BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/01/06 Minutes1
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of January 6, 2016 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday,
January 6, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath,
Lake Forest, Illinois.
Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board members:
Mike Bleck, Robert Reda, Ross Friedman, Bruce Grieve and Jim Diamond.
Building Review Board members absent: Fred Moyer
Staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of
Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman Notz
Chairman Notz reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting
procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff to
introduce themselves.
2. Consideration of the minutes of the October 7th and December 2nd 2015 meetings
of the Building Review Board.
The minutes of the October 7, 2015 meeting were approved as submitted.
The minutes of the December 2, 2015 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. Continued consideration of a request for approval of the design of an
additional model home for the Amberley Woods Courtyard Homes
development located on Amberley Court, between Conway Farms Road and
Saunders Road. Approval of changes to previously approved materials and the
anti-monotony parameters is also requested.
Owner: K. Hovnanian Homes
Representatives: Daniel E. Bendixon, architect and Robert Lisk, project manager
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
2
Mr. Bendixon introduced the project explaining that an additional design for the
courtyard homes is proposed. He noted that on the new design proposed, each unit
has the option for a front load or side load garage. He stated that at the last
meeting, the Board expressed concerns about the roof massing he explained that
the rooflines were adjusted in response. He stated that the rooflines were pulled in to
give a more balanced feel. He added that the gable vents were eliminated and
the single window shed dormers were removed, also in response to the Board’s
previous discussion. He reviewed the floor plans for the proposed new unit.
Mr. Lisk explained the proposed exterior material changes noting that the alternate
brick colors were reduced to provide one color alternative per shade. He stated that
a new window manufacturer is proposed but the windows will replicate those
originally approved. He requested approval to allow the options for aluminum
gutters and downspouts as an option to homebuyers as an alternative to copper as
originally approved.
Ms. McManus noted that the petition was continued from the December meeting
and adjustments were made to the elevations and additional information is
provided in response to the Board’s questions and comments at this meeting. She
stated that staff is supportive of adding a design option for the homes and of the
changes to the brick and window manufacturer as long as the intent of the
original approvals are met with respect to quality, material and design. She
added that staff recommends that copper, as originally approved, be used for
the gutters and downspouts to ensure that the quality and character of the
development are as intended. She added that Board input is requested on
whether the changes to the roof are consistent with the Board’s direction at the
last meeting. She stated that staff recommends that the anti-monotony provisions
remain as originally approved, requiring a minimum of three of each unit type.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Bendixon agreed that the
board and batten detail on the left elevation appeared inconsistent with the
board and batten pattern used elsewhere on the house and agreed to refine
that detail.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Lisk stated that the stoops
are concrete pavers and the stucco color will be consistent with the original
approval. He stated that the garage doors are steel with the finish textured like
wood grain. He confirmed that the roof consists of cedar shingles not shakes.
Board member Friedman suggested that coach lights on either side of the front entry
would add detail and aesthetic value.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Bendixon stated that the roof pitch
over the garage is 12:12, consistent with the roof pitch on the other home designs. He
3
acknowledged that the roof is not accurately reflected on the roof plan and stated
that the plan will be adjusted accordingly.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Lisk stated that the
driveway as proposed is asphalt. He stated that he is not sure what material was
originally approved for the driveway.
Ms. McManus agreed to confirm the material that was originally approved for the
driveway and assure that the driveway material for the new units is consisten t with
the original approval.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. Lisk stated that the color
options for the brick were reduced and the colors matched as closely as possible to
the colors originally approved. He added that only one type of stone was originally
approved and no changes in the stone are proposed.
In response to a question from Board member Bleck, Mr. Lisk stated that keeping the
anti-monotony guidelines as originally approved, with the requirement for a minimum
of three of each unit types, would not create a hardship.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Hearing no public testimony, he invited final questions and comments from the
Board.
Board member Reda expressed support for the additional home design option and
the changes to the roof lines. He stated that copper should be used for the gutters
and downspouts as originally approved and the anti-monotony guidelines should
remain unchanged. He reviewed the possible variations of units and agreed that it is
better to keep the anti-monotony guidelines the same. He emphasized the
importance of coordination between the architects of the various designs to assure
that the original intent of integrated designs is achieved.
Board member Bleck agreed with Board member Reda’s comments regarding the
roof lines and the gutter and downspout material.
Board member Friedman reiterated that copper for the gutters and downspouts is
important in order to achieve the quality and character as originally intended.
Board member Grieve encouraged the petitioner to use a white washed finish for
the medium brick to be more consistent with the other shades. He also suggested the
petitioner consider different stucco textures to add variation to the homes.
Board member Diamond agreed with the comments of the other Board members
and requested that staff confirm the originally approved driveway material and
ensure consistency with the original intent.
4
In response to a question from Board member Friedman, Mr. Bendixon stated that
the ledge by the garage is a limestone sill and is consistent with the original designs.
Chairman Notz suggested that the petitioner can work with staff to finalize the board
and batten design and the coach light details. He complimented the changes
made since the last meeting and added that the floor plan should be reviewed for
consistency with the elevations prior to submittal for a permit. He stated that in his
opinion, the brick options now presented are more attractive than the original colors.
In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. Czerniak stated that
staff is obligated to consult the architect of record for each of the plan set if
questions or concerns arise during the plan review or inspection process. She stated
that staff will work to ensure that the quality and character of the development as
originally intended is achieved and will work with the different architects involved as
appropriate.
Chairman Notz added that it should be left to the staff’s discretion on when and
which architect should be consulted. Hearing no further comments from the Board,
he invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings
in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval.
Architectural Design and Site Plan
1. The plans should be modified to respond to the items listed below. If
additional modifications are made to the plans as the result of final design
development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a
copy of the plan originally provided to the Board shall be attached for
comparison purposes. Staff is directed to review any changes, in consultation
with the Chairman as appropriate, to determine whether the modifications
are in conformance with the Board’s direction and approval prior to the
issuance of any permits.
a. Copper shall be used for all gutters and downspouts.
b. The garage roof pitch shall be consistent with the pitch of the other roof
elements on the house and should be accurately reflected on the plans.
c. The board and batten detailing shall be consistent on all 4 elevations.
d. Coach lights, in full compliance with the City Lighting Guidelines, shall be
included in the final plans. The source of the light shall be shielded from
view with a fixture which directs light downward, or frosted or mottled
glass to fully obscure the lamp.
e. All materials, including the trim, soffits and fascia shall be consistent with
the plans presented to the Board and approved and consistent with the
City’s Design Guidelines.
5
2. The architect of record should be given the opportunity to review and
comment on the proposed changes to the original approvals including, but
not limited to: verifying that the new window that is selected is generally
consistent with the original approval. No changes to the 3 previously
approved home designs shall be made without further Board review and
approval.
a. Staff is directed to request input from the designing architect if questions or
inconsistencies with the approved plans occurs during the plan review and
construction processes.
3. On an ongoing basis, during build-out of the development, the petitioner shall
provide a matrix that describes the design elements, detailing, and materials
proposed for each house and demonstrates that the buildout is achieving a
diversity of building design, footprint, color and material pallet as directed
through the original approvals. The matrix will be subject to staff review and a
determination that both a consistency of overall character and some variety
are achieved consistent with the design intent for the development and the
current and past Board approvals. Staff shall also confirm compliance with
the approved anti-monotony parameters.
4. During build-out, mock-ups of materials, colors and products shall occur and
will be subject to review and approval by the project architects and City staff.
All conditions of the original approval shall apply including, but not limited to:
5. A landscape plan for each single family home shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of a permit for each home. The plan shall be drawn on the
approved grading plan and drainage plan shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Arborist. The plan shall reflect species and size at the
time of planting and shall identical all trees designated for preservation and
protection during construction.
6. The City Arborist shall monitor the plantings and may approve minor
modifications to the plan “in the field” at his discretion.
General
7. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and
provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable
codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations.
6
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 7
- 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of the residence and
garage at 236 Park Avenue and approval of the replacement residence,
detached garage, overall site plan and landscape plan.
Owner: U.S. Shelter LLC, Jack Sorenson
Representatives: John Sorenson, project manager and Matthew Kerouac,
architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Sorenson introduced the project by reviewing the lot configurations of properties
in the area noting that the property proposed for redevelopment backs up to a
depressional area. He provided an overview of the neighborhood noting the various
architectural styles of homes in the neighborhood. He stated that they are seeking
approval for the demolition of the existing house which was constructed in 1954. He
stated that there non-compliance issues with respect to current life safety and code
requirements. He stated that the home is not historically significant. He stated that
no variances are requested but acknowledged that the plan, as currently presented
is over the allowable square footage. He stated that the plan will be modified to
comply with the square footage requirements. He stated that the new detached
garage will be in a similar location as the existing garage, but will be pushed further
back on the lot to accommodate the new house. He stated that high quality
windows are proposed with simulated divided lights . He stated that drainage will be
properly addressed with sump pumps, gutters and pervious pavers.
Mr. Kerouac noted that Park Avenue is a humble block with some recent demolitions
and new homes being constructed in the neighborhood. He stated that a
replacement home in the Craftsman style is proposed because it seems appropriate
for the neighborhood. He reviewed architectural details of the proposed residence
stating that the elevation is symmetrical with gable ends and flared columns. He
reviewed the rear elevation with a screened porch and balanced windows. He
stated that they are open to using clay for the chimney pots, as recommended by
staff. He stated that grading is a challenge on the lot due to the depressional area.
He noted that the replacement garage is a simple structure. He stated that the
garage will have coach lights on either side of the door. He noted that proposed
residence is taller and narrower than neighboring structures, but the simplicity of
massing and symmetry is maintained consistent with other homes on the block.
7
Mr. Sorenson added that the landscape plan will be modified in accordance with
the City arborist’s comments.
Mr. Kerouac stated that the roof pitches are somewhat dictated by the building
scale ordinance and he provided historic precedent images with similar architectural
detail s as proposed.
Ms. McManus stated that the petitioner is seeking approval for the demolition of an
existing residence which was constructed in 1954. She stated that based on the
information submitted, the demolition request appears to meet the demolition
criteria. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the demolition. She noted
that the siting of the proposed residence appears to be consistent with the
neighborhood. She recommended that the driveway width be reduced to set it
back from the property line and allow the potential for some plantings and
drainage. She stated that as presented, the residence is slightly over the allowable
square footage but it is anticipated that through further refinement, the size will be
reduced to meet the allowable square footage. She noted that the proposed
materials are of high quality but that the design does not appear to be fully
consistent with the Craftsman style. She noted that the staff report outlines several
areas of design inconsistency and recommended that the petition be continued to
allow further refinement of the design to ensure that it is consistent with the chosen
style.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Kerouac confirmed that
the gutters and downspouts are proposed as aluminum which is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood. He stated that the windows are casements
configured to appear as double hung windows. He stated that he is open to making
the windows double hung. He stated that the front door is 3’ x 8’ set within a 6 foot
opening and that adjustments can be made to make is appear less narrow .
In response to questions from Board member Grieve, Mr. Sorenson stated that the
color palette is two tones of gray with white trim. He noted that the stone on the
chimney is Fond du Lac stone. He stated that the full, exact color palate has not
been finalized. He confirmed that the double pitch roof is not dictated by the
interior.
In response to questions from Board Member Friedman, Mr. Kerouac stated that the
standing seam roof is aluminum and will be a color that emulates a copper roof that
has a patina. He stated that 16 inch panels are proposed. He agreed that the
gutters and downspouts have an awkward flare due to the form of the house. He
stated that the windows have a small angled sill and cedar will be used for trim. He
added that a composite material may be considered for the sills to address
maintenance issues.
8
In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Kerouac stated that the soffit
is enclosed and constructed of LP Smartside. He stated that they are open to
reducing the width of the driveway to allow for plantings and confirmed that there is
24 feet between the garage and house. He stated that the retaining wall will be
concrete block with the appearance of cut stone and added that there is a drastic
4 foot grade change at the rear of the house.
Board member Reda questioned whether the casement windows may not look
consistent with the selected architectural style of the house.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Kerouac stated that the
porch columns are Permacast, a resin based material which is very solid and
structural.
In response to a question from Board member Reda, Ms. McManus confirmed that
Permacast has been approved in the past as a porch column material. She added
that cedar was indicated as the material for the soffits in the materials submitted to
staff. She stated that the proposed use of a Smartside produce for trim and soffits
has not been approved by the Board in the past.
Board member Reda suggested that a door, more characteristic of the Craftsman
style, be considered.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Sorenson stated that the 2
small windows above the door have solid cedar panel s and noted that the color of
the roof is not yet confirmed.
Board member Reda expressed concerns about the front elevation noting that it
gives the impression of a duplex. He expressed concern about the roof style
questioning whether it is compatible with the streetscape and consistent with the
intended architectural style. He recommended simplifying the roof forms.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Kerouac stated that the eyebrow
dormer will be detailed with a metal roof to match the porch roof, gutters and
downspouts. He confirmed that the porch roof is all one pitch but meets the wall at
different pl anes due to the bay windows.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Mary Anne Barry, 246 Park Avenue, the neighboring property owners, requested
information on the garage location and retaining wall. She added that the
arborvitae can be removed from her property.
9
In response to public testimony, Mr. Sorenson confirmed that the garage will be
shifted further back on the lot than the existing garage and that the retaining wall will
be replaced. He stated that the tree in the front yard will be retained.
Chairman Notz invited final questions and comments from the Board.
Board member Reda stated that he is supportive of the direction of the project and
finds that the demolition criteria are met.
Board member Bleck stated that the side and rear elevations are more appealing
than the front and encouraged refinements to the front elevation to achieve greater
consistency with the chosen architectural style. He added that narrowing the
driveway will be helpful .
Board member Friedman agreed with the comments of other Board members noting
that the design is a creative approach, but somewhat out of character with the
neighborhood. He acknowledged that the neighborhood is in transition, but stated
that simplification of the roof and massing is needed. He stated concern about the
flare of the downspouts and asked that the petitioner consider refining that detail.
He stated that the front door appears narrow, tall and out of scale. He stated that he
is supportive of the demolition.
Board member Grieve stated that the demolition is appropriate. He pointed out that
the proposed replacement house is smaller than the architectural examples
provided and as a result, some of the elements and details appear out of scale. He
encouraged the petitioner to put more energy into the overall details to achieve
consistency with the chosen style and to simplify the façade. He added that he
would not have identified the house as Craftsman without the front porch detail. He
stated that the stone on the chimney will attract the eye. He suggested looking at
examples of homes in the Craftsman style that are more similar in size to the home
proposed.
Board member Diamond stated that he is supportive of the demolition and stated
agreement with the comments of other Board members. He stated that the exterior
materials should be of high quality.
Chairman Notz requested that the color palette and material samples be provided
at the next meeting.
Board member Friedman reiterated that the driveway should be narrower to allow
for plantings along the property line.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow for refinement
of the design to achieve greater consistency overall with the chosen architectural
style and to respond to the comments and questions from the Board.
10
The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and approved by a vote of 7 - 0.
5. Consideration of a request for approval a new residence and attached garage
at 739 Illinois Road (This is the site of a previously approved demolition).
Approval of the overall site plan and landscape plan is also requested.
Owner: Joan Budilovsky
Contract Purchaser/Developer: PC Equities, LLC (Peter Childs)
Representative: Michael Breseman, architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Board Member Bleck recused himself as his company is involved with the project and
left the Council Chambers. Board member Grieve stated that he worked with the
architect in the past, but is able to review the project impartially. Chairman Notz
invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Breseman reviewed the neighborhood and its architectural styles explaining that
the property was 2 separate lots with simple clapboard homes that were torn down
in 2013. He stated that Childs Development is the contract purchaser and is pursuing
approval for one house on the combined lots. He explained that the siting of the
house and the L-shaped footprint minimizes impacts to neighbors. He stated that the
side wing softens views to the 3 car garage. He stated that the house is designed in
the Colonial Revival style with Georgian influences which allows for a hierarchy of
massing. He showed streetscape images and the site plan noting the house is placed
toward the back of the lot. He added that due to setback restrictions, it is not
possible to align the house with the adjacent homes. He showed photos of other
Colonial Revival houses and stated that the color palette will include a darker roof
and a common brick exterior to soften the appearance and appear timeless. He
stated that he originally considered red brick, but reconsidered. He showed a
colored rendering and explained that a balcony over the garage roof will help to
break up the roof line and is intended to manage the massing and emphasize the
main mass of the house. He showed sketches of the house and stated that the 3rd
floor is built into the roofline and the gable over the porch is functional to allow the
staircase to work. He stated that the façade consists of double hung windows
flanking a center portico. He stated that proportions are important noting that brick
banding was added on the front and rear of the house to break up the façade. He
stated that there is a chimney on the north elevation and noted that the base of the
chimney is meant to hide the offset nature of the interior rooms and be centered
under the gable. He reviewed the building sections noting that the rooms are built
into the roof line. He briefly reviewed the landscape plan and noted that the French
doors are at grade.
11
Ms. McManus stated that the Board saw a request for this property for 2 single family
homes on 2 lots in November and since then, the petitioner brought in a new
architect and is now proposing one single family home on the combined lots. She
stated that the petitioner responded to the Board’s comments and suggestions
offered at the previous meeting and as a result staff, the plan as now presented is
more consistent with the streetscape. She added that the house is slightly over the
allowable square footage but noted that adjustments can be made to bring the
structure within the allowable square footage. She stated that no variance is
requested. She noted that the design and quality of materials are appropriate and
recommended approval of the petition.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Breseman confirmed that
scuppers will be used as a detail on the downspouts. He explained that there is a
small porch between the garage and the house. He added that it was not initially
designed to include a door to the garage, but agreed that is a detail that could be
added.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Breseman stated that the
2nd floor of the garage is not intended to be a finished space adding that the ridge
line is only 7-8 feet tall. He added that this space does not contribute to the square
footage. He confirmed that the garage doors will be custom made. He stated that
the motor court is a main feature viewed from the streetscape, so the garage doors
are important. He stated that the soffit and trim will be smooth cedar and the gutters
and downspouts are white aluminum. He stated that the proposed copper flashing
could be changed to appear similar to the gutters and downspouts. He stated that
the amount of asphalt proposed on the site is similar to neighboring properties. He
stated a willingness to make adjustments based on the Board’s direction.
In response to questions from Board Member Grieve, Mr. Breseman clarified the
intended purpose of a door and agreed that modifications could be made to make
it appear less service-like.
In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Breseman stated that the
balcony over the garage has a window under the gable, but would not be
accessed from the garage or 1st floor. He stated that the hardscape between the
house and the driveway will be bluestone. He offered that landscaping or vines can
be planted to soften the façade.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Breseman confirmed that the 2nd
floor space over the garage is not intended to be used. He stated that the dormer
over the garage is intended to be consistent with the dormers on the house, but
agreed to look into pushing the dormer further into the roof line to reduce the
perceived mass.
12
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment.
Hearing no public testimony, he invited final questions and comments from the
Board.
Board member Diamond stated that he is supportive of the plan and believes it will
be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
Board member Grieve suggested that the petitioner give consideration to the
comments and suggestions offered by the Board. He suggested that any
refinements made be delegated to staff for final review and approval.
Board member Friedman applauded the developer for moving in a different
direction with this property he stated that the plan now presented in keeping with
character of neighborhood. He complimented the detailing and asked that the
Board’s comments be considered as the plans are finalized.
In response to a question from Board member Reda, Board member Friedman stated
that the copper flashing is not appropriate for the home and will be too noticeable.
He stated that the flashing should be compatible with the gutters and downspouts.
In response to a question from Board member Reda, Chairman Notz agreed that any
adjustments to the dormer windows can be worked out with staff.
In response to a comment from Chairman Notz, Mr. Breseman stated that the 2nd
floor door to the balcony w ill not be visible given its location on the side elevation.
Chairman Notz stated that he is supportive of the door as long as it is not visible and
requested that alternatives for the dormer be presented to staff. He added that the
amount of asphalt on the site should be reduced where possible and that more
green space or landscaping should be incorporated into the plan in front of the
house. He stated that he is supportive of painting the gutters and downspouts white
and noted that the copper flashing will patina over time and appear more
compatible that at the outset.
Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to approve the petition based on the findings
in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
1. Any modifications to the plan, either to respond to direction from the Board
or changes made for other reasons, must be submitted for review and a
determination by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, that
the plans are in conformance with the approvals granted and with the
conditions of approval prior to submitting a complete application and plans
for a building permit.
13
a. The square footage shall comply with the City’s Building Scale Ordinance.
b. All materials, including the trim, soffits and fascia shall be consistent with
the plans presented to the Board and with the City’s Design Guidelines.
c. The color palette shall be consistent with the plans presented to the
Board.
d. The option of adding a door to the garage balcony is approved, so long
as the door is not visible from the streetscape.
e. The roof line of the 2nd story door shall be modified as directed by the
Board.
f. The garage dormer shall be modified in response to the Board’s
comments. Alternatives for the garage dormer shall be submitted for staff
review.
g. Flashing material shall be visually compatible with the painted aluminum
gutters and downspouts.
h. Additional landscaping shall be added along the front of the residence in
order to visually break up and reduce the amount of asphalt.
2. A final lighting plan, including specifications on all exterior fixtures proposed,
shall be submitted in full compliance with the City Lighting Guidelines. The
dark sky, right to night approach shall be complied with and sources of light
shall be shielded.
3. The final landscape plan must be submitted on and be in alignment with the
grading and drainage plans as approved by the City Engineer. The
landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s review of the plan shall include, but is not
limited to, the following:
a. Verification that appropriate replacement inches are planted on the site
to compensate for trees removed or, if on site plantings cannot be
accommodated, a payment in lieu of onsite planting must be made to
the City to support streetscape plantings in the immediate neighborhood.
Any parkway trees removed, shall be replaced.
b. Verification that adequate screening is provided along the north and
south property lines.
4. A plan for construction parking and materials’ staging shall be submitted for
review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist, City
Engineer and Director of Community Development. No on street parking is
permitted due to the narrow width and curving nature of the street. Off site
parking and the shuttling of workers to the site will be necessary if adequate
parking is not possible on the site.
14
5. This project must abide by all of the terms, conditions, restrictions, and
provisions of The City of Lake Forest City Code, and all other applicable
codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and approved by a vote of 6
- 0.
OTHER ITEMS
6. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board.
7. Additional information from staff.
There was no additional information presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate McManus
Assistant Planner