Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/06/16 - Agenda Packet DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION AGENDA AND MINUTES TUESDAY JUNE 16, 1998 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Bill Bethel Rich Macias Nancy Fong Alternates: Peter Tolstoy Dave Barker Larry McNiel PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-05- DAVIES -A request to construct two industrial buildings totaling 9,408 square feet of floor area (each building having 4,704 square feet) on 1.39 acres of land, in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and 9th Street - APN: 209-03-58. 7:40 p.m. (Brent) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-05 - SEARING INDUSTRIES - A review of rooftop equipment screening for a 102,000 square foot warehouse/manufacturing building on 4.31 acres of land in Subarea 2 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue -APN: 209- 012-17. 8:20 p.m. (Brent) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-06 - PANDA PANDA -A request to construct a 2,800 square foot restaurant on 0.89 acres of land within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center in Subarea 4 (Regional Related Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the west entrance to the shopping center - APN: 229-031-45. 9:00 P.M. (Nancy) REVISION TO PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE -A proposed modification to existing sign programs for both Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square. The existing development is located along Foothill Boulevard between Haven and Elm Avenues, developed and managed by Lewis Homes Commercial Development Division, CONSENT CALENDAR The following items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Typically they are items such as plan revisions prepared in response to discussions at a previous meeting. NO ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DRC AGENDA June 16, 1998 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. ADJOURNMENT 1, Mary Lou Gragg, Office Specialist ll for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 11, 1998, at ll east72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500�iiva Center Drive Rancho ho Cucamonga. n DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Brent Le Count June 16, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-05 - DAVIES - A request to construct two industrial buildings totaling 9,408 square feet of floor area (each building having 4,704 square feet) on 1.39 acres of land, in Subarea 3 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Helms Avenue and 9th Street -APN: 209-03-58. Design Parameters: The most significant design parameter is the existing historic landmark Kincaid House, located on the adjoining property to the east. The Industrial Area Specific Plan requires a 45-foot building setback adjacent to residential, which would eliminate Building "M." The applicant has been advised of the need for a variance. If the house is legally being used for non-residential purposes, then no Variance would be necessary. The building design is virtually identical to buildings previously approved for a site to the south of the subject site. The site slopes at approximately 1 to 2 percent from north to south. There is existing 8-foot high split faced wall along the north side of the site. The wall will be extended south along the west property line with a combination slump stone and smooth faced wall matching the building wall design. Both buildings are proposed with adjacent storage yard areas enclosed with 8-foot high screen walls. The storage area for Building "L" is located at the northwest corner of the site fronting both 9th Street and Helms Avenue with the slump stone and split faced block screen walls. Building "M" storage yard is at the southeast corner of the site with precision block screen walls. Two primary building materials are proposed (slump stone block and painted smooth block) consistent with Industrial Area Specific Plan Design Policy. Office entry areas are accentuated with columns and heavy beam trellises. The most visually prominent building elevation is the west elevation of Building "L." Existing landscaping along 9th Street is proposed to remain. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion: 1. Provide required 45-foot building setback from east property line (see East Elevation on Sheet 5). In anticipation of a Variance request, the Committee should consider the following design elements to address a reduced setback: a. Revised Building "M" architectural style for a more residential character in form and materials. b. Reduce Building "M" mass by splitting into two smaller buildings or lowering height. C. Intensified landscaping as a buffer along the east elevation of Building "M." Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide minimum 1-tree per 30 linear feet of property line/building walls as required by Industrial Area Specific Plan. The south and east property lines are deficient. Note that trees can be grouped in clusters to satisfy this requirement. 2. Provide decorative masonry for screen wall along east and south property lines rather than plain precision block as proposed. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-05 - DAVIES June 16, 1998 Page 2 3. Provide landscaping within "dead" area along east side of Building "M." 4. The Committee should review the proposed colors which feature a rust color band across the top of the buildings, and two-color band (rust and pink) around the middle. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Any storage yard security gates shall be in conformance with Industrial Area Specific Plan standards and subject to review and approval by the City Planner. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be revised and come back to Design Review Committee. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee requested that the project be revised and brought back for further review per staffs comments and the following: i 1. Provide landscaping within the five-foot setback area on the east side of Building U' to provide a buffer between the building and the Kincaid House property to the east. 2. Replace slump stone wall along west property line to split faced block to match existing. 3. Provide a three-foot wide landscaped strip along the inside of the storage area screen wall along the east and south property lines and provide vine plantings along base of walls, training vines to climb through weep holes up outside surface of walls. 4. Eliminate red accent color. Replace with darker earth tone. Suggest use of textured block to create accent rather than color. 5. Eliminate use of precision block on building walls. Replace with textured block. 6. Committee prefers eliminating slump stone block from building walls and replacing with split face or other more visually appealing material. 7. Provide comprehensive exterior building material samples. 8. A condition of approval will require verification that colors and materials match approved plans prior to issuance of occupancy. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Brent Le Count June 16, 1998 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-05 - SEARING INDUSTRIES - A review of rooftop equipment screening for a 102,000 square foot warehouse/manufacturing building on 4.31 acres of land in Subarea 2 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue -APN: 209-012-17. Background: Conditional Use Permit 97-05 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 9, 1997, with the following condition of approval, as required by the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP): "All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner." During building permit plan check, the applicant's architect was unable to ascertain the type and height of necessary rooftop equipment. The architect assured staff that whatever equipment was installed would not be visible, even from property and streets to the north (given elevation difference). In an effort to cooperate with the applicant and expedite building permit issuance, staff signed off on building plans with this assurance from the project architect. Searing Industries later installed the subject equipment without notifying the City. The applicant now claims that installation of roof mounted screening material is cost prohibitive since the building has not been designed to handle increased roof loads. The project is nearing completion and the applicant requests not to provide any additional rooftop screening. The ISP standard for screening is attached as Exhibit "A." Analysis: The equipment, which includes dome-shaped sky lights and mushroom shaped vents, is only visible from property and streets to the north of.the building as the area to the north is higher than the building site. The primary impact therefore affects drivers heading south on Vineyard Avenue. Since the equipment has been painted to match the building and there are several mature trees along the east side of Vineyard Avenue, the visual impact of the equipment is minimized. Staff suggests that the Committee members view the equipment by driving by the site on southbound Vineyard Avenue starting at Arrow Highway or from further north. The attached photographs depict the screening affect achieved by the existing mature street trees. The condition of approval requiring rooftop screening appears to provide sufficient latitude to allow an interpretation in the applicant's favor should the Committee wish to do so. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee waive the rooftop equipment screening requirement since the equipment is only visible from property/streets to the north, is at least partially screened by mature trees, and has been painted to match the building. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - ISP Roof Screening Standard Letter from Applicant Photographs DRC COMMENTS CUP 97-05 - SEARING INDUSTRIES June 16, 1998 Page 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the proposal and requested that the applicant mitigate appearance of the rooftop equipment by supplementing existing tree planting along the east side of Vineyard Avenue north of the site. Applicant to provide planting plan for Committee review at next meeting. Any further equipment added to rooftop shall require roof equipment screens. ustrial Area Specific Plan Part III, Section N C. All screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and where possible a roof parapet wall shall be used to screen roof or wall mounted equipment. Where roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork projects vertically more than 1%feet above the roof or roof parapet, it shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Where roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork projects 1%:feet or less above the roof or roof parapet it shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building in all cases. Storaae Area creening 6. The purpose of storage area regulations is to allow for on-site storage which is screened from view from the public right-of-way and from land used in common (public view) and is architecturally compatible with the surrounding environment. The following standards shall apply according to land use category: a. Industrial Park category - No outdoor storage shall be permitted except for fleet vehicles and light trucks (not exceeding 6,000 Ibs.). Outdoor storage tanks may be permitted at a height not to exceed 8 feet from highest finish grade when screened from public view by concrete, masonry, or other similar materials. b. General Industrial or General Industrial/Rail Served categories - All materials, supplies, equipment, and operating trucks shall be stored within an enclosed building or a screened area from public view. C. Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial and Heavy Industrial categories -All materials, supplies, equipment, and operating trucks shall be stored within an enclosed building or a storage area. Such storage areas within 120 feet of a street frontage shall be screened. LANDSCAPING BARRIER - �:• FREEWAY NOW •i!" BERM STORAGE AREA // 111-22 6/97 I HOGLE - IRELAND L mc. A LI;d P'un)Iihm c-Cel Von,rrt'o/6 dled:u!@ Fire; RECEIVED May 21, 1998 MAY 2 1 1998 Brent LeCount City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 SUBJECT: SEARING INDUSTRIES ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, NORTHEAST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND 9T" STREET Dear Brent: On behalf of Searing Industries, we appreciate the opportunity to review the new building, particularly the north elevation, with the Design Review Committee. As we have discussed the past several months, the dome-shaped equipment can be seen above the parapet from the north elevation from some locations along Vineyard Avenue. The enclosed photographs were taken from four different locations from the sidewalk on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, to show the extent of the visibility of the equipment. We would like to review the photographs and the situation with the Design Review Committee. Because of the screening effects of the surrounding buildings and landscaping, the rooftop equipment does not present a blight to project or the area. We, therefore, respectfully request relief from the requirement f6r additional screening to the top of the building. In fact, we are concerned that additional screening would actually draw undue attention to the rooftop. Enclosed are 8 x 10 original photographs and six (6) color copies for distribution to the Design Review Committee. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present this request. If you need any additional information or materials prior to the meeting, please call me at (909) 787-9222. Sincerely, Pamela D. Steele Principal Enos: cc: Lee Searing, Searing Industries Francis Wang, Hill Pinckert Architects ,i200 Latham Street,Suite 8, Riverside,California 92501 • 909/ 7K-9222 • FAX 909/781-6014 E-Mail: HIRiveretpacbell.nct S L � - o a a ° v a �j �wi yy • ,/ - ^..t' s. L �•yam . : ,.;"' o:cly�11 '�� �,.; _ ..tip\ -v. •� ��' '•.'• 1; :y - !~l _.=sue .� � _ .._ '�� ...r. �_.. .. •r 7.4 It i n' >. _ •ri e• r- t . . • � {, �. �© ~� ! f/ _ _ y :�{ �_ - �� £ . �- �, - : - - � \} • � ® ri _ - . � k\} _ `� ���� _ _ \ � �� ,&�: . ,�� } j��� � 3z; � ' � ` � � � �: e � � / d� � . \$ . « � ; . , ® _ z � jf /�/� . � \ . + � � - . : 9 - /:- { ) � \ � � ! ��_ li \ ���� { � z��� . . ¢ � �p *:�, � \� ! °x��\ �� �� ��!¥� .��. �\� ) � 1 . I r « \/ � e � . :�{ .�/��^� 26 \ � :� ��_ : � ��; �� � � \ �: ' _. -!��' . ���f - ��� .�*� -\ . /y . >� , � w��_� � . �±��/ � . _ �.� - � z \ \ : . - _ _ _ `� ��� �\� � � `� � �y - \ . �� �~ �� � � � � . � � _ _ ¥ � § . :� . . ` | � -- - � ^ _� � � �` » - & � \: :_� � � � �»§ . . � � �- � \� : �� �2:gk a v. it -7► li � I � � �J Y Z L L 1-J Lo T.� 7j- LL 7 5 �•sY•=:%'sue r � � '- �' =7� Q� Ln Ln Ln :.: m _ S„a-•if �' s� '.i';dT°M'.� a ' ` I�'! 37:]: .r a .yyam� ?n•!^ti .. - /A I Z• �\ � �• r .fit =�• ,A`r. -�� �• �1� �� ::j t _. ��• 1 ti�7► F _ T; 1 - 1 �:� .i Y� .�r^•T� E .N y��tr t't y T.L� • 1. �;" 7t •�� ., s �� • .,&: . - i.. r • c � - _ '�J�'l1 . . '� {1 ` - .rte r . DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS I 8:20 p.m. Brent Le Count June 16, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-06 - PANDA PANDA - A request to construct a 2,800 square foot restaurant on 0.89 acres of land within the Foothill Marketplace Shopping Center in Subarea 4 (Regional Related Commercial) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the west entrance to the shopping center - APN: 229-031-45. Design Parameters: The building is proposed on the pad directly east of In N'Out Burger, and is currently improved with a parking lot. A retail building (Development Review 95-18, expires September 1998) was previously approved for the site (see attached). The site is immediately to the west of the recently approved Chevron service station site (see attached). Street scape landscaping has been planted along the north and west edges of the site and the applicant intends to keep the existing landscaping to the extent possible. The restaurant will have a 200 square foot outdoor dining area/patio on the south side. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The building is designed with many of the design features of the Foothill Marketplace Center but also has many corporate design features such as brackets, awnings, glass block, and trellis design that do not occur elsewhere in the center. These features should be eliminated or restudied to be more consistent with the center. 2. The north and west elevations are the most visually prominent but they have the least visual interest. Provide a trellis on the north side of the building similar to that over the entry (east elevation) and continue wainscoting treatment around north and west elevations. Provide vine plantings for wall trellises on these elevations. Relocate service door on north elevation to less visually prominent location. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide heavily landscaped berms within landscape setback along Foothill Boulevard and driveway entrance (west side of site). Treatment should be consistent with the design for the Chevron project to the east (see attached). 2. Provide landscaping at northwest corner of parking lot on north side of northern-most parking space. 3. Increase the amount of landscaping on the north side of the building. 4. Trash enclosure appears far larger than necessary. Resize and redesign per other enclosures in the center. Provide significant shrub planting around enclosure to screen. Adjust parking space/curb on west side of enclosure and orientation of enclosure to provide ready, conflict free access to enclosure. 5. Provide decorative paving for clear area between handicapped parking spaces to match driveway paving. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-06 - PANDA PANDA June 16, 1998 Page 2 Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide minimum 5-foot setback for trash enclosure. 2. Eliminate narrow planter on east side of parking area in center of parking lot. Replace with diamond shaped tree wells between parking spaces. 3. Sign letters shall be channel type. Only logo may be in the form of a can sign. 4. Specify that light standards, trash receptacle, colors and materials, and hard scape treatment Will match that of the center. 5. Revise parking lot layout in the central portion to meet City standards. The two easterly stalls do not meet minimum 18 feet depth and there should be a 6-foot wide planter at end of parking row. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be redesigned in light of the above comments and brought back before the Committee for further review. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the following: 1. Provide roll up door painted to match the building for enclosed service area on north side of building. 2. Provide decorative paving within handicapped parking area in front of building entry to match driveway treatment. 3. All awning shall have one solid color matching approved color pallette for the Foothill Marketplace shopping center. No stripped color patterns are permitted. 4. Provide tile wainscoting on all elevations. 5. Provide heavily landscaped berms within landscape setback areas along Foothill Boulevard and driveway entrance along west side of site. Treatment shall be consistent with design for Chevron project to the east. 6. Eliminate wheel stops for parking spaces in center of parking lot. 7.- Specify on plans that light standards, trash receptacles, colors and materials, and hard scape treatment shall match that of center. lv; - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- i I' a"S q o RE CL 343 41 IP I u Eli �zz P4' aL i—T "I Q1.11 st 0 0 c oii �it F-�1 C II Q � a t .I u 1 -II P " I I I I I i iI I I II� _ - I ac - � I I - I 3 0 I i CHI � I ol ONo = I I C .�a> � T icy DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 9:00 P.M. Nancy Fong/Debra Meier June 16, 1998 REVISION TO PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE - A proposed modification to existing Sign Programs for both Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square. The existing development is located along Foothill Boulevard between Haven and Elm Avenues, developed and managed by Lewis Homes Commercial Development Division. Background: The proposed revisions to the planned Sign Program are before the Design Review Committee for review and discussion. The Sign Program will be brought back to the Committee on June 30, 1998, for discussion and final recommendations to the Planning Commission. Lewis Homes Retail Division has proposed the new Sign Program to achieve the following: • Create a sense of community. • Transform these centers from typical commercial centers to more community-oriented centers by using user-friendly graphics. • Providing better identification of the variety of beneficial services available to the public. • Provide a better sense of access and direction. Summary of the Proposed Planned Sign Program: A. Monument signage: the planned sign Program for Terra Vista Phases 1/II is an attempt to combine and provide greater degree of consistency between the town Center and Town Center Square. The Program proposes, in most cases, to modify (retrofit) the existing monument identification signage around the centers, including theater marquees. In some cases the existing monument will be demolished and be replaced as shown in the Planned Sign Program. A project identification header panel will be added to each monument, along with modification to tenant identification. Photographs will be available at the meeting to more easily compare the proposal to the existing conditions. B. Wall/Storefront signs: The sign type and illumination as currently exists will not change, and in many cases the sign placement is largely controlled by architectural elements, which are also addressed in the program. The proposed Sign Program, however, does not restrict letter style (font), color, or use of logo graphics. In fact, the use of logos and graphics is encouraged within the program revision. C. Under-Canopy Signs: The proposed Sign Program includes the use of under-canopy style signs to provide better tenant identification from a pedestrian-level perspective. D. Directional Signs: New directional signs are proposed throughout the project that will be internally illuminated and more visible to site patrons. Discussion and Consideration: Staff commends Lewis Homes for taking the time to revisit the larger Sign Program. Over the past years market pressure has come as tenants are looking to move into the City. The current Sign Program has been a constraint for some tenants and adjustments have been made to allow flexibility. Rather than requesting amendments tenant by tenant as issues arise, Lewis Homes agreed to conduct a comprehensive review of their entire Sign Program. For the purpose of this first introductory meeting, Staff has identified several primary areas of changes. They are as follows: DRC COMMENTS SIGN PROGRAM June 16, 1998 Page 2 • The use of visible neon is encouraged throughout the center, including window signs, wall-mounted signage/graphic symbols, and as accents to architectural features. • The choice of colors will be open with no restrictions and as agreed between landlord and tenants. • The definition of a Major Tenant has been revised to include any tenant who occupies 10,000 square foot of lease space. • Each Major Tenant (as defined above) would be permitted to be identified on two street- fronting monument signs located at primary and secondary project entrances, in addition to permitted wall-mounted signs. • Substantial increase to the sign/letter height and sign/letter length for Major Tenants. Substantial increase to the sign/letter length (from 60 percent to 75 percent of leased store front). • Improve the images of the existing monuments. The concept is acceptable and staff could work with the applicant in fine tuning the detailed design. The revised Planned Sign Program is presented at this time for review, discussion, questions, and your comments. The proposal will be brought back for discussion and action on June 30, 1998. Attachments Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Nancy Fong, Debra Meyer The Committee commented that because a few of the proposed criteria in the Sign Program amendments conflict with established Commission policies, the proposal should be forwarded for Planning Commission review. The Committee also directed the applicant to address the following issues: 1. The proposed sign criteria for major tenants (over 10,000 square feet) would allow the signs to be too big. 2. The proposed neon tubing on buildings is not acceptable. 3. The proposed sign criteria to allow a full range of colors is not acceptable. 4. The proposed increase in sign length (from 60 to 75 percent) for typical retail tenants would create a continuous sign band. - I 0 v '•W`' � v �¢ln � I �Q �n - �Q via v yip u u o n u u u d y E oo ¢ ¢ b E ¢ ¢ ¢ ( (, v J r n .. J Z Z u o `J z = a s s 2 A V rr--ll F S ICI O ^ O L 6C. °d m l vw I Qur uw d 1 N Y 6 N T 5i 2,9 w 4: C ✓.` Car 6 e Vj C r O m - v�Vl '...m• I _ T N cO � m_ CO � W I e O v d o ao nv o c2 . H n'� as E .=1 nty � v o v v � Q O _ c � a Ol F E .ET Z) U C7 C/) 7 cn O z •� �^ N N N N I w vwj °° I e I mLfJ O afJ tL.] U z � L V V dQ dQ dOCr d -y 6 6 amV6 6 6 .. G F v 17 o ¢_v W � UZ. TO TO °i ° g T_j Z Z TEEZ Z Z O CIO r yy H OP y T i N O C =e �N d o Z`= 2C,•!�u v z >.'v _eo C_N ^m y � m �.�'�' ZC'M m ZC•ry m 1 .9 00 00 c N crJ L C u G N Q L W Q t U d- dg v � dg o,o�ns d'- d ° a j y d= .mN Y N d`N L D v a d.-u.. U n E u E E u E = 3 U E 3 U E O a 0� O F O O 6_F-• = 6 u c 6 = 6 E V 9 = V C = g T J T J T t L E T E E T_E X 6 0 E 6 o -E _ o c u O O p U c i C r ly G" E v c `n 'o -lz Q U w .9 u o ur o w h Z N M p J V o a L - c .N. Q C E s- E oft °°5 ao°r u ,° a a E- °• a o a i x u � u .E v v c o � 9 r � u � E• u � u as F I EE = -' o .%E E F I^•'1 T T U N Q d L E '�' r C c +�. u 0 u u a 6 T d w F ro ° E o E I r � n i ' � '• I ' e n 'A n 'S m�. 'S n s v E - E .-u.. - u cu7 ' O Wa c ° of Z. E ` E ` E ° 2 '^ VOE_ 2E E .E EE c�E � E � 'Z Z c� E EE EyZ 'Z O � E c .- O ._E d 0. � cn a L E o v e rr7 N I Ian ry I E N l o a N I y N I ro - �y o CON C H ° .E^-5 L '_°� r � �= ° ED 'S .=o mo lssml =°� ._ I H G ❑ r_ L C L N L C V t t m ^L > A L DD'N A t C CA t C N L = y U T V V u 6 O ¢ V ^ v a y v 2 � u .g a E E E r T E E ELL o f c a c o E E .°_ E N c .nN m AO � 3 c c 'nom m � o Eo .0 E � a Q ° zg o c ) \ t\ \ \ \ u 0 L }` \ / ) \) ) ) ) ) ) ) \ ) ) ) ) 2 / � f $7.2P ) , } )\\}} )}}\\ }}) \ )} �) ) ! leee ` � Z; E2 r - ; & . - ; ak $ / ! ` yt � � a ( & � • E ` ` � B `= j � ` § 7lEI : , I ,: E �l ; ; ®) ap w ^ � 3 \ ` - - z )) \ 2 = w ! � f /] ) 2 y {\ \a DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS June 16 . 1998 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary