TOWN OF GILBERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING

90 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA

JULY 28, 2005

BOARD PRESENT: Vice Chairman Petterson, Board Member Deardorff, Board Member Bohlen, Board Member Lindahl, Board Member Cole, Alternate Board Member Berg

BOARD ABSENT: Chairman Truitt, Board Member Gibson

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Edwards, Senior Planner Moon, Planner Sanks, Planner DeMaree, Planner Veljic, Senior Planner Fiala

ALSO PRESENT: Recorder Rocco

I    N    D    E    X

PLANNER                                       CASE                  PAGE                    VOTE
LEILA DEMAREE                        S05-4                2                APPROVED
JASON SANKS                                ST05-10                2                APPROVED
JASON SANKS                                 ST05-07                3                APPROVED
JOSEPH MOON                                DR05-39        5                APPROVED
LEILA DEMAREE                        DR05-48        10                APPROVED
JASON SANKS                                DR05-58        12                APPROVED

CALL TO ORDER

Vice Chairman Petterson called the meeting to order at 5:33 P. M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Vice Chairman Petterson requested a motion to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Board Member Cole and seconded by Board Member 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. He asked if anyone would like to speak on a matter not on tonight?s agenda. 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.

CONSENT ITEMS

Vice Chairman Petterson read the consent items.

S05-4 - Approval of the open space plan for Gilbert Medical Complex, A 33-acre medical office development located at the southeast corner of Val Vista Drive and the Santan Freeway.    The site is zoned PAD (GO) General Office with a Planned Area Development Overlay.

Staff recommends approval of the Gilbert Medical Center Open Space Plan (S05-4) subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction of the project shall conform to the exhibits recommended for approval and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the July 28, 2005 public hearing.

2. Revise the Typical Street Planting Plan to add palm trees to the Plant Legend and small clusters of palm trees to the Parcel ?A? entrance off Mercy Gilbert Drive to match those approved on the hospital site driveway to the north. Palm trees may also be added to the other medical center entrances at the applicant?s discretion.

ST05-10 - Approval of (2) two additional standard plans, 4512 and 4518 proposed by Standard Pacific Homes in Vincenz Meadows Parcel E. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Williams Field and Greenfield Roads and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of SF-7 (Single Family Residential).

Staff recommends approval of ST05-10 Standard Pacific Homes at Vincenz Meadows Parcel E two (2) additional standard plans, 4512 and 4518, 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.        All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public hearing of July 28, 2005 subject to staff stipulations.
3.        These standard plans are approved for 77 lots, lots 238-314 through Parcel E within the Vincenz Meadows P.A.D. 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.        All standard plans shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1544 in rezoning case Z03-06. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

A motion was made by Board Member Cole and seconded by Board Member Bohlen to approve the Consent Agenda.

Motion Carried 6-0

PUBLIC HEARING

Vice Chairman Petterson 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 Board.

Vice Chairman Petterson opened the Public Hearing.

ST05-07 - Approval of (7) seven standard plans, Plans 4016, 4018, 4019, 4023, 4028, 4030 and 4032 proposed by Capital Pacific Homes located in Felty Farms. Felty Farms is located at the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of SF-6 (Single Family Residential).

Planner Jason Sanks presented ST05-07 to the Board. He stated that this is a S\standard plan application for Felty Farms for 130 lots. He passed out revised conditions of approvals proposed by staff for the Board?s review. He also set up exhibits to further illustrate the revised conditions.   He explained that this case is unique in the sense that it has several conditions of approval that would not normally be seen with an item on hearing for standard plans, as staff usually has more of the outstanding issues resolved. Staff met with the applicant last week to review the proposed conditions. The edits are shown in legislative edit and bold. The applicant has agreed to all of the conditions as stated by staff in the revised recommendations. The Felty Farms PAD overlay zoning was approved last year. The 80-acre site is located on the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads. There are two series of products for the R1-6 lots with a small number of R1-8 products that will be brought forward to the Board with a future application. Staff has had some outstanding concerns with the project including the roofline variations, building massing variation and the truer implementation of theme detailing that is found in the Gateway area. Staff is requesting to carry the same Spanish theme over the arches and pop outs over the garage doors. Staff felt that the plans could be enhanced, particularly with shutters, window detailing, pop-outs, courtyard walls and varied garage door designs. He commented that staff has asked that these items be brought forward as standard features and not options. The applicant has agreed. He noted that there were only two colors submitted for each color scheme. Staff felt it was more important to add a third color scheme enhance the themes and to not dress the trim, eaves and front door all in the same color. He commented that the elevations could utilize the architecture detailing by painting them different colors respective of their architectural themes. The applicant did provide a greater variety of base body colors and greater contrast between the accent and body color as staff requested. He used a visual aid to show that there is quite a contrast on the bungalow style with the true architectural detailing being white in color as stated in condition #7.   He continued that for condition #8, staff did strike the request to clip the gables to avoid mimicking the same roofline as Elevation B. He noted that staff did ask that the stucco banding over the garage be emulated in an arch. Staff is working with the applicant to see if it would actually fit. The applicant is saying that there is not enough room between the top of the door and eave to add an arch. This issue is ongoing and staff intends to see a resubmittal from the applicant. Staff is comfortable with working with the applicant on these issues after the hearing. This discussion also applies to condition #9.   He pointed out that staff has been studying the various architectural themes, particularly with the bungalow and craftsman styles. Staff has been looking closely at the porches. Spanish styles typically have an open porch with arches. Even though these homes are being built at-grade, the homes were historically built above a crawl space with theme specific railing. He added that enclosing the porch would enhance the elevation, make the space more inviting, and look more like a craftsman home. This discussion also applies to condition #10. Mr. Sanks used visual aids to explain that staff does not want the elevations to look too face/character like. As a result, with condition #11 staff is asking for additional massing variation for the large space. Staff has seen some conceptuals from the applicant that shows a relief and additional roof element. The new elevations look good but are not currently in print. He noted that staff was concerned about adding windows near the front doors on the 4023 plan. Staff had specified to add the windows above the doors but have now have revised the condition to add a window at the entry but did not specify location. Staff will work with the applicant to agree upon a solution.   Staff is requesting additional articulation to the roofline on the 4028 plan due to the mass of the roof. The applicant has agreed to break it up by making the pop out feature more prominent. Staff is also asking that the porch be enclosed with a low column and rail as typical with the other craftsman plans. For plan 4030, staff is asking the pop out be added to the circular window on the front elevation. For plan 4032, staff is requesting a decorative railing and additional half column for the bungalow plan.

Mr. Sanks concluded that these conditions are appropriate for the plans due to the fact that other similar plans have been brought before the Board and approved. Staff feels that the themes be completely implemented and not appear to be a vague connection to the theme. The applicant has agreed and will be moving forward with these improvements to the plans and continue with plan review if the Board is in support of the conditions.   He asked if the Board had any questions.

Board Member Deardorff asked if there was a color board submitted for the project.

Planner Sanks responded that a color submittal was received and that the color schemes are outlined in the staff report. Staff has talked with the applicant about bringing in a third color to be applied specifically and be well blended and match the respective themes. Staff has not decided if the color schemes should be architecture specific but are reviewing each of the elements.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if the Board has any additional questions for staff. He asked if the applicant had additional comments and if anyone from the public would like to comment.

No one from the public came forward with additional comments.

Vice Chairman Petterson closed the public hearing.

Staff recommends approval of ST05-07 Alder Brooks at Felty Farms, Plans 4016, 4018, 4019, 4023, 4028, 4030 and 4032 proposed by Capital Pacific Homes, 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.        All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public hearing of July 28, 2004 subject to staff stipulations.
3.        These standard plans are approved for 130 lots, lots 32-156, 180-184 within the Felty Farms P.A.D. Any two or more additional standard plans or major revisions to the approved plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4.        All standard plans shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1565 in rezoning case Z04-01. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.
5.        Shutters, window mullion designs and pop-outs, courtyard walls and garage door designs shall be standard features of the standard plan as presented on the approved elevations.
6.        The roof vents shown on the front ?B? elevations shall be reduced and architectural detail shall be added.
7.        The following revisions shall be made to the elevations of Plan 4016:
a.        Elevation A: Gables shall be clipped above the garage and bedroom 3.
b.        Elevation C: Arched stucco banding shall be added above the garage opening. A stucco wainscoting to match the bedroom 3 façade shall be added around the garage.
8.        The following revisions shall be made to the elevations of Plan 4018:
a.        Elevation A: Gables shall be clipped above the garage and bedroom 4.
b.        Elevation C: Arched stucco banding shall be added above the garage opening. A stucco wainscoting to match the bedroom 4 façade shall be added around the garage.
9.        The following revisions shall be made to the elevations of Plan 4019:
a.        Elevation B: The front porch shall be partially enclosed with decorative railing and an additional column or half column.
b.        Elevation C: The front porch shall be partially enclosed with a low wall.
10.        The following revisions shall be made to the elevations of Plan 4023:
a.        Elevation A & C: Additional massing shall be provided on the second story, bedroom 4 & 5 section of the front elevations.
b.        Elevation A & C: A small window shall be added above the entry door.
c.        Elevation B: A small window shall be added to the left of the entry door.
d.        Elevation B: The front porch shall be partially enclosed with decorative railing and an additional column or half column.
11.        The following revisions shall be made to the elevations of Plan 4028:
a.        Elevation A: Additional articulation shall be provided to the rooflines on the front elevation.
b.        Elevation B: The front porch shall be partially enclosed with decorative railing and an additional column or half column.
12.        The following revisions shall be made to the elevations of Plan 4030:
a.        Elevation A: A pop out shall be added to the circular window on the front elevation.
b.        Elevation B: Pop-outs shall be added around the windows of the side entry garage elevation or, they should be replaced with one large window with shutters.
13.        The following revisions shall be made to the elevations of Plan 4032:
a.        Elevation B: The front porch shall be partially enclosed with decorative railing and an additional column or half column.
b.        Elevation C: The front porch shall be partially enclosed with a low wall.

Vice Chairman Petterson closed the Public Hearing.

A motion was made by Board Member Lindahl and seconded by Board Member Bohlen to approve ST05-07 Alder Brooks at Felty Farms subject to conditions.

Motion Carried 5-1 with Board Member Deardorff dissenting.

Vice Chairman Petterson opened the Public Hearing.

DR05-39 ? Approval of the overall site plan, landscaping, grading and drainage, lighting and building elevations for Phase I of the Banner Gateway Medical Center, located on the northwest corner of Higley Road and the westerly extension of Inverness Avenue. The property is zoned Regional Commercial (RC).

Planner Joseph Moon presented DR05-39 to the Board. H explained that staff has worked with the Banner Medical Center in putting together this facility. The site is located at the westerly side of Higley Road, south of the US60 Freeway. He explained that this proposal was brought to the Board as a study session item on May 12, 2005. At that time, staff had some concerns regarding circulation, elevations and design characteristics of the hospital.   Staff has worked with the Banner staff and they have addressed most of the Board and staff?s concerns. The new proposal shows a road going from Higley Road with connectivity to the commercial project. He noted that there will not be a connection to the apartment complex located at the westerly side of the property. H commented that staff is satisfied with the connections and that the Town?s Traffic Engineer has approved the entry locations.   He continued that there is an emergency access on the northerly side of the site that provides access to the rear of the hospital. There were two Conditional User Permits granted to allow building heights up to 110 feet and the use of a helipad. The applicant has provided a multitude of materials and colors for the building. He explained that Phase 1 of the complex consists of 462,000 square feet that includes the hospital, medical facility, medical office building and outpatient surgical center.   This phase also includes parking and landscaping primarily along the front of the facility along Higley Road, deceleration lane for transit drop off and pick up at the front entrance of the hospital and the main entry drop off area for the medical facility. He noted that the overall design includes earth tone materials. Staff feels the architecture has conveyed a nice flavor and has a sharp look from Higley Road. The hospital will be quite a distance higher from the adjacent freeway but will be visible from Higley Road and the proposed road to the south. He commented that staff feels that the elevations for those sides are enhanced and accent the building. He stated that staff has two concerns with the site plan.   The site is within the District 6 street theme area that requires olive trees be planted along Higley Road. The applicant believes that the olive tree will present allergy problems for their patients.   The street themed trees are fruitless and will not cause allergic reactions. In addition, the trees would be situated a distance from the building?s entrance. The other issue that staff has pertains to the drop off canopy. He provided the Board with an exhibit showing the main entry canopy area.   The proposed canopy located at the drop off area is very linear and provides stacking for only five cars and does not allow for complete coverage across the entire driveway. Staff is concerned that this type of canopy will not provide adequate coverage.   The proposed site plan shows various location of signage that is not part of the package to be reviewed at this meeting. He asked if the Board had any questions.

Board Member Bohlen asked what the length of the canopy is.

Mr. Moon replied that the drop off canopy is approximately 180 square feet. Staff is primarily concerned that the canopy coverage only allows for single car stacking versus two cars, side-by-side stacking. Staff believes that the canopy should extend further out to allow for double stacking of cars at the entrance.

Board Member Berg asked if the applicant had concerns with this suggestion.

Board Member Bohlen inquired if a traffic study had been done on the site.

Mr. Moon responded that an extensive traffic study had been done for the site. He noted that there have been concerns with Higley Road and that major work will need to be completed but staff feels that it will work. He noted that the engineers have worked with the City of Mesa and ADOT regarding the Higley Road improvements.

Board Member Cole asked if the site had a dedicated turn lane into the hospital.

Mr. Moon responded that there are dedicated turn lanes being proposed.

Board Member Bohlen commented that the south access road seems to be convoluted as it goes half way across the site and then proceeds up in order to access the front of the building.

Mr. Moon responded that the applicant did not want to mix the hospital and medical office site traffic.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if the applicant would like to address the Board.

Scott Dunale (sp?), BBJ Architects (spelling?), 111 South Jackson Street, Seattle, Washington, stated that the buildings have two major drivers as far as the design is concerned. The overall strategy for making the hospital is a building that is organized along a central spine. The north spine includes the diagnostic and treatment area where the emergency and operating rooms are located. The other side of the spine is where the nursing towers are located. He noted that they can fit up to three nursing towers along the spine. In front of the building is the main lobby that will never change and is a permanent piece of the hospital. He noted that the idea is that that front face of the hospital is always intact and that construction happens away from the lobby. The central plant is at the other end of the spine, therefore there is very little interruption as the hospital grows. He commented that they wanted to be thoughtful of the environment and to the people of the Town of Gilbert. He noted that the conceptual overlay is to create a canyon. He explained as they were looked at building in the desert, the place where the most life happens is in the canyon. He noted that Gilbert is a town with a young population and a lot of births; a place where life is going to spring from. He commented that a lot of efforts went into the spine (canyon) area. He used visual aids to show images of nature and how it relates to the space (spine) between the buildings. He continued that in order to project the image of what we were going to attempt to achieve at the hospital, they looked at some images of cliff faces and waterfalls found in nature. He noted that they attempted to design a cliff-like elevation with different variations in the color. The materials shown are the concrete masonry units that are being proposed and have different scales pulled together in striations along the façade. He continued that different groupings of them are used to create different shades of light and are also done in varying band sizes in order to give a lot of light to the elevation. He added that they also looked at the front elevation, specifically on how to deal with opening up the patient rooms with windows. He commented that the Board previously stated that the original design was too hard and linear. He noted that they broke up the sunscreens and windows to appear more random. He noted that they realized that it may have gone too far. As a result, the elevations appear more systematic to the front of the building.   He used visual aids to discuss the remaining elevations.   He commented that the idea is to go with materials that have a very long life. Color was added on the lower areas of the building for easier upkeep and it also provides color and light. He stated that they do have growth faces to the north and west of the building. On those faces there would be a painted efface for easy expansion.   He continued that there are two entrances; one is to the main entrance of the hospital with the entrance accessed from the hospital?s parking area. The intent with the canopy was to tie the two entrances together affecting the length of the canopy. The other issue with the canopy was to keep it fairly low for protection. He noted that they are proposing a canopy at a height of 12 feet, giving it a nice height for people to stand under and feel like that is protected from the elements. The fire lane will be affected by the canopy height. He concluded that they prefer to maintain a single lane of coverage.

Vice Chairman Peterson asked if the Board had any questions for the applicant.

Board Member Deardorff asked how much further the canopy could be extended without intruding into the fire lane.

Mr. Dunaly (sp?) responded that the canopy could potentially come out another 3 feet.

Board Member Deardorff commented that as proposed the drivers would be waiting in the rain.

Mr. Dunaly responded that there is approximately 6 feet from the column line out to where the car is located and then another 9 feet of coverage.

Board Member Deardorff commented that the shape of the drive is self-imposed. The canopy could go wider if it needed to.

Board Member Berg asked if the canopy was extended 3 feet could emergency vehicles could still go under it.

Mr. Dunaly responded that the emergency vehicles would still be able to go under the canopy.

Board Member Berg agreed with staff recommendations.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked about the landscaping in the canyons. He asked the applicant if he had a landscape plan. He noted that as proposed, there will be a lot of shade in the canyon area where there are desert plants that will require sunlight.   He commented that some choices of material need to be readdressed; otherwise most of the landscaping will die over a period of time.

Mr. Duanly responded that the images shown on the visual aids are stock plants that are in the computer. The landscape architects are on board to make sure the plant materials are appropriate.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if the landscape architects could address the issues.

John Code (spelling?), landscape architect for the project, 3850 East Baseline Road, Gilbert, Arizona, stated there is a lot of glass and reflection in the canyon area. There will be reflections from the glass panels and cmu textures that have a ground face to them. He noted that in the middle of the summer, the canyon area is expected to be a very hot and bright zone. He noted that they have asked to be given variances to the plant materials for the canyon area. He commented that this is considered one phase and they do not plan to have the same bright exposure as buildings are added and shade is created. There are some 6 feet high walls to block some of the sunlight as well as canopy and potted trees that will be moved as the buildings are added. It will be an area that will change over time. He commented that a note as been added to the plans to ask for leniency in this area. He stated that this is considered a protected area without concern for frost of freezing conditions.

Vice Chairman Petterson commented that there is a rainy season with a lot of moisture and very little evapo transformation and evaporation. He requested to review the landscape plans.

Board Member Lindahl asked if there were concerns that if more shade tolerant plants were introduced early on in the project that they would not survive due to the solar orientation.

Mr. Code responded that they are looking at plants that are not used much in the landscaped areas and those that will take a lot of heat and survive in the shade.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked about the drainage in the area.

Mr. Code responded that the drainage will be engineered with connections to storm drainage.

Vice Chairman Petterson stated that the olive tree is a genetically engineered tree that is missing a chromosome so it does not have pollen to aggravate allergic reactions.

Mr. Code responded that not many people could tell the difference between a pollinating and non-pollinating olive tree. The olive tree has been banned in many cities due to their pollinating qualities.

Vice Chairman Petterson commented that the fruiting olive has been banned.

Mr. Code replied that Vice Chairman Petterson could tell a fruiting olive from a non-fruiting olive but very few members of the public can tell the difference.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked it is considered a psychological issue.

Mr. Code responded that it is an educational issue and that there are a lot of things that can be done in the landscape that the public would not understand.

Vice Chairman Petterson commented that some of the other trees being proposed cause a lot more problems than the olive tree.

Mr. Code asked if he was referring to the mesquite. He noted that they will be using the mesquite in a limited way since it does put off some pollen. The proposed mesquite trees will not be warning signs for people that suffer from chronic allergies whereas as the olive would be.

Board Member Deardorff commented that the applicant is proposing trees that know will create pollen but the public will not be able to recognize these types of trees. On the other hand, the applicant will not plant trees that do not create pollen because of the concern that they are perceived a pollen producing trees. He asked about the concept of street trees and the requirement of the ordinance.

Mr. Code responded that the new ordinance allows the Board makes the decision on landscaping for the matter of looks. Looks are not as important as people?s health. He commented that not long ago it was a big deal in this state that mulberry or fruiting olive trees be banned. This is a medical facility and people have a right to come here without feeling threatened.

Board Member Cole asked if Mr. Code was for or against the olive tree.

Mr. Code responded that since this is a medical facility with future medical offices building proposed to the west, it was a suggestion to do something different in this case and not use the olive tree.   He commented that they like olive trees but not in front of this facility.

Board Member Deardorff commented that in good conscious nothing that produces pollen should be planted at this facility.

Mr. Code responded that there are lots of plant materials that have pollen but are not warning flags to people with allergic conditions.

Board Member Deardorff stated that the applicant is getting rid of a psychological problem but creating a real problem.

Mr. Code responded that the desert is filled with many pollinating trees. People look for mulberry; olives, ragweed and other well know pollen producing plants.

Board Member Lindahl stated that it is recognized that the olive and mulberry trees are the biggest culprit for allergies but people suffer allergies from other allergens as well.

Vice Chairman Petterson noted that this is a long debated subject.

Mr. Code responded that it is about perception and that the air is filled with mold and other pollens. They are not attempting to create a sterile campus but are trying to eliminate any perceived barriers.

Vice Chairman Petterson stated that he thought it was overkill since the olive trees would be located along the road. He requested that the applicant provide the Board with a landscape plan to review. There needs to be more education for the landscape architects to be mindful of these types of areas.   The use of desert plants in shady areas is a concern in the community.

Board Member Bohlen noted that the major thrust of the design is the canyon concept. The canyon appears to be a shear wall with not a lot of articulation.

Mr. Dunley (sp?) responded that this is a plan that has been adopted from another project with not a lot of flexibility and ability for manipulation. There is a lot of push and pull on the curtain wall.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked about the lighting on the building.

Mr. Dunley (sp?) responded that they are anticipating up lighting some of the cmu walls plus a using low voltage landscaping type of lighting in the canyon to illuminate the subtle expression of layering.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if the Board had any further questions.

Board Member Cole asked the Board if the motion should include the request to see the landscaping plans.

Vice Chairman Petterson responded that the request to see the landscape plans should be added to the motion.

Vice Chairman Petterson closed the Public Hearing.

Staff recommends approval of DR05-39, the overall site plan, landscaping, grading and drainage, lighting and building elevations for Phase I of the Banner Gateway Medical Center, subject to the following conditions:
1.        Construction of the project shall conform to the exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the July 28, 2005 public hearing as modified by the conditions below.

2.        At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include Town of Gilbert standard commercial and industrial site plan notes as applicable to this public facility.

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

a.        A revised landscape plan showing Fruitless Olive theme tree to be used as the street tree   according to the requirements of the District 6 street tree theme. The canyon landscaping shall be submitted for review by the Board.

b.        A revised site and elevations showing a canopy wide enough to provide adequate coverage for cars to be double parked at the pick up/drop off area of the main hospital entrance.

A motion was made by Board Member Deardorff and seconded by Board Member Bohlen to approve DR05-39 subject staff conditions, modifying condition 3a to add that the canyon landscaping will be submitted for review by the Board and modifying stipulation b, striking the phrase to be double parked so that the canopy is wide enough to provide adequate coverage for cars at the pick up/drop off.

Motion Carried 6-0

Vice Chairman Petterson opened the Public Hearing.

DR05-48? Approval of the building elevations design for the Police Property Storage and Fire Resource Management facility proposed north of Williams Field ½ mile between Greenfield and Higley Roads.

Planner Leila DeMaree presented DR05-48 to the Board. She stated that staff presented this project at the July 14th study session. She noted that the Board suggested using guidelines since the Town does not have specific guidelines for PF/OS buildings. Following the study session on July 14th, Fire Station #7 received approvals for the site plan, landscaping, grading and drainage and lighting (DR05-48). She noted that staff is bringing the elevations for the police property storage and fire resource management facility this evening for action. She noted that the building is approximately 65,000 square feet with the height at 32 feet and is setback 190 feet from the east, 400 feet to the north and 660 feet from the south from Williams Field Road. She commented that there is an existing perimeter wall along the eastern and northern part of the project. She noted that staff evaluated the project using the industrial employment guidelines. These are the most applicable guidelines available considering the nature, use and function of the project. She provided a PowerPoint presentation explaining the applicable guidelines used to evaluate the project.

#1 ? Conceptual relationship to adjacent residential can be achieved three ways through low scale design of the building, buffering and two rows of sisoo trees. The building is approximately 32 feet in height; code allows 55? feet in height for Public Facilities. The proposed building is 22 feet lower than what is permitted by the code.

#2 ? Building Orientation ? This property is setback over 400 feet from the north and 190 feet to the east. With this scenario, visibility from the road is very limited considering the 43 feet height of the proposed Fire Station #7 and the proposed setbacks.

#3? Perimeter Wall Theme ? the colors and materials are carried to the proposed building to create a commonality and relationship between the two facilities. In addition, there is an 8 foot wall to the north of the police facility, surrounding the impound lot. The impound area will be secured and limited to the public.

#4 ? Landscaping ? the landscaping compliments and enhances the project?s architecture. The proposed project is providing 46% landscaping whereas 50% is required.

#5 Lighting ? the lighting requirements have been met.   There will be 14-foot lighting poles within 100 feet from the property line adjacent to the residential properties.

#6 Building Design ? staff wanted to emphasis the unique purposes and functions associated with the facility. The building design depends not only on the inside but also its use. The secure area is mostly limited to the public except on certain occasions where the public can go and obtain their items that have been kept in police custody. In essence, the police used as a vault to retain items for safe keeping for investigative purposes until the case is closed. The applicant does not seek to attract attention to this building because of the nature of the building?s function. The attempt is to subdue the design and to fade away from public view. She added that the building mass is achieved through the lower rooflines with trellises, metal canopies as well as carrying the colors from Fire Station #7. It contrasts with the proposed tan color for the police facility. The use of reveals and tilt up panels create shadows lines for a visual affect

#7 Support from the neighbors ? staff did receive letters from the neighbors. She provided copies to the Board. She noted that the two letters received support the project. Staff did not receive any negative comments from the public.

She concluded that staff recommends approval for the elevations of the facility.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if the Board had any questions for the staff.

Board Member Cole asked how the public will gain access to the building.

Ms. DeMaree responded that the public will be accessing the building through a special door to retrieve their items. She noted that there will be approximately two people a day that would retrieve their items. She asked to invite a member of the design built team to further illustrate the graphics being presented to the Board.

Mark Roddy, The Smith Group, 455 North 34th Street, Phoenix, Arizona, commented that Ms. DeMaree did a great job on the presentation. He noted that this is a difficult program to design. He explained that they are talking about an enormous vault of secure evidence that does not want to draw attention to its self and must follow security requirements. The majority of the facility is the warehouse that needs to be efficient. This drives the design. He used the visual aids to show the location of where the majority of the staff works and where the public could gain access to the facility. He noted that they worked with the community up front and brought them along in the design process and let them know how they were going to mitigate some of the issues of such a large-scale building. Some if the discussion included a landscape buffer with two sided walls, the double rows of sissoo trees and the extreme distance from Williams Field Road and setbacks from residential. He noted that the building has been treated as a backdrop to the very public and almost ornamental fire station. It is a very horizontal building screened by trees. He explained as you come up the main drive for the fire station the evidence building serves as a background element. He used a visual aid to show exactly where the public could access the building to pick up their items. He explained that all of the efforts to make this building articulate happen along the public interface. He used the visual aids to describe the architecture and added that they thought about how people will see the building from a distance. He explained that the corrugated pattern transitions from a tight to a more open weave as a way of providing a banding and shadowing of the wall which can be seen from a distance.   He continued to explain the architectural elements. He noted that the public entrance is very secured with the public needing an appointment to visit.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if the Board had any questions for the design team.

Vice Chairman asked if there was anybody from the public that would like to comment on the project.

Vice Chairman Petterson closed the public hearing.

Staff recommends approval of DR05-48, Police Evidence Storage and Fire Resource Management building elevations, subject to the following conditions:
1.        Construction of this building shall conform to the exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the July 28, 2005 public hearing as modified by the condition below.

2.        At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include Town of Gilbert standard commercial and industrial site plan notes as applicable to this public facility.

Vice Chairman Petterson closed the Public Hearing.

A motion was made by Board Member Deardorff and seconded by Board Member Cole to approve DR05-48, subject to conditions.

Motion carried 6-0.

Vice Chairman Petterson opened the Public Hearing.

DR05-58 ? Approval of the approval of the site plan, grading and drainage, architecture, building elevations, landscaping and lighting for Gilbert Fire Station #8, a proposed fire station located approximately ½ mile east of the southeast corner of Germann Road and Lindsay Road.

Planner Jason Sanks presented DR05-58 to the Board. He stated that the site is located one-half mile east of Lindsay, south of Germann and is within the PAD for the Estates of Spectrum. To the east are the single-family lots for the Estates of Spectrum and to the south and west is the Central Christian Church project. He commented that this project has been brought to the Board for a couple of reasons. The project is a design build and there are still some plans that still need to be reviewed and approved by respective departments.   There are some revisions to the grading and drainage plans and some clarification need on the lighting. He noted that the elevations are well done with lots of breaks in the roofline with good building massing and rich brick materials. The standing seem metal roof gives it a very clean, public facility appearance. He continued that the site plan shows that the building is well setback (150 feet) from the adjacent residential and has a height of only 24 feet. There is a generous entrance that is very visible and makes a nice statement along Germann Road. He noted that staff is anticipating revised landscaping plans. There is generous landscaping along the right of way and around the building. The hose clean out area at the back is oriented away from the residences. He commented that staff does not have any issues with the project but wanted to clarify the plans, making sure they meet code for safety issues and grading and drainage. Staff is pleased with the landscaping and building elevations.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if the Board had any questions for staff or the architect.

Staff recommends approval of the site plan, grading and drainage, architecture, building elevations, landscaping and lighting for Gilbert Fire Station #8, subject to the following conditions:
1.        Construction of the project shall conform to the exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the July 28, 2005 public hearing.
2.        Prior to the submittal of Construction Drawings, the applicant shall submit for Planning, Engineering, Fire and Public Works department approvals:
a.        Revised grading and drainage plans to address Engineering comments.
b.        Revised architectural site plan to addresses Fire and Public Works comments.
c.        Revised landscape plan, architectural site plan, building elevations and photometric plan to address Planning comments.
3.        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 Gilbert Design Review Board         on March 11, 2004.

Vice Chairman Petterson closed the Public Hearing.

A motion was made by Board Member Cole and seconded by Board Member Bohlen to approve DR05-58, subject to conditions.

Motion carried 6-0.

COMMUNICATIONS

Report from the Vice Chairman and members on current events.

No report given.

Report from Council Liaison.

No report given.

Report from Planning Director on current events.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards introduced two new staff members Tom Valjic and Susan Fiala.

ADJOURNMENT

Vice Chairman Petterson asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

A motion was made by Board Member Bohlen and seconded by Board Member Cole to adjourn the meeting.

Carried 6-0

Meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson

ATTEST:

Recorder Wendy Rocco

Digg this