| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CITY OF MESA
MINUTES OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
JULY 1, 2009
A meeting of the Design Review Board was held in the Utility Building Community Room, 640 North Mesa Drive
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
Tim Nielsen - Chair Lesley Davis
Wendy LeSueur – Vice Chair Debbie Archuleta
Tom Bottomley Alisa Petterson-Dangelo
Craig Boswell Brandon McMillen
Delight Clark Jay Stallings
Tom Smith Kent Grantham
Others
MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Lambright
1. Work Session:
CASE: Desert Creek at Las Sendas
NWC McDowell & Ridgecrest
REQUEST: Review of a 73,972 sq. ft. office building, residential Villas at Las Sendas, the internal circulation road, and the dry creek area (District 5)
DISCUSSION:
Landscaping:
Boardmember LeSueur:
• Likes the Sissoo; maybe they can use a few more
• Keep the revegetated area natural looking
• Likes the idea of planting in families
• The clubhouse is very muted will applicant be doing patterning of sidewalks or pots at the pedestrian areas leading to the clubhouse?
• The landscaping should crescendo at the clubhouse
• Would like to see a detail of the pool fencing
• Could the color of the perimeter fence be varied, but not too busy?
Chair Nielsen:
• If it feels like a wash you will see more vegetation along the wash in nature
• How will the different areas interact
Clubhouse A:
Boardmember LeSueur:
• How will they address lighting on the clubhouse?
Boardmember Clark:
• The forms seem a little harsh on the north elevation
Chair Nielsen:
• Like the interplay of sheds and the shadow lines
• Concerned with protection of windows, could there be more overhangs in a few strategic places
• The hardscape texture at the clubhouse should provide richness
• Could the tower elements be varied to create more interest?
Residential:
Boardmember LeSueur:
• Like the detailing with the tiles and the iron work
• Wants that detailing to continue throughout
• Are they considering the view from the windows?
• How will the flat roofs drain?
• Likes the green
• Likes the contrast of colors
• Color changes need to be at changes in plane, not next to each other
• Likes the recessed panels
Chair Nielsen:
• Make sure the roof mounted mechanical is fully screened
• Doesn’t want to see the back side of the mechanical well; continue the parapet around
Boardmember Bottomley:
• Concerned that the recessed panels look like implied arches
• Provide detail of how the recessed panels are done
Office Buildings:
Boardmember Bottomley:
• The parapet at the mechanical well should be painted to match the building
• Could the supports for the rail element be wood to match the corbels?
• Windows should be the same, not reflective on some elevations and not others
• Prefers the power blue on the material board
• On the arcade element, the columns between the arches should all be the same
Boardmember LeSueur:
• Windows should have continuity
• Clarify the window trim color with the follow-up submittal
• Provide lighting cut sheets with follow-up submittal
• Provide sill details
• Likes the proposed parking covers
• Wants to see the pedestrian level details
• Maybe wrap tile at the window sills
• Likes the salmon color shown in the photos
• Wants to see the shadowing on the windows
• Provide a detail of the recess
Boardmember Boswell:
• Provide a detail of the corbels
• West elevation A-1 needs an additional color; something subtle
• Provide a subtle color changes in the recessed arches
• Provide a detail of how the relief on the building will work
Chair Nielsen:
• Concerned with the use of wood fascias at a 4-story height
Additional details requested with follow-up submittal:
• Sample of the tile
• Samples of the glazing
• Detail of the stucco; it shouldn’t be stock
• Details of the roof
• Details of the window sills; there should be a variety of sills 4 or 5
• Variety of light fixtures
A. Call to Order:
Chair Tim Nielsen called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m.
B. Approval of the Minutes of the June 4, 2009 Meeting:
On a motion by Craig Boswell seconded by Delight Clark the Board unanimously approved the minutes.
C. Take Action on all Consent Agenda items:
D. Design Review Cases:
CASE: DR09-11 Village at Oasis – Phase I
LOCATION/ADDRESS: 10617 East Oasis Street
REQUEST: Approval of Phase One of a Supportive Housing Project. Consisting of one 11,536 s.f. residential building and the 4,800 s.f. community services building.
COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 6
OWNER: Pat Gilbert, Marc Center
APPLICANT: Saemisch DiBella Architects
ARCHITECT: Alisa Petterson - Dangelo
STAFF PLANNER: Tom Ellsworth
REQUEST: Approval of Phase One of a Supportive Housing Project. Consisting of one 11,536 s.f. residential building and the 4,800 s.f. community services building
SUMMARY: This case was on the consent agenda and therefore was not discussed individually
Chair Tim Nielsen declared a conflict and turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Wendy LeSueur.
MOTION: It was moved by Craig Boswell and seconded by Tom Bottomley that DR09-11 be approved with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the development as described in the Design Review Board staff report and as shown on the site plan, landscape plan, floor plans and exterior elevations submitted.
2. Compliance with all City development codes and regulations.
3. Compliance with all requirements of the Development Services, Engineering, Transportation, and Solid Waste Departments.
4. All backflow preventers 2” or larger shall be screened with landscape material located within a 6’ radius of the backflow preventer. All backflow preventers less than 2” shall be placed in a wire mesh basket and painted green. (The City of Mesa has requested the change to green, to discourage theft.)
5. Fire risers, building downspouts and roof access ladders are to be located within the building.
6. Provide two half size color elevations, one full size and one 8-1/2 X 11 set of reproducible revised site plans, landscaping plans and elevations showing compliance with conditions of approval for this case to the Design Review Staff prior to submitting for building permit application.
VOTE: Passed 4 – 0 – 1 Chair Tim Nielsen abstained (Boardmember Lambright absent)
DRB CASE NUMBER: DR09-013 Beehive Assisted Living
LOCATION/ADDRESS: 537 South Higley Road
GENERAL VICINITY: South of the southeast corner of Broadway and Higley Roads
PURPOSE: This request is to allow the expansion of an assisted living facility.
COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 6
OWNER: Alan Archibald / Benjamin M. Searle
APPLICANT: Benjamin M. Searle
STAFF PLANNER: Lesley Davis
REQUEST: Approval of the expansion of an assisted living facility.
SUMMARY: Ben Searle represented the case. Staffmember Lesley Davis explained the changes to the project since the work session. She explained the applicant was proposing a monument sign perpendicular to the trash enclosure, rather than making the west wall of the enclosure a feature and placing the signage on that wall. She stated they had revised the drive aisle in front of the trash enclosure to be cement. Mr. Searle stated they wanted did not want to draw attention to the trash enclosure, rather they were proposing to hide it with landscaping.
Chair Tim Nielsen suggested using color concrete at the trash enclosure. He did not want just concrete. He suggested a nice acid that exposes the sand granules but not the rock, so that the concrete would be slip resistant but not too rough. He also suggested putting a man gate on the trash enclosure so that employees would not have to open the double doors every time they emptied the trash.
Boardmember Wendy LeSueur thought the acid wash would be a nice way to enhance the concrete in front of the trash enclosure and the sidewalks.
Boardmember Craig Boswell confirmed the mechanical equipment would be screened and ground mounted. The only thing on the roof would be the exhaust hoods which need to be screened also.
Boardmember Delight Clark thought the colors were very bland.
Boardmember Tom Bottomley stated they need to carefully think through where the mechanical units would be before they pour the sidewalks so they can provide enough clearance for the mechanical units, screening and landscaping.
MOTION: It was moved by Tom Bottomley and seconded by Craig Boswell that DR09-13 be approved with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the development as described in the Design Review Board staff report and as shown on the site plan, landscape plan, floor plans and exterior elevations with the following modifications to be provided to Design Review staff for review and approval at least one week prior to submitting construction documents to the Building Safety Division:
a. Provide a revised landscape plan in compliance with the amount of landscaping required per §11-15-3 of the City of Mesa Zoning Ordinance.
b. Study the ground mounted units to accommodate the sidewalks screening and landscaping.
c. Move the sidewalk at the trash enclosure to the north.
d. Acid etch the sidewalk.
e. Screening of exhaust hoods to be reviewed and approved by Design Review staff.
2. Compliance with all City development codes and regulations.
3. Compliance with all requirements of the Development and Sustainability, Engineering, Transportation, and Solid Waste Departments.
4. Compliance with all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations if the pad/building sites are to be individually owned or if there is to be a condominium form of ownership.
5. Compliance with all requirements of Z09-012.
6. All backflow preventers 2” or larger shall be screened with landscape material located within a 6’ radius of the backflow preventer. All backflow preventers less than 2” shall be placed in a wire mesh basket and painted green. (The City of Mesa has requested the change to green, to discourage theft.)
7. Fire risers, building downspouts and roof access ladders are to be located within the building.
8. Non-conforming and/or prohibited signs shall be brought into conformance prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9. Review and approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of Adjustment for an assisted living facility.
10. Review and approval of a Substantial Conformance Improvement Permit by the Board of Adjustment.
11. Provide two half size color elevations, one full size and one 8-1/2 X 11 set of reproducible revised site plans, landscaping plans and elevations showing compliance with conditions of approval for this case to the Design Review Staff prior to submitting for building permit application.
VOTE: Passed 5 – 0 (Boardmember Lambright absent)
CASE NUMBER: DR09-014 Banner Desert Medical Center Signage
LOCATION/ADDRESS: 1400 South Dobson Road
REQUEST: Approval of the design for the revised Comprehensive Sign Plan for Banner Desert Medical Center and Banner Health Cardon Children’s Medical Center
COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 3
OWNER: Banner Health
APPLICANT: Smithcraft Custom Signs & Graphics
ARCHITECT: William Naprstek, HDR, Inc.
STAFF PLANNER: Lesley Davis
REQUEST: Approval of the design for the revised Comprehensive Sign Plan for Banner Desert Medical Center and Banner Health Cardon Children’s Medical Center
SUMMARY: Chair Tim Nielsen declared a conflict and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Wendy LeSueur.
Kent Grantham, Brandon McMillen, and Jay Stallings represented the case. Mr. Grantham explained the sign were designed to complement the building. He showed the Boardmembers an elevation that showed the stone matches what is used on the building.
Vice Chair Wendy LeSueur was concerned with how the white portion of the signage would come together with the stone portion. She confirmed the horizontal banding would protrude out and provide a shadow. She did not want the landscaping to block the stone on the signs. She suggested they pull the lantana back from the signs and use a lower ground cover in that area.
Boardmember Craig Boswell agreed the vertical element could be a little wider and that the base should be extended to the column.
Boardmember Delight Clark wondered if the lettering could be moved up slightly.
Boardmember Tom Bottomley thought the stone portion could integrate better with the sign. He suggested the vertical stone area should be wider and extend to the base.
MOTION: It was moved by Tom Bottomley and seconded by Craig Boswell that DR09-14 be approved with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the development as described in the Design Review Board staff report and as shown on the site plan, and elevations submitted, with change to main sign as drawn at meeting.
2. Compliance with all City development codes and regulations.
3. Compliance with all requirements of the Development Services, Engineering, Transportation, and Solid Waste Departments.
4. The application of the Sandstone to the Signs throughout the campus is to match how the stone appears on the Cardon Children’s Medical Center.
5. Compliance with all conditions of approval for BA09-016 for the Comprehensive Sign Plan.
VOTE: Passed 4 – 0 – 1 Chair Nielsen abstained (Boardmember Lambright absent)
E. Other business:
Discuss the roofing material for Life’s Destiny Church at 2601 E Brown
Staffmember Lesley Davis explained the existing building has shake shingles. The applicant was proposing to replace the existing shake with asphalt shingles and use asphalt shingles on the new building.
Chair Tim Nielsen confirmed the project was originally built as a residence. He stated shake shingles were three times more money. He stated there were ways to change the roof to use concrete tile unless the roof had a truss system. He stated that if they used shingles they would have to be architectural shingles.
Boardmember Craig Boswell stated there are light weight concrete tile options. He stated light weight concrete tile costs more than regular concrete tile, however; it is still less than shake.
Boardmember Tom Bottomley stated if the tile really won’t work they would have to use composite shingles that give light and shadow. He suggested they also look at using a metal roof; not standing ribbed but standing seam.
Boardmember Wendy LeSueur stated the roof would have to be a darker shade if they used shingles.
Discuss proposed Campeones Restaurant at 1324 S Country Club Dr. and possible special meeting dates for an Appeal of Administrative Review.
Staffmember Lesley Davis explained that at a meeting prior to the Board meeting the applicants stated they were no longer proposing to use the wrap. They were now proposing panels under the canopy. The images above the canopy would be eliminated and the area would be only paint.
F. Adjournment:
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Archuleta
Planning Assistant
da