TOWN OF GILBERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STUDY SESSION

90 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA

NOVEMBER 10, 2005

BOARD PRESENT:
Chairman Darrell Truitt
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson
Board Member Bob Deardorff
Board Member Jackie Cole
Board Member Thomas Bohlen
Board Member Chris Lindahl
Board Member David Gibson
Board Member Stephen Berg

STAFF PRESENT:
Acting Planning Director Linda Edwards
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid
Senior Planner Mike Milillo
Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele
Planner Tom Veljic

ALSO PRESENT:
Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward
Recorder Margo Fry

CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION:

Chairman Darrell Truiitt opened the Study Session at 4:15 p.m.

DR05-122: SANTAN VILLAGE REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER, PHASE II NORTHWEST CORNER OF WILLIAMS FIELD ROAD AND SANTAN FREEWAY (SR 2 020L)

DR05-122 was presented by Mario Mangiamele. Mr. Mangiamele stated that the applicant was bringing a massy model of a portion of the site before the Board, roughly 80 to 90 acres of Phase I and Phase II of the SanTan Village Regional Shopping Center. He pointed out that the color exhibits were before the Board to be discussed and reminded Chairman Truitt that he had agreed to let the applicant do a brief presentation on the project. Mr. Mangiamele pointed out the color boards that were before the Board on easels. He stated that back in August of 2005, Staff presented some conceptual design guidelines for the regional shopping center along with Phase I which primarily constitutes the Harkins Theater. At that time it was decided by the Board that the design guidelines needed to be taken to the next level of detail. Planner Mangiamele stated that those design guidelines would be expected to be presented to the Board prior to any sort of action on the shopping center. He asked the Board to note that in the Staff review of the project they had not had the opportunity to review all of the elevations or give detailed review comments on the project and that those will be subsequent to the study session. Mr. Mangiamele stated that one of the main objectives of the applicant is that they are trying to establish some limited flexibility with the Design Review Boards final action on the project. He pointed to the site plan and indicated the boundaries of the site. He noted that the project would be coming back before the Board in January or February of 2006 for final action. The request before the Board was a final approval for Phase II. Mr. Mangiamele stated again that the applicant wanted to establish some flexibility with the approval of the project. He stated that Staffs opinion was that the flexibility should be established in the design guidelines which they reviewed previously and the request for the final approval of the center should be fairly well detailed at that point in time. He said that the current process does allow some limited flexibility through an administrative Design Review Board process given that it does fall within the scope of Staffs approval. He stated that the applicant would address briefly some of the reasons why they do need the flexibility in going forward and developing the center. Mr. Mangiamele asked for feedback from the Board on building elevations on the center as it is currently illustrated, Phase II of the development shows the incorporation of two major anchor retailers approximately 200,000 square feet in size. He said that at that point in time Staff had not seen any design concepts or elevations for those buildings. He stated that in relation to the other architectural elements or motifs, Staff was concerned how they would be applied to the anchor buildings as they did not know what they were going to look like. Mr. Mangiamele said another concern was vehicular circulation as there is a ring road that encircles the entire site and the design may contribute to increased speeds throughout the development. He said that they are looking to incorporate some traffic calming features. He said that some of the stacking at the main access points may not be adequate for the amount of vehicular traffic entering into the site. Planner Mangiamele commented that even though the location of the site is considered the geographical center of Gilbert and has always been identified on the General Plan as the Regional Shopping Mall, there are other larger shopping malls occurring in the Town. He said that this shopping mall needs to be set apart from the rest of the commercial shopping experiences in Gilbert. He stated that Staff believes that creating a focal point with the vehicular access point coming into the site is imperative to really give a sense of arrival to the development. Mr. Mangiamele stated that the Board will be asked to consider certain commercial users who have certain corporate identity and who would like to maintain that user brand. He remarked that as the users come forward they may come before the Staff or the Board and request modifications to promote that user brand or identity. Mr. Mangiamele stated that Staff is looking for feedback from the Board as far as the overall design of the shopping center, the conceptual elevations and the flexibility that is being requested by the applicant and what direction does the Board feel they should take with allowing the flexibility at an administrative level or does applicant simply bring those things back before the Board for future reference.

Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that when they did the cases to the south there were some references and comparisons made to some stipulations and language in the original zoning ordinances. There were issues about being pedestrian friendly and some things that the Board did not think were responsive to the zoning ordinance. He asked if the check or comparison had been done.

Planner Mangiamele responded that Staff had done that comparison and the comments were in the Staff report.

Chairman Truitt remarked that he thought there were some references to architectural style or themes that were discussed.

Planner Mangiamele responded that it prohibited tilt up concrete type buildings unless there is some kind of texture to the tilt up as well as some other details. He said there were also some sections on the pedestrian orientations of the development. He stated that Staff believed that the applicant has made a great attempt to achieve the goals set and that Staff was working with the applicant to produce more exhibits to refine what is being done.

Board Member Jackie Cole commented that she thought the inside of the mall was beautiful, however, the outside of the buildings were boring.

Board Member Deardorf f asked what the applicant was asking for at this point in time.

Planner Mangiamele responded that the applicant was asking for the Board to allow some flexibility in the final Design Review Board approval.

Board Member Deardorff asked if that meant that the applicant would not have to come back before the Board with the building.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that it meant that the applicant would like to be able to do a Staff approval as certain users come forward to locate within the center. Knowing that one of the things that Staff has requested with the design guidelines, which are a separate application, is how these user brands can be retrofitted into the elevations. Staffs concern is that the final approval is not to allow a great deal of flexibility and that this is the final approval. He stated that any flexibility has gone through the route of the Design Review Board process and if it does not fall within the scope of that process, the code requires that it is brought back to the Design Review Board for their full approval.

Chairman Truitt stated that what were before them currently were some concept sketches and that there were no guideline designs and he assumed that was not the intent at the current time.

Mr. Mangiamele responded that Mr. Truitt was correct and that what was before the Board was the study session for the final design request for the 23 buildings that are in Phase II of the Regional Shopping Center.

Chairman Truitt asked what happened to Harkins.

Planner Mangiamele responded that Harkins will be scheduled for the Design Review Board meeting in the near future.

Board Member Bob Deardorff inquired as to whether the design guidelines would be in place before the Board reviews Harkins.

Planner Mangiamele responded that the guidelines should be approved prior to any action taken on the Harkins project.

Chairman Truitt asked the applicant to come forward and give his presentation.

The applicant, David Shull, informed the Board that his intent in coming before them was that because of the size and scope of the project and the desire of the developer to work closely with the Design Review Board they did not want to wait until it was time for the Board to vote to come before them.

Mr. Shull stated that he would like to help the Board and Staff to understand what flexibilities the applicant was looking for. He said that the project would represent the very first outdoor regional shopping destination with department stores in the state of Arizona. He said that it would be the largest and first of its kind in the Town. Mr. Shull stated that the project would encompass 120 acres when it is finished. He said that the Town would become a huge importer of net sales for the southeast valley. He said that it is amazing how quickly tenants have accepted and affirmed the project. He commented that they have another mall of this type planned for Goodyear in late 2009. Mr. Shull stated that they will be creating various zones for separate destinations of shopping trips; for teens, fast dining and entertainment, a separate zone for children and a zone for upscale apparel and fine dining. He said that they would also be including iconic entry features, however, they have not gotten to that detail and would expect to be back in front of the Board in 60 days on some of the hard examples of that and the design guidelines will incorporate that. Mr. Shull said that one of things that they have talked about is the need for some flexibility. He said to put some reasoning behind that request, the last four malls that they have been involved with; they have received that type of flexibility. The reason being that they need to have a neutral pallet and stand in the background with their building and today’s retailing is all about the brand identity of the individual tenants. He pointed out that that is the reason the site maps and renderings look boring as they cannot take the liberty of showing that a particular building may be a 30 foot tall store front for a Pottery Barn or Crate and Barrel, for example. He said that the individual user will put their brand on their space and what the developer must create is a kit of parts which are really different textures and colors that will be the neutral background. He stated that they need that flexibility because all of them together must pick design guidelines and have a vision today and the first lease will not be signed for a year. He said that what that means is that they must have a set of guidelines and site plan that would allow a tenant to take a particular space and make it their own. He stated that they need to turn the design over to the tenant with a sophisticated quality pallet and kit of parts and make sure that in the design guidelines that they don’t clash or bring in materials that are not complimentary to the overall architecture. He said that is the reason they are asking for flexibility. He said that the developer has been able to make four separate municipalities comfortable in taking the chance by allowing the flexibility needed.

Vice Chair Gary Petterson stated that cottonwood trees would not be the optimum trees to have in the mall area.

Mr. Shull responded that they are looking at several species because they want the maximum shade available.

Chairman Truitt stated that he thought the major concern was how to bring the balance of the Board being comfortable with what the developer was doing and giving the flexibility that was being requested. He said that in his opinion the developer was going to have to visualize what the project is going to look like when it is finished. He stated that whatever exhibit they adopt later will be a level of quality and that they can be flexible about changes in that quality, however, currently it is difficult to visualize the quality when all they are looking at it the frame and not the gingerbread.

Board Member Deardorff commented that if they know that they are going to be doing branding and the developer has at least a concept of what it is likely to look like that they should be able to take those known qualities and at least begin to intimate what the project is going to look like.

Mr. Shull responded that what the Board was asking was a fair request; however, the developer’s leasing team does not like going public with names that some of their competition might not even know that they are negotiating with.

Chairman Truitt stated that they could call it “Acme Lingerie”, the name wasn’t the point.

Board Member Deardorff stated that they didn’t need specific names for the developer to show the evolution of how they will use that kit of parts.

Chairman Truitt stated that they would need additional discussion on what the Board would be comfortable with in terms of what the applicant was asking for. He said that he was perfectly comfortable with the term of flexibility, setting quality standards and flexibility, but that he was not comfortable with saying “there are your guidelines and there are your standards” and then never seeing the applicant again. He said that is just not the way the Design Review Board operates.

Mr. Shull pointed out that they are not going to want chrome and neon to be on top of the kit of parts either. At the same time, they do not know exactly where the tenants will be located. He said that he thought their goal could be achieved with what the Board had suggested. Mr. Shull commented that perhaps they could show the Board photos of the kit and parts of some of their other shopping centers before and after the finished projects to raise the confidence level.

Chairman Truitt commented that it would also be acceptable for the applicant to come back before the Board during another progress study session if they wanted more input because that was what the Design Review Board was for.

Board Member Tom Bolen asked the applicant to define what he meant by the parts in the kit.

Mr. Shull responded that it was all of the materials and the general architectural style. He said that there would be given to each tenant a Tenant Criteria Manual which would indicate to them exactly what the parameters would be for what they could and could not do with the space. He said that this manual would be the enforcement feature that would enforce their design guidelines.

Chairman Truitt thanked the applicant for coming and indicated that they were welcome to come back to additional study sessions as they garner more detail.

DR05-19 - MONTERREY TILE COMPANY, A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL FACILITY, LOCATED EAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASELINE ROAD AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE.

Planner Tom Veljic stated that in the October, 2005 meeting Board Member Deardorff stated that the plan wasn’t really working for him and subsequently he and Board Member Gibson shared some time with the applicant and the architect and gave them some ideas. Mr. Veljic pointed out on a visual aid the changes that had been made since the initial meeting. He commented that the primary changes were made to the entry as you enter into the drive as well as some texture changes on the building.

Chairman Truitt asked Board Member Deardorff and Board Member Gibson if these changes represented the intent that they had discussed.

Board Member Gibson asked if the applicant had turned in a color pallet for the Board to review. He stated that he and Mr. Deardorff had some concerns about the banding and the large piping that goes around the building and whether they were able to put that piping inside.

Mr. Veljic commented that he had given each Board Member a copy of an e-mail that includes a narrative that goes with the summary of the e-mail where there is some discussion about how the applicant had to leave a lot of what exists in place.

Board Member Deardorff stated that the existing piping is on the outside wall and the narrative reads that it is just to be painted to match.

Chairman Truitt reminded the Board that they are not approving at the current meeting and that any input that the Board could give to the applicant in terms of what should be done before they come back would be beneficial.

Board Member Gibson pointed to the visual and stated that if the piping is still exposed it was still an eyesore.

Board Member Deardorff stated that his recollection was that they were going to leave the service entrance section out there and that the fire sprinkler risers were going to have to be internalized. He stated that his solution was to move it around adjacent to the service entrance section so it would be hidden by the new wall to the north because there was nothing to stop them from building the wall out to the north and screening all of it.

DR05-102: SHOPPING CENTER AT NEC OF PECOS AND VAL VISTA

Senior Planner Mike Milillo presented DR05-102 to the Board. Mr. Milillo stated that the project is a shopping center at a key intersection in the core in the Spectrum at Val Vista master planned community. He said that in terms of what the Board has already approved in the area, they have the Main Street Commons case, the project immediately to the south of the intersection. In the southwest corner is the SanTan Motor Complex. He pointed out that the projects that the Board has not seen as yet are the Rome Towers which is a three acre piece that is carved out of the 15 acre parcel as well as a future condominium project that will be located at the northwest corner. Mr. Milillo said that the 12 acre site has standard access visibility type tradeoffs right at the corner of the core urban location but because it is bordered by two major arterial streets with medians it has some access issues. He pointed to a visual aid and stated that it does have a full median break at the northernmost driveway and the second driveway on Val Vista is limited to right turns in and out. He said that there are similar types of limitations on the two driveways on Pecos except for the fact that there would at least be a left turn in allowed at the easternmost driveway on Pecos. He said that under consideration is a left turn out of that driveway. Mr. Milillo pointed out that there was a small minor error on the staff report in that it is actually an eighty thousand square foot shopping center not a point five million square foot shopping center. There is no underground square footage and it is not multilevel. Mr. Milillo stated that one of the challenges on the site plan is that they have very auto oriented uses that are proposed along the Val Vista frontage .Drive-thrus are always challenging because they create lots of access problems and pedestrian conflicts. A couple of issues to be dealt with are trying to take into consideration the urban contacts, pedestrian linkages and eliminating some of the internal conflicts. He said that some of those issues have been addressed. The applicant has added some pedestrian connections that will get you from the corner monument into the site and they have also improved some other pedestrian access on the site and they have realigned some of the internal driveways. He said that the applicant has reoriented the drive-thru to improve that situation and better aligned the access points. Mr. Milillo used the visual aid to point out which driveways and intersections have been improved. He said that many of the site plan issues have been addressed and the remaining issues have to do with materials and the elevations. He pointed out on the color material board that was displayed, that they were basically utilizing two different colored CMU blocks which are both smooth faced, one being plum and the other bone colored, to add diversity to the front of the elevations. He said that in terms of the walkway in front of the building there is a shed roof as well as a variety of stucco features on the front of the buildings. Staff feels that it is somewhat monochromatic and is somewhat concerned with that and that they probably need something of a vertical element on the elevations in order to create some sort of focal point or identity on the center. He said that he would like the Boards input on the issues he had brought before them.

Board Member Gibson pointed out on the visual aid that on the second elevation there was a column that was next to the entry that looked odd and like it was standing out there on its own. He stated that they could create a gable to tie the column in so that it does not appear to be freestanding. He stated that there is a gable on the front of the major that is very boring and that maybe they need to open portions of it or create some more interest in the ridgeline. He said that it is the only gable that he was seeing anywhere in the building and why change to a gable in that particular place and maybe they need to do something different.

Mr. Milillo commented that perhaps it should not necessarily be a gable roof element but something that pops it out and makes it stand out because it is the major.

Board Member Bohlen remarked that the gable does not seem to relate to the rest of the building.

Board Member Deardorff stated that they want to be careful about whatever that element is so that it is not just tacked on to the front of the building. He asked Mr. Milillo to go back to previous elevation and pointed out that the roof element and the parapet above had been created for signage and the height of the parapet above the roof element seems inappropriate. He said that the column holding all of it up seemed a little anemic and that there has to be a fascia on it or something needed to be done He said that something about the whole pallet of elements was not quite adequate, in his opinion.

Board Member Bohlen commented that he liked the two different tones of the masonry; however, they did not use it sufficiently on the front.

Board Member Deardorff stated that one way to help the freestanding elements is that they not use stucco.

Board Member Lindahl said that in regards to the third of an acre landscaping, he thought that they had deviated from the original design approval of the master plan.

Planner Milillo remarked that it was the new plan and that basically the scale of the community core monument was modified after it was approved with the SanTan Motorplex and was modified at the Town Council for Main Street Commons. He said that it went from a one half acre of property to one third of an acre so there were not as many walls and it was originally a double row of date palms and is now down to a single row at the rear but there is still a trellis element and a pedestrian way and seat walls and pedestrian access into each of the four corners.

DR05-112 - 1st INTERNATIONAL BANK AND TRUST, A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASELINE AND HIGLEY
ROADS, ON PAD C OF HIGLEY MARKETPLACE (DR04-22)

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele informed the Board that the project was located at the northwest corner of Baseline and Higley. He said that reason that Staff had placed this case on the study session was because of several initial concerns that the proposed elevations for the new bank did not compliment the existing approvals for that area. Mr. Mangiamele stated that within the past week the applicant had resubmitted the elevations to conform entirely to the elevations that are currently at the proposed location therefore all of the comments and concerns in the Staff report had pretty much been alleviated. He said that Staff was not presenting the elevations that were received in the last day or two for consideration because the Staff report was based on what the Board was seeing currently.

Board Member Bohlen questioned whether the paint stripe in the drive-thru was sufficient to protect cars in the drive-thru.

Planner Mangiamele stated that Staff had typically requested in the past that the lanes be surfaced in some sort of alternate surface material to denote the lane in lieu of a painted stripe.

Chairman Truitt commented that he did not think it would make any difference in terms of safety and that if the white stripe is there, people will know where they are supposed to be.

Chairman Truitt asked if there were any revisions to the agenda.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid requested that DR05-105 be moved from Public Hearing to the Consent Agenda.

Chairman Truitt asked if there was any objection from the Board to moving DR05-105 to the Consent Agenda and it was determined that there was no objection.

ADJOURN STUDY SESSION:
Chairman Darrell Truitt adjourned the Study Session at 5:15 P.M.
Chairman Darrell Truitt

ATTEST:
Recorder Margo Fry