Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2017/03/01 Minutes Page 1 of 15 March 1, 2017 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of March 1, 2017 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, March 1st, 2017 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: Jim Diamond, Peter Dunne and Robert Reda Building Review Board members absent: Ross Friedman, Mike Bleck and 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 February 1, 2017 meeting of the Building Review Board. The February 1st meeting minutes were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for demolition of an existing residence located at 270 E. Westleigh Road. Owner: Robert Spiel, Jr., Property Owner Representatives: Robert Spiel, Jr. Susan Benjamin, Historic Preservation Consultant Chuck Byrum, Attorney Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Byrum introduced the petition. He stated that the Spiels are seeking approval of the demolition of the existing home to allow them to market the land for development. Mr. Spiel explained that it is not his wish to demolish the house, but stated that the property is a large piece of land and the house has proven to be a negative to Page 2 of 15 March 1, 2017 developers looking at the property. He stated that his preference is to find a buyer who will preserve the house, but stated that after years of marketing the property, it is important to have the option of demolition. He explained that the house was built in1947, by his parents, on what was then a 20 acre parcel of land surrounded by farmland. He stated that his parents selected the land because it was close to the Great Lakes Base. He noted that his parents sold the eastern part of the property which was subdivided and developed with single family homes. He noted that although Stanley Anderson originally designed the home, it was later added on to, nearly doubling the original size. He stated that the house is no longer true to Anderson’s design. He noted that the property has been owned by his family since his parents purchased it, and explained that now, his family is ready to downsize and sell it. He stated that they initially thought the best way to sell the property and house was to seek approval of a subdivision to attract buyers. He stated that subdivision of the property was approved by the City, but even with the approvals in place, they have been unable to sell the property. He stated that developers have said that the house is an impediment to selling the property. He stated that the subdivision approvals have expired so they are attempting a different approach to selling the property. He explained that they have engaged an architectural historian, Susan Benjamin, who, after a lengthy study, prepared a comprehensive report with findings supporting the conclusion that the house was modified too much to warrant preservation. He stated that they are seeking approval of demolition to increase the marketability of the property. Mr. Byrum reiterated that the owners have had no luck finding a buyer for the property as a whole, so they decided to seek subdivision approval and brought forward a subdivision that created a lot on which the existing house would be preserved. He stated that the property has been on the market for 8 years and the house has consistently been identified as an impediment by potential buyers. He stated that the owners would now like to be able to market the property with the option of demolishing the house. Ms. Benjamin stated that the Spiel family engaged architect Stanley Anderson in 1946 and initially considered two designs for the new house, one more formal, and the other a simpler ranch style. She stated that the house was originally quite small and in 1951, Stanley Anderson designed an addition. She noted that in 1989, further substantial additions were constructed. She stated that the later additions and alterations compromised the integrity of the original design. She added that the front entry was modified at some point over the years. She reviewed images of the house noting the loss of architectural integrity. She concluded that the house is not architecturally significant and does not warrant preservation. She stated that removing the house would not have a negative impact on the character of Lake Forest. Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that this is an unusual petition noting that the Board normally sees requests for demolitions accompanied by a proposed replacement Page 3 of 15 March 1, 2017 structure. She stated that the existing house is sited on a 10 acre parcel of land and as noted by the petitioner, it has proven difficult to find a buyer for the land who is willing to preserve the house. She stated that she has never seen owners work so hard to preserve a home. She that the Spiels have spent a tremendous amount of money and time conducting studies and completing the due diligence necessary to obtain approvals for subdivision of the property. She added that the Spiels have tried diligently to market the home and the property together, and separately. She stated that the property is very unique with a significant grade change, heritage oak trees and a location fairly near the Central Business District. She stated that the property provides an opportunity for a smaller lot, cluster, infill subdivision. She stated when the owners started to consider demolition, staff recommended that they hire a preservation consultant to study the significance of house. She noted that the consultant’s report presents findings that the house is not architecturally or historically significant. She stated that staff recommends approval of the demolition. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if a demolition is approved, the approval will be valid for 2 years. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. Czerniak stated if a buyer is found for the property, staff will work with the petitioners and buyer on the timing of the sale and demolition to assure that the approval is valid. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the subdivision approvals have expired. She confirmed that a new subdivision petition will need to be filed once a buyer steps forward. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Reda pointed out that the Board takes demolition requests seriously particularly when a significant architect is associated with a house. He noted however, that the Spiel house does not retain the qualities that are characteristic of Stanley Anderson’s designs. He stated that the owners have spent 8 years trying to market the property in different configurations. He stated that he is supportive of the demolition request based on the findings presented in the staff and consultant’s reports. Chairman Notz and Board members Diamond and Dunne expressed their support of the petition. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings detailed in the staff report and based on the information submitted by the petitioners and their consultants. Approval is recommended subject to the Page 4 of 15 March 1, 2017 following conditions. 1. Comprehensive photo documentation of the residence, the residence in the context of the property, and unique architectural details remaining from the Stanley Anderson design must be provided to the City in a digital form determined to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the photos, in conjunction with the report prepared by Benjamin Consultants, is to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 2. A staging and parking plan for demolition must be approved by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development to assure protection of existing trees and vegetation during demolition activity. Only the removal of trees and vegetation determined to be absolutely necessary for demolition of the house is authorized in conjunction with the demolition, subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. 3. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the residence and until demolition activity is diligently being pursued, the residence and property must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code. 4. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 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 Diamond and passed by a vote of 4 – 0. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of a new residence, attached garage, site plan and landscape plan on the site of a previous demolition at 350 W. Everett Road. Owner: Anne Roberti Representative: Rick Swanson, 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. Swanson reviewed the location of the property noting that the lots on the south side of Everett Road are generally smaller than the lots to the north. He reviewed images of neighboring homes and explained that there have been several tear downs in the neighborhood. He stated that 350 Everett Road is a 1.5 acre parcel with mature trees. He explained that the existing underbrush and invasive species will be cleaned Page 5 of 15 March 1, 2017 up as part of redevelopment of the lot. He stated that in response to comments from staff, the driveway was modified to minimize impacts to the existing Hickory tree at the front of the lot. He stated that a single curb cut is proposed to minimize impacts to trees. He noted that the siting of the house is similar to the siting of the replacement house that was approved in 2014, concurrent with the approval of the demolition of the house that was previously located on the property. He reviewed the proposed plantings and stated that most of the trees on the site will be preserved. He stated that his client desires a European cottage style home and noted that the house is 1.5 stories, less imposing than a full 2 story home. He explained that the intent is to keep the profile of the house low. He stated that the exterior materials are limestone in an ashlar pattern, real stucco with a stipple finish and a small amount of brick located on the chimney. He stated that the windows will be a charcoal gray color with real shutters and appropriate hardware. He stated that the windows are simulated divided lites. He reviewed the other exterior materials including copper flashing, a cedar roof and aluminum gutters and downspouts. He reviewed all 4 elevations of the proposed house. He stated that the rooflines break up the massing of the house and that the massing is consistent on the front and the rear. He noted the helix brick shape on the chimney, a feature desired by the property owner. He reviewed the streetscape elevation and provided a color rendering reflecting the proposed color palette. Ms. McManus stated that the lot was previously developed with a single family residence that was approved for demolition in 2014 and demolished later that year. She noted that a replacement residence was approved; however, it was not constructed and since then, the ownership of the property has changed. She stated because the lot is the site of a previous demolition, the replacement residence now proposed, requires Board review. She confirmed that the siting of the proposed residence is similar to the siting of the previously approved replacement house and minimizes impacts to trees. She noted that high quality natural materials are proposed for the exterior of the home. She requested the Board’s input on the detailing noting that staff recommends some overall simplification of the design. She stated that there is a grade change on the property and noted that the grading plan will be reviewed by engineering staff prior to the issuance of a building permit to verify that any regrading that is proposed will not negatively impact neighboring properties. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Swanson stated that the siting of the house relative to the street is similar to the siting of adjacent homes. He stated that as proposed, the house is set back 85 feet from the front property line. He noted that the siting of the house is intended to avoid impacting trees at the front of the lot. Board member Reda thanked the petitioner for providing the color rendering noting that it is helpful in understanding the detail ing, materials and proposed color palette. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Swanson stated that the curb cut location was shifted drive 3 feet to avoid a tree. He confirmed that the Page 6 of 15 March 1, 2017 window sills are limestone and the trim is wood. He stated that aluminum was selected for the gutters and downspouts for budgetary reasons, but noted that the owner may consider copper. He added that aluminum is consistent with the overall color palette and is a dark gray, similar to the trim color. He stated that the color of the trim and proposed gutters is reflected in the rendering. He stated that there are options to scale the chimney down, but noted that the client is very fond of the helix detailing. He stated that the cupola is true to the selected architectural style. In response to a question from Ms. Czerniak, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the chimney is not visible in the view presented in the rendering. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus confirmed that staff recommends consideration of some simplification of exterior detailing given the relatively simple residences in the overall area. Mr. Swanson stated that consideration can be given to removing the cupola and reducing the scale of the chimney. In response to a question from Board member Dunne, Mr. Swanson suggested reducing the height of the helix form on the chimney noting that could simplify the appearance of the chimney. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the trim is stained wood, not painted wood. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak explained that the previously approved house was not constructed due to the personal circumstances of the previous property owner. She stated that the lot was acquired by a new owner who hired their own architect. She confirmed that plans for a replacement residence were submitted along with the application for a demolition permit, however, the house was demolished and circumstances changed preventing construction of the new house. Mr. Swanson added that the massing of the house now proposed is a story and a half as opposed to 2 stories as previously approved. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Swanson stated that although he did not prepare an exhibit demonstrating the siting of the home in relation to the siting of homes on neighboring properties, there is a significant distance between the proposed home and neighboring homes. He stated that the home to the west is of a smaller scale. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Page 7 of 15 March 1, 2017 Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, complimented the design and noted that the home is appropriately scaled for the neighborhood. He stated that there is considerable detail on the front façade and agreed that some simplification may make it more readable to passersby. He explained that he initially had concerns that the entrance was not sufficiently defined, but stated that the rendering helped to convey that the entry is recessed. He noted that in his opinion, the gables and dormers detract from the entrance. In response to public testimony, Mr. Swanson explained that the entrance is 9 feet tall and is intentionally scaled down consistent with the cottage look. He stated that a more casual entrance was desired and confirmed that there will be a trellis to frame the entrance area. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Notz invited final comments from the Board. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the siting of the house is intended to minimize impacts to trees. Board member Reda complimented the design and stated that the suggestions made by the Board and staff should be considered and that final approval of minor modifications should be delegated to staff. Board members Diamond and Dunne stated agreement with Board member Reda. Chairman Notz stated that the home is respectful of the site and complimented the design. He thanked the Preservation Foundation for their comments. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented and as modified by the following conditions of approval, meet the design standards and requirements of the City Code as detailed in this staff report. Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans shall be modified as detailed below. If additional modifications are made to the plans that were presented to the Board, either in response to Board direction, or as the result of final design development, the modifications shall be clearly called out on the plan and a copy of the plans as presented to the Board at the January 4, 2017 meeting shall be attached to the revised plans 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. Page 8 of 15 March 1, 2017 a. The driveway should be in full conformance with zoning regulations; parking areas or a driveway of expanded width is not permitted within the front yard setback. b. The driveway shall be shifted east to minimize impacts to the existing Hickory tree subject to approval by the City Arborist. c. The exterior detailing shall be simplified consistent with the Board’s discussion, and is subject to approval by City staff. 2. The final grading and drainage plan shall demonstrate that any grading and filling on the property is kept to the minimum necessary to achieve proper drainage. Additional information, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, may be required to verify the project is consistent with Code requirements and to verify good engineering practices are followed to minimize the potential for negative impacts to trees identified for preservation and to adjacent properties. 3. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan to assure that there are no conflicts between the proposed grading and overland stormwater flow routes and trees identified for preservation and proposed plantings. a. A dense planting buffer shall be retained along the streetscape. b. Adequate screening shall be achieved along the north, east and west property lines to minimize visual impacts to neighboring properties. 4. If determined to be necessary by the City’s Certified Arborist, a pre and post tree maintenance plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be submitted outlining the steps that will be taken to protect the mature trees on the property. Th e maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. 5. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a materials staging and construction vehicle parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and will be subject to City approval in an effort to minimize and manage impacts on the neighborhood during construction and to minimize impacts on trees intended for preservation. On street parking on Everett Road is not permitted. Offsite parking for workers and shuttles to the site may be required if on site parking cannot be accommodated. 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. Page 9 of 15 March 1, 2017 The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and passed by a vote of 4 – 0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of demolition of an existing residence and detached garage located at 135 E. Westminster and approval of a replacement residence, detached garage, site plan and landscape plan. Owner: Painted Post, LLC (Michael Moore and Sarah Moore) Representative: Susan Rolander, architect Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Rolander introduced the petition and explained that she has been working with the property owners for some time on finding the right solution for this property. She stated that the lot is unique in that it was originally part of a cluster of 3 cottages, 2 of which were later combined into a single home. She noted that 135 E. Westminster is a lot in depth and the setbacks are very tight, leaving a buildable area of only 2.5 feet wide and 37 feet long. She stated that there were many iterations of the design and that a remodel was initially considered. She stated that the lengthy study concluded that the best solution is to demolish the existing house and construct a new house in generally the same footprint and location as the existing house. She noted that a mature oak is located near the street and in the rear yard and both will be protected during construction. She provided streetscape views showing that the house is minimally visible from the street. She explained that the existing house is only 4 feet from the neighboring house and noted that distance is increased with the new plan. She stated that there has been deferred maintenance on the existing house and as a result, the mechanicals need to be replaced and substantial work to the structure would be needed. She provided images of the existing conditions noting that the images are included in the Engineer’s Report. She reviewed the proposed site plan noting the location of the proposed replacement house in relation to the neighboring home and explained that the existing detached garage will be replaced with a slightly larger garage. She reviewed the preliminary landscape plan and pointed out the hedge along the west portion of the property. She stated that the massing of the house was kept down to be appropriate for the neighborhood. She reviewed elevations of the proposed house and explained that she looked closely at potential impacts to the neighboring properties. She reviewed the streetscape elevation of the existing and proposed houses and stated that the increased height of the proposed house provides a transition from the house to the east to the house to the west. She stated that the width of the new house is generally consistent with the existing house and pointed out that the ridge height was increased. Ms. McManus stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals recently reviewed and recommended approval of the variances required for the project. She reviewed the Building Review Board’s purview with respect to this project noting that the Board is Page 10 of 15 March 1, 2017 responsible for the design aspects of the project, the siting and relationship to neighboring properties and impacts to the streetscape. She stated that the proposed residence is appropriate for the site and is simple in massing and detailing. She noted that the mature trees on the site will be protected during construction and stated that staff is recommending approval of the petition. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of the variances requested and stated that the Board’s purview is to consider if the demolition is appropriate and if so, whether the replacement residence is designed in a manner that is consistent with the Design Guidelines and the review standards and appropriate for the neighborhood. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. Rolander stated that although material samples are not available, the siding will be true wood, painted white. She stated that a color rendering was not completed due to budget issues. She stated that the house is setback approximately 19 feet from the east property line and explained that in general, the replacement residence conforms to the footprint of the existing house. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Rolander stated that the house is designed in a cottage style with English Colonial elements. Board member Reda stated that the new house will be more visible from the street as a result of the increase in height. He noted that the south elevation appears unbalanced and the chimney appears to block the windows. He expressed concern with the placement of the door and alignment of windows. Chairman Notz pointed out that the entry is recessed, but agreed that it appears tight on the elevation. Ms. Rolander stated that the entry is actually quite gracious with a cased opening and sidelights. She stated that the details are not shown on the elevation and confirmed that the entry is recessed 3-4 feet. She added that the goal was to keep the overall form and detailing simple. In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. Rolander stated that the driveway is asphalt and the patio is bluestone. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that the 3 cottages were likely rentals or family cottages. He noted that the proposed design is consistent with the cottage design. He agreed that a rendering would be helpful adding that the quirks of the design are characteristic of a Page 11 of 15 March 1, 2017 cottage. He stated that the house gives the sense that the home is part of the cottage site and agreed that the project as proposed is a good solution for this challenging lot. Ms. Rolander thanked Mr. Miller for his comments and stated that the 2 cottages to the east have been combined into a single home and are under the same ownership. She explained that she tried to return to the original intention of the site while working within the constraints of the site. Board member Reda stated that his concerns regarding the entrance and chimney have been addressed by the additional information provided by the petitioner. Board member Diamond and Chairman Notz complimented the design. In response to a question from Board member Dunne, Ms. Czerniak stated that a parking and construction staging plan will be required and reviewed by staff before a permit is issued. No construction vehicle parking will be permitted on the street. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented and as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, meet the design standards and requirements of the City Code as detailed in this staff report. Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. If any modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board either in response to Board direction, or 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. The house and garage shall be in full conformance with building scale regulations. b. Natural wood shall be used for the exterior siding and trim. 2. A final landscape plan shall be drawn on the approved grading and drainage plan and will be subject to review and approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The final landscape plan shall include the following: a. A protection plan for the mature tree located at the front of the lot. Tree protection must remain in place as directed by the City’s Certified Arborist at all times throughout construction until removal is authorized in writing by the City. Page 12 of 15 March 1, 2017 b. Replacement inches for trees removed should be planted at least in part in the form of larger, deciduous trees. Replacement inches may need to be in the form of a payment in lieu of onsite plantings to support parkway plantings in the vicinity, due to the limited lot size. 3. Details of exterior lighting, if any is proposed, shall be submitted with the plans submitted for permit. All fixtures shall direct light downward and the source of the light shall be fully shielded from view. 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 construction parking is permitted on Westminster. Offsite parking and shuttling workers to the site may be necessary due to the narrow street and traffic levels. 5. Prior to demolition, comprehensive photo documentation of the residence, the overall property and the streetscape must be provided to the City in a digital form determined to be satisfactory by the City. The purpose of the documentation is to preserve an historic record of the property in both the City and in the Lake Forest- Lake Bluff Historical Society archives. 6. Until a permit is obtained for demolition of the house and until demolition activity is diligently being pursued, the property and yard must be maintained in good condition consistent with the requirements of the Code. 7. Demolition activity must begin within 30 days of installation of construction and site protection fencing and demolition activity must be continuously pursued to completion to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. 8. 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 Diamond and passed by a vote of 4 – 0. 6. Consideration of a request for approval of new signage for an existing business, under new ownership, at 1400-1440 Skokie Highway. Owner: Life Storage Holdings, Inc. Representative: William Sheehan, Ahem Sign Company Chairman Notz asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Page 13 of 15 March 1, 2017 Mr. Sheehan introduced the petition and reviewed the square footage of the buildings located on the Life Storage site. He stated that the storage buildings were constructed in 1996 and were previously occupied by Uncle Bob’s Storage. He stated that the property was recently purchased by Life Storage and new signage with the business name and company logo, which represents a box, is proposed. He reviewed the proposed signs including 3 wall signs and 1 monument sign. He noted that the 3 of the 4 existing signs will simply be refaced and the pin mounted letter sign will be replaced. He added that there are no changes proposed to the locations or lighting method for the signs. He stated that a non-illuminated wall sign with pin mounted letters is proposed and is 40 square feet less than the original sign. He stated that slight color changes proposed. He stated that the monument sign will be refaced and the existing wall cabinets will be refaced. Ms. McManus stated that the site is well outside the Central Business District and is adjacent to the highway. She stated that the petition is before the Board because graphics are proposed. She stated that there are 4 existing signs on the site and 3 signs will be refaced and 1 replaced with the new business name and logo. She added that the proposed colors are generally consistent with the previous signage. She explained that the logos proposed on the 2 wall cabinet signs exceed the allowable 15 percen t of the overall signage area; and therefore, staff is recommending that the logos be reduced to comply with the 15 percent limitation. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Sheehan confirmed that the monument sign letters will be lit, but the background will not. In response to a question from Chairman Notz, Ms. McManus confirmed that the graphics on the wall sign cabinets are over 15 percent of the overall sign area. She stated that the logo on the monument sign is under the allowable 15 percent and that no logo is proposed for the pin mounted sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that reducing the size of the graphics would be costly since the signs are already installed. In response to a comment from Ms. Czerniak, Mr. Sheehan acknowledged that that the signs were installed without the required permits. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Ms. McManus explained that allowing the graphics to exceed the allowable 15 percent of the sign area would set a precedent for future signage. Ms. Czerniak offered that the findings of the Board could make it clear that the variance from the 15 percent limitation is based on the location of the business on Route 41. Page 14 of 15 March 1, 2017 Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public comment. Art Miller, 169 Wildwood Road and President of the Lake Forest Preservation Foundation, stated that the larger graphics may be appropriate and more visible to high speed traffic. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Notz invited final comments from the Board. Chairman Notz agreed with Mr. Miller’s comments that some increase in the size of the graphics may be warranted given the unique location of the site. Board member Diamond expressed concern that the approval may set a precedent for future signage, but agreed that with some careful wording of the findings and approval s, he is supportive of the petition. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Notz invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the petition based on the findings detailed in the staff report which document that the plans as presented and as modified by the recommended conditions of approval, meet the design standards and requirements of the City Code as detailed in the staff report. He stated that an exception allowing the graphic to exceed the permitted 15 percent is granted based on the location of the site adjacent to Route 41. Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 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 the conditions prior to submitting a complete application and plans for a building permit. 2. All signage shall only be illuminated during business hours. 3. The lighting intensity shall be evaluated by staff to verify consistency with lighting levels in the area. The intensity of the lighting shall be reduced if directed by staff. 4. 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 Diamond and passed by a vote of 4 – 0. OTHER ITEMS Page 15 of 15 March 1, 2017 7. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 8. Additional information from staff. Ms. McManus stated that staff is updating the Building Review Board application and checklist and requested comments and suggestions from the Board to be sent to her via email or phone by March 15th. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner