Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2016/09/07 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of September 7, 2016 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, September 7th 2016, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Board members: Peter Dunne, Jim Diamond, Acting Chairman Ross Friedman, Robert Reda, Fred Moyer and Mike Bleck (arrived at 7:00 p.m.) Building Review Board members absent: Chairman Ted Notz Staff present: Kate McManus, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Acting Chairman Friedman Acting Chairman Friedman 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 August 8th, 2016 meeting of the Building Review Board. The minutes of the August 8th, 2016 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing single family residence located at 234 W. Westminster and approval of a replacement residence, attached garage, attached pool house, overall site plan and conceptual landscape plan. Owners: Chicago Title Land Trust Company (Mary Liz and Peter Lehman) Representative: Austin DePree, architect Acting Chairman Friedman asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. DePree introduced the petition noting that he has been working with the owners on the new house for 8 months since they purchased the property at the beginning of the year. He explained that they considered several design iterations that worked with the existing house, but noted that demolition was the most feasible option. He explained that the existing foundation will be used for the new house. He provided an aerial image of the property noting that Lake Forest Open Lands owns the preserved open space located to the north and the tennis court and garage doors on the adjacent properties to the east and west of the Lehman property. He stated that the existing driveway on the subject property encroaches onto the property to the west and that the existing garage is non-conforming to zoning regulations. He reviewed the tree survey noting that approximately 9 trees are proposed for removal. He reviewed streetscape images and explained that the house is minimally visible from Westminster. He noted that the house was constructed in 1968, designed by local architect, Robert Roloson, but does not appear to possess significant architectural features worthy of preservation. He noted that the foundation will remain and the new house will be in full conformance with setbacks. He stated that the proposed pool house will be sited where the existing garage is generally located, but will conform to all setbacks. He explained that a new curb cut and visitor parking is introduced at the front. He reviewed the proposed floor plans noting that there is a bedroom suite on the first floor for guests or a future master suite. He noted that the house is under the allowable height and explained that the owners desire a modern Cape Cod style home. He noted that the massing is broken down with differing roofs and off sets of various elements on each elevation. He noted that the rear of the house faces the preserved open space meadow. He added that more traditional massing is introduced in the replacement house than exists in the current house. He noted that the first floor features double hung windows and French doors. He provided colored perspectives of the house, details on the proposed materials and images of fencing and gate concepts. Ms. McManus noted that the request is for approval of a full demolition and replacement structure. She noted that as proposed, portions of the existing foundation will be reused. She explained that based on the structural evaluation provided, it appears that the foundation is in good condition, but added that additional information on the foundation may be needed prior to the issuance of any building permits to verify that it can be reused. She stated that the request generally meets the demolition criteria and the proposed replacement residence appears to meet the design standards. She stated that suggested conditions of approval, detailed in the staff report, include limiting the width of the metal roof panels to 12 inches to assure that they have a residential character, and minimizing exterior lighting due to the close proximity to Open Lands. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. DePree clarified that the roof color is in the gray family and slightly darker than the cedar siding. In response to a question from Board member Reda, Mr. DePree stated that he agrees with the conditions in the staff report. He explained that the front entry was designed to emulate a simple saltbox house. He added that the front elevation is somewhat austere and the rear of the house is more dramatic. In response to a question from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. DePree noted that the entry is recessed approximately 4.5 feet. Board member Reda thanked the petitioner for providing daytime and nighttime colored renderings. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Mr. DePree stated that the barn door on the garage will be operable and the space used for bicycle storage. In response to questions from Board member Dunne, Mr. DePree agreed that all exterior lighting will comply with the City’s lighting guidelines and that the fixtures will direct light downward and screen the source of the light. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. DePree confirmed that the cedar shingles will be individual shingles, stained gray. He stated that the windows are aluminum clad wood, selected for ease of maintenance and he noted that the manufacturer will likely be Windsor or Marvin. He noted that the windows on the second floor are double hung and noted that the first floor predominantly has French doors. He stated that the flashing will be copper and gutters and downspouts are galvanized. He added that the flashing will turn to a dark brown color. He stated that 12 inch wide panels will be used for the roof. Carrie Meade, Mariani Landscaping, noted that the site is unique and explained that the landscape design creates a private retreat and retains th e natural characteristics of the property. She stated that the rear yard is influenced by the prairie and the front yard is more of a woodland garden. She confirmed that the lot is fairly flat and said that any grading on the property will be kept to a minimum due to the wetland behind the property. In response to a question from Board member Diamond, Ms. Meade stated that the fencing details have not been finalized but may consist of black wire mesh fencing and a wood fence with a rural feel. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. DePree stated that the connecting element linking the house to the pool house was designed to play off the open veranda on the east elevation. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Hearing no further comments from the Board , he invited a motion. Board member Reda moved to approve the demolition of the existing residence. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and the motioned passed by a vote of 5 to 0. 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. 1. The standing seam metal roof panels shall be residential in scale and shall not exceed twelve inches in width. 2. If any modifications are made to the plans presented to the Board, either in respon se to conditions of approval, Board direction, or as the result of final design development, all changes 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. 3. A final lighting plan, including specifications on all exterior fixtures proposed, shall be submitted prior to any installation of light fixtures. The dark sky, right to night approach shall be complied with, sources of light shall be fully shielded from view and fixtures shall direct l ight downward. Given the proximity of open lands, minimizing light impacts and visibility from off of the property is important. 4. The final landscape plan must be submitted prior to rough inspections and must be drawn 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, prior to any final inspections, to support streetscape plantings in the immediate neighborhood. Based on the information currently available, replacement tree inches must total not less than 97 inches. If additional trees are proposed for removal, beyond those reflected on the tree removal plan submitted to the Board, additional review and additional replacement inches may be required. 5. 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 and treat the mature trees on the property. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the Arborist to verify completion of specified measures at appropriate points before the issuance of permits, during construction and after completion of the project. 6. 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. Street parking is only permitted directly in front of this property. 7. Prior to demolition of the existing residence 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 approved by a vote of 5 to 0. Board member Bleck joined the Board. 4. Consideration of a request for approval of the demolition of the existing single family residence located at 158 N. Western Avenue and approval of a replacement residence, detached garage, overall site plan and conceptual landscape plan. Owner: Grace 90, LLC (Peter Brennan 100%) Representative: Jeff Letzter, project manager Acting Chairman Friedman asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Letzter provided photos of the existing residence and current streetscape noting the variety of housing sizes and setbacks along Western Avenue. He explained that the house was constructed in the 1920s and no architect of record was found. He stated that the demolition criteria are met. He explained that his design team considered ways to renovate the existing house, but based on the deteriorating condition of the house, it was determined that demolition was the best solution. He noted that the lot is in the R-2 zoning which dictates 12 foot side yard setbacks. He pointed out that the house to the north is setback a great distance from street and that the replacement house will be located more consistent with the 12 setback requirement. He stated that the replacement residence is designed in the Colonial Revival style with a gambrel roof. He noted that the less formal design was selected to fit in with the existing streetscape and noted that the house is characterized by an open porch and traditional detailing. He reviewed the proposed elevations noting that the house has double hung windows, shutters, an open front porch, a swooping front gable over the porch and a rear porch balcony off the rear. He stated that in response to staff comments, the brick base can be extended around the house. He noted that a brick chimney and a breakfast nook are proposed on the rear elevation. He stated that no variances are requested, but acknowledged that the detached garage, as proposed, does not fully conform to setbacks. He stated that he will work with staff to resolve this issue to ensure that no variances are required. He stated that the house can be shifted slightly forward to allow the garage to be shifted forward to comply with setbacks. He provided a streetscape elevation. He noted that that staff recommended that 2 doors be used in place of one large door on the garage and agreed to consider that recommendation. He stated that the garage is under the allowable size and the driveway location will not change from the existing location. He reviewed the grading plan and tree removal plan and noted that a total of 3 trees will be removed. He stated that the landscape plan took into account the proposed tree loss and provided for replacement inches for two trees but not for the additional tree recommended for removal by the City’s arborist. He stated that he explored adding sidelights to the front entry, but due to the interior layout, there is not enough space for additional windows. He suggested that trim could be added around the front door. He stated that the details should remain simple and understated. Ms. McManus stated that the request is for approval of a full demolition and replacement structure. She noted that the existing residence is in severely deteriorated condition and fully meets the demolition criteria. She stated that the replacement residence is appropriate for the neighborhood and consistent with the selected style . She reviewed the recommendations in the staff report including extending the brick base around the house, adding sidelights to the front entry, refining the stairway window on the north elevation and exploring the feasibility of 2 garage doors instead of a single double wide door. She explained that the proposed location of the garage does not comply with the setbacks for the zoning district, but said staff can work with the petitioner to modify the garage location to conform to all setbacks. She noted that a neighbor provided a letter to the Board expressing concerns regarding drainage and visibility of the garage. She stated that the neighbor requested a copy of the final grading plan and suggested that a condition of approval be added requiring staff to contact the neighbor when the grading and drainage plan is available. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Letzter provided samples of the exterior materials. He noted that the roof is asphalt shingle in a charcoal color and the siding is light gray clapboard with white wood trim. He stated that the windows will also be white with properly sized shutters. He stated that 8 inch round fibercast columns are proposed and the porch railing is wood. He pointed out that this architectural style typically has narrow columns but stated that the diameter could be increased to 10 inches in diameter if so directed by the Board. He stated that the foundation will be a reddish brick and the windows are aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites. He explained that the stairwell window was designed to provide more light into the stairwell and noted that the half round shape of the window is also found in the door transom and the gable end vents. He stated that the stair window is on the north elevation and is not highly visible because the neighboring house is set so far back on the lot. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Letzter confirmed that there is a fair amount of grade change on the lot and that the foundation steps down, following the grade. He explained that the floor system will be lowered into foundation, but the brick will follow the grade. In response to a question from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. Letzter stated that the brick base will be stepped back from the siding and will be brick veneer. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Letzter stated that the window on the north elevation is important to the interior of the space and noted that the Colonial Revival style allows for some flexibility in design features. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Letzter confirmed that the shutters will be properly sized and will be detailed with shutter dogs. He stated that the columns will be increased to10 inches in diameter. He added that the balustrades could be revised to visually match the columns. He stated that the porch light will be in the porch ceiling and that a pendent over the entry may be considered. He stated that drainage runs toward the street and agreed to provide the neighbor with the grading plan and drainage plan. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Letzter confirmed that the site plan and elevations do not reflect the grade changes that are planned, but noted that the foundation will follow the grade, brick will be added to the lower portion of the house and that the first floor may be set into the foundation. Board member Moyer complimented the proportions and scale of the design and expressed support for the balustrade as presented. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. Letzter stated that if approved by the City Engineer, the downspouts and sump pump will be tied into the storm sewer if one is available. He stated that the large tree at the front of the house is a pine tree and its removal will allow the house to be shifted forward to bring the garage into conformance with the setbacks. He noted that as proposed, the porch ceiling is bead board and the soffits are smooth wood. He agreed to using bead board for the soffits to match the porch ceiling. He stated that the front porch decking will be pavers. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman invited public testimony. Eugene Stack, 142 N. Western Avenue, stated that he is the neighbor to the south of the property and requested information on the potential impacts to the trees along the property line and expressed concerns about drainage. In response to public testimony, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the trees are on the property line and that the City’s Certified Arborist recommended that protective measures be taken in an effort to preserve the trees. She stated that if the trees are harmed and require removal, the petitioner will be responsible for removing and replacing the trees. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Letzter stated that the driveway is asphalt, nine feet wide and located one foot from the south property line. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. Letzter stated that the driveway will be engineered so that it does not drain water toward the neighbor to the south. He confirmed that the current home does not have a sump pump and that no fencing is proposed on the property. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman invited final comments. Board member Moyer encouraged the petitioner to take the comments of the Board into account as the final design development is completed. He stated that he is generally supportive of the petition. Board member Reda stated that he is supportive of the project as long as the conditions as recommended in the staff report are met. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Freidman invited a motion. Board member Reda moved to approve the demolition of the existing residence . The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and the motioned passed by a vote of 6 to 0. 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. 1. Modify the plans as detailed below. If additional 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. The plans submitted for permit shall reflect the following refinements: a. The large window on the north elevation shall be refined to better relate in form and size to the other windows and the architectural style of the house. b. The brick base shall extend around the entire house. c. Individual garage doors shall be installed on the garage in place of a single double wide door, if determined to be functional. d. A profile of the windows shall be submitted to demonstrate that the window frame and sill project beyond the window consistent with window forms. e. All fascia, soffits and trim shall be wood on both the house and garage. f. Shutters shall be constructed of wood with shutter dogs and properly sized to cover windows. g. Porch columns shall be a greater diameter than presented to the Board to visually appear adequate to support the porch roof, approximately 10 inches in diameter. h. The porch ceiling and soffits shall be faced with bead board. i. The garage shall conform to zoning setbacks. In consultation with staff, the house may be shifted forward on the lot, not to exceed the front yard setback, to allow the garage to meet setbacks. 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 and that the overall height of the residence, when measured from the lowest point of existing adjacent grade, is consistent with the information presented to the Board with respect to the height of the residence. Additional information, as determined to be 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 on adjacent properties. The drainage and grading plan shall be made available to the neighboring property owner. a. Subject to approval by the City Engineer, the gutters and downspouts shall tie into the storm sewer. b. The driveway shall be engineered so that is does not drain toward neighboring properties. 3. A tree removal plan shall be submitted clearly detailing the trees proposed for removal and those which will be protected and preserved. 4. 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. a. Year round screening shall be enhanced along the rear, west side, of the lot and along the south side of the driveway. b. Inch for inch replacement for trees removed shall be reflected on the landscape plan and the plan is subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. 5. 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. The maintenance plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist. The plan shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Arborist and regular inspections shall be conducted by the Arborist to verify completion of specified measures at appropriate points before the issuance of permits, during construction and after completion of the project. 6. 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. 7. 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. Due to the location of the property near an at grade railroad crossing and given the narrowness of the Western Avenue roadway, no on street parking or staging of construction vehicles or contractor vehicles are permitted. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Given the deteriorated condition of the existing residence and various Code violations on the site, demolition of the house must begin within six months of the date of final approval of this petition. 11. 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. 12. 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 Bleck and approved by a vote of 6 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of signage for a new business, LifeWorking, at 717 Forest Avenue. Owner: L3 Capital, LLC (Michael Schreiber, Domenic Lanni, Timothy Phair, Greg Schott) Tenant and Representative: Steven Whittington, CEO, LifeWorking Ms. Czerniak introduced the petition noting that it was a late addition to the agenda at the request of the petitioner due to the upcoming opening of the new business. Steve Whittington, founder and CEO, introduced the petition and reviewed the business concept for Lifeworking. He explained that it will be a shared workspace located in the Central Business District. He noted that the business will occupy the entire second floor of a multi-tenant business at 717 Forest Avenue and that the business is one not found in Lake Forest. He reviewed the proposed signage request consisting of 2 exterior signs, one vertical sign to attract attention to the second floor at the corner Westminster and Forest Avenue and a small plaque at the entrance to the business on Forest Avenue. He stated that the vertical sign is located 10.5 off the ground and is constructed of aluminum with vinyl graphics. He noted that the sign will be mounted with a steel plate. He stated that in response to staff’s recommendation dimensional letters will be considered, in place of vinyl letters. He stated that a variance is requested because the sign exceeds the allowable 6 square feet per side for a projecting sign, per the City Code. He stated that the second sign is aluminum with etched letters and located left of the entrance. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the location of the business, on the south side of Westminster, between Bank Lane and Forest Avenue. She stated that the building is contemporary, with little ornamentation. She stated that the new business will occupy the whole second floor. She stated that the proposed signage appears generally appropriate for the building and the type of business. She stated that the total square footage of signage proposed is under the allowable square footage; however, the projecting sign itself is over the allowable square footage for that type of sign. She explained that the signage guidelines were written with a first story business in mind. She noted that the size of the sign appears to be appropriate given the location near the second floor. She stated that the projecting sign will be visible from two streets and will draw the eye up to the second floor. She stated that the wall plaque sign is very subtle. She stated that staff is generally supportive of the proposed signage and recommends that dimensional letters be considered in place of vinyl letters. Board member Moyer questioned the white background on the projecting sign. He acknowledged that the sign is larger than what the Board is used to seeing, but is considering the staff recommendation. Board member Reda complimented the business concept and expressed concern about the size of the projecting sign. He stated that there is no precedent for this type of sign in the Central Business District but that he may be open to the signage concept with some modifications. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Whittington stated that the lettering on the wall plaque is etched onto the aluminum and is gray. He provided images of the proposed vertical sign in two sizes. Board member Bleck agreed that the background color for the vertical, projecting sign does not appear appropriate. In response to the Board discussion, Ms. Czerniak offered that the Board could consider the signs separately, if desired. In response to a question from Acting Chairman Friedman, Mr. Whittington stated that the projecting sign extends 8 inches from the building. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak explained that the City Code allows for a maximum of 25 square feet of signage and the proposed signage totals 15.5 square feet. She stated that the City Code limits projecting signs to 6 square feet per side and the proposed projecting sign is 11 square feet per side. In response to questions from Board member Diamond, Mr. Whittington explained that the wall sign is located on Forest Avenue and that the vertical projecting sign is proposed as unpainted aluminum. He agreed to consider alternatives to vinyl for the lettering. Board member Dunne stated that he is supportive of considering the signs separately. He stated that the concept of a projecting sign is generally acceptable with a reduction in the size of the sign. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman invited public testimony. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Moyer stated that signage is important to identifying an entry and expressed concern that as proposed, the wall sign is very subtle. He suggested that the white border on the projecting sign be reduced to make the background less prominent, thereby achieving a reduction in the overall size of the sign. Board member Reda stated support for the concepts presented and stated that the petition is moving in the right direction, with some modifications. Board member Dunne agreed with Board member Moyer’s suggestion to reduce the border of the projecting sign. Acting Chairman Friedman pointed out that the height at which the projecting sign is set will reduce the perceived scale. He commented that by reducing the size of the sign too much, it could appear out of scale. He agreed that the border of the projecting sign should be reduced to some extent. He stated that he is not supportive of the white background for the projecting sign. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the Board’s comments noting that it appears that there is general support for the location and vertical orientation of the projecting sign, but some concern regarding the overall size, material and background color. Board member Moyer added that he has a concern that the wall plaque may not call enough attention to the entry. Board member Reda and Acting Chairman Friedman agreed that the two signs should relate to each other. In response to questions from the Board regarding timing, Ms. Czerniak stated that staff can work with the petitioner to put up temporary signage for the business opening. She noted that it would be difficult to anchor a temporary sign to project out from the corner of the building, so the temporary sign will likely be different from the signage reviewed by the Board. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Acting Chairman Friedman invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to consider the Board comments including, reducing the size of the projecting sign, reducing the background area of the projecting sign, eliminating the white background on the projecting sign, exploring an alternative to vinyl for the letters on the projecting sign, creating consistency between the projecting sign and wall plaque and making the wall sign more prominent. The motion was seconded by Board member Diamond and approved by a vote of 6 to 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 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate McManus Assistant Planner