Loading...
2017-08-02 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Chair Walker called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5 b Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Tom Walker, Chair Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Brian Borofka Lois Broadway Cary Guenther Joe Herr APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Athene Tarrant (excused) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jen Machuga, Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 5, 2017 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. MINOR PROJECTS: Revisions to Beach Walk Apartments located at 303 and 311 Edmonds Street and Zoned BD2 (File #PLN20150036) Ms. Machuga presented the Staff Report, noting that a 2-phase design review was conducted in the fall of 2015 for the 9- unit apartment building at 3030 Edmonds Street and minor architectural improvements to the existing building at 311 Edmonds Street. The property is located in the BD2 zone. Following the 2-phase review, the Architectural Design Board (ADB) approved the project. However, during review of the Building Permit application for the project, staff found that the applicant proposed a number of changes to the exterior of the building design and landscaping from what was reviewed and approved by the ADB. Although the majority of the changes appear to be minor when looked at individually, staff would like feedback from the Board on whether the cumulative impact of the changes is consistent with their original decision or if the proposed changes would require the project to go through the design review process again. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 1 of 10 For comparison purposes, Ms. Machuga provided visuals of the original plan (Attachment 1) approved by the ADB and the current plan proposed by the applicant. She also reminded the Board of the five conditions that were attached to the Board's approval (Attachment 2), which mostly related to minor exterior improvements to the existing building. She reviewed the proposed changes as follows: • Site Plan. The footprint of the building is generally the same, with one exception. The bump out on the northern side was originally inset into the building. As per the current proposal, the bump out would extend out from the building towards the northern property line in order of the applicant to provide secondary access to the building, as required by the City. • Landscape Plan. The raised planters that were part of the original plan were eliminated from the project, but the applicant is still proposing plantings in these locations. Some changes were proposed to species throughout the site, as well. • South Fagade. The applicant is proposing changes to the size and shape of the windows, but they would still be located in the same general locations. Some of the changes were made for building code requirements and others for aesthetic reasons. Also, the architectural detail at the roof overhang would be less prominent, and the deck railings were changed from metal to glass. • North FaVade. Again, a bump out was provided in the center of the building to accommodate secondary access. Because the bump out would extend to the property line, the applicant is proposing that the windows on this section of the facade be eliminated to meet code requirements. The siding materials would be changed to horizontal lap siding, and changes were made to the size and location of the windows, as well. • East Fagade. This facade faces the existing building, and the applicant is proposing that some of the windows be eliminated. In addition, the location and size of the remaining windows was changed. Changes to the roofline were also made. • West Fagade. In addition to changing the location and size of the windows, the applicant is proposing that the architectural detail at the roof overhang be less prominent. A different railing style would be used, and the masonry veneer at the base of the building would extend higher on the central portion of the building. • Existing Building. Conditions of approval stated that additional interest should be added to the existing building by extending the painted beltcourse around all four building facades. It also specified that the paint scheme shown in Exhibit 13 should be followed. The plan submitted as part of the Building Permit application shows the painted beltcourse around the existing building, but is it much narrower than what was shown in Exhibit 13, and it was raised up the side of the building to be in line with the base of the windows. It also includes a jog on the east facade. The awning is proposed to be cedar slats instead of steal as was originally proposed. The applicant has also proposed to reverse the colors of the building so the top would be the beige color and the bottom the blue color. Two conditions of approval were related to the screening wall on the exterior stairwell, and the applicant has revised the plan to follow the angle of the slope of the stairs. The new plan shows that the planter would be removed, but in -ground landscaping would still be provided. Ms. Machuga concluded that, based on the Board's advice, staff can make a decision on the proposal as part of the Building Permit process. However, if it is determined that the changes are not consistent with the ADB's original decision, the applicant will need to re -apply for full design review. Board Member Borofka noted that the size of the windows on the eastern facade was reduced because of the new building's proximity to the existing building. He cautioned that reducing window coverage would result in more blank space on the facade. He pointed out that changes to the existing building are covered under a different permit, and it is Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 2 of 10 possible that the applicant may decide to demolish rather than refurbish the existing building due to structural concerns, etc. If that happens, the east facade would be visible and more prominent. Ms. Machuga responded that the applicant has submitted two Building Permit applications: one for the new 9-unit building and another for the minor changes to the existing building. It is possible to condition the Building Permit for the new building to make sure the applicant does the proposed improvements to the existing building, but there is no guarantee that the existing building would remain forever. At some point, the owner's plans may change, and the City does not have the ability to require that it be retained. It is a valid concern that the eastern facade of the new building could be more visible if the existing building is removed. Board Member Herr suggested the Board consider whether or not they would have approved the current proposal for the new building if it had been presented as part of the original design. He expressed his belief that the proposed design would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Rather than comparing the two designs, he suggested the Board stick with reviewing the merits of the current proposal. Ms. Machuga commented that the Board would likely have approved most of the proposed changes if they had been presented as part of the original proposal, but she felt it was appropriate for the Board to have an opportunity to review the cumulative impact to make sure it is in line with what they approved. Ms. Machuga advised that Building Permit review is a staff decision, but the Board can advise staff and provide input as to how they feel about the changes. She invited the Board Members to provide input on what the applicant might do to keep the project in line with what was originally approved, and she could make those recommendations to the applicant. However, if the Board decides the changes are no longer consistent with what they reviewed and approved, the project would need to come back for another design review. Board Member Borofka asked how the Board could advise staff in a more formal way. Ms. Machuga responded that the Board's comments would be included as part of the public record. Rather than making a formal motion, the Board could provide suggestions for her to consider when reviewing the Building Permit application. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the code requires the applicant to provide a certain percentage of widow coverage. If so, does the revised design meet the requirement. Ms. Machuga answered that there is no minimum or maximum requirement for windows for this particular project, but there are building code requirements that limit the size of the openings, and that is something the project architect could talk about in his presentation. As far as the slight changes to the window sizes and shapes, the design would still meet the applicable design standards. The largest concern would be the east facade where windows would be eliminated. There are codes about avoiding blank building facades, and using different materials and a variety of windows are typically how developers meet the requirement. Phil Frisk, PWF Architecture, Seattle, said he was present to represent the applicant. He explained the reasons for the proposed design changes as follows: • South Elevation. Subtle changes were made to the sloping roof overhangs, as what was originally depicted could not feasibly be constructed without additional modifications. Some of the window sizes were adjusted to accommodate the required structure and to facilitate construction. Transom windows were added to the top floor unit on the right, given the vaulted ceiling that was added, and this adds aesthetic value to the design. • West Elevation. The windows were changed slightly to improve the overall appearance of the building given the relatively minor modulation in the original design. The location of the windows was changed to match up with the actual cabinet layout in the kitchen areas of the units. The sloped roof overhang was reduced on the right side, since what was depicted would have required a variance, as it was projecting over the public right-of- way. None of the exterior siding materials or colors were changed. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 3 of 10 • North Elevation. The bump out was changed to accommodate a second exit, which the code requires. In addition to providing space for the secondary exist, the bump out would also accommodate the sprinkler riser room. Because this is at the back of the building, it is not highly visible, and it actually increases the building modulation resulting in a small aesthetic improvement. However, no windows are proposed on the bump out given its close proximity to the property line. Lap siding would be used to tie in with the more visible right side of the north elevation. The windows were revised to meet building code requirements, as they were previously too large given the proximity of the property line. • East Elevation. The windows were reduced in size from what was originally drawn due to the fagade's proximity to the existing building. In addition, the original windows exceeded their allowable area of wall surface. However, because the existing building is only 10 feet away, the eastern fagade will not be highly visible. The sloping roof trim was extended along the wall to provide a larger -scale architectural feature, allowing the two types of siding to have an angled line of intersection. Landscaping. Street trees would be provided along Edmonds Street. However, the planters along the south building elevation were removed at the direction of the City, since they were in the public right-of-way. Landscaping will still be provided in these locations. Existing Building. Most of the changes proposed for the existing building are aesthetic. The horizontal trim band was moved to make it look less random by connecting it to the existing window trim. It ends up dividing the building into thirds to make it appear more balanced rather than top heavy. Board Member Herr asked if there would still be fences in front of the new building for privacy, and Mr. Frisk answered affirmatively. Chair Walker asked if landscaping would be provided inside the fenced areas along the front fagade of the building, and Mr. Frisk answered affirmatively. Chair Walker invited the architects on the Board to comment on the proposal to change the location of the band on the eastern elevation of the existing building. He commented that it appears more aesthetically appealing to have the band go straight across. Board Member Broadway expressed her perspective that the band location can be less than center. Chair Walker also asked about the materials that would be used for the two buildings, and Mr. Frisk responded that the same brick veneer product would be used on the new building as specified in the original design. Board Member Broadway observed that when deciding whether or not the proposed changes are "substantial," the Board should consider how significant the changes to footprint, height, materials and articulation are. When considering these factors, she does not believe that the proposed changes would be considered significant. Chair Walker agreed. Board Member Guenther agreed that the changes should not be considered substantial, as the overall materials and form are nearly the same as the original proposal. However, he agreed it is appropriate to consider their cumulative impact on the overall design. The remainder of the Board concurred and thanked staff for bringing the proposal to them for comment given the large number of changes proposed by the applicant. The Board agreed that staff could move forward with Building Permit review of the current proposal, and the project does not need to come back for additional design review. PUBLIC MEETING: Phase 1 District -Based Design Review for HomeStreet Bank (File #PLN20170024) Chair Walker reviewed the rules and procedures for the hearing and then opened the hearing. Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is proposing a new commercial building at 614 — 616 5th Avenue South. The project will include a new 2-story office building with a HomeStreet Bank Branch and drive -through on the 1st floor and leasable office space on the 2 d floor. The site will be developed with surface parking and a retaining wall, as well as Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 4 of 10 new landscaping and site utilities. The two existing commercial buildings will be demolished to make room for the project. He explained that, because the site is located in the Downtown Convenience Commercial (BD3) zone, district - based design review is required. Mr. Clugston explained that, because of the size of the project, it triggered a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and must be reviewed as part of a 2-phased public hearing process before the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The process for the review is outlined in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.12. Tonight's hearing is Phase 1, where the applicant provides a preliminary conceptual design, as well as a description of the property to be developed, noting all significant characteristics. The ADB will use this information to make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and will prioritize the Design Guidelines Checklist (Attachment 4) based upon these facts in addition to the design objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and within the ECDC. Following public testimony and completion of the Design Guidelines Checklist, the public hearing must be continued to a date certain, not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing. Mr. Clugston further explained that the purpose of Phase 2 is to allow the applicant to design and redesign the initial concept to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized Design Guideline Checklist criteria. Once this is done, the design will be submitted to staff, who will review the proposal and schedule the project for final review. At the Phase 2 hearing, the ADB will further review the design and make the final decision at the conclusion of the hearing. Mr. Clugston advised that the proposed commercial uses are permitted primary uses in the BD3 zone. The drive - through is allowed as a secondary use, with a conditional use permit. He provided an aerial view of the subject site, showing the proposed footprint of the new building and how it fits in with the existing surrounding uses. He noted that the applicant has provided a number of drawings to give additional perspective, as well. Mr. Clugston commented that, because the project is immediately adjacent to Multifamily Residential (RM) zoned property on the west, it must maintain a 15-foot setback from the west property line. The required setback is shown on the Architectural Site Plan in Attachment 3. The maximum height in the BD3 zone is 30 feet above average original grade. While height calculations were not provided with Phase 1 submittal, the exterior elevation drawings in Attachment 3 show a maximum parapet height at the northeast corner of the proposed building at 30 feet above the finished floor. It appears that the building will comply with the applicable height requirements, but height calculations must be submitted with the Phase 2 submittal in order to verify the proposal is consistent. The ground floor height requirement of 12 feet for the first 45 feet of commercial space must also be maintained. Mr. Clugston stated that no parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total footprint of less than $4,800 square feet, and the applicant is proposing a building footprint of only about 3,500 square feet. However, the applicant is proposing a surface parking lot with 20 stalls. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that at least 5% of the lot area of the project must be devoted to open space. Given that the lot area is 17,187 square feet, about 859 square feet of open space is required. The applicant is currently proposing 860 square feet of open space in the northeast corner of the development. The space appears to be a public plaza with seating that is accessible from the sidewalk. This arrangement appears to meet the design standard for open space. Mr. Clugston advised that a 15-foot setback is required on the west side of the project adjacent to the residentially -zoned parcel, and the area must be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the property owner. In addition, a 6-foot minimum fence, wall, or solid hedge must be provided at some point in the setback. The west retaining wall supporting the parking lot would seem to satisfy this requirement, but some type of fencing is also proposed along the setback area. A detailed landscaping plan and a description of the fencing will be submitted as part of Phase 2. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Clugston invited the Board to conduct the public hearing and consider all applicable design guidelines and standards referenced throughout the report, complete the Design Guidelines Checklist, and prioritize all applicable design guidelines and objectives. The Board should also request that all height calculations and a building cross-section be provided with the Phase 2 submittal in order to verify the proposal's consistency with the maximum building height and ground floor street front height requirement for the BD3 zone. Board Member Borofka asked if signage is proposed as part of the application. Mr. Clugston answered no. He said signage would be presented as a separate application. Henry Kurasaki, Vice President of Architecture and Construction, HomeStreet Bank, said the bank looks forward to locating in Edmonds and being part of the community. Brad Barbee, MG2 Architects, Seattle, provided an overall aerial view of the subject parcels, noting that the main fagade is on the east elevation, which faces 5"' Avenue. A secondary entrance will be located on the north elevation facing the required open space to serve as an entrance from the parking area. The majority of the parking will be located behind the building. The drive -through entrance will be located on the north side of the building, and the exit will be on the south side. He noted that concern was raised at the pre -application meeting about the location of the drive -through. To address these safety issues, the exit was made narrower as it approaches 5"' Avenue. In addition, the windows at that corner could provide some transparency for people in cars to see pedestrians on the sidewalk. Mr. Barbee reviewed the proposed floor plan for the new building, noting the location of the lobby and teller area, the significant glazing, and the open space that would be available for public use. The intent is that HomeStreet Bank would occupy the ground floor space, and the upper floor is being designed as a future tenant space. A canopy would be provided around the building in all of the pedestrian areas, including a covered area for people coming from the parking lot. Mr. Barbee provided a visual of the front fagade, noting that the entrance would be located at the center of the building, and the front ground floor elevation was designed to meet the City's 75% glazing requirement by extending the glass all the way to the corner. The north elevation will be off of the open space, and more details about the open space design will be presented at the Phase 2 hearing. However, the intent is that the open space be a community gathering area, and the project will also include a meeting room that can be used by clubs and other community groups. Because the back fagade is located close to the property line, Mr. Barbee advised that windows are not an option. Instead, the applicant will likely propose a screening element that echoes the pattern of the windows on the other three elevations. The intent is to prevent the creation of a blank wall. The ground floor portion of the wall will remain blank, but it will be covered with landscaping. Mr. Barbee provided colored renderings of the proposed building, noting the main entrance, the corner glazing, the drive -through, the solid steel canopy, and the banding to match the dark brown storefront. For materials, they are looking at a stone veneer system that is dark grey in color, cement plaster in both light and dark colors, and exposed steel columns at the south and north elevations. Signage will be addressed as a separate permit. Mr. Barbee advised that, in order to accommodate the parking area, it is necessary to grade the back portion of the lot, and the applicant is proposing a retaining wall on the south, west and north property lines. More details about the retaining wall will be presented at the Phase 2 hearing. Nancy Peterson, Edmonds, said she is one of the owners in the Park Twin Condominiums directly west of the proposed new building. She asked how much setback would be required between the proposed parking for the new building and the existing condominiums. Mr. Clugston referred to the site plan and advised that a 15-foot setback would be required from the west property line of the bank property to the actual bank structure. The applicant is also proposing a retaining wall after the 15-foot setback, and the area in between would be heavily landscaped to provide a buffer. He Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 6 of 10 referred to the aerial photograph, noting that the existing green strip indicates the 15-foot landscaped setback area. Ms. Peterson asked if the existing alley would be impacted by the proposed drive -through. Mr. Clugston answered that the bank owns the alley property, as well. A retaining wall would be constructed along the edge of the drive -through, but there should be no change to the alleyway, itself. Board Member Herr pointed out that a person would have to walk quite far to get from the parking area to the main entrance. He voiced concern that people would cut through the drive -through area, thus creating a safety hazard. Mr. Barbee responded that a paved sidewalk would extend along the west side of the building, but he agreed that people might still want to walk across the drive -through to access the front entrance. He commented that the applicant will propose a signage package that will include directional signs throughout the parking area to point people to the entrance. Board Member Herr asked if the secondary access could be used by the bank during business hours. Mr. Barbee said it is likely that the signage would direct bank customers to the main entrance on 5t11 Avenue. The secondary entrance is meant to serve the community room. However, during non -operating hours, the bank area could be blocked off so that the secondary use could be utilized more. Vice Chair Strauss noted that the applicant is proposing 20 parking spaces, when none are required. She asked if the applicant anticipates that all of the spaces will be utilized. Mr. Barbee said his client wants to maximize parking for the bank, as well as any future tenant that occupies the upper floor. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the proposed project would retain the existing street trees on 5th Avenue, and Mr. Barbee answered no. However, he noted that new street trees would be planted as required by the City. He noted that the existing trees are actually located on the subject property rather than in the public right-of-way. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that people often use the existing bench, and the trees provide shade. Mr. Barbee suggested that it might be possible to retain the tree that is currently in front of the Baskin Robbins building as part of the proposed open space. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that the alley on the south side of the property where the drive -through exit is proposed already has limited site distance. Extending the retaining wall all the way out to the street could make it even harder for cars exiting from the alley to see pedestrians on the sidewalk. Mr. Barbee suggested that one option would be to pull back the retaining wall a distance from the sidewalk to provide better site vision. Vice Chair Strauss voiced concern that the retaining wall at the back of the subject property could end up being enormous. Mr. Barbee said it would likely be eight to ten feet tall. Vice Chair Strauss suggested that the parking lot could be sloped a bit in order to reduce the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Barbee advised that adjustments were made to the drive -through exit after the pre -application meeting based on the Traffic Engineer's concern about safety. The original plan was to have a straight shot through to the street, but the plan was revised so that the exit aisle funnels away from the building to improve visibility. He agreed that the retaining wall could be modified to provide for better site distance. Board Member Broadway said she appreciates the site triangle that is proposed on the drive -through exit, but she questioned how effective the southeast corner glazing would be in providing additional site distance, since the City cannot regulate what takes place inside the building, and the window may be covered. She expressed her belief that retaining the landscaped site triangle is imperative because the City cannot control what happens to glazing on the inside of the building. The Board reviewed the Design Guidelines Checklist as follows: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 7 of 10 A. Site Planning 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics Low It was noted that the existing site is developed Priority with two old buildings with a parking lot in the middle. 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics High Priority 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street High Priority 4. Encourage human activity on street High Priority 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites High Board Member Broadway pointed out that the Priority applicant has not addressed lighting for the parking area. She is torn between the idea of making sure the area is well lit for safety reasons, and ensuring that the lighting is not intrusive to the residents of the adjacent condominium. 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide Low security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) Priority 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential N/A projects) 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians High and adjoining property Priority 9. Discourage parking in street front N/A It was discussed that all of the parking for the proposed project would be located behind the building. 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from High corner on public street fronts (corner lots) Priority B. Bulk and Scale 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics High Priority C. Architectural Elements and Materials 1. Complement positive existing character and/or N/A respond to nearby historic structures 2. Unified architectural concept High Priority 3. Use human scale and human activity High Priority 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish High materials. Priority 5. Minimize garage entrances High Priority Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 8 of 10 D. Pedestrian Environment 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected High pedestrian entry Priority 2. Avoid blank walls High The Board requested that the applicant identify Priority the retaining wall width and height in the landscape plan. It was discussed that vines or some other type of landscaping could be used to soften the blank wall. 3. Minimize height of retaining walls High It was suggested that the applicant could slope Priority back the parking lot to minimize the height of the retaining wall at the rear of the parcel, as well as the retaining wall along the alley. Board Member Herr cautioned that this would be difficult given the current ADA requirements. He also cautioned that there is not enough room to drop the elevation of the parking lot by a few feet. Mr. Barbee pointed out that the elevation of the parking area was designed to minimize the amount of grading needed. By doing some grading and terracing the setback area, it may be possible to reduce the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the code allows structures up to three feet high to be located in the setback area, which means that one 3-foot retaining wall could be used to terrace the setback area into two sections. It was also suggested that undulating the retaining wall could help break up its mass. 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking High lots on pedestrian areas Priority 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures N/A 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas High Priority 7. Consider personal safety High Priority E. Landscaping 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of Low It was noted that there is not a lot of attractive neighborhood Priority landscaping in the area now, with the exception of street trees. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site High Priority 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site High It was noted that there are no special site conditions Priority conditions. CHAIR WALKER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 4, 2017. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 9 of 10 CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Mr. Clugston reported that Mr. Chave is working to schedule a joint meeting between the Planning Board and ADB to discuss design issues. There are no other projects coming before the Board for review at this time. Mr. Clugston advised that staff is in the process of researching the possibility of whether or not it is possible for Board Member Tarrant to switch roles to assume one of the non-resident positions on the Board. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no Board Member comments. I\ I IIIJ 7►1u_131►W The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 2, 2017 Page 10 of 10