Commission with revised stipulations regulating the hours of operation of the drive thru. Originally, when the Staff brought the item to the Board, they didn⬔t have any issues with the circulation or site plan items. She commented that the applicant revised the plan to meet the need of the deceleration lane required by the Traffic Engineer.

Ms. Cadavid noted that the screening that was listed in the comments on the site plan had been addressed. The landscaping plan was also revised to address the questions the Board had with the type of plant material, sizes and distribution. She addressed the elevation concerns that the applicant addressed from the Boards previous comments. The roof tile, to match the AM/PM facility⬔s tile, the pitched roof elements and the porte cochere at the drive thru were also incorporated. She concluded that the Staff recommended approval subject to the stipulations. She noted that the Grating and Drainage Plan would have to be revised.

Board Member Chris Lindahl stated that he liked the way the exhibits looked with the Fan Palms that softened the elevations, but that he didn⬔t see these on the landscape plans.

Ms. Cadavid suggested that the Board add the palm trees as a stipulation.

Board Member Bob Deardorff recommended that they increase the planter adjacent to the walk with landscaping and a tree. He asked what the depth was of the planter.

Ms. Cadavid responded that the planter was approximately 7⬔ wide.

The Board briefly discussed the trees and landscaping.

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested that the applicant come forward and make his presentation.

Jeff Looker, 2070 E. Southern Ave., Tempe with Looker & Cappello Architects came forward. He notified the Board that they agreed with the Staff stipulations and asked for questions.

Board Member David Gibson referred to the south elevation, and stated that the fascia on the top of the tapered tower looked like it was coming back out and doing a plum cut on the side, whereas the other corners were an angled cut. He suggested that it might look better if it were parallel with the taper of the tower itself.

Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the Public Hearing and asked Terry Anderson to come forward.

Terry Anderson, 768 W. Douglas Ave., Gilbert came forward. He stated that his neighborhood was disappointed to see the Jack-in-the-Box restaurant come into their area. He informed the Board that there were 137 Jack-in-the-Boxes in Arizona and that he didn⬔t feel like they should have another one in their area. He was concerned about the noise, traffic and smells from the restaurant. He asked the Board to consider how close the restaurant was to the neighborhood and make sure that they meet all the necessary requirements.

Chairman Darrell Truitt confirmed that the Staff stipulations were pretty standard and there weren⬔t any outstanding design issues of substance. He explained that the Board could not discuss the use, as it was already approved, but they were considering the design of the building.

Richard Black, 721 W. Scott Ave., Gilbert came forward. He referred to the stipulation that addressed a trail and expressed his concern over this trail being filled with trash. He asked about the landscaping and buffering between the Jack-in-the-Box and his residential development.

Chairman Darrell Truitt explained that the Jack-in-the-Box would be buffered by other in line shops which will be built at a future date. He asked the Staff where the connective trail would be located.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson announced that the trail that was located on the residential development property, mentioned in stipulation eight, was not a part of the pad and should be stricken. He noted that the zoning for the trail would have been a part of the zoning case in the residential development. He added that stipulations 4 and 7 could also be stricken, as they were code requirements.

A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR02-33, subject to Staff stipulations; deleting the first sentence in stipulation number three; striking stipulations 4, 7, and 8; adding stipulation 11: “The north handicap ramp planter shall be increased to add one tree. The parapet shall be modified and detail on the south and east elevation shall terminate with an angle to match the rest of the parapets”.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Staff recommends approval of the site plan, grading and drainage, landscaping, building elevations and signage for DR02-33, 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 July 11, 2002 public hearing.

Prior to submittal of construction documents the applicant shall submit revised elevations that include correct material and color notes and the site plan shall include the corrected location for the outdoor site/parking lot light fixtures to the Planning Department for its review and approval.

All outdoor illumination shall be directed downward and away from public streets and residential uses. The applicant shall submit cut sheets of all outdoor lighting fixtures, including building mounted fixtures that are compatible with the architectural design of the building. Final placement of the fixtures shall be noted on the revised elevations and submitted to the Planning Department for its review and approval.

Any lighting of the covered outdoor seating area shall be designed as an integral part of the ramada structure.

The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign package for the entire commercial acreage for review and approval by the Design Review Board.

The screen wall along the Guadalupe frontage shall be finished in a manner that is compatible with the architecture of the building.

Completions of arterial street improvements are required prior to Town issuing Certificate of Occupancy for any building.

The connective trail, connecting the commercial center to the adjacent residential development, that was required by zoning (Z95-16 stipulation “Q”) shall be fully developed with Phase II of the commercial center.

The site plan document shall include the standard stipulations for commercial/industrial uses.

The Grading & Drainage Plan shall be revised to screen the retention basin and provide changes in grade that will present a screen wall design that is not more than 3 feet in height as viewed from the street. Revised grading plan shall be submitted to staff prior to the Design Review Board meeting.

The north handicap ramp planter shall be increased to add one tree. The parapet shall be modified and detail on the south and east elevation shall terminate with an angle to match the rest of the parapets.

DR02-39 - Approval of sign package for Sam⬔s Club Expansion located at 1225 N. Gilbert Road.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid reminded the Board that when they approved the renovation plans for Sam⬔s Club there was a requirement to come back with a master sign plan for the renovated expanded facility and to show any future sign criteria for the pads throughout the site. She noted that the location was located at Gilbert and Houston Roads and had been there since the late 1980s. The sign package consisted of three large wall signs. The first sign was the vestibule sign, the largest one above the main entrance. In addition, there was an ancillary sign to the left of the main entrance and a secondary wall sign on the south portion of the building. These were the main graphics that identify the use itself. The other signs that were seen above the fascia above the bay doors on the south elevations, and the exit and entrance signs were secondary signs.

Ms. Cadavid announced that the aggregate sign allowance for the building was 570 square feet. Sam⬔s Club exceeded this allowance by 20%. Therefore, Staff was requesting that each sign be reduced by 20%. At this point, she noted, the applicant had not submitted any monument signs and would need to bring those back for approval at another time. She added that the Staff did not have any concerns about any colors or materials for the signs. She concluded her presentation and asked for questions from the Board.

Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if they were submitting a sign package for the fueling station.

Ms. Cadavid replied that the applicant was not submitting any signs for the fueling station.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the signs for the fueling station would affect their entitlement of square footage for signs on the main building.

Ms. Cadavid responded that the fueling station signs would not affect the entitlement of square footage for signs on the main building.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the applicant wanted to make a presentation.

The applicant was not present that evening.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if anyone 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 DR02-39 subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Staff recommends approval for DR02-39 approval of wall sign criteria for Sam⬔s Club subject to the following stipulations:

The signs shall be permitted per exhibits approved at the public meeting of July 11, 2002 as stipulated by the Design Review Board.

The applicant shall submit the design for any future upgrades to the existing free standing sign for Sam⬔s club or any other user in the commercial development, and for any signs proposed for the gas canopy structure to Planning Department staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a sign permit.

The aggregate area allowance for all the wall signs proposed for Sam⬔s club shall not exceed 570 square feet to meet the maximum area permitted for walls as stated in the sign code. To achieve this requirement the wall signs shall be reduced in size as follows:

The area of the vestibule sign shall be reduced by 20% (approximate 282 square feet) to provide wider margins from top to bottom of the building plane where the vestibule sign is proposed.

The ancillary sign shall be reduced by 20% to approximately 81 square feet.

The wall sign on the north side of the front elevation (Gilbert Road frontage) shall be reduced in area by 20% to approximately 138 square feet.

The banding signs to be installed above the bay doors of the tire center and the entrance and exit signs on the front elevations shall be individual letters with no background and non-illuminated.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM

DR02-31 - Approval of the site plan, architecture, landscaping, elevations, lighting and signage for the Lowes Pad “D” building located at the northwest corner of Gilbert and Warner Roads.

Planner Matt Everling notified the Board that DR02-31 was an administrative item because there was an error in the Public Hearing noticing. He showed a graphic of the site. He reminded the Board that they had previously reviewed the item on June 13, 2002. He noted that the applicant had increased the amount of landscaping along the foundation. He pointed out the six potted plants on the visual aid. He announced that the applicant had revised the elevations to read north, south, east and west; instead of front, side and rear. Four-sided architecture had been increased by changes to the north elevation and adding 8″ recesses. He showed the Board the revised exhibits that reflected the changes. On the west elevation, the applicant added reveals and added the tile accents. On the south, east and north elevations, the applicant added the 8″ bands along the columns. Also notable, on the north elevation, the applicant had split up the trellis into three separate trellises. The applicant had also internalized the roof drainage on the north elevation. On the south elevation, the storefront, the applicant had increased the horizontal articulation by creating a one-foot projection on the façade. That was accomplished by “pushing” two equal portions of the façade back one-foot, which left the “center” of the façade appearing as a pop out.

Regarding the signage, Mr. Everling explained that the applicant had reduced the maximum letter height to 24″. However, on the tower elements the applicant was proposing two rows of 24″ letters, increasing the signage to 48″. Therefore, Staff had stipulated that the applicant needed to only have one row of 24″ letters.

Mr. Everling addressed the illumination by stating that the applicant had reduced the illumination wall packs from 250 watts to 150 watts. The photometric survey now complied with the lighting standards in the ULDC. With that, he suggested that they eliminate stipulations four and seven.

Board Member David Gibson referred to the east and north elevations and stated that the on the tower, the scoring on the vertical section of the walls was missing. Also, on the north elevation they were missing the tile medallions.

Chairman Darrell Truitt invited the applicant to come forward.

Alan Nageleisen, 1015 E. Broadway #275, Columbia, MO with Maly Commercial Realty came forward. Regarding the signage, he explained that they did not wish to exceed the allowed square footage but some of the tenants might require stacked signage. He noted that he would not exceed the footage allowed but would need to have the stacked signage.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked for clarification on the allowed square footage for signage.

Mr. Everling replied that the store foot would allow for 1.5 times the square feet of the storefront. He provided some examples of square footage that would be allowed for signs on different storefronts.

Board Member Bob Deardorff clarified that the Staff wanted the applicant to not exceed 42″ high without exceeding the square footage allowed in the code.

Mr. Everling agreed with Board Member Bob Deardorff⬔s comment.

Mr. Nageleisen asked to have the option to delete the awnings because the fabrics would fade in the sun.

Board Member David Gibson suggested that they use metal awnings in the place of the fabric awnings if they were intending the awnings to be an accent on the building.

Chairman Darrell Truitt recommended that the applicant resubmit the project without the awnings as long as the building had enough architectural character.

DR02-47 ⬠Shoppes at Val Vista ⬠SWC Williams Field/Val Vista

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Board that DR02-47 was an application that would come in the future to be the first commercial parcel to be developed in the Spectrum at Val Vista master plan community. The project was a part of a General Plan amendment application. She referred to the visual aid and pointed out the site of the development. She noted that it was also a part of a multiple amendment package to the Spectrum at Val Vista where the site would have two parts. First, the applicant was taking acreage of parcel 5 to add to the commercial acreage so Kohl⬔s could provide the other shops. Secondly, they were proposing the encroachment of the 50⬔ by 250⬔ to allow for the placement of Retail N that would be apart of Phase 1 of the commercial development. Therefore, the application that would come back to the Board for final action would be Phase 1, final site plan approval and Phase 2 of the conceptual evaluation of the remainder of the site.

Ms. Cadavid reviewed the site plan items. She indicated that the Staff was originally concerned that there wasn⬔t a secondary spine in the parking field and that the drives were too close to Williams Field Road. However, the applicant had revised the parking field to create a very defined secondary spine. Staff also felt that it might not be necessary to have the other connection on the other parking field. She stated the Staff⬔s concern was that the Khol⬔s parking field forced the traffic to either go in front of Khol⬔s. She noted that they had not received the comments back from the Traffic Engineer regarding this issue.

Ms. Cadavid commented that they still had questions regarding the use and amenities proposed within the retention areas throughout the site. The Staff had requested more information to see what can be done in terms of grading, design and amenities for pedestrians. There was a need to identify pedestrian routes.

Regarding the circulation, Ms. Cadavid announced that the applicant proposed a two-way driveway around retail N. Staff recommended that there be only a one-way driveway to be safer, allowing a reduction in the driveway width. This would allow parking spaces to be moved back and gain landscaping. In addition, the northwest parking field of retail N should not be a dead end and it should open up to loop around the parking lot. Finally, the sidewalk immediately to the drive-through with no transition for landscaping was not functional.

The landscaping plan needed to be revised to be more legible, noted Ms. Cadavid. She explained that they would require a strong statement be made at the entrances of the shopping center in terms of material and sizes of plants. In addition, Staff was requiring that vignettes of plan materials and hardscape that identified treatment in front of Khol⬔s, the main shops and the typical in front of others should be produced prior to final action by the Board. Foundation landscaping and pedestrian congregation areas for the future phases needed to be revisited to clarify the function of these spaces. Staff felt that landscaping with some minor revisions and hardscape improvements would be acceptable in terms of site plan and landscaping. However, they felt that the monumentation fell short. There was a good open space plan that identified the core area of the gate of the Spectrum at Val Vista. The entry gate to the master plan did not result in a strong statement to the community. Staff was recommending that it could be achieved with a significant interesting grading design (elevated grading, water falls, large boulders, dramatic plant material selection and size, portions of low wall that have an interesting design integrated into the meandering berms, etc.).

Ms. Cadavid reviewed the elevations of the project. She noted that the revised elevations were more in line with the architectural concept identified for the commercial portion of the project in the Spectrum at Val Vista development plan. Staff liked the elements that the applicant was using; however it might appear to be too symmetric. She requested direction from the Board regarding this issue. In addition, the rear elevation that would back unto the residential parcel would require additional articulation. Staff recommended using a more contrasting palette since colors A through A2 and color B and B1 do not offer any dramatic contrast to help in the articulation of the building.

Ms. Cadavid referred to the exhibit that illustrated the other in line retail spaces in the development. She concluded her presentation and asked for direction from the Board.

The Board briefly reviewed the elevations.

Board Member David Gibson announced that he had a problem with how the Khol⬔s elevation related to the elevations of the in line shops in the development. He stated that they appeared too dissimilar. In addition, he noted that on the Khol⬔s elevation there was a flat arch element in the colonnade and a full arch on the towers, which was typically not done.

Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that he was not disturbed with the different arches since there was such a change in scale. He suggested that the problem might be with the proximity of the arches.

Ms. Cadavid asked for the Board⬔s opinion of the massing on the building.

Board Member Bob Deardorff requested more vertical articulation and four-sided architecture. He thought that the articulation dropped off at the end of the building. He suggested that they carry the arcade element to the end of the building and pick it up in the in line shops.

Board Member David Gibson discussed the elements that were dissimilar between the in line shops and the Khol⬔s pad. He noted that the shops had round columns and the Khol⬔s elevation had square columns. In addition, he pointed out that there was not any stone relationship.

Ms. Cadavid pointed to the stone veneer on the Khol⬔s elevation. She reviewed the comments that the Board had made: extension of the arcade on the sides of the building, articulate the blank walls to tie in the in line shops, four-sided architecture, and the stone veneer was not used in Khol⬔s as much as in the in-line shops.

Board Member David Gibson liked the full arches with the tower elements. He added that they could use the stone veneer on the tower elements in Khol⬔s to make a statement.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson inquired about the plant materials in the landscape plan.

Ms. Cadavid referred to page four in the Staff report and discussed the changes that the Staff was recommending. She noted that they had requested a clearer landscape plan, as it was hard to identify where things were located.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson announced that there was a lot of plant material that would not work well. The Sycamore and Juniper were questionable, depending on where the plants were located on the site. He added that the choices would be limited since the heat level was unbelievable in the parking lot.

Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if there would be a median on Val Vista Road.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward replied that there would be a median on Val Vista Road.

Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if the landscaping in the median would match the development. He asked to see what the landscaping would be.

Ms. Cadavid replied that she would need to check with engineering to verify if the developer of the corner was also responsible for landscaping the median.

Board Member Bob Deardorff expressed his concern over the request to deviate from the 50⬔x250⬔ landscaping requirement as it has been a requirement in the community for a long time. He asked if the applicant was going to provide a substitute for this requirement and why they were not able to meet the requirement.

Ms. Cadavid explained that in order for Khol⬔s to fit on that pad they needed to deviate from the 50⬔x250⬔ requirement.

Board Member Bob Deardorff suggested that they put the parking somewhere else and that it was a self-imposed hardship.

Chairman Darrell Truitt questioned whether it would be acceptable if they reshaped the corner and provided the same square footage. He commented that he would be agreeable to this condition as long as it contained the same aesthetic impact.

Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that they should use the space the same way and not park in it or circulate it.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson suggested that the Board consider the level of design in the entry feature and determine if the level was increased enough to justify less square footage on the corner.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked for more detail on the corner in order to help them make their determination.

The Board reviewed the corner detail provided in the visual aid.

Board Member Bob Deardorff thought that they were getting a third or a quarter of the buffer landscaping that you would normally get on that corner as visual impact.

Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that the applicant needed to be closer to the 50⬔x250⬔ requirement or provide more justification if they were not able to do this.

Board Member Chris Lindahl inquired about the parking required versus what was provided in the development.

Ms. Cadavid stated that the overall site had about 90 extra spaces in phase 1.

The Board briefly discussed the parking field.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the Staff to work with the Traffic Engineer to determine if they approved of all the Y intersections throughout the site and make sure the plan worked. He reviewed some of the Y intersections and the problem areas. He was also concerned about a bypass lane and suggested that add another landscape strip or trees.

Board Member John Tomasson reviewed the colors on the color palette and expressed his concern over the two colors.

Kimberley Grimm, 7800 N. 113th Street #3N, Milwaukee, WI with Continental Homes came forward. She stated that on the Khol⬔s building, they would have a screen wall along the property line to buffer the residential development. She reviewed how the landscaping would benefit the homeowners. She concluded that they didn⬔t feel that it was necessary to place a lot of architectural features on the back of the building since they would have the wall and landscaping.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked what the purpose was of the wall since the residential development already had a wall between their properties.

Ms. Cadavid explained that the proposed wall would be a view wall with the retention open space outside the wall. She described the subdivision wall.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the idea for the wall and landscaping came from the applicant or the Staff.

Ms. Cadavid replied that the Staff preferred to have a road behind the building, but the developer was opposed to this. Therefore, the retention area and wall was a compromise between the Staff and the applicant.

Chairman Darrell Truitt questioned the concept of having a view wall that looked at a landscape area that then viewed a commercial site.

Board Member Bob Deardorff was concerned that what they were proposing would create a sound tunnel.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson agreed that there would be a sound tunnel in the area.

Ms. Grimm announced that they would work with the Staff to resolve the issue of the wall. She explained that the concept was to create an open space or landscape area for the homeowners, but would be happy to change it to a solid wall with landscaping in the development.

Chairman Darrell Truitt suggested that they might achieve a better buffer with a wall and rows of trees inside the wall.

The Board briefly discussed the wall and landscaping.

Ms. Grimm stated that along the east wall of Khol⬔s there was an area for future expansion. She noted that they would prefer not to put a lot of architectural features on the wall and just landscape the area.

Board Member Bob Deardorff summarized that they had discussed not applying a lot of architecture to the wall but take the architecture out past the front of the building. He gave an example that the applicant could apply some arcades and not interfere with the expansion.

Ms. Grimm described the colors and indicated that the colors on the exhibit were more accurate than the color board.

Chairman Darrell Truitt recommended that the applicant change the color sample board prior to coming back to the Board.

Ms. Grimm asked if the Board was happy with the colors on the exhibit.

The Board agreed with the colors on the exhibit.

Board Member Bob Deardorff announced that no amount of screen walls or landscape buffering would mitigate the need for architecture on the back of the building. He added that the cornice on the top would not be enough. He suggested vertical articulation, horizontal articulation, application of pilasters, or scoring as options.

Ms. Grimm covered the monumentation feature that was at the corner of their site. She explained that the Spectrum developers had been working on the master development for a number of years with the Town and it was her understanding that the Town already approved the monument feature. She pointed out that they were not changing the monumentation and were keeping with the theme in their development.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked Staff if the Board had approved the monumentation.

Ms. Cadavid replied that the open space and horizontal concepts had been approved. She discussed the items that had been approved and stated that they had not seen the vertical monumentation as such.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if it was apparent as they were reviewing the Spectrum open space plan that less square footage would be provided at the corners.

Ms. Cadavid clarified that the open space plan did not specify less than 50⬔x250⬔ landscape areas at the corners. She explained that at the core of the master plan, they would have something superb. She added that the four corners were going to be a cohesive landscape plan.

Ms. Grimms addressed the comment that the walls needed more work and that she was under the assumption that the walls were part of the master plan of the development. They agreed to deal with the Staff to work through the issues with the walls.

Board Member Bob Deardorff added that he wanted the trash enclosures to be moved since they were not visually appealing where they were located.

Discuss holding two DRB meetings a month on a regular basis.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Board that they had conversations with various clients of the planning process and a common theme had emerged. He commented that people felt that one Design Review meeting a month wasn⬔t sufficient because if they missed a deadline by one day they would have to wait a full thirty days until the next hearing. Therefore, clients had asked them to consider having two meetings a month. He asked the Board what they felt about this issue.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if they had cut offs.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson explained that there were legal cut offs in order to advertise. He described that if the Staff did not receive a complete application three weeks prior to the Board meeting, they would not be able to have the Public Hearing.

Chairman Darrell Truitt reminded the Staff that they used to have cutoffs that were about 90 days before the hearing.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson commented that they had been short handed with their Staff. He appreciated the Board⬔s efforts to meet for special meetings, but that they had to know this event was going to occur quite far in advance.

Chairman Darrell Truitt agreed to continue to meet for special reasons, which were usually Economic Development driven.

Board Member David Gibson asked what was typical for other cities to meet.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson described how other cities handled their design review process and concluded that everyone had a different method of handling this process.

Chairman Darrell Truitt inquired if the Planning and Zoning Commission would start meeting twice a month.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson replied that the Planning and Zoning Commission usually had a special meeting about every three months.

Council Member Dave Petersen stated that he appreciated the Board⬔s efforts. He informed the Board that they were trying to make the process better. He commented that he wasn⬔t sure meeting twice a month was the answer, but that was brought up as a suggestion. He asked the Board to consider the options to make the process better.

Board Member Bob Deardorff suggested that they have a four week deadline with the flexibility of a week to allow for people to provide their application a few days late.

Chairman Darrell Truitt agreed to the four-week deadline, with flexibility, and to work on the reasons why the applicants weren⬔t making the hearings. He agreed to meet more often if it was caseload driven.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson replied that he was uncomfortable handing out favors and allowing some people to go past the deadline while others are not allowed. He added that he would not accept any applications that weren⬔t complete. He explained that the applicant already had code-required deadlines that they had to meet.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked why some of the applicants were not making the deadlines.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson admitted that it was the Staff⬔s fault as much as the applicant⬔s for some projects because the Staff was not able to get the project turned around as needed. Other departments also hold up the process on occasion. He described the workload the Staff has, which increases during the weeks of a meeting.

A brief discussion ensued about the current design review process.

Chairman Darrell Truitt felt that the Board was willing to do whatever was necessary to accommodate the industry. He asked the Staff to work on the reasons that the applicants were not making the Public Hearings. He thought they were trying to cure the symptom instead of curing the process. He suggested that they see the impact of being fully staffed and reevaluate the situation in 120 days.

COMMUNICATIONS

A Report from the Chairman on current events.

Chairman Darrell Truitt discussed the format of the working sessions. He stated that he didn⬔t think every project needed to come to a working session. He felt that the principal of the working session was to review the projects that the Staff believed were prudent to come to the Board for direction and clarification. He suggested that the Staff only focused on the items in the project that they needed direction on and not present the whole case. He asked the Staff to be focused in their presentation so they could be more effective. He requested that there be less applicant involvement in the working sessions.

Report from the Planning Director on current events.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson introduced the new Planning Department Staff members: Senior Planner Bob Pazera, Planner Jill Johanic, and Senior Planner Mike Mahillo.

Mr. Swanson informed the Board that they had received a pre-application review for Wal-Mart, proposing to be located next to the Town complex on the corner of Warner and Gilbert Roads. He explained that the use was permitted and that the Design Review Board would be responsible for the review of the project.

Chairman Darrell Truitt replied that they would work with them to make it a good site.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Darrell Truitt adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M.

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this