2014-06-04 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 41 2014
Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers,
250 - 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Bryan Gootee, Chair
Cary Guenther, Vice Chair
Brian Borofka
Bruce O'Neill (arrived at 7:03)
Rick Schaefer
Board Members Absent
Lois Broadway (excused)
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2014 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, asked if the Architectural Design Board has an opportunity to provide input on the
placement and quality of signs in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston explained that, generally, sign applications require an
administrative review by staff, and no design review is required as long as the proposal meets the requirements of the
sign code (ECDC 20.60). If the applicant wants to vary from the sign code requirements, the proposal would come
before the ADB for review and approval.
CONSENT AGENDA:
There were no items on the consent agenda.
ul, l 1►C� ; ; ��1 �C�JI K�
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING ON JENNA LANE TOWN HOMES (FILE NUMBER PLN20140009)
The applicant is seeking design approval for two duplexes and a single unit at 8506 and 8510 — 240"' Street
Southwest. Two existing single-family residences will be removed while new frontage, utility and landscaping
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 4, 2014
Page 1 of 8
improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the five new dwelling units. The site is zoned Residential
Multifamily (RM-2.4). This is a Type III-B permit with a public hearing and a decision made by the
Architectural Design Board (ADB).
Mr. Clugston explained that the subject properties are located on 24e Street Southwest, near the intersection of
Edmonds Way and Highway 99. Currently, the site is developed with two single-family residential homes and is zoned
RM-2.4. The applicant is proposing to remove the two existing homes and develop five new units on the site. The
project will include the buildings, frontage improvements on 240'h Street Southwest, site improvements and landscaping.
Because this is a Type III-B Permit, the Architectural Design Board is required to conduct a public hearing and issue a
decision, which is appealable to the City Council. He entered the following items into the record for the hearing:
• Exhibit 1 is the Staff Report that was published and mailed out on May 28, 2014, along with 12 attachments.
• Exhibit 2 is a marked -up, colored rendering of the proposal prepared by Board Member Broadway, with some
suggestions for possible improvements to the building design.
• Exhibit 3 is a colored elevation drawing for the single-family unit, which was submitted by the applicant just
prior to the start of the meeting.
• Exhibit 4 is a colored elevation drawing of the duplex units, which was submitted by the applicant just prior to
the start of the meeting.
Mr. Clugston displayed a map of the subject properties, pointing out that that the properties to the east are zoned RM-2.4.
The properties to the west across Edmonds Way are zoned RM-1.5, and the properties to the north across 24& Street
Southwest are zoned Single -Family (RS-8). He also provided aerial and oblique photographs of the site, noting that the
southern portion is heavily treed and the two properties have been developed as single-family residences for at least 50
years. Mr. Clugston provided street views of the site looking south from 240th Street Southwest and northeast from
Edmonds Way. He noted that the existing homes are tucked into the landscaping. He also provided an existing site plan
showing the location of the two houses.
Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 7d of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), which shows that the bulk of the trees would be
removed from the site. However, the applicant is proposing to retain three trees on the southern end of the site as part of
the required landscaping. He also referred to Attachment 7e of the Staff Report, which illustrates the proposed location
of the single-family unit, as well as the two duplexes. It also illustrates the location of the proposed retaining wall on the
perimeter of the site. He noted that access would be from 24& Street Southwest via a driveway along the western
portion of the site.
Mr. Clugston explained that staff reviewed the elevation drawings that were initially submitted by the applicant to
determine if the proposal meets the guidance in the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). He advised that, generally speaking, the project is consistent with the
requirements of the ECDC and the guidance in the Comprehensive Plan, but staff felt the design was a little plain. The
duplex structures have some differentiation on the top and bottom, as well as some vertical separation; but the units
appear to be a mirror image of one another. The use of varied colors or materials would help provide more of an
individual identity to each unit. He said he invited Board Member Broadway, who was unable to attend the hearing, to
provide some ideas (Exhibit 2) for improving the building design. She recommended that the applicant use different
materials, colors and window shapes. She particularly suggested accent colors for the garage doors and eaves to provide
more facade interest.
Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 7c of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), which represents the applicant's current proposal
for landscaping. He said the proposal meets the general requirements of the Landscape Code (ECDC 20.13); but given
the site's location near Edmonds Way, staff is recommending that additional landscaping be required. He referred to
Attachment 12 of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), which is a marked -up version of the landscape plan to illustrate some of
staff s ideas. He explained that the applicant had proposed Type III Landscaping along Edmonds Way, and staff is
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 4, 2014
Page 2 of 8
recommending Type I Landscaping, which is thicker and denser and includes a fence. This will provide additional
screening for the structure from Edmonds Way. Staff is also recommending the applicant use Type III Landscaping on
the northern property line to buffer the site from 240th Street Southwest and the existing church. Type R Landscaping is
proposed along the east property line, including Douglas Fir trees in the narrow landscape areas. The homeowner's
association for the adjacent properties (Edmonds Greenery) has raised concern about using this species in such a small
space. Staff is recommending that the Douglas Fir trees be replaced with a more appropriate species. Type II
landscaping is proposed on the western property line. However, given the narrow planting area, staff suggests that some
type of hedge material would be appropriate in this location.
Mr. Clugston concluded his presentation by stating that staff recommends approval of the proposed development, with
eight conditions (Page 20 of the Staff Report). He specifically reviewed the following proposed conditions:
• Condition 2 would require that all above -ground utility equipment be located interior to the site or
camouflaged or screened with architectural features, fencing and/or landscaping. This is a common condition
for all multi -family development.
• Condition 4 would require the applicant to add interest to the windows and garage doors.
• Condition 5 would require the applicant to add interest to the facades and eaves in the form of other colors.
• Condition 7 would require the applicant to work with staff to update the landscape plan using the guidance
provided in the Staff Report regarding landscape types and materials that are appropriate for the site.
• Condition 3 would require the applicant to install illuminated bollards in the landscaping area west of the
driveway across from each of the residential garages. The only lighting proposed by the applicant is on the
buildings, themselves, and lighting the entrance will provide additional safety.
Mr. Clugston pointed out that the applicant has not made provisions for pedestrian access in the roadway area. While the
site is fairly narrow and there is not enough room for a sidewalk, staff is proposing that the applicant use striping or some
other feature on the pavement along the eastern side of the driveway to connect the pedestrian area up to 240t" Street
Southwest.
Mr. Clugston suggested the Board utilize the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), as well as information provided by Board Member
Broadway (Exhibit 2) and the applicant (Exhibits 3 and 4) to come up with conditions and/or recommendations to
address concerns related to building design, landscaping, etc.
Board Member Borofka pointed out that the applicant has provided elevation drawings titled "A1 of 3 (Attachment 7b).
He asked if the applicant also submitted sheets A2 and A3. He also pointed out that the applicant did not provide
drawings for the south elevation of Building E (single-family house), which will face Edmonds Way. Mr. Clugston
clarified that Sheet Al (Attachment 7b) was submitted as part of the application, but sheets A2 and A3 were not
included. Just prior to the meeting, the applicant submitted new elevation drawings, but not for the south elevation of
Building E. Chair Gootee agreed with Board Member Borofka's concern that there is no drawing to illustrate the
southern elevation of Building E. This elevation will front on Edmonds Way and will be seen by people coming down
the road.
Luay Joudeh, P.E., D. R Strong, said he is a member of the LYDD Properties Group and the project engineer for the
Jenna Lane proposal. He said he worked very closely with Mr. Clugston to address the concerns raised in the Staff
Report, as illustrated in Exhibits 3 and 4. Regarding the south elevation drawing for Building E, he pointed out that the
dense landscaping buffer proposed along Edmonds Way would screen Building E from the roadway. To provide
additional clarity, he advised that the southwest elevation would likely mirror the northeast elevation.
Mr. Joudeh said he finds the conditions outlined on Page 20 of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1) to be reasonable, and he also
tried to incorporate the comments provided by Board Member Broadway (Exhibit 2) into the new elevation drawings
(Exhibits 3 and 4) that were submitted just prior to the meeting. The new drawings also incorporate the comments
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 4, 2014
Page 3 of 8
provided by Mr. Clugston in the Staff Report. He summarized that the new drawings (Exhibits 3 and 4) provide a
variety of paint colors to create depth and separation between the two units that will be side -by -side.
Mr. Joudeh referenced comments provided by the City Engineer regarding the proposed project (Attachment 5) and
explained that the recommended drainage condition actually applies to a different project. Mr. Clugston agreed that the
City Engineer's comments in Attachment 5 are related to another project on Edmonds Way, and reference to the
comments should be removed from Condition 1. The City Engineer has indicated that the basic facility proposed by the
applicant is acceptable, and that stormwater requirements will be addressed as part of the building permit.
Board Member O'Neill asked Mr. Joudeh to describe the modulation shown in the elevation drawings. Mr. Joudeh that
they are working with 21 x 45-foot buildings and the goal is to maximize their size. That means that opportunities for
modulation are limited. He pointed out that the garage doors will be painted a different color, and there will be some
lattice work over the garage and patio doors. He summarized that they have provided as much modulation as possible
without compromising the size of the units.
Board Member O'Neill asked if the driveway width is the minimum width required. Mr. Joudeh answered
affirmatively. Board Member O'Neill asked if the applicant is proposing to incorporate both of the scenarios shown in
Exhibits 3 and 4, or if he would choose one of the scenarios to apply to all three buildings. Mr. Joudeh clarified that, as
currently proposed, the duplex units would have one design scheme, and the single-family unit another. However, he
said he is open to additional suggestions from the Board, and would not be opposed to a different scheme for each of the
three buildings.
Board Member O'Neill expressed his belief that the Board should require the applicant to submit elevation drawings for
the south side of Building E prior to Board approval. Board Member Schaefer agreed and commented that although the
facade would eventually be screened as the landscaping matures, the building would be constructed on fill and would be
prominent to those coming down Edmonds Way.
Chair Gootee asked what the applicant has in mind for the vegetative screen along Edmonds Way. Mr. Joudeh answered
that three existing Douglas Fir trees near the southern corner of the property would be retained, and would provide some
screening from Edmonds Way. At the City's request, the applicant would provide Type I Landscaping to provide a
dense site barrier and separate the development from Edmonds Way. While he recognizes the need to provide a buffer,
it is also important to allow some sunlight into the new building. He said he is not against providing south elevation
drawings for Building E. It was not provided previously because it would simply be a mirror image of the northeast
elevation.
Vice Chair Guenther said he would also like the applicant to provide a southern elevation drawing for Building E. He
said he does not believe it would be possible to simply mirror the northeast elevation, given the location of windows, etc.
It is critical for the Board to see what the southern fagade will look like prior to approving the application.
Chair Gootee observed that there are so many ideas floating around that it will be necessary for the applicant to provide
new elevation drawings for all the buildings, with the appropriate adjustments, before the Board can approve the
application. Board Member Schaefer concurred and stressed the importance of providing clear direction for the
applicant to move forward with new drawings.
Board Member Borolka asked if the applicant has artist renderings to illustrate what the buildings will look like from
240'i' Street Southwest and Edmonds Way. Mr. Joudeh answered that no artist renderings have been prepared. Again,
he pointed out that the elevation drawings in the initial Staff Report (Exhibit 1) have been updated (Exhibits 3 and 4) to
incorporate comments from Board Member Broadway and staff.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 4, 2014
Page 4 of 8
Board Member Schaefer pointed out that the proposed Douglas Fir could encroach with the long-term function of the
dispursement trench. He suggested that whatever is planted in this bed should have a root structure that is consistent
with the presence of the dispursement trench.
Board Member O'Neill said it appears from the elevation drawing that the applicant is proposing to add fill behind the
rockery. He pointed out that not only would the rockery require a surcharge, the City does not allow rockeries to be
filled from behind. He requested more information about how the applicant would address this situation. Mr. Joudeh
explained that as the foundation design is developed, the applicant will consult with a structural engineer. Options
include a mechanically stabilized wall or a taller foundation to eliminate the need for a wall altogether. Board Member
O'Neill said he would like to see more definite plans for the retaining wall and/or taller foundation before approving the
project.
Predreg Bojik, Edmonds, said his property is located adjacent to the western boundary of the subject property, and he
would like assurance from the City that stormwater issues will be properly addressed before a building permit is issued.
He noted the slope that separates the two properties and commented that simply planting vegetation may not prevent the
slope from sliding. Board Member O'Neill explained that, as part of the building permit review process, the applicant
will have to demonstrate that the proposed project will not erode the bank.
Mr. Bojik asked if underground utilities would be required. If so, he asked if he would also be required to place his
utilities underground. Board Member O'Neill answered that all new construction in Edmonds requires underground
utilities, but Mr. Bojik would not be required to change his service.
Board Member O'Neill requested more information about Condition 8, which makes reference to a deck on an adjacent
property. Mr. Clugston explained that the deck on the adjacent property protrudes into the western boundary of the
subject property. The adjacent property owner will need to either remove the deck or obtain an easement from the
applicant for its maintenance. This issue will need to be addressed before a building permit can be issued.
Mr. Bojik said his homes and the two homes on the subject property were built in the 1950's, and there is already a
problem with stormwater runoff. When it rains heavily, water goes under his house, and he is afraid the new
development will cause the problem to worsen. Board Member Schaefer pointed out that because the applicant would
be required to meet strict stormwater standards, the situation could actually improve as a result of development.
Mr. Bojik asked where residents of the new homes would park. Mr. Clugston explained that the project will include
frontage improvements (curbs and gutters) along 240t` Street Southwest, but no sidewalk would be provided. Parking
for one or two cars will be provided along the street front.
Sally Vosk, Edmonds, said she lives in the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums that are located directly to the east of the
subject property. She asked where she could find information to illustrate how much of the proposed new buildings
would be visible from the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums, particularly Building B that is located to the east of the
subject property. Currently, there is a six-foot fence along the property line, but the subject property would still be
visible from the second and third stories of the condominiums. Mr. Clugston responded that the entire Staff Report, and
all the associated attachments, are available on the City's website.
Chair Gootee pointed out that, typically, the Board does not require applicants to provide perspective drawings from
each angle of the project. Instead, the Board has to look at the elevation drawings and envision what the new buildings
will look like from different elevations.
Ms. Vosk asked if it would be reasonable for the Board to require the applicant to provide an artist's rendition of what
the proposed buildings will look like from Edmonds Way and 24e Street Southwest. Board Member Schaefer said that
is not a common requirement because artist renderings are costly. Most of the time, the Board Members can visualize
how things will look by reviewing the elevation drawings.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 4, 2014
Page 5 of 8
Ms. Vosk pointed out that the City typically requires sidewalks for all new multi -family development. Mr. Clugston said
the Engineering Division has indicated that there needs to be a sidewalk on at least one side of the roadway, but they are
not required on both sides. Because there is an existing sidewalk on the north side of 24e Street Southwest, the
applicant would not be required to construct a sidewalk on the south side, as well. However, frontage improvements
(curb and gutter) would still be required.
Nola Topolinski, Edmonds, said she also lives in the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums and came to the meeting
hoping to get an artist rendition of what the new buildings would look like from the condominium complex. She asked
if the buildings would be two or three stories. Board Member Schaefer answered that the proposed buildings would be
two stories tall. Chair Gootee added that staff will review the height of the proposed buildings as part of the building
permit to ensure they are code compliant. Mr. Clugston pointed out that building height in the RM-2.4 zone is 25 feet,
and it appears from the elevation drawings that the tallest portions of the proposed buildings will be 24.5 feet. He
reiterated that building height would be verified as part of the building permit.
Ms. Topolinski asked how much separation there would be between the proposed new buildings and the condominiums.
Mr. Clugston answered that the new buildings would be set back 10 feet from the property line, and the existing
condominium buildings are located between 12 and 15 feet from the property line. The separation would be between 22
and 27 feet.
Ms. Topolinski asked where the existing trees the applicant is proposing to retain are located. Board Member Schaefer
said the trees are located at the southern tip of the subject property next to Edmonds Way. One is actually located on the
Edmonds Greenery Condominium property, and two are on the subject property. There are three existing trees in the
right-of-way in this location, as well. New landscaping would also be added along the property boundary. Ms.
Topolinski said she lives on the third floor of her condominium building, and she currently looks out at greenery and
blue sky. She is happy to hear that the trees will not be removed.
No other members of the public indicated a desire to participate in the hearing. Mr. Clugston suggested that if the Board
would like the applicant to provide more information and updated drawing, the best approach would be to continue the
public hearing to a date certain. This would allow the applicant time to update the drawings as per the Board's direction.
For example, the Board could request the applicant provide artist renderings depicting how the building will look from
240d' Street Southwest, Edmonds Way, and the eastern property line. He noted that the City typically requires artist
renderings for development proposals in other areas of the City where development standards are applicable. While
elevation drawings and landscape plans typically provide all the information the Board needs, they can request a higher
level of detail.
Chair Gootee expressed support for continuing the hearing. He observed that a number of ideas have been proposed,
and it is important for the Board to provide clear direction to the applicant. The Board discussed potential dates of June
18d' or July 2nd. It was questionable whether or not a quorum would be available on June 18t1i, and there was some
concern that the updated drawings would not be available to provide sufficient time for both the Board and the public to
review prior to the hearing.
The Board agreed it would be appropriate to continue the public hearing to July 2nd. They discussed that the applicant
could obtain guidance from the comments in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1) and the drawing submitted by Board Member
Broadway (Exhibit 2). They recognized that timing is important, but it is essential the Board has enough information to
feel comfortable with its decision. It is also important to provide additional information to address concerns raised by
citizens. The Board asked that the new information from the applicant be posted on the City's website as soon as
possible.
Board Member Borofka said he would like the applicant to provide more modulation, particularly on the east and west
facades of the duplexes. He recognized the small lot size, setback requirements and the need to maximize footprint; but
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 4, 2014
Page 6 of 8
he suggested that color or material changes could be used to provide some vertical breakup between the units. In
addition, he noted that adjacent residents are concerned about what the new buildings will look like from the
condominium complex, and Board Members would like a sense of what the buildings will look like from Edmonds
Way. Artist renderings would help the Board and nearby residents visualize what the completed project will look like.
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE NUMBER
PLN20140009 (JENNA LANE TOWNHOUSES) BE CONTINUED TO JULY 2PTD. VICE CHAIR
GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
In preparation for the continued hearing on July 2nd, the Board discussed the following items and gave further direction
to the applicant.
1. South elevation drawings and artist renderings depicting how the building will look from 240"' Street
Southwest, Edmonds Way, and the eastern property line.
Mr. Joudeh requested more information about what the Board would like the new drawings to include. In
addition to south elevation drawings, the Board agreed that the artist renderings could be simple drawings that
show the cross sections through Buildings B, C and D to illustrate the relative height of the proposed buildings
to each other and to the adjacent buildings to the east. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the second and
third floor condominium units would be above the proposed buildings, and only the first floor would look
directly at them.
2. A drawing illustrating what the retaining wall system will be.
Mr. Joudeh asked if the Board's concerns are about structural issues or what the rockery will look like. Board
Member O'Neill said he would prefer a rockery over a retaining wall, but the Engineering Division will likely
impose surcharge limitations. A three-foot rockery would have to be located six feet from the edge of the
pavement. While you can cut from the bank and construct a rockery in front, you cannot construct a rockery
and then fill in behind. Mr. Joudeh said his understanding is that you can fill behind a rockery if it is not taller
than three feet.
Mr. Joudeh said visibility of the rockery from Edmonds Way should not be a concern. While he does not mind
providing the additional detail requested by the Board, he noted that the plantings provided in the landscape
buffer would screen the rockery from Edmonds Way. The Board agreed they wanted additional information
about the type of retaining wall system the applicant would use.
3. Revised north, east and west elevations that break up the fagade as per the comments in the Staff Report
(Exhibit 1) and Board Member Broadway's drawing (Exhibit 2).
Vice Chair Guenther observed that Board Member Broadway's drawing was based on the elevation drawings
that were submitted with the initial application. The applicant has updated the elevation drawings (Exhibits 3
and 4), to incorporate some of her suggestions. He pointed out that Board Member Broadway's
recommendation for windows may not be possible to implement. The Board agreed that the applicant should
prepare new elevation drawings that incorporate the recommendations from both staff and Board Member
Broadway. While they asked the applicant to consider Board Member Broadway's suggestions for window
placement and size, it was recognized that consideration must also be given to the inside functions.
The Board noted that the elevation drawings shown in Exhibit 3 pertain to the single-family unit and are
different than the elevation drawings shown in Exhibit 4, which pertain to the duplex units. They agreed they
would like the applicant to use both schemes, and perhaps incorporate a third scheme so that each building is
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 4, 2014
Page 7 of 8
somewhat different. They further agreed that the buildings would be enhanced by providing a variety of
materials and colors.
4. Revised landscape plans that incorporate the comments provided by staff in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1).
Mr. Clugston explained that if the Board agrees with staff s recommendations related to the landscape plan, they
could ask the applicant to update the drawings accordingly. Another option would be to simply include
Condition 8, which requires the applicant to work with staff to create a landscape plan using the guidance in the
Staff Report. The Board agreed that the landscape plan should be updated according to staffs
recommendations.
5. Additional lighting in the landscaped area west of the driveway.
The Board discussed whether additional lighting should be required or not. It was noted that the only lighting
currently proposed is near the doorways to each of the units; and staff has recommended Condition 3, which
would require the applicant to install illuminated bollards in the landscaping area west of the driveway across
from each of the residential garages. Chair Gootee cautioned against requiring additional lighting, which could
impact adjacent properties by shining onto nearby homes. On the other hand, Board Member Borofka pointed
out that there is not enough space to provide a sidewalk along the driveway for pedestrian access to 240d' Street
Southwest. He expressed his belief that bollard lighting would address a safety issue rather than a design issue.
The majority of the Board agreed that bollard lighting should not be required and Condition 3 should be
eliminated.
6. Additional information about utility boxes or other structures that would be need to be screened as per
Condition 2.
Board Member Borofka noted that the applicant has not provided any details about proposed above -ground
utility equipment and how it would be screened. He suggested that the landscape plan be updated to incorporate
this required screening. The remainder of the Board agreed that information would be useful, but noted that the
issue could also be addressed by Condition 2, which requires that all utility equipment be screened. Mr. Joudeh
pointed out that the only utility equipment would be a transformer and a phone post, which would be located
within the right-of-way. Utility companies do not allow this equipment to be screened.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
There were no consolidated permit applications.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
There were no administrative reports.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Vice Chair Guenther commented that the minutes from the Board's April 2"d meeting were very thorough. He suggested
that a copy of the minutes be provided to new Board Members to provide information about the Board's roles and
responsibilities.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 4, 2014
Page 8 of 8