TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING

GILBERT MUNICIPAL CENTER, 50 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT ARIZONA

FEBRUARY 16, 2005

COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Brigette Peterson, Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, Commissioner Shane Leonard, Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Alternate Commissioner John Sentz

COMMISSION ABSENT: Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, Commissioner Joan Krueger

STAFF PRESENT:        Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Senior Planner Mike Milillo

ALSO PRESENT: Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley, Recorder Trasie Johns

PLANNER                    CASE        PAGE        VOTE
Mr. Milillo                  DR04 - 81            2        Discussion
Mr. Milillo                  Z04 - 41            3        Approved

< - - - > = deleted text        bold = added text
in stipulations

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Brigette Peterson called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M.

ROLL CALL

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested a motion to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner James Beene, to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that members of the public could comment on items not on the agenda. She stated that the Commission’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. She asked if anyone would like to speak. She informed the audience that there were blue slips that needed to be filled out if anyone wanted to speak.

No one came forward.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM

DR04 - 81 ? Citizen Review of Industrial/Employment Design Guidelines. Discuss draft Industrial/Employment Design Guidelines. Mike Milillo 503 - 6747

Senior Planner Mike Milillo informed the Commission that DR04 - 81 was the draft Industrial/Employment Design Guidelines. He reminded them that it had been presented to the Commission in working session on January 19, 2005. Realizing that the design guidelines were reviewed very similar to a text amendment they decided that they would have the next session as a Citizen Review as required by the Code. The Commission would then take action at the next meeting.

Mr. Milillo reviewed the changes that were made, based on the Commissions initial review in January. One of the comments that the Commission made was regarding page 11, in the Environmental Sensitivity section. There was a bullet point that simply stated “Mitigate Urban Heat Island Effects”. Several Commissioners felt that they needed to expand on this a little more. Therefore, on page 11 they expanded the section by stating how you would mitigate the Urban Heat Island Effects by using cool roofing materials, shade trees and cool paving materials. The EPA website was also included in this section which provides a variety of different methods and materials and provides links to other web sites. In addition there was language added in two or three other places within the guidelines. One place where language was added was on page 4, under the subsection on Vehicular Circulation and Parking, section h: “Use canopy trees in parking lots to break up the scale of large parking lots. Provide additional shading and reduce heat island impacts.” A photo was also included that illustrated a smaller parking area that was broken up with trees and provided nice shading. He pointed out another addition in subsection seven, Landscaping and Grading, page seven under m.: “Use predominately deciduas shade trees adjacent to west, south and southwest exposures to cool these elevations.” On page nine under Building Design, one of the bullet points under section e. regarding cool roofs, the words “light colored or reflective” were added to clarify this subject.

Mr. Milillo discussed the other additions that were made based on a Commissioner’s comments that were made after the packet was distributed. On page four, subsection d. under Vehicular Circulation and parking, Commissioner Sentz felt that they may want to add: “Disperse parking into smaller fields instead of large paved areas and consider cooler pavement materials.” He stated that they had done some research on rubberized pavement that was being used on the freeways and on some arterials streets and have found that these radiate less heat than normal pavement because of the air holes in the pavement. Under subsection e., “Avoid duplicating circulation routes, reduce pavement widths wherever possible in favor of greater landscape open space,” the comment was made to clarify this. He explained that sometimes they need duplicative circulation routes because of fire requirements. The suggestion was to add: “Avoid duplicating circulation routes in excess of adequate fire apparatus access?”. Under Landscaping and Grading, number 7, section d. states “As a general rule low water use and drought water plants are preferred.” He indicated that they had left out the word “trees”. In the dictionary “plants” are distinguished from “trees”. Therefore they wanted to add the word “trees” to that item. He concluded his presentation and asked for questions.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe read page five under Loading Areas, Accessory Equipment, e. “Strive to ensure that ground mounted utility equipment and cabinets are level and at grade of the surrounding area.” He didn’t understand this statement because usually all the utility cabinets are indicated on the Design Review plans and the Building Permit plans, however there are never any heights or exact location of those. He didn’t know if this was an item they wanted to keep since they didn’t control this at a design level. He referred to page nine under Design, section c. “Fully screen roof mounted mechanical equipment” and stated that he thought this was part of the code. He wasn’t sure if this needed to be included in the document.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson agreed that it was in the code, but advised that this item was placed in the document as a convenience as people may not have the code and would need to know that this was a requirement. He thought it was beneficial to keep the item in the document especially for developers that might be reading it out of state and not have a copy of the Code.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe referred to page 8, under Lighting and read “Lighting an entire building or major portion thereof is inappropriate.” He stated that most industrial parks were trying to eliminate the cost of having light poles out in a parking lot and place the lights on the building, in order to light the facility or parking lot. He wasn’t sure if the word “inappropriate” should be placed in that sentence.

Commissioner Dan Dodge replied that he would not have taken the comment this way. He thought that it could be clarified if needed, but felt that the point should remain in the document. He explained that they did not want to allow for a building to be “all lit up” as a form of advertising.

Mr. Milillo added that they were not intending to disallow security lighting or parking lot lighting. In addition, it was appropriate to light an architectural feature on the building. It was not appropriate to light the whole building.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe felt that some of the parking lot regulations in keeping the parking lot aisles smaller would not be appropriate for buildings that have a lot of truck traffic.

Mr. Milillo replied that the guidelines were written so that they have flexibility.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to Vice Chairman Michael Monroe’s comment on the ground mounted utility equipment and questioned what was being considered for utility equipment. If they were discussing electrical equipment they needed to consider the fact that they need to be placed up out of the flood zone.

Mr. Milillo replied that they had seen exaggerations of this where the transformers and other types of utility equipment were outside of any retention areas and yet they were still built up on pads. He felt that if they at least had the architects thinking about it to coordinate with the utility companies they might be able to get them closer to grade.

Chairman Brigette Peterson pointed out that on March 3rd they become the Planning Commission instead of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She indicated that he might want to change this in the document.

Chairman Brigette Peterson asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item. Seeing no one, she closed the case.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that comments will be heard from those in support of or in opposition to an item. Once the hearing is closed there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of the Commission.

Z04 - 41 - Main Street Commons Amendment to the Spectrum at Val Vista Planned Area Development (PAD) located in the Spectrum at Val Vista at the southeast corner of Pecos Road and Val Vista Drive. Mike Milillo 503 - 6747

Senior Planner Mike Milillo reminded the Commission that they had heard the case in a working session two weeks ago. At that meeting, the Commission was provided with an overview of the project. He pointed out that the PAD amendment consisted of 92 acres. The amendment was to the Spectrum at Val Vista PAD to modify approved uses, maximum building height, parking requirements and design standards related to stormwater retention basins, the Spectrum at Val Vista community core monuments, lighting, sidewalks, and landscaping.

Mr. Milillo discussed the first amendment. He pointed out that the development proposed two new street cross - sections be added to the Spectrum at Val Vista PAD. The proposed internal private streets included both parallel and diagonal parking arrangements to meet parking demand while activating the streetscapes and creating a suitable pedestrian environment within the site. Planning staff found that both parallel (#22) and diagonal (#23) cross - sections were appropriate for Main Street Commons. He reminded them that they had expressed support for these street cross - sections.

Mr. Milillo reviewed the circulation plan. The Master Circulation Plan for the Spectrum PAD would be amended to reflect the new alignments of Pecos Road and Market Street. The graphics submitted by the applicant show the revised street alignments and parcels 13 and 29. He pointed out how the street had changed from the original approval. He noted that traffic signals would be located at Pecos and Val Vista; Market Street and Val Vista; and at Market Street and Pecos Roads. The Traffic Engineer had also stated that there might be another signal needed in the future.

Mr. Milillo described the building height amendment. He provided an additional packet that illustrated the building height exhibit that showed the areas that would be limited to 60′ of building height and the areas that would be limited to 120′ of building height. He provided a graphic to point out where the building heights would be located. He reviewed the revised conditions that addressed the building heights.   He read condition c1: “Buildings having heights between 60′ and 120′ shall be limited to those locations identified on the ‘Building Height Exhibit’ attached to this report.”

Mr. Milillo reviewed the proposed amendment to the retention basins. The proposal included rectilinear retention basins with decorative retaining walls and rock gabion planter walls. The basins occupy more than 50% of the landscaped street frontage and they employ a rectilinear rather than a curvilinear design. He provided a visual aid of the basin and reviewed its design. He stated that the applicant had done an analysis and determined that they were not exceeding the 50% by very much in looking at the overall area of landscaping. He pointed out that the landscape area was much deeper then they usually see because the landscape setback requirement for C - 2 was 20′ except for at the corner. He noted that these were actually 60′ in depth and they were set back from the roadway. He stated that staff was in support of the retention basin design. Based on the applicant’s calculations they only exceed the 50% by about 4 - 10%.

Mr. Milillo reminded the Commission that there was a little bit of confusion at the last meeting over the next issue, lighting. He explained that they were dealing with a transition period between the ULDC and the LDC. The LDC was adopted by the Council on February 1st and will take affect on March 3rd. He added that the case was filed in December, 2004. All the amendments were amendments to the existing ULDC. They are not amendments to the LDC. In the staff report they had mentioned the new code, just to give a comparison. He explained that in the staff report under lighting the staff report discusses that the Light and Glare provisions were moved to the Town’s Municipal Code, but they have not been moved yet. Therefore the applicant was requesting amendments to the existing Light and Glare provisions in the ULDC. He noted that based on this they had added condition g: “Proposed lighting fixtures that deviate from the shielding and filtration provisions of the ULDC shall be limited to the interior of the site in accordance with the Conceptual Lighting Layout.” He clarified that these were not fixtures that were not shielded or filtered. They were lighting fixtures that because of their decorative design did not meet all of the provisions of the Code.

Mr. Milillo reviewed the sidewalks. He noted that the sidewalks were not an issue along Val Vista Drive. The applicant had revised the exhibit which showed that all the sidewalks should be detached and straight. He provided exhibits that illustrated what was planned along the streets. Pecos Road was already under construction and sidewalks had already been poured. Because of utility locations along Pecos Road the sidewalk can not be detached from back of curb at all of the locations. There was a large electrical transmission line which prohibited the sidewalk from being detached from the curb. Along Market Street and Val Vista Roads the sidewalk will be detached.

Mr. Milillo reviewed the parking space dimensions and parking requirements. He noted that the only amendment to the parking requirements was that they were deviating by providing a wider parking space. The applicant requested a minimum parking stall dimension of 9′x 18′. These spaces are Ǒ feet wider than the current Town requirements and 1 foot shorter than the new LDC requirements.   Staff supported the requested minimum parking stall dimension of 9′x 18′ as they are wider than required by the current Code.   Main Street Commons proposed to meet ULDC parking requirements by providing 1 parking space per 275 square feet of floor area for commercial and office uses. The new Zoning Code parking requirement for the Regional Commercial uses was 1 parking space per 200 square feet and the project is actually parked at approximately 1 space per 210 square feet. The Planning Commission expressed their concern about this deviation and emphasized that future residential uses should provide parking independent of the 1 space per 275 ratio. He noted that condition d addressed this issue: “The parking requirements for all residential uses within Parcels 13 and 29 of the Spectrum at Val Vista PAD shall be determined by the Director of Planning based on the submission of a parking study prepared by a person licensed to prepare such study. Such study shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to development of the residential component of this project.” He explained that they would not be able to apply a straight ratio to the residential component of the project because they were going to be able to share parking amongst some uses. Therefore they wanted to review the parking study prior to approval.

Mr. Milillo discussed the residential uses. The applicant proposed that high density residential units be mixed in with the retail, restaurant and office uses, a concept supported by staff. However, the applicant would like the residential component described as “residential units” instead of “residential lofts”. Residential loft units are defined in the new Land Development Code as a residential unit above a nonresidential use. Planning staff supports the term “residential units” with the understanding that they will be developed as mixed - use loft type units per the LDC definition. Exclusively residential developments are discouraged in this zoning district.

Mr. Milillo described the amendment to the community gateway monument. The applicant requested to reduce the scale of the landscaped pedestrian plaza approved for the 4 corners of Val Vista Drive and Pecos Road. The size will be reduced from a half - acre to a little less than a third - acre. Several minor design changes are also proposed. Staff supports the revisions to the size and design provided that the uniform design is applied to all four corners of this intersection as noted in the conditions of this case.

Mr. Milillo reviewed the uses that the applicant was requesting. The applicant requested that the PAD be amended to allow bars, nightclubs, lounges and taverns with or without dancing and/or live entertainment by right, without the need for a use permit. The ULD requires a Use Permit for these types of uses in the C - 2 district and therefore the applicant was requesting an amendment to the approved use list. Given the nature and mixture of uses in the project and what was going on around it, staff felt that there would not be any negative impacts that would need to be controlled by using the Use Permit process.    Planning staff supported this request and believes it is appropriate for this urban mixed - use development.

Mr. Milillo announced that staff was recommending approval of the project subject to the revised conditions that were distributed that evening.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to the lighting deviation and questioned what they meant by “internal to the site”.

Mr. Milillo provided a graphic of the Conceptual Lighting Layout. He stated that none of the parking areas on the perimeter of the site would have the lighting fixtures that would not be completely shielded per the code. However internal areas between the buildings, along the internal street system, and lighting on the buildings themselves would be allowed to deviate. He used the visual aid to point out these areas.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned what “shared parking” meant.

Mr. Milillo replied that because there was a mixture of uses in the development the peak times for parking demand would vary. For example, theater use would have a different peak time from office developments. Therefore the applicant would provide a parking study that would describe what the parking would be if they applied the parking ratios to everything individually on the site and allow for the sharing of the parking so they wouldn’t have to allow for that total number of spaces. Some spaces would be shared among the different uses.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked if they were considering residential uses sharing with other uses.

Mr. Milillo replied that if they had a base requirement of parking spaces based on number of units in residential units they would stick closely to that parking requirement. However there was also an additional number of parking spaces that were required for guests. Since guests could park elsewhere they probably wouldn’t apply the full guest parking requirement to the residential component.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked if there was any discussion about requiring the applicant to provide the dimensions for parking as required by the LDC.

Mr. Milillo responded that they did ask the applicant to go to the new LDC length and width for parking. The applicant responded that these parking dimensions work at the Carolyn Commons project and they had not found any problems with these dimensions. He added that the applicant felt they would lose a lot of parking if they had to provide the 19′ length on the parking spaces and they were reluctant to do this.

Commissioner Dan Dodge referred to condition g and questioned where the deviations were documented.

Mr. Milillo replied that it was documented in their request, the section of the Light and Glare ordinance they were requesting their deviation from.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if the amount of deviation was also specified. He provided an example of side yard setback deviations and indicated that they knew exactly what the deviation was. He asked what the actual deviation was and where it was specified.

Mr. Milillo replied that they had not quantified a percentage of deviation beyond the shielding and filtration requirements, but they had submitted lighting cut sheets. He mentioned that they could attach lighting cut sheets to the Conceptual Lighting plan and limit them to these kinds of fixtures.

Commissioner Dan Dodge felt that in order for the Town to enforce the lighting that was approved they needed to specify what they were approving.

Alternate Commissioner John Sentz questioned if the applicant had done a study to look at the ratio of sports cars in Carolyn Commons to Suburban in Gilbert. He was concerned about what would happen to the extra two feet of those long vehicles.

Mr. Milillo deferred the question to the applicant.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that they discussed in their last meeting that anything that wasn’t defined in the PAD would automatically defer to the new LDC when it became effective.

Mr. Milillo stated that in the way that the Rules of Transition were written the applicant had to choose one code or the other and stick to those requirements.

Commissioner Dan Dodge reminded the Commission that at the last meeting they discussed that absent of any restrictions they would have all the uses by right once the new LDC became in effect. Therefore he had questioned why they would need to add the condition about permitted uses since they would be allowed any way when the new code came into effect.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson clarified that under the Rules of Transition of the new code, Subsection e., 1된e, all of applications for rezoning and Design Review requests filed prior to the effective date of the zoning code shall be governed by the provisions of ULDC unless the applicant elects to file with the new zoning code. In this case they had elected to file with the provisions of the ULDC and could not “pick and choose” standards from each code. Therefore any deviations that they apply for are from the ULDC.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe stated that they needed to keep in mind when the PAD was submitted to the Town. He added that they were in substantial completion of roads and parking. He felt that having to change the parking to 20′ could be extremely detrimental to the plan. He felt that this would be imposing an unfair imposition to them creating a hardship. He explained that the applicant would have to find a place to put the space in the site if they required the additional parking. He thought that the parking dimensions would work fine for the project.

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that the applicant come forward if they wanted to make a presentation.

William Lally, 11201 N. Tatum Blvd #330, Phoenix with Biskind, Hunt & Taylor, P.L.C. came forward. He announced that he was there representing the owner of the land, Canyon Oaks - Val Vista LLC and the developer Woodlyons. He felt that Mr. Milillo did such a great job presenting the project that he would just go over the issues. He referred to the Carolyn Commons project and indicated that this project would be very similar to it. He added that based on their experience with that project in Scottsdale they had perfected the idea with this project. He felt that to go back and recalculate the parking would be very detrimental to the project.   He explained that they had looked at the project in Scottsdale and determined that the parking worked well and that there were many large vehicles being parked at that project. He referred to the stacking distance coming off of Val Vista, an issue that was brought up at the last meeting. He pointed out that the new Code required 80′ and the old Code required 60′ (dimensions from the right - of - way to the parking lot). Their project met both Codes since they had over 80′. He referred to the retention deviation that was brought up at the last meeting. He provided a visual aid that had different color codes depicting retention and non - retention. He noted that the Code referred to frontage, the first 20′ landscaping easement. Therefore the graphic illustrated this analysis. For Pecos Road the total square footage was about 49,000; the area that was depressed for retention was about 57% and the area not depressed was 43%. On Val Vista Road they were at 54% depressed. Market Street didn’t have any area used for retention. Throwing in the retention basin it would jump up to 27%. In a project as a totality they were at 41% of the total landscaping frontage used for retention.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe clarified that they were deviating from 4 - 7% in the retention area.

Mr. Lally responded that he was correct.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe felt that this deviation was alright. He had just questioned it at the last meeting since it wasn’t specified.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if the retention area indicated was the full retention for just that site.

George Melara, 15044 N. Scottsdale Road, #200, Scottsdale with Architecture Interiors Planning came forward. He pointed out that retention basin was designed for the entire 92 acres, including the parcels to the south of the project.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked if the applicant knew what the other two parcels would be and how they could calculate the retention needs.

Mr. Melara responded that he did not know what would be developed on the other two parcels and described how the retention was calculated indicating that the retention basin would be sufficient.

Mr. Lally added that once the other parcels were added a new grading and drainage plan would be prepared.

Commissioner Shane Leonard was concerned that they had a very large parcel that would share retention space with other parcels whose uses were unknown. He was concerned that they were asking for a deviation from the PAD for retention when the south half had not yet been determined.

Mr. Melara replied that their civil engineer had reviewed the yields for the retention basin and designed conceptual layouts for both parcels to the south. With the yield from the northern half, they had concluded that the retention basin would handle all three parcels. He added that the size of the basin was not being discussed in the amendment, just the relief on the surrounding retention areas.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe felt that the size of the retention basin was immaterial as it may or may not serve as the full amount of the retention for both parcels. He felt that there would also be ancillary landscape islands in the parcels to handle some of the flow because it won’t be able to wrap around the building to get to that basin. For the PAD he felt they needed to keep in mind the basin that they were referring to along Val Vista Drive and Pecos Road and let the Civil Engineers go through the Town’s process of making sure they have the proper retention.

Mr. Lally provided an exhibit of the landscape plan. He pointed out that they intended to have a very lush landscaping plan.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item. Seeing no one, she closed the public hearing brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioner Shane Leonard appreciated how much work had gone into the project and how it was going to be the focus of Gilbert. He was still concerned about the parking space dimensions and the demographics of the area. He discussed how Gilbert residents drive large vehicles and needed larger spaces to park. He described how the applicant was getting the benefit of being able to have additional uses in the new Code and the benefit of smaller parking spaces in the old Code.

Alternate Commissioner John Sentz agreed with Commissioner Leonard’s comments about the parking dimensions. He discussed how the two extra feet on a longer vehicle would be sticking out in the drive aisle.

Chairman Brigette Peterson commented that they already had this situation in most of the parking lots in Gilbert. She didn’t think it was fair to ask the applicant to change their project that drastically after they had been designing it for three years. To ask them to redo 2,800 parking spaces because of large vehicles was not fair. She reminded the Commission that they were adding 1/2 foot in width.

Commissioner Dan Dodge disagreed that every space in Town had 18′ parking spaces. He pointed out that some businesses, like Home Depot have made their parking spaces larger. He announced that he would be able to approve this project, but was concerned about the next applicant that would use this as an example. He added that they had spent a lot of time discussing the parking for the new LDC and there was a reason they ended up with a larger parking requirement. He loved the development and felt that it would be a star in the community. However, he felt that it was short sited to design it in the first place with that size parking space.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson advised that the applicant was required to uphold all the requirements of the ULDC. He explained that under the Rules of Transition projects were held to all the provisions of the code to which they were approved.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if the applicant came in with a new use, it would have to conform to the ULDC and not the new LDC.

Mr. Swanson replied that it would have to comply with the ULDC. He explained that this applied to all projects that were put in process during the transition period.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked what would happen to projects that were put in place prior to the transition period.

Mr. Swanson responded that anything that was not called out in the PAD would be subject to the new code.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe reminded the Commission about the discussion at the last meeting where Mr. Swanson stated that although the process was cumbersome, it was better than placing a moratorium on the Town.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, seconded by Commissioner James Beene, to recommend to the Town Council approval of Z04 - 41 subject to Staff stipulations presented on 2/16/05.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Staff recommends approval of Z04 - 41, the amendment to the Spectrum at Val Vista PAD, subject to the following conditions:

a.        All of the conditions of Ordinance Nos. 1209, 1285, 1373, 1431,1527, 1539, 1573 and 1582 approved in rezoning cases Z99 - 6, Z99 - 65, Z01 - 11, Z01 - 20, Z03 - 28, Z03 - 35, Z04 - 5 and Z04 - 8 shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise amended by the conditions below.

b.        This 92 - acre Project as defined in Exhibit A, shall be developed in conformance with exhibits submitted with this application including the Zoning Exhibit, new Street Sections, new Master Circulation Plan, Building Height Exhibit and Water Retention Plan.

c.        The maximum building height for Parcels 13 and 29 of the Spectrum at Val Vista PAD shall be 120′ with the following limitations:

1)        Buildings having heights between 60′ and 120′ shall be limited to those locations identified on the “Building Height Exhibit” attached to this report.

d.        The parking requirements for all residential uses within Parcels 13 and 29 of the Spectrum at Val Vista PAD shall be determined by the Director of Planning based on the submission of a parking study prepared by a person licensed to prepare such study. Such study shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to development of the residential component of this project.

e.        The Developer shall seek Town approval for any parking design or operation that proposes to use valet parking.

f.        The Community Core monument referenced in Exhibit M of the Development Master Plan for the Spectrum at Val Vista and approved in Ordinance No. 1209 shall be revised. The size and specific design for the required Community Gateway Core Monument located at the intersection of Pecos Road and Val Vista Drive shall be approved by the Design Review Board and the approved design shall be applied to all four corners of this intersection.

g.        Proposed lighting fixtures that deviate from the shielding and filtration provisions of the ULDC shall be limited to the interior of the site in accordance with the Conceptual Lighting Layout.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Brigette Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:30 P.M.

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns