ࡱ> q !bjbjt+t+ 1AA}K]ppppppp8'2"jLN#L'$*+|'p'N ppN N N JppppppN .N ||pp\T6|92`6CITY OF COTATI Approved July 18, 2002 MINUTES for the Regular Meeting of the DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE OF MEETING: June 27, 2002 TIME OF MEETING: 4:30 p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, Conference Room 201 W. Sierra Avenue I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Leys called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Committee Members Present: Davis, LeDoux, Draper, Rock, Leys Committee Members Absent: Kagan Staff Present: Woltering, Brisbine, Baumgras III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. For the Regular Meeting on May 16, 2002 p.4, paragraph 8: Vice Chairman Rock suggested that the period at the end of the last sentence be removed, and the following words added to complete the sentence, "that the architect presented." It was moved by Vice Chairman Rock to approve the minutes of May 16, 2002, as amended. Second by Committee Member Draper. Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Kagan) Abstain: 1 (Davis) B. For the Regular Meeting on June 6, 2002 It was moved by Vice Chairman Rock to approve the minutes of June 6, 2002 as submitted. Second by Committee Member Greg LeDoux. Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Kagan) Abstain: 0 IV. CHANGES TO AGENDA There were no proposed changes to the agenda. Planning Director Woltering introduced Janney Baumgras, who will be assisting staff with meeting minutes, etc. V. MATTERS AT HAND A. Request for Design Review approval for a 900 square foot second dwelling unit located above a covered patio with pool changing areas at 721 West School Street. PA# 14/02 Applicant: Graciela Bunting/Vincent Saunders AP# 144-140-004 Committee Member Draper advised that she would have to step down; she lives within 500 feet of the site in question. A member of the audience requested that in the interest of time the second item ("B") be addressed first. Chairman Leys advised that the review of Matter "A" could be reviewed quickly and the items would be reviewed in the order shown on the Agenda. Planning Director Woltering presented the staff report and subsequently recommended approval of the second dwelling unit based on the conditioning that proper fencing be placed around the drip line of the large oak tree on the adjacent property during construction. Chairman Leys inquired as to the maximum square footage for a second unit. Planning Director Woltering advised that the maximum square footage is 900 sq. ft. Vice Chairman Rock wondered if the washer and dryer unit was included in the 900 sq. ft. Planning Director Woltering advised that this unit is not included, but is part of the 400-foot storage area that is part of the garage/carport space. Chairman Leys requested Comments from the applicants: Vincent Saunders, the project architect, introduced himself and briefly described the proposed second dwelling unit. Comments from the public: A member of the audience thanked the staff and the Committee for safeguarding the oak tree. Comments from Committee members: Vice Chairman Rock inquired as to whether the roofing of the second dwelling unit would be different from the existing roofing. Planning Director Woltering advised that yes, there will be a difference in the roofing material, but the exterior siding and trim will match the existing building. Committee Member Davis is familiar with the house, and he believes that the second dwelling unit will basically be invisible from the street due to heavy vegetation in front of the house. Since the roof will probably not be visible from the street, approval of the second dwelling unit is fine with him. Committee Member LeDoux noted that since the second dwelling unit adheres to the City's Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and the unit will be far enough off the street, he approves. Chairman Leys thinks the project is fine and gives his nod of approval. Vice Chairman Rock expressed concern that if the roof is not similar, it may look odd later. On the whole, it looks good and he is happy with it. It was moved by Committee Member LeDoux to grant Design Review approval for a 900 square foot second dwelling unit located above a covered patio with pool changing areas at 721 West School Street, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as amended. Second by Committee Member Davis. Conditions of Approval: 1. The overhanging oak tree, located in the northwest corner, shall be fenced at the dripline prior to commencing site work to ensure long term health. 2. AMENDED. Building materials and colors shall match the main house, with the exception of the roof materials. The roof material on the second dwelling unit can be composition shingle. Committee Member Draper requested that Planning staff please keep an eye on the oak tree during construction. Request for Preliminary Design Review approval for a portion of Phase I of the Santero Way Specific Plan. The project consists of a total of seventy (70) residential townhouse units on a total of 4.02 acres. Fifty-six (56) units are proposed for the west side of Santero Way. Fourteen (14) units plus a neighborhood park are proposed for the east side of Santero Way. [Park Village Subdivision] PA# 13/02 Applicant: Colvin Group AP# 144-480-020, and AP# 144-320-017 Planning Director Woltering presented the Staff Report and also reviewed information contained in the memorandum (dated 6/27/02) from Assistant Planner Voge to Design Review Committee members. Mr. Woltering noted that a Specific Plan Amendment might be required in order to approve the applicant's request. Chairman Leys inquired as to whether the crosswalk would be at the same height as the sidewalk. Also, has this been done in Cotati before, or anywhere else. Planning Director Woltering said that to his knowledge this has not been done in Cotati. He added that in terms of design and pedestrian circulation, two crosswalks might be preferable to one; staff can work with the City Engineer on the details of the design. Staff is requesting design direction from the Committee. Referring to density issues, Committee Member LeDoux asked if the Santero Way Specific Plan addresses densities, and are there comparable zone designations? Planning Director Woltering advised the Committee that although 15 dwelling units/acre is the highest standard density for the R-3 zone designation, with the Density Bonus the number of dwelling units (d.u.) could exceed 15 d.u. /acre to become 18 or 20 d.u. /acre. Committee Member LeDoux inquired about net v. gross density. Mr. Woltering explained that there is a similar issue regarding gross acreage v. net acreage. In terms of the proposed number of residential units, the Applicants are in general conformance with the Specific Plan. Committee Member Draper stated that the Specific Plan calls for buffers between the project and surrounding neighbors. Planning Director Woltering discussed minimum setbacks for single and two-story units. For this project, the 15-foot minimum setback is achieved. Committee Member LeDoux voiced concerns about the two-story and/or partial three-story elevation. Vice Chair Rock mentioned phasing goals, and wondered if he was reading correctly -- are commercial structures to be built along with the townhouses? Planning Director Woltering stated that according to the Specific Plan, commercial structures must be built at a certain point during the project. Although the phasing formula should have been adjusted when the Specific Plan was amended, this did not happen. Now the matter must go to City Council in order to clarify the number of units allowed before commercial is required. Chairman Leys described how the meeting is conducted for the benefit of members of the public in attendance. Committee Member Draper raised the issue of one v. two pedestrian crosswalks. She asked if the Police Department had reviewed the plan and if so, did they comment on which of the two options would be safer? Planning Director Woltering said that there was no specific response from the Police Department on this issue. Committee Member Draper noted that the Santero Way Specific Plan describes the area as being great for bicycles, but no allowance had been made for bicycles in the project plan. Ms. Draper suggested adding bike racks. John Clifford of the Colvin Group introduced himself and members of the design team. Chris Texter, a member of the architectural firm KTGY Group, introduced himself and gave a brief overview of the project. Mr. Clifford added that their intent in designing the units was to utilize architectural variations to create separate identities for the townhouse units, while maintaining a craftsman style. Greg Hurd of Carlenzoli & Associates, the project engineer, discussed the crosswalks, driveways, Santero Way setbacks, auto mews, and buffers as proposed in the project plan. He said that the drainage system would be designed to drain towards Santero Way. In response to an inquiry from Committee Member Davis, Mr. Hurd said that the water would drain into a grass/earth swale rather than a concrete. Specifically concerning the auto mews, Mr. Hurd said that they have considered reducing the width to 28-feet. He suggested that texturing of the concrete surface would be helpful in avoiding feeling like one is in a tunnel. Planning Director Woltering indicated that staff concurs with narrowing the width of the auto mews. Regarding #8, that requires revised plans with a minimum side yard setback of ten feet between the sidewalk and the structures on the west side of Santero Way, Mr. Hurd said that providing that setback is unrealistic. There is a significant storm drain system under the sidewalk. During a conversation with City Engineer Toni Bertolero, she indicated that she wants a 10 ft. setback from the center of the storm drain to the unit, and therefore the 4.5 ft. setback from the back edge of the sidewalk to the building is acceptable. Planning Director Woltering suggested that condition #8 could be deleted. Although the nine-foot setback is not achieved (as discussed in the 6/27 memo under townhome setbacks) the courtyard area could be considered as a mitigating factor. The architect and Planning Director Woltering discussed the bay window pop out in terms of creating articulation. Mr. Woltering noted that the Staff Report would be adjusted to note the allowance for bay windows. Planning Director Woltering mentioned that a 9-foot setback is required for 25% of the units. This is not achieved unless the courtyard space is considered. Regarding the setback, the interpretation is the rear edge of the sidewalk. Planning staff believes that this is an issue. Brian Powell, the Landscape Architect, was introduced. Mr. Powell discussed various species of trees that would work in the courtyard. For the parkstrip along Santero Way he suggested paving or irrigated turf. Mr. Powell discussed the sport court, and various possibilities (e.g., horseshoes, volleyball) that might work rather than a basketball court. A French game (petanque) that is played on a crushed granite surface and is similar to bocce ball was mentioned as an alternative. Committee Member Draper inquired about landscaping along the west property line, noting that the Specific Plan calls for redwood trees and climbing vines. Mr. Powell suggested broadleaf evergreen trees for the private yards as a possibility. Phil Erickson, author of the Santero Way Specific Plan, and who is currently working with the Colvin Group, introduced himself and proceeded to discuss the two perimeter setbacks that are addressed in the Specific Plan. The suggested setback along the east property line is 16 feet because of the railroad tracks and concerns voiced by the residents of Windmill Farms. The plan proposes a standard residential setback for the west property line. In response to an inquiry from Committee Member LeDoux, Mr. Erickson said that the lower heights and architectural articulations help to mitigate the reduced setback along Santero Way. Committee Member Draper advised that Committee Member LeDoux would be leaving the meeting at 6:00 p.m., and requested his comments. Mr. LeDoux stated that generally, he is very happy with the architectural design. He agreed with the architect that further narrowing of the auto mews would cause problems. 24 ft. was an absolute minimum. The auto court should be left as proposed. The plant materials are fine. Regarding the Santero Way frontage, a better architectural solution would be to have the elevation stepped the same way at both ends. Mr. LeDoux noted that he does not see a 9 ft. [setback] anywhere. Committee Member LeDoux would vote that it [Preliminary Design Review] be continued. Also, the garages are a problem dimensionally. The Design Architect is asking to be given a lot. John Clifford, The Colvin Group, discussed the possibility of moving the west side of Santero Way to the east 8 ft. The new City of Cotati standards (not adopted yet) are from the back of the sidewalk. 6:10 p.m. Committee Member LeDoux left the meeting. Committee Member Davis wondered if the community garden was still in the picture. The landscape architect discussed the possibility of a rose garden, and the related issues of maintenance, irrigation, etc. The landscape architect mentioned the alternative of a more wild-growing rose that would basically require no maintenance. Planning Director Woltering suggested that the Committee discuss the rose garden issue with the landscape architect. Committee Member Davis inquired as to whether there would be sufficient sunlight in the courtyards for turf to flourish. The landscape architect advised that delta sod/grass needs some sunlight. Other issues that were of concern to Committee Member Davis included: runoff water must be handled; trees to be planted on the street; parking; and the surface area. The Planning Director noted that the Specific Plan calls for a soft surface in the park strip. Committee Member Davis indicated that it made no sense to have soft and hard surfaces. More landscape space should be provided in front of the units, and the sidewalk space incorporated with the parkstrip. Another idea would be to keep the trees where they are, but in tree wells. Committee Member Draper voiced concerns over which types of trees will not raise the sidewalks. The issue of the setback from the rear of the sidewalk (6.33 ft.) may require a Specific Plan amendment; Planning staff will check on this. Committee Members discussed the sidewalks. Vice Chair Rock said that in not creating a planting strip, the proposed Project would be going back to what the City is trying to get away from. Committee Member Davis suggested that the corners could be maintained as a soft area in order to avoid some of the paving. Vice Chair Rock noted that all new subdivisions have had planting strips. Why the exception with this Project? Chairman Leys suggested putting the plants up in the air by using trellises, similar to an arbor system in the auto mews. Comments from the Public Terri Morgan, a neighbor of the Project on the west side, expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Design Review Committee and Planning staff. Ms. Morgan has concerns regarding the height of the buildings, in her opinion three stories is too tall. Ms. Morgan is also concerned about the parking situation. 140 parking spaces for 70 units are not adequate. Ms. Morgan noted that the two spaces per unit allotment (code requirement) does not include visitor parking. It is her understanding that the City is encouraging fewer vehicles. Committee Member Davis stated that 178 parking spaces would be provided for the 70 units that will be constructed in Phase I of the Project. Ms. Morgan wondered if these are the actual numbers; they differ from what is shown on the plan drawings. Planning Director Woltering confirmed that the information is accurate. The Specific Plan does encourage people to own fewer cars. The Project exceeds the number of parking spaces that are required by the Specific Plan, and there will be quite a bit of on-street parking. Ms. Morgan would like specific information, i.e., at the end of the Project, 1) what will be the final number of units, and 2) what is the final number of parking spaces. Planning Director Woltering indicated that he would answer her question tomorrow. Ms. Morgan stated that although the parking aspect of the Project looks good on paper, it doesn't work. Chairman Leys indicated that this is more of a planning issue, not design review. Ms. Morgan feels that many neighboring residents have not been informed about the project; they are concerned about the Project's impact. Planning Director Woltering explained the Specific Plan process and the City's project review process for each of the individual projects. Marie Avera (sp?), a resident of Cotati Commons, stated that she lives on the west side of the Project area. Ms. Avera liked the idea of a row of trees to buffer the 3-story view, but noticed that the trees are gone in the current drawing. Ms. Avera also voiced her concern that the proposed volleyball court would be just as loud as a basketball court. Ms. Morgan noted that a community garden area would be quiet. Mike Karakozoff, one of the Santero Way property owners, asked if additional approval is required by the Planning Commission. Planning Director Woltering confirmed this. Mr. Karakozoff observed that the public hearing process can be quite contentious. He thinks that the typical 20 ft. setback is a good thing. Santero Way should have parking restrictions to avoid long-term parking. Mr. Karakozoff wondered who would maintain the street landscaping. Planning Director Woltering advised that because the park area is a public park, the City would maintain it. Other landscaping will be maintained by the homeowner and/or the homeowner's association. Mr. Karakozoff noted that changes had been made to the street profile on Santero Way. All things considered, Mr. Karakozoff is in favor of the Project. Carl Schollman, one of the Santero Way property owners, stated that in spite of the lengthy process, everyone has done a great job. He is in favor of the Project. Chairman Leys closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Comments from Committee Member Davis: The planting space directly adjacent to the parked cars should be eliminated; it would be difficult to maintain. More space should be allowed in front of the buildings. The Project plan should revert back to a sidewalk, and the level of the sidewalk should be maintained. There should be an adequate buffer zone. The lawn area in the center of the courtyards needs sufficient sunlight. Back yards must have surface drains. A raised crosswalk makes sense; it would be similar to a speed bump. The Project as a whole is nicely done. In the park area, a soft surface would be better because a hard surface would encourage skateboarders and possibly be a noise issue. A small perennial garden would be preferable to a rose garden. Parking restrictions along Santero Way would be a great idea, perhaps with a 24-hour limit. The Staff Report suggests exposed aggregate for the walkway surface area inside the courtyards. This may be a liability; aggregate can be slippery and dangerous. Committee Member Davis agreed with a minimum 5-foot width for the paths. Comments from Committee Member Draper: There should be no basketball court. The French game would be a fun option. There should be no communal garden of any sort; forget the rose garden. The west side needs more of a buffer zone. Two crosswalks would be a better way to go. The issue of one crosswalk v. two should be discussed further. Planning Director Woltering encouraged the Committee to look at it in terms of design instead of circulation. The Planning Department will address the maintenance issues. Committee Member Draper would like to include bike racks in the Project plan. Comments from Chairman Leys: This is a good project. The diversity of the units works. Regarding the auto mews, leave the width as it is. Arbors or other greenery up in the air would be good. As depicted in the front elevation, the partial 3-story on Santero Way is okay. The planting strip should stay in the plan. A buffer zone should be provided on the west side of the property. Two crosswalks would be preferable and would tie in both sides. Raised crosswalks could be a hazard to children on bikes. A double internal walkway on the east side of the project between the park area and the units would be a good idea. The planter strip along Santero Way will require a provision for maintenance. Comments from Vice Chair Rock: The architecture of the building looks good. The building needs a little bit of "feathering." The driveways are perfect the way they are. The courtyards are sufficient. The rear buildings along the west property line need a buffer. Vice Chair Rock is in favor of a park strip along Santero Way. Crosswalks at the bulbouts should include tinted paving similar to what was done downtown. In the park, the 18-inch seat walls should be replaced with benches. A bench plan might open it up more. There should be a volleyball court of grass, as well as a basketball court to be used during limited hours. Planning Director Woltering recorded the topics that were discussed; these are the issues for consideration for the Design Review Committee: ( Height of fencing ( Architectural variety ( Setbacks on Santero Way ( Courtyard landscaping ( Auto mews ( Crosswalks ( Buffer zone ( Bike racks ( Community garden ( Courtyard surface -soft v. hard ( Double walkway ( Trellis feature to soften appearance ( Parking restrictions on Santero Way ( Two v. three-story buildings ( Modifications to setbacks to soften appearance Mr. Woltering encouraged the Committee Members to look at the conditions and address the topics. In reviewing the suggested conditions, the Committee reached the following conclusions: Condition #8 - Consensus to delete. Condition #10 - Consensus to amend condition to eliminate seeded aggregate concrete with a suggestion to replace it with a broom finish concrete or similar material. Condition #9 - Consensus to delete condition #9. Condition #14 - Consensus to amend condition to eliminate the community rose garden and replace it with a perennial garden possibly including some herbs. Also, rather than one large area, perhaps there could be a few smaller areas dispersed throughout the park. Condition #15 - Consensus to delete. The Committee was in favor of the dual walkway between the neighborhood park and the adjoining townhomes. There was discussion concerning the specific design of the fencing. The conclusion was that the fencing should be 3.5 feet tall with lattice and designed to match the townhouses. Condition # 16 - There was a consensus to delete condition #16 (with the exception of Committee Member Draper). The Committee recommended that the architect continue to add variation, and come back with colors, materials, etc. Crosswalks: In discussing the issue of crosswalks, there were several opinions. The Committee discussed the potential safety issue for small children with raised crosswalks and there was general agreement that the crosswalks should be even with the pavement. Concerning the issue of how many sidewalks there should be, the Committee could not reach consensus and so they took an informal vote to determine each members position as follows: Committee Member Draper: 2 crosswalks Committee Member Davis: 1 crosswalk (however, would be receptive to the applicant supplying alternatives for either one or two crosswalks). Vice Chair Rock: 4 crosswalks (one at each bulb-out for accessibility for all units. The crosswalks should include tinted concrete similar to what was used downtown). Chairman Leys: 2 crosswalks Setbacks/Planting Strip Chairman Leys thinks that the planter strip adds quality, and he likes the look of it. Committee Member Davis wonders if a partial planting strip would work. He is concerned about the unnecessary use of water. His stated preference was to eliminate the parkstrip. He recommended reversing the position of the sidewalk and the landscape strip. The street trees could be planted in tree wells. He suggested that perhaps this configuration could occur for 1/3 the length of the sidewalk with landscape strips on either side of the courtyard entrances. In addition to the benefit of a hard surface for people to get in and out of their cars, the landscape setback in front of the units would be increased. The landscape architect noted that cities generally require an 8-foot wide minimum for planting strips with turf. Informal vote on Committee Member Davis' recommendation to reverse the position of the sidewalk and the landscape strip: Committee Member Davis: Yes Committee Member Draper: Yes Vice Chair Rock: No Chairman Leys: No Courtyard Landscaping Committee Member Davis has concerns about the survival of turf in the courtyard areas. However, the Committee was able to reach a consensus to accept the landscaping as proposed. Auto Mews Committee Members agreed that the auto mews should stay the way they are. Buffer Landscaping/West Property line There was a consensus that screening is needed along the west property. Tall, columnar trees were suggested as a possibility due to the limited space. Bike Racks All Committee Members agreed that the Project should include bike racks. Community Garden The consensus is no rose garden. Ball Court Surface Committee Members favored the french version of bocce ball with the crushed granite surface. They also suggested rules for the game be posted. In any case, they were opposed to concrete. Double Walkway All Committee Members were in favor of the double walkway between the park area and the townhouses. Trellising at the Auto Mews All Committee Members are in favor. Parking Restrictions along Santero Way Recommended by all Committee Members. 2-3 Stories along Santero Way No problem, Committee Members are not taking exception to this. Bench v. Seat Walls Committee Member Davis is in favor of seat walls, but with texturing or some other feature to discourage use by skateboarders. Informal vote on Seat Walls: Committee Member Davis: Yes Committee Member Draper: Yes Vice Chair Rock: Yes (but would prefer benches) Chairman Leys: Yes Planning Director Woltering summarized the previous discussion. He recommended that the Design Review Committee make a motion, based on the information provided and discussed, that Preliminary Approval be granted based on compliance with the conditions of approval as amended. Mr. Woltering will ask Planning staff to prepare a revised set of conditions, which he will bring back to the next Design Review Committee meeting. Minutes will reflect split decisions on certain issues, e.g., the crosswalks. It was moved by Committee Member Draper to grant Preliminary Design Review approval for a portion of Phase I of the Santero Way Specific Plan subject to clarification of the Conditions of Approval. The project consists of a total of seventy (70) residential townhouse units on a total of 4.02 acres. Fifty-six (56) units are proposed for the west side of Santero Way. Fourteen (14) units plus a neighborhood park are proposed for the east side of Santero Way. [Park Village Subdivision], subject to the amended conditions of approval. Second by Committee Member Davis. Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Kagan, LeDoux) Abstain: 0 The Committee agreed that they would like the opportunity to review the final list of amended conditions at their next meeting. PARK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION (PA# 13/02) AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall submit color samples of all proposed colors, exterior siding materials, and a color rendering (showing, at a minimum, one front elevation and one side elevation adjacent to Santero Way for a cluster of 7 town homes) for Final Design Review. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including number, size and species of all proposed plant materials, for Final Design Review. The applicant shall submit a detailed plan for park improvements, including cut sheets for any proposed play equipment, benches, tables, and detailed plans for the community garden and sport court. The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan for Final Design Review approval, including the location and elevation detail of all proposed fencing and hedges. The applicant shall submit plans for Final Design Review approval that include specific detail of the proposed color, materials, and design of all paving sections, including treatments to delineate pedestrian areas. The applicant shall submit details for the location, design and screening of mailbox clusters and utility meters for Final Design Review approval. The applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan for Final Design Review approval, including (1) documentation prepared by a lighting engineer demonstrating that proposed lighting will not cast light off-site onto adjacent residential properties and (2) cut sheets showing the designs of all proposed light fixtures. DELETED. Prior to Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing a minimum side yard setback of ten feet between the sidewalk and the structures on the west side of Santero Way. DELETED. Prior to Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit revised plans for the elevations facing Santero Way showing substantial compliance with the Specific Plans direction that these elevations present a front yard appearance to Santero Way. Revisions shall include wrap-around porches, balconies, and/or bay windows on at least 25% of the width of the elevations facing Santero Way. AMENDED. Courtyard walkways shall be a minimum of five-feet wide and shall be constructed of packed rock or seeded aggregate concrete with a broom finish concrete or similar material. The landscape plan submitted for Final Design Review approval shall indicate a different walkway surface color and/or material for each courtyard, to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. Walkways in the neighborhood park shall be a minimum of five-foot wide. The landscape plan submitted for Final Design Review approval shall demonstrate that no more than 50% of each courtyard will be covered with turf within two years of the completion of construction. The landscape plan submitted for Final Design Review approval shall provide landscaping and landscape features that are distinctly different for each courtyard. AMENDED. The landscape plan submitted for Final Design Review approval shall include a small community rose garden perennial garden, possibly including some herbs, located in the neighborhood park. DELETED. The dual walkway between the Neighborhood Park and adjoining town homes shall be eliminated in favor of a more open plan that provides eyes on the park. DELETED. The elevations submitted for Final Design Review shall show conformance with the following guidelines from the Specific Plan (p. 3.57): Vary the location, form, and articulation of front porches; Utilize bay windows, dormer windows, and/or balconies and vary the location, form and articulation of these features; Vary the location, size, and mullion pattern of all windows; Vary the form of roof and chimney; Provide a different primary surface material in each courtyard; and, Provide different primary siding and roofing materials in each courtyard. VI. REPORTS BY STAFF There were no reports by staff. VII. REPORTS BY COMMITTEE There were no reports from the Committee. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Leys adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by: Janney Baumgras, Recording Clerk Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary Design Review Committee Minutes June 27, 2002 PAGE  PAGE 14 b*;t.t hl<o<XXXXXXXXXXYYYYYY+Y,Y?Y@YbYcYtYuYYYYYYYZZZ[[[[[[\\\\i]j]!^"^0^^ 7OJQJ jOJQJ >*OJQJ56OJQJCJ5CJ5>*OJQJOJQJ 5OJQJOb)*;<st-.GHtu:; !-Db)*;<st-.GHtu:;xþ}xsnid_UV9:,-FG$?^_%x  G H 0$ ! !  G H      NOijA¿zupkf&'ABHI  Z[(      NOijAB?@ !AB?@high " "w"x"##$$}zwtqnk ()  '(}~PQNO*@high & F ! " "w"x"##$$$$e%f%&&'&)'*'''(())++ , ,,$$$e%f%&&'&)'*'''(())++ , ,,,--//0022V3W3y6z6E7F7P7z7{7<9=9<<==O>P>>~{xu@A}~  ST@JK9:wxfgij*+.,,--//0022V3W3y6z6E7F7P7z7{7<9=9<<==O>P>>>=?>>=?>?W?X?DDCEDEZF[FGG*K+KKKLL7L8LbPcPPPRRRRUUUUXXXXXXXXYYY+Y?Y~{xuesѰ׶ض-.XYef56LM89RS.=?>?W?X?DDCEDEZF[FGG*K+KKKLL7L8LbPcPPPRRRRUUUUUXXXXXXXXYYY+Y?YbYtYYYYZZwZxZZZZZ & F?YbYtYYYYZZwZxZZZZZ[[[[\\j]k]!^"^^^ _ ___]_^_````aa)b*bHbIbJbý~{xuroGHfgƨǨ23yz n o%&          z{ͯ.Q*Z[[[[\\j]k]!^"^^^ _ ___]_^_````aa0 & Fh & F & F & F & F^^_ _ __Lbcbeb~fffKgTgVggggchmhohhhhhiiiii:jVjWj}jjjjj-k.kAkCknqquw}ww?xCxKxMxyyy-zXzYzz}}v}}}}}}}{~|~~~ǀ1EzՁOJQJCJ7CJ56OJQJ >*OJQJ 5OJQJ5>*OJQJOJQJ 7OJQJPa)b*bHbIbJbLbebfbbb+e,eeeff5f6fSfTfifjf}f~ffffJgKgJbLbebfbbb+e,eeeff5f6fSfTfifjf}f~ffffJgKgVgWgggggahchohphhhhhhhiiiiii~{xu̟͟àĠ֠נ !-/ǡȡ9:EF&'<=Z[wxdeҦӦ*+DF.KgVgWgggggahchohphhhhhhhiiiiii9j:jWjXj|j}jji9j:jWjXj|j}jjjjjjj-k.kCkDkkkkkklYlnlolknlnmnnnonpnqnrnsnppppmqnqqqqrr|vsז ܗ ݗ"#ޘߘ !"#$%!"7s̝͝LMbcÞĞ89VW-jjjjjj-k.kCkDkkkkkklYlnlolknlnmnnnonpnqnrnsnpppppmqnqqqqrr^s_s't(tttuu*OJQJ8Qb8 Body Text 35>*OJQJ&)@q& Page Number!~1<JJJM^Ձ!BR] @,=?UZaKgjpCx!CEGIJLNOQSUWXZ\^A$>?YJbir!DFHKMPTVY[18<CFM!!t$,AGHP`hhpLP14GJeh ,"0"4">"e#i#####%%K&T&''* *:*@*****q+y+++,,:-@-2277aBfBhBjBBBQCVCDDDDEEFFG G0G9GRR]YfYf_o_"e(e4e9e}}}}}~"~SLOux]h1:}mt>A##u&{&A-G-112 222F3O388k:r:;;==BBAD{DDDEE6FF&M/M%P.PPPW/X9YJY^^eeggj7kkk(l1lll%t.tlw}w}~"~Kathleen Brisbine1C:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of 06-27-02.asdKathleen Brisbine2\\FS_COTATI\VOL1\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2002\06-27-02.docKathleen Brisbine1C:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of 06-27-02.asdKathleen Brisbine2\\FS_COTATI\VOL1\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2002\06-27-02.docKathleen Brisbine2\\FS_COTATI\VOL1\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2002\06-27-02.docKim$Y:\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2002\06-27-02.docKathleen Brisbine2\\FS_COTATI\VOL1\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2002\06-27-02.docKathleen Brisbine2\\FS_COTATI\VOL1\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2002\06-27-02.docKathleen Brisbine2\\FS_COTATI\VOL1\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2002\06-27-02.docKathleen Brisbine2\\FS_COTATI\VOL1\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2002\06-27-02.doc]Ia#J2nJ2ro,J27^. >QU4 7J2];n?gu??L#m&1@  _PID_GUIDAN{A4371842-A463-11D6-80D2-801393596E72}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvxyz{|}~Root Entry2 2 2 2 28 2\ 2| 2 2 2 2 F,rz9Dž|921Table222242T2t22222$2H22282\222222`u,2WordDocument2222282X2|222p22222 2D2h2212SummaryInformationx22222(2(22$2L2x2222 2w2DocumentSummaryInformationH 2h 28222222222 2CompObj2h!2!2!2H 2!2!2"2("2H"2h"2"2(#2H#2h#2#2#2ji&eObjectPool&eh&eh&eh&eh&eh&eh&eh&eh&eh&eh&eDž|9Dž|9$h&eh&eh&e h&eh&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&eg&edg&e\g&eTg&eLg&eDg&e