Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_01082015 Final G�ity of Zl�ah City of Ukiah, CA Design Review Board 1 2 MINUTES 3 4 Regular Meeting January 8, 2015 5 6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue 7 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order 8 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #5. 9 10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Nick Thayer, 11 Alan Nicholson, Howie Hawkes, Colin Morrow 12 13 Absent: 14 15 Staff Present: Charley Stump, Planning Director(present only 16 for agenda item 6B) 17 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 18 Shannon Riley, Project& Grant Administrator 19 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 20 21 Others present: Francisco Sanchez 22 Nohemi Sanchez 23 Lawrence Mitchell 24 Holly Brackmann 25 Ann Baker 26 Linda Hedstrom 27 Jim Langford 28 Mary Stompe 29 Bob Hayes 30 31 3. CORRESPONDENCE: 32 33 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the November 13, 2014 and December 34 11, 2014 meetings will be available for review at the January 8, 2015 meeting. 35 36 M/S Nicholson/Thayer to approve the minutes from the November 13, 2014 meeting, as 37 submitted. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present (4-0) with Member 38 Morrow abstaining. 39 40 M/S Hawkes/Nicholson to approve the minutes from the December 11, 2014 meeting, as 41 submitted. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present (4-0) with Member 42 Morrow abstaining. 43 44 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 45 46 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site 47 Development Permit applications. 48 49 6. NEW BUSINESS: 50 6A. 499 North State Site Development Permit (File No.: 598): Continued from December 51 11, 2014 meeting; review and recommendation to the Zoning Administrator on color 52 board and landscaping plan for 499 North State Street, APN 002-152-07. Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 1 1 Assistant Planner Johnson: 2 • At the regular December 11, 2014 DRB meeting, the DRB reviewed the design aspects 3 for a proposed site development permit with a recommendation to the Zoning 4 Administrator for approval with the conditions that a color palate for the proposed building 5 facade and proposed landscaping plan would be submitted for review by the DRB. 6 7 Lawrence Mitchell, Architect and applicant representative referred to site plans: 8 • The DRB recommended the landscaping plan include a Palm tree by the monument sign 9 and develop the landscaping around. Looked at Palm trees and could not find a species 10 that would be compatible and/or work in this area. Recommends substituting a Palm tree 11 for a Yuka plant and explained the proposed landscaping design for this area that would 12 include groundcover and boulders. Proposes landscaping having a blue/gray color 13 scheme that would complement the colors for the monument sign and building and 14 referred to the proposed landscape modifications provided for on page 1 of the staff 15 report. 16 • Related to the existing `Hollywood' wood shakes on the building in connection with having 17 a coastal theme noted such colors range from bleached white to tan, brown or black. The 18 existing Hollywood shakes are a bronze brown. Proposes to utilize the shakes on the 19 building and explained the treatment used to get that coastal theme effecUappearance 20 that would effectively lighten them. All shakes new/replacement and old will be treated to 21 match and illustrated the desired color. The treatment will be lighter than what is existing. 22 23 Vice Chair Liden: 24 • Referred to attachment 1 of the staff report and color palate for sign and building and 25 asked about the trim color in terms of how dark. Questioned what the shakes will look like 26 next to the blue color palate selected for the building trim, etc. 27 • Asked about the doors? 28 • Requested clarification the shakes will be the same color with the use of new in contrast 29 with the older existing shakes. 30 • Concurs it may be the blue color palate selected may not work and may need to be 31 reviewed. Supports making the trim a lighter blue and with allowing the Zoning 32 Administrator/Planning staff to revise the color palate if this is necessary. 33 34 Member Hawkes: 35 • Cautioned blue is a difficult color to work with. 36 • Is of the opinion property owner should not have to concerned about liability issues with 37 the landscaping species because people need to pay attention where they are walking. 38 39 Member Thayer: 40 • Yucca Whipple is not the most pedestrian-friendly of plants. Would recommend a plant 41 species that does not have individual spines/thorns. The Red Yucca is a better choice 42 and a more suitable replacement. Yucca plants are available in different colors such as 43 yellow. 44 • Can assist in the selection of a Palm tree that would be suitable for the site. 45 Recommends a Guadalupe Palm that grows to a maximum of 20 feet in height, has a 46 'clear' trunk and sheds older ones that is essentially a self-cleaning mechanism. A 47 Guadalupe Palm would be emblematic of the restaurant cuisine, would not get too big 48 such that the sign would be blocked from view and is hardy to about 12 or 14 degrees. 49 • Related to the scale of the boulders proposed for the landscaping and asked from an 50 aesthetic and/or color consideration if the boulders are granite or cobblestone. Any stone 51 type would be more expensive than using planted material and questions whether or not 52 the boulders are associated with an `ocean front' theme. It would seem the ocean front 53 theme can be effectively accomplished with plantings from a budgetary perspective. Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 2 1 Further questions whether the boulders add that much more aesthetically to the Project 2 than if all the landscaping consists only of plantings. 3 • Finds that the typical foot traffic through the landscaped areas to be potentially 4 problematic and could be a liability issue if certain plantings with spines/thorns are used. 5 • Related to the corner area of the site for landscaping purposes identified some plantings 6 that would be appropriate and can make recommendations to the applicants in this 7 regard. 8 9 Nohemi Sanchez, Applicant 10 • Would be fine with a Guadalupe Palm. 11 12 Member Nicholson: 13 • The intent of the Palm tree would serve as an 'identifier' for the theme of the restaurant. 14 • Finds the Project to be a nice fit. Has some problem with the blue color scheme in that 15 blue changes with scale, but this would not stop him from approving the Project. Blue is a 16 strong color. It may be the applicant can `brush out' the blue color scheme to get the right 17 balance and if that balance cannot be attained some tweaking of color may be 18 necessary. The Project is conceptually acceptable. If the applicants find the color 19 scheme does not provide the right effect, support they be able to consult with City 20 planning staff/Planning Director to revise the color scheme if this becomes necessary. 21 Would like to see the applicants able to get the right balance between dark and light and 22 in contrast with the blue color palate selected. 23 24 Lawrence Mitchell: 25 • Referred to Sheet A400 of the site plans and explained the color proposed for the trim 26 and other building architectural features. 27 • As shown in attachment 1 of the staff report the band that extends around the building 28 that is currently a bright orange will be a darker shade of blue (blue swede shoes) with 29 the `field' (faded denim) of the building painted a light blue. The window trim would also 30 be a dark blue. 31 • All three public entrances will typically be Mill finish anodized aluminum with clear glass. 32 • Confirmed the treatment used for the shakes will make them the same color. The type of 33 treatment used will likely change somewhat in the sunlight. The idea of the translucent 34 treatment is to allow for a layering effect with the color such that the shakes will have 35 lighter and darker areas. 36 • Related to the Yucca Whipple, the intent of the groundcover is to discourage people from 37 walking through planter areas. 38 • The Palm tree should not block the sign from view and/or be a potential safety hazard. 39 40 M/S Nicholson/Hawkes to recommend Zoning Administrator approval of 499 North State Site 41 Development Permit File No. 598 with the above-referenced modifications to the landscaping 42 using a Guadalupe Palm and with possible revision to the Yucca plants to a more pedestrian- 43 friendly species and with consideration given to whether boulders as part of the landscape plan is 44 really necessary in terms of costs for materials and, related to the color palate, DRB recommends 45 approval as submitted but with the understanding that if the applicants are not totally happy they 46 can bring this back to planning staff/Planning Director for revision. Motion carried (5-0). 47 48 6B. 517 Main Street (PEP) Preliminary Application (File No.: 646): Review and 49 recommendation on a Precise Development Plan to allow the construction of three two- 50 story building clusters that will include a total of 42 low income senior housing units, 51 Community Center, and designated open space. 52 53 The Petaluma Ecumenical Properties (PEP) representatives introduced themselves. 54 Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 3 1 Mary Strompe, Director of Petaluma Ecumenical Properties (PEP): 2 • Gave a history of PEP and its function as a non-profit affordable housing developer 3 organization that has been engaged/involved in other senior housing projects. 4 5 City Project& Grant Administrator Riley: 6 • It is important to understand/remember there is a connectivity/association between the 7 PEP senior housing project and the proposed Grace Hudson Museum improvement 8 project and more specifically explained the connection. 9 10 Planning Director Stump: 11 • The City currently owns the property proposed for the Precise Development Plan Project 12 located at 517 Main Street that PEP intends to purchase. 13 14 Bob Hayes, Project Architect introduced/presented the Project, referred to site plans sheet A1.0 15 and corresponding schematic drawings and gave a project description relative to the project 16 components and concepts for preliminary design review of the Sun House Senior Housing project 17 that is a work in progress: 18 • Has been working with the Grace Hudson Museum proponents concerning the PEP 19 project. 20 • The proposed project consists of three-two story building clusters that will include a total 21 of 42 low income senior housing units, a community center, and designated open space. 22 Related to the concept site plan, building is two-story having a `double loaded corridor.' 23 24 Member Hawkes: 25 • Asked about the reason for having a double loaded corridor. 26 27 Member Morrow: 28 • Asked about the use of the property adjacent to the Project on the west side. 29 30 Bob Hayes: 31 Buildings 32 • A double loaded corridor means there is a unit on each side of the center corridor. There 33 are other ways of configuring multi-family/multi-unit projects but incorporating a double 34 loaded corridor is a cost efficient approach and also serves as a security measure for 35 seniors. Further explained the double loaded corridor concept and the location where the 36 corridors are connected with a balcony, where they are closed off, how access is 37 provided on either side of the corridor and/or basically how the double loaded corridor 38 works for the proposed Project. The cost savings by incorporating the double loaded 39 corridor concept can then be applied to the building architecture on the outside. 40 • The intent of the building type/architecture was to design them to be efficient in so many 41 ways. 42 • The site is `very tighY to be able to accompany 42 units. The site plans are accurate even 43 though the Project is at a preliminary stage so what is being advocated is what could 44 actually happen. 45 • Finds the concept of balconies to be a good thing for projects for a variety of reasons. 46 • Related to the matter of parking, the intent was to conceal the concept of parking within 47 the buildings so as not to appear obvious. 48 • Explained the function and location of the community center as shown on the conceptual 49 site plans and is located off/near the Museum park area. The community center is single- 50 story and provides for kitchen, library, restroom facilities, and office space 51 accommodations. The community center is a nice place to gather and socialize and have 52 community/communal meals and enjoy different activities/special events. The community 53 center is also where mail is received for persons residing in the senior housing project so 54 this facility typically functions as a `hub.' Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 4 1 • Building 1 consists of five units on the first floor and three units on the second story that 2 are accessed off a central area and demonstrated the location. 3 • Confirmed `Professional Offices' are located adjacent and to the west of the Project. 4 • The Project has one elevator that can accommodate some of the units but not all and 5 explained the concept. The intent is to make as many of the units and/or at least 95% of 6 the units adaptable and the Project will exceed the accessibility code in this regard. 7 8 Street Edqes of Proiect 9 • Main Street edge: 10 o Explained that portion of the Project that touches Main Street and how it relates 11 to the Sun House and Museum. The architecture of the Sun House is one of the 12 most elegantly simple and well-proportioned structure having a nice porch on 13 one side and great detailing. 14 o Given the location in retrospect to the Sun House and Museum, finds that at the 15 Main Street section of the site is like developing a historical preservation project 16 and/or like adding to a historical structure. In this context, is of the opinion the 17 senior housing project needs to be sensitive to the museum historical structures 18 in the way of scale and proportion and architecture where the two-story element 19 of the Project is located behind the Main Street edge and more formally 20 explained the intent from an architectural/detail/materials standpoint. Some of 21 the materials proposed are hardi-board and board-and-bat because of durability 22 and compatibility with the Sun House/Museum. Finds it difficult to see a 23 distinction between wood and hardi-board and highly supports the use of hardi- 24 board. 25 26 • Cleveland Street edge: 27 o In addition to the Professional Office buildings adjacent to the Project, Buildings 28 2 and 3, the parking lot and some residential units are located along the 29 Cleveland Street edge. 30 o The site layout of the buildings/support utility buildings/entryways/other building 31 design amenities etc., resembles that of a PEP housing project completed in 32 Santa Rosa and explained the similarities as shown on the concept site plan. 33 o Addressed the trash/recycling area and corresponding building design for this 34 function and how this facility would help to screen cars from view in the parking 35 lot. It is likely the trash/recycling structure will likely be open-ended and have a 36 roof and look like the other buildings on the site. 37 38 Member Nicholson: 39 • Asked if the local trash/recycling company has been advised of the Project and its 40 proposed functionality. 41 42 Bob Hayes: 43 • Has not yet consulted with the local trash/recycling company to verify the proposed plan 44 is workable for the company in order to finalize the site plans. 45 46 • Museum edae: 47 o Site plans concerning the Museum edge is not fully developed. 48 o Explained some of the design concepts such as gables and the like that will 49 architecturally fit well with the Museum. Noted there are a lot of trees in this area. 50 o Is of the opinion the scale and proportion of the buildings on the Museum edge 51 will work appropriately in keeping with the Museum. 52 53 Member Morrow: 54 • Asked about the setback between the path and the Project buildings. Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 5 1 • Asked about trees that are not shown on the site plans and whether or not they are 2 located on the senior housing side of the path? 3 4 Member Hawkes: 5 • Inquired if there is a fence along the path? 6 7 Member Liden: 8 • Will the fence feature open spaces that people can walk through? 9 10 Bob Hayes: 11 • The setback varies and referred to a site plan that addresses this matter. Advised the 12 setback is 22 feet at the beginning and explained the setback increases as the pathway 13 meanders along the Museum edge. 14 • There will be a fence but it will be `transparent' and/or a type that can be seen through 15 and may not be that tall. Aesthetically, the fence will be in keeping with what the 16 Museum improvement project is proposing to do. 17 • The fence will have connection points that line up with the connection points of the 18 Museum for pedestrian access that will not be locked so that seniors can access the 19 Museum and/or the Museum could potentially use the community building. Deferred 20 further discussion about the fence to landscape Architect Ann Baker. 21 • Related to the trees not shown on the site plan, noted the trees are lightly shown. The 22 trees are existing and are not exactly on the PEP senior housing side of the property. The 23 intent is to plant more trees on the senior housing side. The trees are visible more from 24 the road for the driveway rather than from the path. 25 • The park is fairly open and demonstrated the location of the cluster of trees. 26 • The community center will serve much as a hub for activities and this aspect of the plans 27 has not yet been fully worked out. The building will be one story where the intent is to try 28 and keep the PEP buildings and/or overall project in scale/proportion/context with the 29 Museum in this area. 30 31 Ann Baker, Landscape Architect, PEP: 32 • Related to the layout of the buildings, the intent was to develop the landscape character 33 in connection with the Grace Hudson Museum side of the Project and as such reuse 34 some of the landscape typologies/different types of plantings that are also proposed for 35 the Museum improvement project site. 36 • Is of the opinion the Grace Hudson Museum property and PEP site are connected having 37 that `natural' feel where the intent is to retain that feel with the landscaping that is being 38 developed/presented. 39 • Related to the preliminary landscape plan (sheet L1.0), the colored-in trees are native. 40 The non-colored trees are generally not native. While the landscaping plan is in the 41 preliminary stage, the two existing Walnut trees near the street are proposed for 42 preservation. 43 • Plan is to frame the entry to the parking lot with some large Valley Oak trees since these 44 tree types dominate the site. 45 • The selected parking lot tree species will come from the City-required parking lot tree list. 46 • The parking lot is a very constrained area so it is important to have trees that perform 47 well in an urban setting. 48 • Referred to the large blank wall on the office building side of the site where the plan is to 49 `frame'with Redwood trees. 50 • Talked about the existing Redwood trees that are mostly on the Grace Hudson Museum 51 site where the plan is to plant additional Redwood trees in this area on the PEP site. 52 • Referred to the Popular grove that will be retained. 53 • The existing Live Oak trees will be preserved that are in parking lot and showed where 54 they will be extended. Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 6 1 • Finds it a nice effort to be able to walk down the community path that has different tree 2 communities. 3 • Demonstrated the location of the Ash trees where there is a drainage ditch in the area. 4 This allows for another opportunity to enjoy a tree community along the pathway. 5 • Talked about the pathway from the PEP site and where/how it connects to/interfaces with 6 the Museum entry. 7 • A central corridor is proposed from Building 1 that will extend to the community path, 8 which acts as the general access from the PEP site to Main Street. Provided a more 9 general discussion about access on the PEP site and the primary pathway on the 10 Museum edge. 11 • Having security fencing is important to seniors. Finds it desirable to install a split rail 12 fence and/or something similar to cable trellis fence proposed for other parts of the site 13 that prompts/promotes a rural and/or agricultural feel that is transparent. 14 15 Vice Chair Liden: 16 • Requested clarification about any proposed fencing concerning the area between the 17 PEP site and the Museum. 18 19 Bob Hayes: 20 • The Museum Board Members/Guild and staff also asked about the fencing and the 21 Museum director responded we do not want people from the Museum arbitrarily going 22 through the Museum site and would like to see a fence that is open. A fence is a security 23 thing for seniors. 24 25 Ann Baker: 26 • Related to the fence and security concept, there has been transient use of the corridor 27 coming from the rail trail for many years so as the site plans develop, the element of 28 providing security will be more fully addressed with regard to fencing and lighting. 29 30 Member Thayer: 31 • Is the path located on the Museum property? 32 33 Ann Baker: 34 • The path actually meanders along the Museum and PEP properties so it exists on both of 35 these properties. The fence would actually be located on the PEP side of the path. The 36 path has different interpretative exhibits that are being developed for the Museum 37 improvement project and explained as an example, there would be places along the 38 pathway that tell stories about living in the Redwoods and/or show silhouettes of native 39 people/sculptures or interpretations about how to manage storm water in urban creeks so 40 there are different points of interest that follow the pathway. 41 • Native grass is proposed for areas of the Museum and showed where this might be used 42 for the PEP project. 43 • A storm water plan will be developed for the Project and demonstrated the location of the 44 rain water gardens for the Museum project. Further explained how the rain water gardens 45 are interconnected/integrated with on-site drainage swales/inlets/landscaping features 46 and City storm water system where the maintenance would likely be minimal. 47 • Indicated the area designated as a dog run that is located near the community garden 48 area. 49 • The PEP will feature native landscaping, ornamental fruit trees, and berry bushes 50 allowing for a landscaping mix to retain that native and agricultural landscaping feel. 51 52 Member Thayer: 53 • Project has a nice balance of respecting the history of the larger site, noting orchards to 54 be a part of the Sun House history. Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 7 1 • Likes that the landscaping will correspond with what is existing in the area. 2 3 Member Hawkes: 4 • Likes the Project. 5 • Will the Project provide different levels of care/support for seniors other than 6 independent living? 7 8 Linda Hedstrom: 9 • Confirmed the living situation is independent where the residents lease/rent the units. 10 Some supportive services are provided and gave examples. The Project does not 11 provide/offer transportation services and/or assisted living. 12 13 Member Morrow: 14 • May have questions later on in the development/planning process. 15 16 Member Nicholson: 17 • Impressed with the architectural planning and landscaping. 18 • Likes the architectural planning related to lower single-story housing on the Cleveland 19 Lane and tapering it off to the street edge. 20 • As noted in his comments related to the interpretative garden plan for the Museum 21 improvement project is alarmed that no one is concerned about the entryway to the 22 Museum that is being closed-in with fencing. The interpretative garden to the Museum is 23 not welcoming. The driveway is narrow having no signage and is of the opinion the 24 Museum culture is more about security than it is about creating a welcoming 25 state/condition to the community. Need to find a way to better announce the entrance to 26 the Museum and with opening this up more to the public. On the other hand is pleased 27 the PEP project is `mirrored'to reflect the design/architecture of the Sun House Museum. 28 • Does not support the installation of a fence between the Museum and senior housing 29 properties and is of the opinion this presents an arbitrary message to the seniors and the 30 public. 31 32 Member Morrow: 33 • Does not support the fence. 34 35 Member Hawkes: 36 • A fence does not promote the connecting of beings. 37 38 Planning Director Stump: 39 • The DRB will not formally review the signage and changes to the Museum entrance but 40 will be given plan updates showing what is being done. The Planning Commission will 41 likely review the Museum project in January. 42 43 Mary Stompe: 44 • It may be that people do not understand the senior housing project is separate from the 45 Museum project. The intent of the fence is to provide some protection and living space for 46 the seniors so while the two projects are connected there is some separateness. 47 • For other similar senior projects, PEP ended up putting in fences when none were 48 proposed initially. A fence serves as a sense of security to seniors even if it is 49 transparenUopen. The fence will feature gates. 50 51 Ann Baker: 52 • The concept of the fence is relevant because the path is close to people's living space. 53 54 Member Nicholson: Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 8 1 • It appears the Museum is pursuing a fence to keep the public from entering the housing 2 development and asked if there is consideration to do something else other than to install 3 an eight-foot tall fence. 4 • Provided the DRB with a copy of his recommendations concerning the Interpretative 5 Gardens/entrance regarding the proposed Museum Project that is incorporated into the 6 minutes as attachment 1. Sees the main issue with the Museum Project is that the whole 7 plan centers around the security issue and the need for fencing. Is of the opinion this is 8 not the most community-based approach to take and is concerned with urban boundary 9 and the aesthetics/presentation surrounding the area with fencing and walls. Shares this 10 same perception concerning fencing with the PEP project. 11 12 Mary Stompe: 13 • The height of the fence would not be eight feet, but rather install a three to four-foot high 14 fence that would be open, such as a split rail fence that is open and transparent. 15 16 Vice Chair Liden: 17 • The Project presentation was good and informative; Likes the architectural design and 18 plans for the senior housing project. 19 • Has some concerns about the fence but understands the reason for having it. Asked if 20 landscaping would be an alternative solution to take care of the borders and/or barriers 21 that are necessary?Would be okay with a short split rail fence. 22 • Is of the opinion the proposed project would enhance the Museum considerably along 23 with the other garden project located in the area. 24 25 Member Morrow: 26 • Does the Project include plans for permeable surfacing in the parking lot? 27 • Asked about the sidewalk widths? 28 29 Ann Baker: 30 • The Museum has a split rail fence. 31 • The intent is to provide for a lot of trees and grass as opposed to shrubbery/bushes so as 32 to create a place where people feel comfortable walking, particularly at night. 33 • Related to the application of including permeable surfacing, the civil engineers are still 34 evaluating the concept. 35 • Sidewalks would be complaint with City standards. 36 37 Member Thayer: 38 • Asked about how the Museum Guild and Museum staff think about the senior housing 39 project? 40 • Is of the opinion there is something about architecturally mimicking a historic structure in 41 that it takes away some of the energy of the Museum theme noting the importance of 42 preserving the uniqueness thereof. There may be too much mimicking of the Museum 43 design/architecture by the proposed PEP project. Finds the massing of the PEP housing 44 project proportioned well with the size and scale of the Sun House. 45 46 Bob Hayes: 47 • Intends to finalize the Project plans soon. 48 • The Museum Guild and Museum staff like the Project. 49 • There is some potential for adjustment to the materials/some design features so as not to 50 draw too much from the `energy' of the Museum theme. The PEP project can be better 51 distinguished from the Museum by incorporating more modern accents. 52 53 M/S Nicholson/Thayer the DRB unanimously is of the opinion the proposed PEP project is very 54 good, is well-considered from the massing to the detailing and from the open space to the built Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 9 1 environment seem to work well and while not all of the DRB concerns are necessarily met, is 2 further of the opinion the design team for the PEP project has a good feel for balancing the 3 Museum and City wishes and the DRB concerns and therefore, approves and supports the 4 concept plans to date. (Motion carried 5-0). 5 6 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: 7 8 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF: 9 10 9. SET NEXT MEETING 11 The next regular meeting will be Thursday, February 12, 2015. 12 13 10. ADJOURNMENT 14 The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m. 15 16 17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Design Review Board January 8, 2015 Page 10 � ` � � �� .w... ,� ` � : � , � . . . . : � � .. . . � � �� ����c+.ti�,. �j � . .� � � y�++ � . .. . � . . ... � �� �� . � 4 ��t .... ' . n ;� ,... ,. . � -- � Y ° , , _ . . r" .., _ . , p . ; . r' .,r:�r.a. ,.�.,, `� ' � , . � '' ? �t .,,� ? . sP �.� '�"*p, . �v,."' � �£ �"�� . .. y � .� �..?�. . '� �,��¥ ��� � �.��. �,�.� . * ���„��f� � �� ,$ � � � � � } �� 5,� � � ��� t ��. , ; . .�� � �_. ��^ � : y,- " ^° �� � 'd�.. ... —�. „ "" s, ��„r�� . . � � 4 . . �.��� � � �� � �..�: �� ��� � � � � ' � a � ,r ; � ��� , , � ; � � n � t t �� .-m"�'��``^�:, �� �� ^ � � � r , , � �, ,«'�,^" "�. � �.. - � � � t� ,�',,,�� ""'^`�,I�,, � ... � .� . ;� r'' ;� u� .�,,,..:'�"',�.rw .. . . � ���� �54� � .... , i � �� �� I ° , ` � � . � • " ' � �� � � z � � +, � s � °v i � i 4 € s . . w°�y� � � .�� �} �� . . . � a_• � � � ..�`.., °'`�°.,��d �, h �" �«. � . . . . . � .yi. .. . � „» �, � .� ` � ...«. �4«_ � ..:.. f . ., � �� S � � � �.�"° ,�.« —a^"°� x� � ( . ..� .. ��'� ,�„:�„,;� ° �.-,.,�.,�,�, �a",,,.a' . � �.�,� , . e •y . � a � 1 � �, °j ., � , a�#�� t �i � � �,. � . " , j � , "�,� � �� w� ,�„. � , � � . ,s� i �t � { w,� � � � , m , �' � � � e . � , ,t � �,�# �, �. # \ ^" , `+„�'� `� � � ,a ., � a � ?*� . . �., �€ y : ' s ,? .,. .�� � �w , . �x �� ; ; = l,, ,. � � �, �, w'� , � ,�. ` t � � . ,>. � t � � ���e � , � � - ? ,�.�-�� � � , a., �,. �_d_. ,�.�..> � d r �_.�— ## � ,r � � �__— A ! 4� � � � � � �„3 w� � t� ;r� �.