Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2014/02/05 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 1 of 13 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of February 5, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Building Review Board members present: Chairman Charlie King and Board members: Mike Bleck, Ross Friedman, Monica Ruggles, Ted Notz, Fred Moyer and Robert Reda. Building Review Board members absent: None Staff members present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman King Chairman King 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. Approval of the minutes of the January 13, 2014 meeting. The minutes of the January 13, 2014 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a second story addition at 382 Cherokee Road. Owner: Poon Soo Lee and Bobby Kim Representative: Shawn Purnell, architect Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Purnell introduced the project noting that the owners are long time Lake Forest residents and are relocating within the community. He noted that the tri-level arrangement of the house does not allow the desired bedroom sizes. He explained that a second story addition is proposed over the single story portion of the house to address this need. He stated that the property is challenging because of its configuration and location on a corner. He stated that the lot is large, but noted that the existing house encroaches into the rear and side yard setbacks and as a result, the second floor addition would also encroach into the setbacks. He pointed out that the existing house has a low profile and large overhangs. He noted that today, the house does not follow a specific architectural style and explained that the proposed addition adopts an Arts and Crafts Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 2 of 13 style. He stated that with the addition, the house is well within the allowable square footage for the lot. He noted that as proposed, the massing of the addition will step down as the house moves away from Green Bay Road for compatibility with the neighborhood. Ms. Neuman reviewed the siting of the existing house noting that the homes to the north front on Green Bay Road and this house fronts on Cherokee Road. She noted that the owners desire to build on the existing footprint and as a result, a request for a zoning variance will need to be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. She commented on the overall design of the proposed addition noting that in general, it appears consistent with the applicable standards. She noted that some information on precedents considered in developing the design were submitted by the petitioner and are included in the Board’s packet. She asked for Board input on the proposed front porch and garage doors noting that the detailing does not appear consistent with the chosen architectural style. She acknowledged the challenge in trying to apply an Arts and Crafts style to the addition given the style of the existing house. She noted that correspondence from a neighboring property owner was received and is included in the Board’s packet. She noted that the City’s Certified Arborist preliminarily reviewed the plan and determined that although some trimming of the trees at the perimeter of the property will be needed, the trimming should not be significant. She stated that if trees are removed as part of the project, the location of new trees, to replace the inches removed, will need to be reflected on the final landscape plan. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the zoning variance will be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the criteria in the Code. She confirmed that is it appropriate for the Building Review Board to consider whether the proposed massing is appropriate, consistent with the selected style and compatible with the neighborhood. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Purnell provided some simple massing studies that were prepared as part of the development of the design presented. He described the existing house noting that the tallest mass is in the center of the house and the doorway is recessed and as a result, the entrance is not a focal point. He explained that the house today is a standard tri-level design with a story and a half massing on one half of the structure. He noted that the added mass is proposed as a second story addition on the lower part of the home. He noted that the addition of some architectural detailing is proposed at the entry explaining that the existing stoop will remain and a covered entry will be added. He noted that no expansion of the foot print of the existing house is proposed. He stated that 8 feet of height will be added to the western portion of the house. He acknowledged that a hip roof element is unusual for this architectural style, but noted that it is proposed to enhance the style of the house. He provided an illustration of the neighboring home on Cherokee Road and noted that there is a considerable amount of vegetation between this house and the neighboring homes. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Purnell explained that adjusting the wall of the second floor addition to keep it within the setback would not allow the desired Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 3 of 13 square footage and could result in an awkward configuration. He described the proposed porch roof in relation to the house and explained that a typical saddle condition would be used to avoid any buildup of snow or ice. Board member Notz stated that it would be helpful to see a study of stepping back the second floor. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Purnell stated that without reinventing the style of the entire house, styles other than the Arts and Crafts style did not seem to fit. He stated that the owners prefer not to expand upon the vocabulary of the existing house or the Prairie style. He noted that introducing the second floor element would violate the horizontal nature of the Prairie style. He stated that a first floor master bedroom would require expansion into the only yard and green space available on the site. He added that a first floor master bedroom would be located further away from the secondary bedrooms than desired. He stated that a first floor master bedroom would compromise the project. Board member Ruggles stated that it could be helpful to the Board to see the alternatives that were considered. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Purnell explained that the height of the entry is due to the roof element. He explained that if the height is lowered to 8 feet, an ice and water issue may be created due to the difficulty in handling the roof at that lower point. Board member Ruggles commented that the front entry needs further study and she noted the general lack of consistency with a single architectural style. She noted for instance that the garage doors reflect lites but no other windows have lites. She noted that the windows proposed on the second floor addition do not relate to the existing windows. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Mr. Purnell stated that the existing brick will remain and that no other changes are proposed on the rear elevation. He explained that shakes are proposed for consistency with the Arts and Crafts style. Board member Ruggles questioned whether the proposed materials are a good match to the existing brick. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Purnell described the proposed chimney extension and stated that the existing, typical limestone should be easy to match. Board member Moyer observed that the new mortar and limestone will be different because it has not been subjected to the weather. He acknowledged that the mortar can be tinted, but not the limestone. He observed that about 40% of the existing Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 4 of 13 limestone will be removed and stated that the project might be more successful if the existing limestone is replaced. He noted that the existing house has a contemporary feel. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Purnell stated that the owners are not interested in a color break and if necessary, the existing limestone will be replaced. He clarified that the stone between the existing windows is the same stone as on the chimney. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Purnell explained that the only change to the garage will be replacement of the existing builder style doors with doors that have more character. He stated that the shingles are in good condition but could be replaced for consistency. He stated that there will be no exterior changes on the one story element of the house. Board member Reda commented on the overall site layout and suggested that consideration be given to maximizing the distance between the house and the neighboring houses to avoid reducing sunlight exposure. He stated agreement that the roof over the front door appears too high in relation to the house and that all of the windows should be consistent. He suggested that the lite divisions be removed from the garage door and that the number of exterior materials be limited. He pointed out that as proposed; the addition creates various new roof lines which create inconsistencies. He questioned whether the change in architectural style can be achieved and suggested that consideration be given to using the location of the sunroom for expansion. He noted that softening the appearance of the house from the street and bringing greater consistency to the elevations could be helpful. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Purnell explained that the budget does not allow demolition of the sunroom and the addition of a master suite in its place. He noted again the impact that a first floor expansion would have on the yard area. He acknowledged that an addition in the area of the sunroom could make a nice bookend with the garage, but stated that development in that area is not part of the project. He stated that the shingles will be stained to complement the existing brick. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Purnell confirmed that no changes are proposed to the elevation that faces Green Bay Road. Board member Friedman concurred with the comments of other Board members regarding the need for consistency of the design elements and materials. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman King invited public comments, hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner and staff, hearing none, he asked for final comments from the Board. Board member Friedman stated that this is a challenging site. He stated that a less challenging approach could be to extend the home to the west, within the buildable area. He recognized that this approach may be complicated by budget limitations and Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 5 of 13 desired lifestyle. He noted however that such an approach may be more successful in fitting into the neighborhood. He encouraged giving some more thought to the options. Board member Notz stated appreciation for the many aspects of the project that need to be addressed and suggested that there may be multiple ways to meet the homeowners’ needs and budget. He stated that adjustments could make the project workable and suggested that consideration be given to reducing the massing of second floor to bring it within the setbacks. He suggested that the consideration be given to the sunlight to the neighboring house and modifying the footprint of the house. Board member Ruggles commented that the materials presented are helpful in understand the existing house and what is proposed. She observed that the existing house is simple and has a hierarchy of massing. She suggested that consideration be given to expanding on that concept. She stated that the proposed addition creates a completely different and complicated massing. She stated that efforts be made to work within the existing style of the house and to achieve consistency on the various elements. Board member Bleck agreed with the comments of Board member Ruggles noting that the proposed addition is out of character with the existing house. He stated that some improvements should be considered. Board member Reda stated that with further work in response to the comments offered by the Board, he is optimistic that a good result can be achieved. Board member Moyer stated agreement with the comments of the other Board members. He commented on the scale of the front door noting that refinement is needed in that area. He questioned whether too much is being attempted within the constraints of the existing and selected style. He stated appreciation for the challenge facing the architect in making this house larger. Chairman King agreed that the project is a tough assignment and questioned whether forcing an Arts and Crafts style for the addition is the right solution. He noted that the existing sunroom appears to have been added to the house without much thought. He noted that problem is taken care of if the house is expanded to the west. He added that the house may flow better with an alternate solution to what is presented. He stated that as presented, he is not in favor of the petition and suggested that reconsideration of the project by the petitioner would be appropriate. Hearing no further comments, he invited a motion from the Board. Board member Friedman made a motion to continue the Board’s consideration of the petition to allow the petitioner to re-evaluate the project taking into account the comments and direction provided by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by the Board in a vote of 7 to 0. Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 6 of 13 4. Preliminary information on a request for approval of demolition of the existing residence at 660 Northcroft Court and approval of a proposed replacement residence, overall site plan and landscape plan. Owners: Patrick and Anne Allin Representative: David Poulton, architect Chairman King asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Poulton introduced the project and the owners noting that they purchased the property last spring with the intention of renovatinge the house. He stated that the property is 2-1/2 acres and is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. He stated that the house was buil t in 1991 and appears to be a spec house. He stated that the owners were excited about the wooded nature of the lot and privacy of the site. He stated that the owners hope to do something spectacular with the property and given the extent of changes desired, it became clear that to achieve their goals, renovation of the existing house would be difficult. He explained that this project is before the Board early in the design development stage to get input on the proposed demolition. He discussed the siting of the existing house noting that when the area was originally subdivided, it made sense to align the houses with the cul-de-sac. He noted however that now that the landscaping has matured, the homes are not visible from the cul-de-sac and the result is an awkward placement of the house on the lot. He noted that the interior of the house gets limited sunlight and does not take advantage of views of the open lands to the west. He reviewed the elevations of the existing house noting that the house was not designed in a defined architectural style and the detailing was not well done. He noted that the footprint of the house is very wide causing the roof to be high and the interior dark. He provided photos of the house at different times of day noting that the rear of the house is in shadow most of the day. He pointed out examples of the lack of architectural integrity of the house noting that many components are “off the shelf”. He showed the garage configuration as originally drawn and the as built condition noting the amount of mass that was ultimately added above the garage door. He noted the odd window configurations and snap in grills. He pointed out that the two story family room is too tall to be intimate space and noted the wall of glass that gets little sun. He reviewed the changes desired by the owners explaining that renovation of the structure is not practical because the cost and extent of the changes would be significant and the end product would be compromised. He provided conceptual perspective drawings of the house the owners would like to build noting that New England shingle style architecture is proposed. He reviewed conceptual floor plans and stated that the property will remain heavily vegetated. He provided a preliminary site plan and landscape plan and noted that the curb cut would remain in the current location. He stated that the new house will be aligned with the property lines and will face east and west and the perimeter of the property will remain wooded as it is today. He summarized the criteria for demolition noting that the 1990’s builder’s spec house is not a good place to start from with a goal of achieving a spectacular project. On behalf of the owners, he asked for the Board’s initial Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 7 of 13 reaction to the proposed demolition before they move forward with developing detailed plans for the replacement residence. Ms. Neuman stated that this petition is before the Board for initial input. She stated that the request is unusual because a relatively recently constructed house is proposed for demolition. She explained that the petitioner acknowledges that the request is not based on structural issues or the need for additional space. She noted that during the initial planning stages, the petitioner looked for ways to remove some of the mass of the house and make modifications to address existing deficiencies. She noted that with the changes proposed, a significant amount of the existing house would be demolished or changed leading to the conclusion that starting over on the site would result in a better end product. In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Ms. Neuman clarified that the Board is not being asked to take action on this petition at this time but to weigh in on the proposed demolition and offer preliminary comments on the conceptual plans for the replacement residence. She stated that one of the criteria that must be considered for demolition requests is that the proposed replacement residence is consistent with the standards in the Code and the design guidelines and as a result, the two decisions are linked. Board member Moyer stated that at this time, there is not enough material presented to respond to the proposed replacement structure. Chairman King agreed that there is not enough information to weigh in on the proposed replacement structure and suggested focusing on the request for demolition. He questioned whether, assuming a suitable replacement residence is presented, the Board would be supportive of the demolition of a residence that was recently constructed. Board member Reda stated that putting aside the architectural design aspects, the house proposed for demolition is suitable for resident use and as a result, does not meet one of the criteria. He questioned how this matter should be addressed by the Board. Board member Ruggles expressed concern that if a recently constructed house is approved for demolition, a house that has nothing wrong with it except that it is not an architecturally significant house, that could open the door for every house to become a tear down. She questioned whether meeting some of the criteria is enough to support a demolition. She noted that in the past, the Board has not permitted some older houses to be demolished and instead required renovation and alterations. Board member Friedman commented that this is an interesting petition because the existing residence is not an historic home and does not add an important element to the character of the neighborhood. He added that the existing residence is very isolated. He stated that the reality is that this request is based on a financial decision by the petitioner and lifestyle choices. He agreed that there is not enough information on the Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 8 of 13 proposed replacement residence to make a decision, but stated that the replacement residence appears in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the community. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Poulton explained that this petition was purposely brought before the Board at this early point in the process to get a sense of whether the demolition would be acceptable if a proper replacement residence is brought forward. He stated that the petitioners do not want to proceed with further work on the new house if there is no support for the demolition. He stated that he understands that no vote can be taken at this time. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Poulton stated that the replacement residence will be about the same size as the existing house. He noted that the existing house is more spread out and appears more massive than the proposed replacement residence. Board member Notz commented that the petition has made a compelling case to take down the house and construct a home that better meets their needs. He stated that he is satisfied the demolition criteria could be met. He stated an understanding that the replacement residence is still being developed and acknowledged that more details will be provided. He offered comments based on what is presented noting that the garage appears large and suggested that alternatives be explored to reduce the mass. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Poulton reviewed the concept for the stepped terraces explaining the intent to work with the existing grades on the site. He noted that the property slopes off to the west and a private, walled garden is proposed. He pointed out some areas where retaining walls may be used and noted that the drive court will be at the same level as the existing drive court. Chairman King invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner or staff. Hearing none he suggested that the Board focus on the demolition question first in an effort to give the petitioner a sense of whether, with an appropriate replacement plan, the Board could support demolition. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Ms. Neuman confirmed that in the past, the Board has approved demolitions in cases where all five of the criteria have not been met. She stated that in the past consideration has been given to not only the condition of the existing residence, but also to factors such as whether the house was designed by a significant architect, is a good example of a particular architectural style or whether the house contributes significantly to the streetscape or neighborhood. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak commented that the demolition review process was established to preserve the character of traditional neighborhoods. She commented that this petition may be an opportunity to create a significant house at this location adding distinct character to the streetscape and to views from open lands. Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 9 of 13 In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Poulton reviewed the images showing the limited sunlight that reaches the house due to the orientation of the footprint. In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Ms. Neuman responded that the existing house was not approved through the Building Review Board process. Chairman King summarized that there is no rule that requires all five demolition criteria to be met, or a specific number of the criteria to be met. He suggested that it is up to the Board to weigh the specific factors of the petition against the criteria. Board member Friedman commented that this is an unusual petition. He stated that in his opinion, the majority of the criteria are met noting that the house is not historically important or architecturally significant. He commented that the house is not prominent in the neighborhood. He noted that it has been demonstrated that the house has some deficiencies and that correcting the deficiencies would come with a cost. He summarized stating that in his opinion, the criteria are sufficiently met. He stated that it appears that the proposed house will be an improvement adding that it will take advantage of the adjacent open lands. Board member Notz stated agreement with the comments of Board member Friedman. Board member Ruggles stated that she does not agree that the criteria for demolition are met. She stated that the house could be adapted to meet the needs of a new owner and complete demolition would not be required. She commented that the proposed demolition is for convenience pointing out that the house is a perfectly good house. She expressed concern that approving the demolition could set a precedent for demolition, rather than remodeling of any house. Board Bleck commented that the replacement house appears to be moving in an interesting direction. Board member Reda stated agreement with the comments of all of the other Board members noting that it is difficult to support demolishing a perfectly good structure. He suggested that consideration should be given to amending the criteria to factor in whether or not a house is architecturally significant. He observed that if newer houses are approved for demolition routinely, there will not be older homes in the future. Board member Moyer commented that although there is not enough information presented to allow the Board to take action, the project has great merit. He noted that the Board has previous evidence that the architect is extremely competent and talented. He stated his expectation that the massing and design will continue to develop in a positive direction. Chairman King stated appreciation to the owners for bringing the project forward at an early point in the process. He stated that it appears that a majority of the Board could Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 10 of 13 support demolition if the replacement structure is consistent with the design standards and is well done. He stated that initially, he was not supportive of the project and he discouraged the petitioner from bringing forward a project that adds to the square footage currently on the site. He suggested that particular attention be paid to massing and bulk of the replacement house. He stated that with a strong design and high quality project, the new house could be a nice addition to the neighborhood. He noted that since the project was presented for information only, no motion from the Board is required. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of updated signage for preserved open space at various locations. Owners: Lake Forest Open Lands Association Representative: Paula Clair, Vice President and Director of Development Chairman King asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Ms. Clair introduced the project. Ms. Hodges, a member of the Open Lands Communication Committee, noted that she has worked closely with Open Lands staff on the signage plan. She provided some background on Lake Forest Open Lands and noted that teaching events and work days take place at all of the Preserves. She stated that signs are an important means of communicating with the community noting that Open Lands receives many calls from people looking for specific Preserves. She noted that currently, the signage at the various preserves is inconsistent and presents maintenance challenges. She stated that the goals of this project are to clean up the signage, make it more consistent, easier to read and to create a high quality and consistent way finding theme. She added that the signs are intended to be sustainable. She stated that in developing the plan, the City’s signage standards were considered and an effort was made to incorporate the branding of the Open Lands’ organization in the signage. She noted that the graphic proposed for the signs conforms to the 15% limitation. She provided samples of the proposed materials noting that an aluminum, non-reflective panel is proposed for the sign with white graphics. She explained that signage is proposed at all of the preserves and noted that three different sizes of signs are proposed for the various locations. She discussed the lettering material noting that it has been carefully investigated and found to be weather proof and durable for many years, she added that the posts will be treated for durability as well . She stated that this will be an expensive project and it is being designed to have a long life. She explained that the posts to support the sign will be consistent with the split rail fencing used at the various Open Lands’ preserves and will age naturally. She noted that a chart reflecting the various sizes proposed for the signage and the dimensions of the letters is included in the Board’s packet. She provided some examples of where the different sized signs may be used. Ms. Neuman stated that this is a request for approval of an updated signage plan for Lake Forest Open Lands Association. She stated that today, the preserves are identified by Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 11 of 13 smaller, painted wood signs. She stated that this project is driven by a need to better identify the various preserves and make it easier for users to find them. She stated that this plan is similar to a campus type signage plan due to the various locations and multiple signs. She stated that mock ups of the proposed signs were in place at various locations over the weekend illustrating the different sizes. She explained that each preserve has a different approach and therefore, the different sizes of signs are proposed. She noted the importance of assuring that the signs do not overwhelm the natural landscape views of the various preserves. She stated that a graphic is proposed on the signs and is sized consistent with the Code in relation to the size of each sign. She recommended approval with conditions requiring on site review and approval of the size and height of the signs proposed at the various locations. She added that minimizing the signage at the entrances to the preserves is also recommended and suggested that signage detailing rules of the preserves could be pushed into the preserves, away from views from the street scape. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Sentell explained that the tan strips shown on the graphic are intended to reflect the wood posts. He confirmed that some of the signs will be attached to an existing fence at the various preserves. He noted however that some of the smaller fence posts will not be sturdy enough to support the signs over the long term. At the suggestion of Board member Friedman, Mr. Sentell agreed that consideration will be given to increasing the size of the posts to 6” x 6”. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Sentell explained that the synthetic material is preferred for the signs for durability and low maintenance given the number of signs that will be needed. He stated that the intent is to install signs that will look good as they weather adding that the signs are expected to last for more than 20 years. Board member Notz stated that the logo is only needed on one of the signs if two are proposed at any one location. He added that the back of the signs should be consistent with the color on the front of the sign. In the response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Ms. Meeks described how the posts will be constructed noting that the sign will be inset in a slit in post. She confirmed that the posts will be visible from the front and back of the sign. In response to questions from Board member Ruggles, Ms. Hodges confirmed that the distance each sign extends past the post will be scaled to the size of the sign. Board member Moyer commented on the logo in the relation to the content of the sign and the green background. He stated that if the sign appears less cluttered, it will be easier to read. He stressed the importance of having enough green space. Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 12 of 13 In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Sentell stated that the signs were professionally designed with an eye toward promoting the open space image of Open Lands. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Hodges reviewed the composition of the signs noting that vertical or square signs are not desired. Board member Reda suggested that consideration be given to removing the box around the graphic. In response to questions, Ms. Meeks explained the reason for the box noting that the design was well thought out and is consistent with graphic standards. Chairman King reviewed the recommendations in the staff report noting the comments regarding the size of the logo in relation to the Code limitation of 15% of the total sign face. He stated support for the materials as proposed. He invited public comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner or staff. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board. Board member Friedman suggested that a 6 x 6 post be considered. Board member Moyer complimented the signs, materials, the technique and the quality of the product. He recommended further work to find the right balance between the graphic, the text and the background. Board member Bleck agreed that as presented, the text and the graphic compete. He suggested that the destination should be the more prominent component of the sign. Hearing no further comments, Chairman King invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the overall signage plan for the various Lake Forest Open Lands’ preserves. He stated that the recommendation is based on the findings in the staff report and incorporates the materials presented, the testimony and the Board’s deliberations as additional findings. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions of approval. 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. a. Staff is directed to review detailed drawings of the proposed signs to confirm that the logo does not exceed 15% of the total sign area and that the green space on which the logo is set is sufficient to visually support the image consistent with the direction by the Board. Building Review Board Minutes – February 5, 2014 Meeting Page 13 of 13 b. The name of the preserve should be visually prominent over the graphic logo. c. The back of the sign shall be green to match the front face of the sign. d. Staff is directed to review alternative mounting options to explore elimination of views of the wood post from the front sign face. e. Staff is directed to review a mockup of the signs prior to installation to evaluate the use of a 6x6 post, based on the Commission’s direction, in relation to the size of the sign selected for a particular location. 2. Staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, is directed to confirm the exact location and size of the proposed signs at each Preserve at the time of application for building permit to ensure the sign size is appropriate for the character of the neighborhood and does not obstruct views into the preserved open space as directed by the Board. a. Only one “large” sign size shall be used to identify the drive entrance to the main facility on Waukegan Road. All other signs shall be either “medium” or “small” as appropriate. 3. All signs are to be installed on private property. The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by the Board in a 7 – 0 vote. 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 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development