Loading...
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2014/06/04 MinutesBuilding Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 1 of 13 The City of Lake Forest Building Review Board Proceedings of June 4, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Wednesday, June 4, 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: Ross Friedman, Ted Notz, Fred Moyer, Mike Bleck and Robert Reda. Building Review Board members absent: One position vacant. Staff present: 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. Consideration of a request for a building scale variance for a new dormer, rear porch and pergola at the residence located at 1785 Broadland Lane. Owners: Ted and Amy Langan Representative: John Anstadt, 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. Anstadt reviewed the property, surrounding area and the existing elevations and exterior materials. He commented on the existing views of the rear elevation from Conway Farms Drive and noted that it presents a significant mass to the streetscape. He reviewed the goals of the proposed project noting the intent to bring continuity to the various elements on the rear elevation and reduce the appearance of mass. He pointed out that the rear elevation is not consistent with the level of design and detailing on the front elevation. He noted that currently, the entry doors on the rear elevation are not covered and there is a lack of connection between the interior and exterior spaces. He reviewed the design elements proposed including a covered porch, French doors to replace existing windows, a squared off the bay window to support the appearance of mass, a pergola and a small dormer window. He reviewed a proposed elevation of the rear of the house showing the proposed changes. He noted that the column details used on the front of the house will be repeated on the new elements. Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 2 of 13 Mr. Langan stated that his family loves the house and the neighborhood noting that they enjoy the open spaces and views of the golf course. He stated that the intent is to further enhance the house and the neighborhood with the proposed changes to the house. He stated that the changes will take better advantage of views of the pond and the golf course from the back of the house. He stated that the changes will make the rear elevation of the house more consistent with the level of detailing on the front of the house and will tie the front and back of the house together. Ms. Czerniak stated that this petition requests a variance from the maximum square footage and noted that the criteria that must be considered for a variance from the building scale provisions of the Code are reviewed in the staff report. She stated that in this case, the proposed alterations and new architectural elements serve to reduce the appearance of mass of the rear elevation. She added that due to the siting of the house, the rear elevation is visible from a public street. She noted that a portion of this property is covered by a detention pond explaining that as a result, the total square footage allowed by right is reduced. She noted however that one of the criteria for a variance recognizes that permanent open space adjacent to a property can mitigate the appearance of bulk. She noted that the Conway Farms subdivision has its own Architectural Review Board and stated that the City received a letter of approval of the project from the Board. She stated that staff recommends approval of the project and noted that findings in support of the project are included in the staff report. Chairman King invited questions from the Board. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Anstadt agreed to give further consideration to the height of the pergola as it relates to the porch eave and the alignment of the horizontal members. He confirmed that simulated true divided lites are proposed for the windows in the French doors consistent with the other windows on the house. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Anstadt noted that there were extensive discussions with the Conway Architectural Review Board about how far the porch should extend across the back of the house. He noted that the porch is presented consistent with those discussions. He confirmed that the trees on the site that are in poor condition will be removed and replaced. He confirmed that the intent is to soften the appearance of the corner of the house from the street. He confirmed that the new columns will match the columns on the front of the house. In response to questions form Board member Notz, Mr. Anstadt confirmed that consideration was given to different configurations of windows and doors on the rear elevation. He added that options were also considered for the dormer window in the bathroom. He noted that different configurations added square footage and a larger element in that area. He noted that the dormer as proposed matches dormers on the front of the house. He stated that the intent is to leave the patio as gravel with shrubbery surrounding it. Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 3 of 13 In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Langan clarified that field stone will be used with moss or grass between the stones to soften the surface. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Anstadt confirmed that there will be steps to transition from the patio to the porch. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Mr. Anstadt showed a straight on perspective of the rear elevation and discussed the reasons behind the single window between the French doors. He noted that it took a while to get the spacing right due to the various elements. He noted the desire for natural light into the stairway. Board member Moyer commented that the trellis will be a nice feature and suggested that hanging flower baskets could be added to give a splash of color to the rear of the house. In response to a question from Chairman King, Mr. Anstadt confirmed that the new second floor dormer provides a window for a new bathroom. Chairman King invited public testimony; hearing none he invited final at questions or comments from the Board. Board member Friedman complimented the project noting that the changes work well with the existing architecture. He stated that the overall massing and layout is appropriate. He acknowledged that the project as proposed is over the allowable square footage and added that the Board takes requests for variances seriously. He noted however that this project has the support of the Conway Farms Architectural Review Board. He stated support for the petition. Board member Ransom encouraged further consideration of an alternative to the small bathroom window but stated support for the overall project setting aside that one issue. Board member Bleck stated that the design is well thought out and meets the standards for a variance. He stated support for the petition. Board member Reda stated that the support from the Conway Homeowners’ Association is important and stated his support for the project as well. Board member Moyer stated that the proposed work will be a great improvement to the house and will enhance the usefulness of the rear yard. Chairman King complimented the planned improvements. He agreed with Board member Notz that the small dormer appears squeezed into the space but acknowledged that there are mitigating circumstances. He agreed that the proposed modifications overall reduce the appearance of mass of the house. Hearing no further comments from the Board, he invited a motion. Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 4 of 13 Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of a building scale variance to support the addition of up to 607 square feet of design elements to the residence at 1785 Broadland Lane. He noted that the motion is based on the findings detailed in the staff report and that the recommendation for approval is subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Plans submitted for permit must reflect the project as presented to the Commission. a. If any modifications are proposed, plans detailing the areas of change must be submitted and will be subject to review by staff, in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate, to verify that the plans are consistent with the intent of the Commission and the approvals granted. 2. Landscape Plan – Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan, drawn on the approved grading plan, must be submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s review of the plan shall include, but is not limited to the following: a. Assuring that adequate screening of the rear yard and the new design elements from views from Conway Farms Drive is provided in a manner consistent with the existing landscape theme along this street. 3. 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 Moyer and was approved by the Board in a 6 to 0 vote. 3. Consideration of a request for approval of a new single family dwelling, including the site plan and associated landscaping on a vacant lot located at 1101 Griffith Road. Property Owner: U. S. Shelter LLC, John M. Sorensen 100%, Elgin, IL Project Representatives: R. Scott Javore & Associates Brad Korando, Scott Javore Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Sorenson stated that he has been a builder in the Chicago area for 45 years and has built homes in seven Northshore communities. He stated that together with his architect, he specializes in historic preservation and historic based architecture. He reviewed the property proposed for development noting that it is pie shape. He presented images of other residences in the neighborhood noting that the proposed house is similar in style and materials. He reviewed the size and height of the proposed residence noting that it complies with the City’s regulations. He reviewed the proposed building materials, colors and the elevations of the house and garage. He reviewed a streetscape graphic showing the new house in the context of the neighborhood. He discussed drainage and reviewed Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 5 of 13 the preliminary drainage plan noting that stormwater flows from west to southeast. He noted that the east portion of the driveway will be pervious pavers. He noted that the City Arborist reviewed the site and is requiring efforts to preserve the large elm tree in the parkway and an oak on the neighbor’s property to the rear. He reviewed the preliminary landscape plan and confirmed that inch for inch replacement will be provided for the trees on the site that will be lost. He pointed out that the trees that will be lost are not significant trees and are in poor condition. Mr. Javore reviewed the proposed residence noting that it is designed in the American Four Square style. He stated that elements of the house are true to a 1930’s Four Square. He reviewed the elements that are characteristic of a Four Square and noted how they are used in this residence. He showed images of other Four Square homes. Ms. Czerniak commented that any time development of a vacant lot in a long established neighborhood is planned; the Board and neighboring property owners have paid close attention to the architectural style, massing, siting and details of the proposal to assure a good fit with the neighborhood. She stated that this property has been vacant since it was created through a subdivision in the 1920’s. She noted that until recently, the property was held in common ownership with the property to the north noting that both were recently sold. She stated that the proposed new residence conforms to the building scale and zoning setback requirements. She noted that the house as proposed is just under the maximum square footage and takes advantage of the design element allowance. She noted that the residence to the north presents a narrow elevation to the property proposed for development and noted that the extended bays on the north and west elevation add to the length and mass of the house when viewed from the north. She pointed out that due to the limited space between the two homes and the adjacent driveways; there is little opportunity to provide a landscape buffer between the new house and the house to the north. She noted that the bay at the interior stairway on the north elevation pushes out further to the north than the main mass of the house. She noted that the dormer on the front of the house appears inconsistent with the Four Square style and adds length to the north elevation. She stated that high quality materials are proposed. She confirmed that the City’s Certified Arborist determined that the trees on the property are not worth saving but noted that two off site trees, an elm tree in the parkway and an oak tree on the neighboring property should be saved. She acknowledged that drainage is not the Board’s purview and stated that the City Engineering will carefully consider drainage prior to the issuance of a building permit. She stated that the staff report includes recommendations that pertain to drainage. She noted that construction parking and materials staging is also addressed in the conditions noting the narrowness of the street. She noted that shuttling of workers to the site may be necessary. She noted that two letters were received and were included in the Board’s packet. She added that staff received calls from some residents in the neighborhood requesting information about the project and expressing concern that careful attention be paid to assure that the character of the neighborhood is preserved and to minimize impacts during construction. Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 6 of 13 In response to questions from Board member Moyer, Mr. Javore agreed that on average, the distance between the new house and the house to the north will be about 35 to 38 feet. Board member Reda questioned whether some of the elements on the residence are too much for the selected architectural style. He reviewed the west elevation noting that the dormer on the porch does not appear to be in keeping with the Four Square style. He noted that an engaged dormer, one that does not project forward, could be more in keeping with the Four Square style. He noted that the front dormer extends the length of the house along the side elevation. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Javore described the dormer element above the front porch and confirmed that all of the windows will be framed in a consistent manner. Board member Notz agreed that some refinement of the front elevation is needed and suggested that the front wall should continue straight across and the bump out eliminated. He stated support for the bay at the stairway noting that the element stays in line with the chimney. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Sorenson confirmed that a proper system will be designed to address drainage. In response to questions from Board member Freidman, Mr. Javore stated that the house is at the maximum height so the height of the front porch cannot be raised. He confirmed that the front porch is wood and reviewed the proposed colors of the siding and windows. He noted the eastern portion of the driveway that will be paver bricks noting that the rest will be asphalt. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Sorenson confirmed that the house will be offered for sale. In response to questions from Chairman King, Mr. Javore reviewed the window placement on the south elevation noting that it is dictated by the interior layout. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak noted that plantings along the south property line are reflected on the preliminary landscape plan but noted that since the area is in shadow, there are limits to what type of plantings will be successful in that area. She added that the plantings may also be limited by the drainage plan and any overland flow routes that may be required. In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Javore stated that the panels in the transom windows will be wood, not glass, and will be painted an off white. Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 7 of 13 In response to questions from Board member Bleck, Mr. Sorenson noted that splashing downspouts to grade is normally encouraged but noted that based on the comments from the neighboring property owners, consideration will be given to tying in to the storm sewer if approved by the City Engineer. He stated that during construction, silt fencing will be used to prevent silt and mud from washing into the neighbors’ yards. He estimated that construction will take seven months. Chairman King invited public testimony. Ms. Bertses, 1091 Griffith Road, stated that she lives just south of the property proposed for development. She stated that her main concern is stormwater management. She stated that she has a dry basement and would like to keep it that way during and after construction. She expressed concern about the removal of trees and interest in what will be planted on the site to replace the lost trees. She noted that the lot is small and expressed concern about squeezing a big house on to the site. She stated that she is concerned about the outcome. Ms. Schweller, 1090 Edgewood Road, stated that her property is just east of the property proposed for development and agreed that water is a big concern noting that her backyard is already wet. She stated that privacy is also a concern noting that the new house will sit higher than hers due to the topography of the property. She acknowledged that the City Arborist is recommending that the existing trees on the site be removed since they are not is good condition by stated that removing the spruce trees in the back yard will remove year round screening. She asked that consideration be given to restoring evergreen plantings at the rear of the site. Mr. Bertola, 1080 Griffith Road, stated that he is an architect and a neighbor noting that several residents asked him to speak to represent the interests of the neighborhood. He stated that the neighbors in this area are a close knit group. He stated that the neighbors respect the right to construct the new house, but noted that given the tight site, the project will be difficult and consideration should be given to the neighborhood. He noted that to date, the developer has made no contact with anyone in the neighborhood and has not maintained the property noting that the property is unmowed and weedy. He stated that the condition of the property and lack of communication does not speak well for the developer. He reiterated that Griffith Road is a great street and stated that the residents hope that the project will add value to the neighborhood. Mr. Mulles, 1096 Griffith Road, asked whether the maintenance of the property can be addressed right away. In response to a request from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak responded to public testimony. She spoke to the property maintenance issue noting that the developer has heard the neighbors’ concerns and will likely address the maintenance very soon. She stated that she would ask the City’s Code Enforcement Officer to inspect the site and she added that if the grass and weeds are not mowed, appropriate notices will be sent to the Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 8 of 13 property owner. She explained that if no action is taken, the property will be put on a maintenance schedule by the City and will be maintained by a contractor hired by the City every two weeks until the property owner contacts the City, pays for the maintenance done by the City, and presents a maintenance plan to the Code Enforcement Officer. She spoke to the loss of trees and reiterated that the City Arborist determined that the existing trees on the site are generally in poor condition and that those that are not, will likely be harmed by the construction and will not thrive after construction is complete. She stated that the City Arborist will review the landscape plan to be sure that the new plantings are appropriate species and sizes at the time of planting to provide screening and privacy. She noted that staff was not aware that some panes in the windows on the south elevation would be solid rather than glass. She stated that approach is not consistent with the City’s design guidelines. In response to an invitation from Chairman King to respond to public testimony and comments to date from the Board, Mr. Sorenson stated that the grass will be mowed right away. He acknowledged the concerns expressed about the tight sight noting the intent to properly manage stormwater and protect the trees intended for preservation. He stated that dirt will be hauled off site and not be stockpiled on the property. He stated that the site will be enclosed with chain link fence and locked. He stated that they will take the comments about landscaping into account in developing the final landscape plan. He stated the intent to introduce themselves to the neighbors and provide contact information in case there are questions during construction. At the request of a resident, Chairman King allowed an additional public comment from a resident who lives across the street from the property who expressed concern about drainage. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak stated that a final drainage plan will need to be submitted for City review. She stated that the plan will need to reflect the grades extending 50’ beyond the edge of the property. She noted that if determined to be appropriate, the City Engineer may request additional information about drainage patterns in the area and will consider the availability and capacity of storm sewers in the area in determining the appropriate approach. She offered that if desired, neighboring residents are able to file a Freedom of Information request and receive a copy of the final engineering plan when it is submitted to the City for review. She noted that in some cases, neighboring property owners have hired an independent engineer to review the plan and provide input to the City. She noted that recommended conditions pertaining to drainage during construction and over the long term are included in the staff report. Chairman King asked the Board for any final questions. Board member Bleck expressed concern about the extended dormer on the front of the house noting that it elongates the north elevation and impacts the neighbor to the north. Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 9 of 13 In response to concerns from Board member Bleck, Mr. Sorenson pointed out that the house to the north is located on a wider lot and is impacted by the curve in the road. He noted that as a result of the lot configuration, there is a different buildable area on the two lots. Hearing no further questions, Chairman King invited Board comment. Board member Moyer suggested that the wood panels in the kitchen windows be eliminated and if necessary, the windows modified. He stated that his reading of the bumpout on the north elevation is that it contributes to the quality of the design. He commented on the porch element noting the doubling of the columns at the porch projection noting that it is a nice celebration of the entrance and frames the stairs. He stated that overall; the house is very sympathetic to the neighborhood and brings a jewel like quality and a restrained pallet. He acknowledged the concern of neighbors about the tightness of the neighborhood but noted that a very nicely designed house will attract some nice neighbors. Board member Reda stated that the Four Square style is a great choice for this neighborhood but should be done without embellishments. He stated that the rooflines and gables in the front are troubling and need to be squared off. He stated that the bumpout on the front elevation is too ornamental for a Four Square house in this neighborhood. He commented on the south elevation noting that the wood panels, instead of glass in the windows is not acceptable. He noted that reconfiguration of the windows on the south elevation is needed. He stated that there are two different rooflines on the east elevation and refinement is needed to simplify the elevation. He stated support for the element at the stairway on the north elevation noting that it breaks up the elevation. He noted however that the front extension adds too much length to the north elevation and should be eliminated. He stated that in his opinion, there are too many issues that need refinement to move the plan forward at this time. Chairman King also complimented the choice of the Four Square style and agreed that there are elements of the project that need to be addressed. Board member Bleck stated support for the overall design, exterior materials and the proposed color palette. He agreed that the front façade should be simplified and the windows on the south elevation reconsidered. Board member Notz agreed that in general, the elevations should be simplified by removing ancillary gables and bump outs. He noted that the bump out on the front of the house could be acceptable if the multiple extensions were simplified noting that the elements on the first and second floors are a distraction. He noted that the window placement and types on the north elevation are successful and suggested a similar approach could be used on the south elevation. He suggested cleaning up the corners of the house and removing the extra bump outs. He agreed with the concerns raised Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 10 of 13 about drainage both over the long term, and during construction, and stated that those issues need to be properly addressed. Board member Friedman acknowledged that infill situations, in tight neighborhoods are difficult. He pointed out that this house is being constructed for sale so there will be no long term connection between the property owner and the neighborhood. He agreed that attention needs to be paid to storm drainage issues. He acknowledged that this is a buildable property noting that the Board’s job is to see that the new house fits into the neighborhood as well as possible. He agreed that the architectural style is a good choice for the neighborhood. He agreed that the extension on the front elevation needs to be flattened to simplify and reduce the massing. He agreed with the concerns raised to date about the windows on the south elevation noting that paneling the windows will be an eyesore from the start and an ongoing maintenance issue. He stated that it is appropriate to have a few windows on an elevation that are different from the rest. He stated that appropriate landscaping is critical to the success of the project. He agreed that attention to stormwater is important not just upon completion of the project, but also while the project is in progress. He suggested that the storm sewer could be tied in at the front end of the project. Chairman King summarized that there was a consensus among the Board members that the bay at the stairway, on the north elevation, is acceptable. He stated that the front elevation and the two story element at the northwest corner need to be addressed. He summarized that the Board is supportive of the project overall noting that the architectural style is appropriate for the neighborhood. He commended the use of high quality exterior materials. He stated that with the refinements discussed, the house will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman King invited a motion. Board member Reda made a motion to continue the petition to allow the developer to address the various issues identified by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by the Board in a 7 to 0 vote. 4. Consideration of a new overall signage plan for a multi-tenant building located at 959 S. Waukegan Road. Owner: Lake Forest Bank and Trust Company Representative: Marlo Crutcher, Wintrust Real Estate Services Chairman King asked the Board for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner. Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 11 of 13 Ms. Crutcher introduced the petition noting that Lake Forest Bank and Trust recently moved in to the 959 S. Waukegan Road building. She noted that the building used to be a single tenant building and was formerly occupied by the Northern Trust Bank. She stated that at the time Lake Forest Bank and Trust moved into the building, the existing signs were changed to reflect the new bank. She stated now, a second tenant is preparing to move into the second floor space. She stated that to accommodate the planned multi- tenant nature of the building, a new overall signage plan was developed. She stated that after reviewing the staff report and recommendation, Sign B will be reconsidered and presented at a later date. She asked for approval of the remaining building and directional signs. She reviewed the various sign types, describing the lettering proposed for the front of the building, the planned replacement of the existing signs above the doors and the new directional signage. She stated that the tenant names will be removed from the directional signs as suggested in the staff report. Ms. Czerniak commented the overall signage plan presented to the Board is very similar to the signage previously in place on the site. She stated that the fact that the building will now be a multi-tenant building makes some changes appropriate. She noted that from the staff perspective, the primary identification sign proposed along Waukegan Road needs some further thought with respect to the size, shape, materials and location. She asked for Board input on that aspect of the petition. She stated that the other elements of the signage plan are consistent with the Code provisions for campus signage. She noted that the staff report recommends, as noted by Ms. Crutcher, that the repetition of the tenant names on each directional sign be eliminated commenting that it detracts from the message on the directional signs. She noted that a small and subtle additional tenant identification sign is proposed on the east side of the building and is appropriate to identify the new tenant. She added that a new wall sign, to identify the primary tenant, is proposed on the front of the building and commented that it is compatible with the architectural style of the building. She recommended that at the north exit driveway on to Waukegan Road, a single “do not enter” sign be used to avoid confusion. She stated that given the number of signs proposed for the site, the signs should be kept simple and consistent materials should be used. She stated that the staff report recommends approval of all aspects of the plan except for Sign B, the primary streetscape identification sign, to allow time for reconsideration and refinement of that element. In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Ms. Crutcher, confirmed that the signage above the south entrance will be removed noting that the door is not intended for use by customers. In response to questions form Board member Friedman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as proposed, the signage plan is consistent with the Code provisions which allow for multiple signs as part of a campus type development with Board review and approval. In response to questions from Chairman King, Ms. Czerniak commented on the streetscape sign noting that an aluminum sign is currently proposed but other concepts, Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 12 of 13 including a masonry sign, are being considered. She noted that this sign will be prominent on Waukegan Road and should appropriately relate to the building. In response to questions from Board member Notz, Ms. Crutcher confirmed that ground, up lighting is proposed for the primary sign. Board member Friedman suggested that in finalizing the materials for the large streetscape sign, consideration should be given to considering long term maintenance issues. He stated that he would be concerned about a large, wood sign which would require ongoing maintenance. Board member Notz commented that the aluminum letters for the wall sign are appropriate. He commented that once someone is on the property, repeating the tenants’ names on the directional signs is not necessary. He suggested that the tenant names also be removed from the exit/do not enter sign noting that names on that sign could cause confusion about whether entrance to the site at that location is possible. He suggested that the identification of the tenants be focused at the entrance to the site and encouraged keeping the signage simple. Chairman King invited public testimony, hearing none; he noted that the petitioner appears to be agreeable with the staff recommendations. He suggested that staff be charged with working with the petitioner on the remaining sign rather than requiring further Board review. Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the overall signage plan based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Sign B - Refine the size of the free standing sign to be more consistent with the Code regulations for signage in the business district. Prepare accurately dimensioned graphics of the sign and a detailed site plan showing the location of the sign in relation to the street, sidewalk and the building. Consider materials and a design for the sign that reflect the traditional character of the building and provide some dimension and shadow to the lettering. Provide a mock-up on site to illustrate the overall size and location for Board review prior to the next meeting. Provide a landscape plan that shows how the ground light fixtures and the base of the sign will be screened. The final sign is subject to review and approval by staff in consultation with the Chairman as appropriate. Sign C – Provide a mock-up of a few letters of the sign on the front façade of the building prior to installation to verify that the depth of the letters is sufficient to provide some dimension and shading. Sign D – Replace the band sign over the door on the south elevation with a wood panel detailed to match the existing trim and panels at that entrance. Building Review Board Minutes – June 4, 2014 Meeting Page 13 of 13 Directional signs – Eliminate the tenants’ names from the directional signs and give consideration to slightly reducing the size of these sizes subject to review and approval by staff. Signs G – Remove the graphic from the reserved parking signs. Exit/Do Not Enter Sign – Remove the tenant names from this sign. The motion was seconded by Board member Bleck and was approved by the Board in a 6 to 0 vote. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda items. There was no additional public testimony presented to the Board. 6. Additional information from staff. At the request of Chairman King, There was no additional information presented by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 8:21p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development