CITY OF LITCHFIELD PARK

Regular Meeting Thursday, June 7, 2018 7:00 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD City Hall Conference Room 214 W. Wigwam Boulevard Litchfield Park, Arizona 85340

Members of the Litchfield Park Design Review Board may attend either in person or by telephone conference call.

I. Call to Order

II. Pledge of Allegiance

III. Call to the Community Information (This is the time for citizens who would like to address the Commission on any non-agenda item. Action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to asking Staff to review the matter, asking that the matter be put on a future agenda, or responding to criticism.)

IV. Business A. Design Plans for an Addition/Remodel Proposed for 4869 Village Parkway Information Action Discussion and possible action on the design plans for an addition/remodel proposed for 4869 Village Parkway.

B. Design Plan for a New Pergola and Rear Yard Wall Proposed for 390 E. Bird Information Lane Action Discussion and possible action on the design plans for a new pergola and rear yard wall proposed for 390 E. Bird Lane.

C. Design Plans for an Addition/Remodel Proposed for 1069 Vista Verde Information Action Discussion and possible action on the design plans for an addition/remodel proposed for 1069 Vista Verde.

D. Design Plans for a New Custom Home Proposed for 508 E. Fairway Drive Information Action Discussion and possible action on the design plans for a new custom home proposed for 508 E. Fairway Drive.

E. Design Plans for a Roof Mounted Solar Panel Installation Proposed for 964 Information Castillo Drive East Action Discussion and possible action on the design plans for a roof mounted solar panel installation proposed for 964 Castillo Drive East.

F. Minutes Information Action Possible approval of the minutes of the March 1. 2018 Meeting.

V. Staff Report on Current Events Information

VI. Boardmembers Reports on Current Events Information

This is the time Boardmembers may present a brief summary on current events. The Commission may not propose, discuss, deliberate or take any legal action on the information presented, pursuant to A.R. S. § 38-431.02.

VII. Adjournment Action

Susan Charnetsky, Chairman

Persons with special accessibility needs should contact City Hall, 623 935–5033 at least 48 hours prior to the meetings.

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LITCHFIELD PARK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 1, 2018

I. Call to Order

The meeting was held in the Conference Room at the Litchfield Park City Hall. Chairman Charnetsky called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Present: Chairman Charnetsky; Vice Chairman Ledyard; and Boardmembers Cordner and Romack.

Absent: Boardmember O’Connor.

Staff Present: Jason Sanks, Planning Consultant (by telephone); and Pam Maslowski, Director of Planning Services.

II. Pledge of Allegiance

Chairman Charnetsky led the pledge.

III. Call to the Community

There were no requests to speak.

IV. Business

A. Design Plans for an Informational Kiosk Proposed for the St. Peter Episcopal Church Campus, Located at 400 S. Old Litchfield Road

Boardmember Romack noted he is the applicant and recused himself.

Mr. Sanks stated that this is a rather simple application. Staff wanted to bring it before the Board because it will be visible to the public. The applicant submitted exhibits indicating their intent to build an informational kiosk. The kiosk will direct visitors around the church facilities. It will be approximately 3’4” back of the property line, just off the sidewalk providing access off Old Litchfield Road. The exhibits indicate the kiosk will be 9’6” tall and 10’ wide, and will mimic the church architecture. The exhibits also indicated that the colors and materials of the kiosk will match the church facility with concrete block construction and stucco finish. Staff recommends approval.

It was explained that the purpose of the kiosk was to provide information regarding the labyrinth that was recently built on the church campus.

Vice Chairman Ledyard moved to approve the kiosk as recommended by Staff with the condition that the colors and materials are to match the church facility; Boardmember Cordner seconded; approved 3-0-1 with Boardmember Romack recused.

B. Design Plans for an Addition/Remodel Proposed for 4902 N. Valley Glen

Mr. Sanks stated that the applicant is requesting approval of the design to add approximately 256 square feet of additional livable square footage to an existing residence. The applicant has submitted exhibits indicating their intent to build additional livable space within the existing residence – both on the side and rear of the home. Based on the floor plans provided by the applicant, it appears a new bedroom and

-1-

closet are included in the application. The applicant has specifically noted that the exterior colors, stucco finish, and roof tiles will match the existing residence. Also, the side addition will be located behind the 6’ high return wall, so it will not be very visible from the street. Staff finds that the addition will be a value to the existing home and surrounding neighborhood and approval is recommended.

In response to a question, Mr. Forstner noted that the lot coverage noted on the site plan includes the addition. There is an exterior door to enter the room from the outside, and there is access from the room addition into the house.

Boardmember Romack moved to approve the application with the condition that all the colors and materials are to match the existing; Vice Chairman Ledyard seconded; unanimous approval.

C. Design Plans for a New Custom Home Proposed for 250 N. Cloverfield Terrace

Mr. Sanks stated that this is an application for a new custom home to be located in the Village at Litchfield Park. The home is proposed to be an approximate 4,166 square feet. Total square footage under roof will be 5,839 square feet. It will be located on a corner lot within the gated portion of the master planned community, Village at Litchfield Park. The exterior elevations indicate a sand finished stucco with stacked stone architectural motif and the central portion of the home appears to have 14’ plates. Looking at the elevations, it allows for the stacking of clerestory windows on the front and rear elevations. Overall, the appearance is a contemporary feel. The roof will be concrete tile and the garage will have some upgraded contemporary finishes. The three car garage will be side entry. He is not certain if the exact garage doors have been selected yet. At the time of application, Staff was provided with a selection that is within the agenda packet. He believes that any of the samples provided would be suitable. Staff believes that the proposed home will be a valuable addition to the Village at Litchfield Park subdivision and approval is recommended.

Kimberly Burlington, representing the applicant, stated that they are still working with the Homeowner’s Association on selecting the garage doors. They have approved everything except the garage doors and landscaping.

Boardmember Romack moved to approve the application as presented with the option to use any of the garage door plans provided; Boardmember Cordner seconded; unanimous approval.

D. Design Plans for an Exterior Remodel Proposed for the McDonald’s Fast Food Facility Located at 13018 W. Indian School Road in the Wigwam Creek Shopping Center

Mr. Sanks stated that there has been a national initiative to remodel the exteriors of most of the McDonald’s with a new architectural motif. The applicant has submitted exhibits indicating their intent to remodel the exterior of the McDonald’s facility located within the Wigwam Creek Center. The design theme is consistent with the nationwide initiative. This includes removal of the older McDonald’s mansard roof design, the addition of corrugated steel banding around the top of the building parapets, smooth and sheer stucco finishes, as well as pulling off the cornice banding across the top of the existing parapets. Based on the site plan provided, it appears that the building footprint will not change. The only site plan changes that Staff found were the ADA upgrades to the sidewalks and new menu boards. When Staff reviewed the elevations, there was concern that they appeared a bit bare. He would like the applicant to provide a more extensive presentation as to their intent. Looking at other McDonald’s around the Valley, he has seen some of them with stone veneer and other high quality materials, while this one appears to be fairly basic. He would like the applicant to explain how this will fit in with the Wigwam Creek Center and how it integrates the new materials like corrugated steel and smooth faced stucco while keeping the brick. It appears to be a hodgepodge of materials, and Staff would not recommend approval if this were a new build. Also, the last four drive-through facilities have included

-2- canopies over the drive-through. He would recommend McDonald’s do the same if they can. It would help to break up the simple architecture of the building. The applicant should explain why they think this renovation is a better alternative than the existing facility.

Chairman Charnetsky inquired if the applicant had any photos of other McDonald’s that had been similarly remodeled, noting it was hard to see in 2-D what the canopy trellis would look like. Eric Zitny, representing the applicant noted he could provide that. Their main objective is to incorporate this into the existing shopping center. Both the shopping center and Albertson’s representatives have approved the plans. Another main objective is to respect the heights of the existing buildings so they are not towering over them, although they did pop up the parapet a bit at the main entrance so people can find the door. The colors and materials are consistent with the new McDonald’s standards that they have released during the last few years. The only alteration is the brick, and that is there to incorporate it with the shopping center. The drive-through does have a canopy that sticks out about four feet through the drive-through window. There are a number of lights that make it look attractive at night. These are the materials and colors that they have been using on a number of McDonald’s for the last few years and believe this is consistent with the design aesthetic and this is the latest and greatest.

Chairman Charnetsky stated that she understands the brick because there are a number of places where the brick is used throughout the center. When the McDonald’s was being planned, the owner’s wanted a different style, and the Board insisted it coordinate with the Center.

Boardmember Romack inquired about the colors and Mr. Zitny displayed a color chart. Mr. Sanks stated he had concerns that the corrugated steel did not look like corrugated steel on the elevations. He and Ms. Maslowski googled other McDonalds to see what it really looked like and found it is much brighter. Mr. Zitny stated that it is more of a clear coat aluminum. Boardmember Romack commented that was better than what the paper copies are indicating.

In response to a question, Mr. Sanks replied that he did not want to provide a flat denial because he did not feel the elevations appropriately represented what would be built. At the same time, he feels like architectural diversity is being stripped from the building to meet the national corporate architectural initiative. He is concerned that interest is being lost and the building will not be as attractive a facility when it is done. It will look very simple compared to what is there now, which integrates better with the center.

There was further discussion regarding the top banding, the drive-through, the height of the entrance, the canopies, and the trellises. It was noted this design would be very different from the existing. Mr. Zitny provided examples of McDonald’s facilities with similar designs, excepting the brick. It was noted that there have been comments made that Albertson’s will be remodeling their store, and other fast food restaurants are using similar designs. It was also noted that no other element, other than the brick, ties to the existing center. The existing design matches the center better; although the center could use a refresh. Mr. Zitny stated that they have seen a trend of shopping centers going away from the mansard style roofs. If the Center is to be remodeled, they will probably closely match what McDonald’s is proposing.

Scott Owsley, representing McDonalds, asked if there is a way they could work with Staff as they would like to start construction in May. Chairman Charnetsky replied that this is a big change, and she is not sure Staff would be comfortable reviewing and approving the final design. Mr. Sanks noted Staff would be happy to meet with the applicant to provide some direction and a revised design could be brought back before the Board. Chairman Charnetsky noted she would like to see more coordination with the center’s design.

Vice Chairman Ledyard moved to table this to the next meeting to allow the applicant to work with City Staff; Boardmember Romack seconded; unanimous approval.

-3-

E. Proposed Design Standards, Concepts and Requirements Related to Wireless Facilities in the Right-of-Way

Ms. Maslowski explained that the State Legislature passed a law that requires cities to allow small wireless facilities in the city right-of-way (ROW), while allowing that cities could have some requirements for the facilities, such as limited design guidelines, permitting requirements, and limited permitting/application fees. Staff met and design guidelines were prepared, based on what the City Attorney felt would be allowed. The Guidelines were presented to the City Council and Council asked that they be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Mr. Sanks noted that private phone companies operate like a private utility, while APS, SRP and other utilities operate without any jurisdiction from Design Review Boards and other types of review. Now, the State is allowing those other companies to operate in the ROW, so Planning, Engineering, and other City Staff met to put together something to guide these facilities. Mr. Scoutten has developed light pole and traffic light pole standards to provide guidelines for permitting when these companies come in.

Mr. Scoutten explained that the State Legislature has said that small wireless facilities will be allowed in city ROWs and it is up to the cities to adopt some standards. One of the things they will be allowed to do is locate on existing streetlights and traffic lights, but the City does not have any traffic light poles and does not own the streetlight poles. They can also put in new poles. Design standards were prepared for small cell wireless facilities that are proposed to locate on existing poles and on new poles that will be located in the ROW. The Design Guidelines refer to the City’s streetlight and traffic signal light technical standards, which he has now prepared. The standards also include some technical aspects, such as height and spacing.

Mr. Scoutten and Mr. Sanks reviewed and discussed the Design Guidelines with the Board. It was noted that the intention was to comply with the State Statute and allow these facilities to locate on light poles and traffic signals within the City. However, it is imperative that the City provide some parameters so that aspects of the City that the residents love, such as Old Litchfield Road, are not ruined.

Items discussed included:  The standards should allow the facilities, but also protect Old Litchfield Road, Wigwam Boulevard and any other streets that have significant visual connotations to the identification of the City.  It was asked if there could be a limitation to one company, and Mr. Sanks replied that there could not. That is part of the reason for the design guidelines – to help guide these companies.  The City wants to protect the medians.  The City Attorney has put together most of the Guidelines based on discussions she has had with other cities and what they are doing.  There will be different guidelines for different areas of the City.  Each facility would require its own ground cabinet.  It is possible to locate a cabinet underground, but it could be expensive.  The streetlights in the Village at Litchfield Park are short Acorn style lights. That will probably necessitate putting in a new pole, which could become unsightly.  The applicant can place a facility on an existing pole if possible, replace that pole, or add a new pole  There will be spacing requirements for the poles.  Council has asked that this come back to them at their next meeting.  Once an application is filed, there must be guidelines in place within three months.  Mr. Scoutten will be replacing some of the pictures in the Guidelines with pictures of existing City lights.  There should be a target map area indicating what applies to different areas within the City and an indication of what kinds of light fixtures are located in those areas. A zone map could be created.

-4-

 If a streetlight is being replaced, it should be replaced with the same type of light with the same design.

F. Proposed Technical specifications for Streetlights and Traffic Signals within the City

Mr. Scoutten stated that, the small cell wireless Design Guidelines refer to streetlight and traffic signal standards, which he has now created. Street lighting is a compromise between security, dark sky issues, and energy usage. Many cities have decided to regulate the lighting levels for different streets. The variables are pole height, spacing, and type of illumination. There can be issues with adopting those kinds of standards. He took the approach of working with the variables and matching that into our existing lighting schemes. The need for lighting should be left up to the City Engineer who will keep in mind what the City wants to achieve with each type of development, while meeting the Dark Sky requirements. He then reviewed the technical specifications and standards.

It was suggested that there should be lighting standards addressing the conversion of the existing lighting to LED lighting to achieve the same type of lighting.

Mr. Scoutten noted that the City does not currently have any traffic signal lights, but there is the possibility for one or more in the future. He set up the standard so that there are technical requirements; however the design will be decided on a case-by-case basis, whereby it will be brought to Council or the Design Review Board to decide which style would be used.

G. Minutes

Vice Chairman Ledyard moved to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2018 meeting; Boardmember Cordner seconded; unanimous approval.

V. Staff Report on Current Events

Mr. Sanks reported on the various projects being proposed for the southeast corner of Dysart and Camelback.

VI. Boardmembers’ Report on Current Events

Boardmember Romack reported that the Historical Society has hired an architect to work on the La Loma Homestead project.

VII. Adjournment

Boardmember Romack moved to adjourn the meeting; Vice Chairman Ledyard seconded; unanimous approval. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

APPROVED: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

______Susan Charnetsky, Chairman

/pjm

-5-