Design Review Board Minutes
Thursday, March 22, 2007

DRAFT TOWN OF GILBERT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STUDY SESSION
90 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA
MARCH 22, 2007

BOARD PRESENT:

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson
Board Member Bob Deardorff
Board Member Donald Clay
Board Member David Gibson

BOARD ABSENT:

Chairman Darrell Truitt
Board Member Wahid Alam
Board Member Stephen Berg
Board Member Jackie Cole

STAFF PRESENT:
Principal Planner Maria Cadavid
Senior Planner Tom Veljic
Senior Planner Mike Milillo
Senior Planner Susan Fiala
Planner Amy Temes

ALSO PRESENT:
Town Traffic Engineer Jack Herb
Recorder Margo Fry

CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION:

Chairman Truitt called the study session to order at 4:05 p.m.

DR06-138 - Preliminary review of site plan, site landscaping, building elevations, lighting and signage for CarMax auto dealership proposed on lots 13 and 16 in the Santan Motorplex located at the southwest corner of Pecos Road and Val Vista Drive. This site is zoned General Commercial (GC) with a Planned Area Development Overlay Zoning District (PAD).

Senior Planner Mike Milillo stated that CarMax is an auto dealership which is proposed for two phases. He indicated a site plan and pointed out the initial phase which would be the easterly portion as well as the future western phase which was labeled as an out parcel. Mr. Milillo said that the parcel is somewhat of an L shape and indicated that the bottom of the L was for future expansion. The project fronts on Motorplex Loop Road and is in the center of the SanTan Motorplex and is the fifth auto dealership that will be approved within the Motorplex. Mr. Milillo noted that Staff has identified some issues on the site plan and landscaping plan as well as on the building elevation. The basic issue on the site plan is to try to make it more pedestrian friendly. He said that they encouraged the applicant to use shading devises or cool paving, like decorative paving materials that would be cooler than just the hot pavement. He stated that the applicant has done a good job on landscape in the area where the employee and customer parking is located but in the display where a parking island is not required there is landscaping only around the perimeter. Mr. Milillo indicated on the rendering the pedestrian corridor which has some decorative paving with five 24? box trees along that corridor, which goes in towards the middle of the display area. He said that it basically bisects the display area into a north half and a south half. He said that there was approximately an acre of area on the north of the pedestrian spine which is completely un-shaded. There is also 27,000 square feet on the south of the spine which is not shaded as well. Staff is hoping that the applicant can find some sort of shade structures, such as the ones that have been approved on the Ford Dealership to the southeast, which would be some sort of metal with fabric shade structure on the top, to provide some shade into the aforementioned areas. With five 24? boxed trees there will not be much shade. The trees are Ash and for a number of years will not give much shade. Mr. Milillo noted that there were two entry features which he pointed out on the rendering, one entry on the north side of the building and one on the east side of the building, which would accommodate customers. He indicated the elevations and stated that they were not very deep shade structures as they were only ten feet in depth and really do not speak to the unique desert climate here in the southwest. The pitches of the canopies are very steeply sloped and really do not provide functional shade on the project and are not very inviting to pedestrians and do not speak to the architectural vernacular that is seen in the southwest. Mr. Milillo pointed out the glass curtain wall on the east elevation, also, with no shade elements. He said that Staff knew that you can have high heat glass which can insulate fairly well; however, architecturally there were no shade elements over the large glass curtain wall. Planner Milillo stated that the building was prototypical and the colors rather bright. He indicated the color board and said that the accent color is yellow and there is a deep blue color as well. Mr. Milillo stated that Staff was looking for input from the Board in terms of shading on the site as well as feedback on the building architecture with the focus on architectural features that fit better with the climatic conditions.

Vice Chairman Petterson stated that he had worked extensively with car dealers and had respect for their need not to have trees that birds sit in and ruin the paint jobs on new cars. However, he did feel that there was a need for shade canopies, especially when it was some distance to shade for customers as well as salespeople. He indicated the landscape plan and stated that it would be beneficial to have a divider island with some trees to give the area a softer look.

Planner Milillo said that he understood Chairman Petterson to say that he would prefer to have shade structures rather than additional trees.

Vice Chairman Petterson said that Mr. Milillo was correct. Trees run up the costs and with the birds and the problems that they cause it is not fair to the applicant to insist that they have them when there are other options available.

Board Member Gibson commented that he did not think the color board matched the colors on the renderings.

Mr. Milillo indicated the block veneer at the bottom of the building on the rendering and said that it occurs both as a wainscot and as a base of the pilasters.

Board Member Gibson said that there is not enough of a difference or contrast in the colors. Mr. Gibson left his seat to indicate on the elevations what he was referring to.

Vice Chairman Peterson asked how practical the existing canopies were. He said that he did not see how they were going to help at all.

Board Member Deardorff said that his guess would be that they are cooperate identity because it was not doing anything for shade. He said that with the canopies that high the applicant was going to need to introduce something at the pedestrian level.

Board Member Gibson commented that with the cover only being ten feet, when there was a driving rain they would have some water getting in and typically the floor surfaces were very slick and could present a hazard.

Planner Milillo asked if the Board was recommending deeper and lower canopies with a flatter pitch.

Vice Chair Petterson said that would be a more practical application.

Board Member Deardorff said that there were several employee and pedestrian entrances that would give an opportunity to carry that theme around the building.

Board Member Gibson said that he did not understand the yellow as it did not go with any of the other colors.

Mr. Milillo commented that it appeared to match the signage so it might be a corporate color.

A member of the audience stated that it was a corporate color.

Board Member Deardorff said that the parapets stick up four or five feet and if they were going to be up that far they need to be treated all the way around. He said that they have four sided architecture, however, they had forgotten the southwest side. Board Member Deardorff said that on the north you could have the full curtain wall. The best example of how to handle all the sides of the building to the southwest is the library downtown. The north side of the building is a glass curtain wall. The west side of the building has no penetration and the south side has horizontal louvers so the sun is handled as it is coming in or out. The curtain wall is ok on the north but if the applicant has it on the east they must figure out how to deal with it. Horizontal overhangs will not help that much because the sun comes in vertical and glancing. He said that they live in a climate where you can?t assume all sides of a building are the same.

DR07-11 - Site Plan, Landscape Plans, Grading and Drainage Plans, and Building Elevations for a 15-acre multi-family town home project located in the Spectrum Master Plan Community.

Planner Amy Temes stated that the project was located at the northwest corner of Val Vista Road and Pecos. She said that it was a 199 unit condominium complex. To the north are SF-A duplex units, to the west are apartments, to the south is the SanTan Motorplex and across the street are a circle K and a McDonalds. Ms. Temes noted that there were four primary issues that she would like to present to the Board for their input and recommendations. The original colors that were provided were two monochromatic color pallets to which Staff requested more color variations or an addition color pallet. A third green color pallet was provided. Staff is concerned that the color pallets are applied in a very similar way on most of the buildings. Ms. Temes indicated the renderings and pointed out the light color on the bottom, medium color on the second floor and that the trim is all dark. She stated that the applicant has proposed five different building types, four which have very similar third floor roofline and elevations. Staff recommends a change of the third floor roof line orientation on at least two of the buildings. Ms. Temes pointed out that the rear and side building elevations on five building types are very similar and lacking detail. Staff is concerned that the rear and side elevations are the primary elevations within the complex and offer little variation within the street scape. Planner Temes indicated the site plan and stated that as you enter the main entry off of Pecos Road, side elevations can be seen and the fronts of the type 1 building can be seen primarily, as well as the garage faces of a number of the buildings. She indicated on the exhibit the proposed buildings along the paseo, located at the north property line. The paseo is a main greenbelt that is within the Spectrum community. Ms. Temes said that Staff would like to see an increase in verticality to reconfigure the open space throughout the project and to allow for more varied building placement throughout the project so that there is not a straight building line across the north boundary.

Board Member Deardorff asked Ms. Temes to go over the third story roofline information.

Planner Temes indicated the elevations and stated that they all have a very similar roofline. She said that it is somewhat stretched out on two of them but they are very similar and a lot of the architectural details are repetitive. Staff is concerned that when you line up so many in a row that are all the same building types it will be noticed, especially from a distance, because with such large massing your eye will connect the dots. She commented that it is requested that within the Spectrum PAD that they choose a particular style on which to base their buildings and the Monterey characteristics are what the applicant has chosen. Planner Temes indicated the elevations and noted that it will be primarily the street scape that will be seen as you drive throughout the complex and that it was obvious that many of the buildings have very similar characteristics as well as colors. Staff would like to see the applicant mix it up somewhat, perhaps not using the same colors always on the same kind of massing element, as an example.

Board Member Alam stated that he strongly agreed with Staff?s comments that it looks as though the applicant came up with one layout. Mr. Alam indicated the site plan and pointed out how the buildings could be turned in different directions to create diversity and interest. He indicated a group of buildings on the site plan and stated that there was no effort to do anything with the buildings and that they were just sitting there to create the motor court that they had created.

Board Member Gibson commented that the applicant might be able to come up with some different variety but that they were dealing with fire department issues such as 150 foot dead ends as well as other things. He said that he could see why the architect designed the complex in that way because it is efficient, however, perhaps in the middle they could change up the pattern to offer more diversity. Board Member Gibson said that he did not think it would be a problem to change some of roof directions as well to add more interest along the street. He said that he liked the colors chosen as they go well with the roof tiles as well as the stone, but thought that they could change the trim colors. Mr. Gibson stated that the renderings don?t show as much as a difference as the color board shows. He said that the colors are a little on the pastel side and perhaps should be made a little darker to get more of a contrast.

Board Member Deardorff commented that on the front and rear elevations the applicant has tried to bring the base color up into the middle of the elements and that it is really on the side elevations that there is an issue. Board Member Deardorff pointed out on the elevation a hip roof projection and indicated how different elements could be moved around and the colors could be changed on the different elevations to break up the band so that it wasn?t going all the way across.

Board Member Deardorff asked Board Member Gibson if there was enough room on the site to offset the buildings.

Board Member Gibson stated that when you are dealing with the roadway issue and when you start to offset the buildings everything gets squeezed. If they were to try and create a different type of cluster in the middle where it might come out so the buildings are offset, but still within the same roadway width, it might solve the problem.

Board Member Alam stated that if they take out the trail system it does not affect the site plan. He said that he did not think that the site plan has taken the advantage of the 12 foot trail system.

Board Member Deardorff asked Board Member Alam to give an example of how he might take advantage of the trail system.

Board Member Alam stated that if you take out the trail system it does not affect the site plan. He said that if he lived in the project he would have to go to the trail system to enjoy it. The rest of the time he would not even know it was there. He said that you must face the buildings from the trail system and that they are making little pocket courtyards to accentuate the trail system which is already there. He said that when looking at the site plan they are already seeing it as a given that they have the trail system and what can they do to take advantage of it rather than it is just going in the back and the space could be used for a better purpose .

Board Member Gibson reminded the Board that all of the units face out towards the trail system.

Board Member Alam indicated the elevation and said that it is arranged so that it looks like a military barracks. He indicated the five garage doors on the rendering and said that he did not think that it would be difficult to break up. If nothing else, there could be a vertical element coming from the top.

Principal Planner Maria Cadavid asked if the Board had a specific building in mind in terms of the roof line change.

Board Member Deardorff stated that building five along the paseo was what he was referring to.

DR07-Site plan, landscaping and building elevations for Lots 11 and 12 located at the northeast corner of North Horne Street and West Merrill Avenue. The property is zoned LI under the Land Development Code (LDC).

Planner Amy Temes informed the Board that lots 11 & 12 of Fuller Commercial are located southwest of the southwest corner of Baseline and Pecos Roads and the major collectors that go into the complex are Merrill and Horne Streets. The zoning is L-1 and it is a 1.2 acre property and is being reviewed under the Land Development Code. Ms. Temes indicated the rendering and commented that the project is an approximately 9,900 square foot building, 220 square feet by 45 foot, primarily in a rectangular format. She said that 3200 square feet of the building is for office space with 6,800 being warehouse. Ms. Temes noted that there were three issues of concern that Staff would like the Boards comments and recommendations on. The facades facing Horne and Merrill Streets offer no massing variations; however, based on the pre-application comments, the applicant did add a stacked stone wainscot, warehouse windows, scored CMU, tile accents on the frieze and awnings over the warehouse doors that match the awnings over the main entry. Ms. Temes commented that Staff has concerns about lack of articulation along Horne and Merrill, the south and west facades, and that the materials are not necessarily contributing to the dynamic façade at such an important intersection. She said that the roof line is primarily straight for 155 feet, drops four feet, and continues on over the office area for 65 feet. Staff is concerned that there is not a lot of vertical articulation within the roofline and that the canopies are not well blended into the architecture and that they might have somewhat of a ?tacked on? appearance. Planner Temes stated that the landscape and site plan is very nicely done and that Staff only had two minor comments regarding tree islands within the back area but other than that the applicant has met all of the requirements.

Board Member Gibson referred to the elevation and said that he did not understand why the canopies are not centered over the openings.

Ms. Temes said that there was actually a doorway where Board Member Gibson was indicating on the drawing.

Board Member Gibson asked how tall the wall was.

Ms. Temes responded that it was an eight foot wall.

Board Member Gibson commented that they were eight foot doors that were concealed behind the wall.

Board Member Gibson said that the canopies were not really compatible with the other hip roof and they have a different pitch. He said that if they were going to do a hip that they should match the same pitch. He commented that the rhythm of them was a little off because of the function of the building.

Board Member Deardorff asked if the canopy was metal.

Planner Temes responded that it was metal and the color was almost a dark olive.

Board Member Deardorff commented that the vertical gun slot windows did not do anything for him. He said that the relief of the very long elevation of the car dealership done by Carmax was exceptional and the rectilinear portion of their walls might warrant that Staff and the applicant take a closer look at that project.

Board Member Gibson referred to the rendering and asked why part of the wall system has pilasters and the other part doesn?t.

Planner Temes indicated the rendering and pointed out the portion that was facing towards the front and how it changed once it passed the auto gate entry and as they went towards the back where the yard was located.

Board Member Gibson commented that a Dooley wall would only go six feet in height unless they get a special engineer.

Board Member Deardorff commented that it was not easy to curve a Dooley wall.

Board Member Deardorff said that if they need an example of how to treat the unrelieved stretch of wall that they go and look at the Carmax project. He said that the window treatment on that project was good as well.

Board Member Deardorff said that in terms of the columns that are holding up the big elevation at the office portion, he was not convinced that any of those canopies would work as they do just look stuck on which they are. Usually they would see some kind of support element, a metal diagonal of some sort that would help. He said that if you look at it from the north or south elevation it is just stuck on the side.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if the office columns have stone.

Ms. Temes responded that they do have stone.

Ms. Temes pointed out on the exhibit that they have an amenity package that includes a water feature and some seating outdoors.

Board Member Gibson commented that it looks as though they have wainscoting on two bays and then the wall goes all the way to the ground. He asked why they would have done that.

Ms. Temes said that her best guess would be that they wanted to break it up so that it did not seem like it was a straight shot of identical architectural elements.

Discuss any revisions to the agenda including but not limited to changes to conditions, changes to placement of items on the published agenda.

Vice Chairman Petterson stated that Item 12, DR06-86 on the agenda would be continued to a different date specific that was not the April 12th, 2007 date on the agenda and that Item 14, DR07-8, has been withdrawn.

Board Member Deardorff asked if there was a reason that Item 13, DR06-136, Best Buy, was not on consent.

Principle Planner Maria Cadavid stated that the Design Review Board had the authority to move the case to the consent items.

The Board had a brief discussion and Chairman Petterson asked if there was a motion on DR06-136.

A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson and seconded by Board Member Bob Deardorff to move DR06-136 from the Public Hearing to the Consent Agenda.

Motion Carried 4 - 0

ADJOURNMENT

ADJOURN STUDY SESSION:
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson adjourned the Study Session at 4:50 P.M.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson

ATTEST:

Recorder Margo Fry

Digg this