TOWN OF GILBERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING

90 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA

MARCH 24, 2005

BOARD PRESENT: Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member Jackie Cole
Board Member Bob Deardorff, Board Member David Gibson, Board Member Chris Lindahl, Board Member Thomas Bohlen

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Senior Planner Jim Cronk, Senior Planner Mike Milillo

ALSO PRESENT: Recorder Margo Fry

I    N    D    E    X

PLANNER                                       CASE                  PAGE                    VOTE

CONSENT                                DR04 - 104             2                               APPROVED
CONSENT                                DR04 - 127             2                      APPROVED

CALL TO ORDER:

Vice - Chairman Gary Petterson called the meeting to order at 5:35 P. M.

ROLL CALL:

Roll was called and a quorum was determined to be present.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Vice - Chairman Gary Petterson requested a motion to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff and seconded by Thomas Bohlen to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 6 - 0

COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS

Vice - Chairman Petterson 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.

No one came forward.

CONSENT ITEMS

DR04 - 104 - Site plan and elevations for a commercial building located north of the northwest corner of Higley and Pecos Roads.

Approval of DR04 - 104, for the Higley/Pecos site on the NWC of Higley and Pecos Roads with the following conditions:

1.        Construction of the project shall conform to the Exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the March 24, 2005 public hearing.

2.        At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include Town of Gilbert Standard Commercial and Industrial Site Plan notes.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member Thomas Bohlen to approve the consent item on the agenda.

Motion carried 6 - 0

PUBLIC HEARING

Vice - Chairman Petterson opened the Public Hearing and read the item on the Public Hearing.

DR04 - 127 - Approval of the site plan, landscape plans, grading and drainage, walls and monuments, lighting and building architecture for the Main Street Commons development, located at the southeast corner of Pecos Road and Val Vista Drive.

Senior Planner Mike Milillo presented DR04 - 127 to the Board. Mr. Milillo distributed material and color samples from the project for the Boards inspection. He stated that this case was originally presented in work session to the Design Review Board in January, and that the Board was given an overview of the project. Mr. Milillo said that at that time the Board discussed various aspects of the development and that what he was going to provide to the Board at this time was a brief overview and refresher of where they were currently with some of the items that came up for discussion during the work session. He stated Main Street Commons is approximately 50 acres and the total project is 92 acres.   This is the entire PAD which extends beyond the boundaries of Market Street. Mr. Milillo stated that the only thing that was to be looked at that evening for the Design Review Board’s discussion and approval was the central core of the project which is approximately 50 acres bounded by Val Vista, Pecos and Market Street on the east and south. He informed the Board that the project was very similar to Kierland Commons in northeast Phoenix, on Scottsdale Road, which is an open air life style center, based on a Main Street theme.   Kierland Commons has parallel streets, a south main street and a north main street and two north south streets which provide the basic grid pattern for the project. The buildings are arranged around that grid street pattern along with a central area which provides a lot of pedestrian amenities at the center of the entire project. Mr. Milillo stated that one of the items raised by the Design Review Board during the work session was one of the street trees which were suggested for the project. He pointed out that the street tree plan that the Board had in their packets showed the variety of types of trees and where they would be located on the project. He said that on Market Street there were Desert Museum Palo Verde trees which provide the theme in that area, Evergreen Elms were along Pecos Road and what was initially planned for Val Vista Road was the Texas Ebony tree. Mr. Milillo pointed to an exhibit which showed the planting pattern. He stated that the Board and staff expressed some concern with the Texas Ebony tree because of its thorny nature and small stature and because some of them will be planted in the retention basin. He said that after working with the applicant, everyone had decided on the Chinese Pistache, which is the theme tree that is approved for Val Vista Drive. Mr. Milillo pointed to the exhibit and noted that the planting pattern is exactly the same as it was in the original plan. He stated that there was some discussion previously about the sidewalk locations because in some locations they were attached to the curb and they should be detached from the curb and that the exhibit showed the change. He said that the only place the Texas Ebony trees would be used was in the medians. Mr. Milillo informed the Board that the applicant was using three different types of walls on the project; screen walls, retaining walls and freeway view fence. He pointed to an exhibit of the parking screen wall and stated that the screen wall had been modified from the initial submittal and that there was more detail consisting of smooth face CMU as well as split face CMU with a split face CMU cap. He stated that those screen walls would be occurring in all of the areas where there is parking adjacent to street frontages and retention basins. Mr. Milillo showed an exhibit of the San Tan Freeway view fence and stated that it was an approved concept for view fencing along the freeway. He stated that it was basically an integral colored CMU for the base and columns with a tight wire mesh which will prevent flying debris and act as security. He said that the most decorative wall of the project was the rock gabion wall which was being proposed for the retaining walls as well as some of the other monuments and signage features on the project. Mr. Milillo asked the Board to look at a graphic which showed a more detailed view along an area of Val Vista Drive. He stated that in order to break up the somewhat rectilinear nature of the retention basins, the applicant proposed that they have wing walls or rampart walls that come out into the retention basin and that those walls have planters with Date Palms. These are to be decorative, rock gabion walls. Mr. Milillo pointed to a graphic and informed the Board that it showed the conceptual monument and signage locations on the project.   He pointed out the primary gateway core monument located at the corner of Pecos and Val Vista and he reminded the Board that the monument that is approved will be uniform to all four corners. He stated that this was in the original concept for the Spectrum at Val Vista and is a signature element in order to demarcate the core area of Spectrum at Val Vista PAD. Mr. Milillo said that there are secondary monument features at the corner of Market Street and Val Vista as well as Pecos and Market and entry monuments that are located at the two main street entrances to the project. He said that there is also freeway signage and pointed to an exhibit of a secondary gateway monument and informed the Board that it had a combination of integral color split face CMU block as well as Corten steel for the signage plate in the center.    Mr. Milillo pointed out an exhibit showing the 60 foot freeway pylon sign with the base being rock gabion and a Corten steel monolith that takes the pylon up the rest of the way. He pointed to a feature that was a steel light box which would have the identification signage on it for Main Street Commons. Mr. Milillo showed a graphic that depicted the other entrances. He stated that these entrances would have the same type of materials with a small variance in design. He noted that the primary gateway monument located at Val Vista and Pecos Road would be uniform to all four corners. He noted that there were comments during the initial work session regarding the details if the monument and stated that the size of the monument was being reduced from what was originally approved several years ago. Originally the monument was approximately one half acre and that it had been reduced to approximately 9,000 square feet in size. The design of the feature which was specifically approved in the Motorplex project directly across the street has also been modified somewhat but the key features have been retained. These features include the shade trellis elements which partially cover the walkway which connects the two roadways and there is also a row of palm trees at the back of the monument. The change in the original plan is that the front row of Palm trees has been replaced by flowering accent trees, which in this case will be Flowering White Orchid trees. These trees are required to be 36″ box because they are relatively small trees. Mr. Milillo stated that the monument has been approved by the Town Council. At the PAD Amendment which was heard on March 15, the Council approved the basic layout of the core gateway monument. Mr. Milillo stated that in the packets that he had given the Board were all of the building elevations. He said that staff is comfortable with the architecture and that they feel that it is a very high quality project. He demonstrated that the heights on the project are restricted by the PAD amendment. The applicant has asked for a 120 feet maximum of building height for the project. The planning commission had some concern that 120 foot buildings would be permitted on the entire site so a graphic was developed and a condition was added to the PAD that restricted the 120 foot tall buildings to certain areas. These 120 foot buildings will be located immediately adjacent to the San Tan Freeway and other regional commercial uses. When close to Val Vista and Pecos and where there is multifamily residential the Planning Commission has restricted the height to 60 feet.   Mr. Milillo pointed to an exhibit that had been approved for lighting. He stated that lighting was also an issue with the PAD, the reason being that not all of the fourteen different fixtures that are being proposed meet the letter of the regulations regarding shielding and filtration. Some of the fixtures are very high - tech and blend very nicely with the architecture but they don’t meet all of the shielding and filtration requirements of the code; however, applicant did have a deviation in the PAD approved for that. Mr. Milillo pointed out on the graphic where those light fixtures are located. He added that all of the other lighting on the project will meet all the light and glare requirements of the code. Mr. Milillo stated that he had one modification to conditions and that is that the last condition which is #5. He said that the applicant had recently submitted a revised lighting exhibit that moves all of the parking lot light poles into planter areas.    Mr. Milillo stated that with that change staff was recommending approval and asked the Board if there were any questions.

Board Member Gibson asked if there was any concern regarding the 120 foot height limit on a particular L shaped building which was in a view corridor of other 60 foot buildings. Mr. Gibson stated that the 120 foot building seemed a little close to the residential section.

Mr. Milillo replied that there would be approximately a 740 foot distance to the residential section and that there were also setbacks on the other side.

Jeff Brand, the architect for the project, who was in the audience, interjected that the distance to the residential section was closer to 500 feet.

Board Member Gibson asked if there had been studies done with view angles from the residential area on the other side to determine whether there would be any concerns.

Jeff Brand, Nelsen Architect, 4875 N. Granite Reef Road, Scottsdale, came forward. Mr. Brand stated that since the buildings in question were a future phase of the project, a height study had not been done on that area. He stated that when the time comes they will certainly do that type of study. He said that he was certain that there were view and height restrictions in place.

Board Member Gibson if the 120 foot height limit would be part of the approval at this meeting.

Mr. Milillo replied that the 120 foot height limit had already been approved as part of the PAD.

Mr. Brand stated that they had looked at the set backs for building heights within that area and that there was no conflict.

William Lally, from the law firm of Biskind, Hunt & Taylor, representing the applicant, came forward. He asked the Board to keep in mind that not all of the buildings shown on the exhibit that was being displayed were going to be 120 feet. He stated that future phases contemplate placing residential loft type uses on top of some of the buildings and in order to accommodate that they needed the additional height.   He said that that would obviously come back before the Board at another time. In the mean time they were unable to identify specifically which buildings would have that additional height and so the applicant was looking for flexibility for that area.

Board Member Chris Lindahl asked, regarding the elevations on the exhibit, if that would mean that the applicant may resubmit new elevations for these plans to increase the heights of what they were seeing on the exhibit and potentially approve them at this meeting.

Mr. Lally responded that if there are changes to what was being seen by the Board on the exhibit, applicant would have to come back for Design Review Application for that particular change, and the Board would have the opportunity at that time to review the height and location of the exact building.

Board Member Lindahl asked that of the buildings that were being looked at currently, did any of them exceed 60 feet in height.

Mr. Lally replied that the tallest one being approved at this time, identified as having the clock tower,   was 58 feet in height.

Board Member Tom Bohlen asked what the black material on the canopy on the lower elevation of the clock tower building was.

Jeff Brand replied that what they were seeing were black painted steel members.

Board Member Bohlen asked if that material would weather.

Mr. Brand responded that it was steel and would not weather.

Vice - Chairman Petterson suggested to the applicant that instead of using Arizona Sycamore in the landscaping that they consider the Mexican Sycamore as it is much more disease resistant in the high clay soil that we have here. He also advised that the Pistache trees in the retention basins not sit in water more than two days.

Board Member Lindahl commented that in the areas where the original trees proposed were Texas Ebony, which are a much smaller tree than their replacement, the Pistache, that he had some concern about the spacing of these trees and that their number should be reduced.

Mr. Lally responded that the original intent of the smaller Texas Ebony was allowing for the viewscape from the street and that the reduction of the larger trees would be something that the applicant would probably consider.

Mr. Lally pointed out to the Board that the highway sign seen on the exhibit was conceptual at the time of that particular application. Since then the applicant has filed their master sign package. He stated that what the Board would be approving was the concept and materials for the monuments and walls and that the signage issue would be revisited at a later time.

Board Member Deardorff asked if a stipulation should be added that the signage would not be part of the approval.

Planner Linda Edwards responded that the approval statement does not include signage and so a condition would not have to be added.

Board Member Chris Lindahl asked what the actual material would be of the 3″ square woven wire mesh being used.

Jeff Brand replied that he though that it would be a painted wire mesh. It may be a deeper rust color to match the Corten look.

Board Member Gibson remarked that the parking lot light fixtures did not seem to be consistent with the style of the architecture and some of the other lighting fixtures proposed for the project. He specified two fixtures in particular, the Gull Wing and the Bega.

Jeff Brand commented that for the parking lot the Gull Wing light fixture in a dark finish was the fixture of choice.

Mr. Lally pointed out that because the architecture is really a mix of traditional and contemporary throughout and not only the streetscape and that the intent is to have areas that look different than other areas. The choices made were intentional so that it does not appear to look exactly the same in every corner of the project.

Mr. Lally stated that a lot of the ideas were taken from the Kierland Commons project and that they have taken that project and really refined it and added the more traditional Main Street feel and given it it’s own Gilbert appeal.

Board Member Chris Lindahl remarked that he felt there would be a problem with the density of the trees in the exhibit.

Planner Mike Milillo stated that the matter of trees had been discussed at length. He said that there were some issues, one being what is already going on at Val Vista. There is already Chinese Pistache planted in front of the shops at Val Vista. He stated that the applicant has expressed concerns about using the Pistache and several other trees were looked at but seemed to be out of character with the remainder of the streetscape. He said that the Texas Ebony were a problem as well. Staff and the applicant agreed to go with the Pistache although there were no specific discussions about the density of the trees. Mr. Milillo urged the Board to approve the Pistache as there were no other choices readily available.

Board Member Lindahl suggested pulling the sidewalk down six or eight feet and one of the trees could be moved into that area.

Mr. Milillo responded that the issue with that would be that they already have trees on the road way at Kierland Commons and that when trucks drive down the road they sheer off the trees as they go by.

Mr. Lally stated that they had a retention plan that was approved with the PAD and that retention plan drives a lot of the site plan. He said that the applicant agrees with the concerns of the Board as to the density of the trees, and they would be willing to look at that as well as the total tree count that is required by the City to make sure that they are within the scope of what they should be doing.

Vice - Chairman Petterson asked what was planted underneath the trees

Mr. Milillo replied that it was Regal Mist Deer Grass.

Board Member Lindahl remarked that he would like to see the applicant keep a respectable density in regard to the trees and not take it down to the minimum requirement.

Mr. Lally responded that the intent is to have a rich, vibrant landscape setting.

A motion was made by Board Member Chris Lindahl and seconded by Jackie Cole to approve DR04 - 127, site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage, walls and monuments, lighting, and building elevations for Main Street Commons (DR04 - 127) subject to the removal of the existing #5 stipulation and replacing it to state that the applicant shall coordinate with staff to maintain the rhythm and modify the density and spacing of the Pistache trees along Val Vista Drive and the following conditions:

1.        Construction of the project shall conform to the exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the March 24, 2005 public hearing.

2.        Prior to the issuance of any permits the applicant shall submit for Planning Department approval:

a)        Plant palette specifying ornamental shrub type and size in the planting area located behind the first decorative wall of the Gateway Monument.
b)        The flowering accent trees within the inner ring of the Gateway Monument shall be 36″ box size minimum.

3.        Add refuse enclosure meeting size and access requirements to Building F5.

4.        At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include Town of Gilbert standard commercial and industrial site plan notes adopted by the Design Review Board on 3/11/04

5.        Applicant shall coordinate with staff to maintain the rhythm and modify the density and spacing of the Pistache trees along Val Vista Drive.

Motion Carried 6 - 0

ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made by Bob Deardorff and seconded by Thomas Bohlen to adjourn the meeting
at 6:25 p.m.

ATTEST:

Recorder Margo Fry

Digg this