BRB_2018_07_05_MINUTES
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 1 of 10
The City of Lake Forest
Building Review Board
Proceedings of July 5, 2018 Meeting
A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Building Review Board was held on Thursday,
July 5, 2018 at 6:30 p.m., at the City’s Municipal Services Facility, 800 Field Drive,
Lake Forest, Illinois.
Building Review Board members present: Chairman Ted Notz and Board members
Robert Reda, Chris Bires, Jim Diamond, Ross Friedman and Richard Walther
Building Review Board members absent: Board member Fred Moyer
Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development
1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures –
Chairman Notz
Chairman Notz reviewed the role of the Building Review Board and the meeting
procedures followed by the Board. He asked the members of the Board and staff
to introduce themselves.
2. Consideration of the minutes of the June 6, 2018 meeting of the Building
Review Board.
The minutes of the June 6, 2018 meeting were approved.
3. Continued consideration of a request for a building scale variance to allow the
addition of a three-season room at the rear of the residence at 690 Oakwood
Avenue.
Owners: John and Cindy Simons
Representative: Jonathan Clair, architect
Chairman Notz asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Clair noted that this petition was continued from the last meeting. He briefly
reviewed the project noting that the residence was built about two years ago.
He stated that the petitioners desire to add a three season room at the rear of the
home. He noted the form of the front dormer in relation to the proposed rear
addition. He reviewed the existing landscaping and six foot stockade fence
located along the side of the property. He noted that the three season room is
desired in part because the property is across from a municipal parking lot, so
there is not much privacy at the front of the house. He reviewed the site plan
noting the proposed location of the proposed addition. He noted the lack of
durability with a simple screen porch and explained that a concrete slab is
proposed for durability. He noted that the room is a simple rectangle and
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 2 of 10
explained how it transitions to the house, right below the second floor window sill
in the master bedroom. He explained that since the last meeting, the overhang
was extended and carried across the elevation and noted that the porch, on the
rear elevation of the three season room, was stepped back and projects to a
lesser extent than in the previous plans. He added that in response to Board
comments, the portion of the roof closest to the existing house was simplified and
the roof mass is kept away from the second floor windows. He pointed out that
when viewed from the north and south sides, the mass of the roof on the new
room is minimized. He stated that other roof forms were considered but rejected
because they added to the appearance of mass from the ground and from the
second floor windows. He stated that the exterior materials will match those on
the house. He described the window and screen system noting that it offers more
durability than just screens and avoids the need to store screens seasonally. He
stated that the window system is fiberglass and metal, with nice detailing. He
stated that the room will not be insulated and the rafters will be exposed, with
tongue and groove sheathing spanning the area between the rafters. He stated
that the refined design achieves a less massive design than the earlier plans.
Ms. Czerniak stated that at the last meeting, the Board expressed support for the
building scale variance and continued the petition to allow further study and
refinement of the design. She stated that the petitioners are requesting a
variance to allow the addition of a three season room after which the house will
be 13 percent over the allowable square footage. She stated that the refined
design appears to address some of the concerns raised by the Board at the last
meeting. She noted that the massing models are helpful in evaluating the roof
options that were studied. She stated that findings in support of the petition are
provided in the staff report.
In response to questions from board member Diamond, Ms. Czerniak stated that
the letter received from a neighbor a few houses away objected to granting a
variance on principal, since the house was only recently constructed. She noted
that a letter in support of the petition overall was received from the adjacent
property owner to the south. She confirmed that the project complies with the
zoning requirements.
In response to Board member Diamond, Mr. Clair clarified that the tip of the gable
is not aligned with the windows above.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Clair confirmed that
the three season room will not have insulation, air conditioning or heat and will be
used when the temperatures permit. He stated that there will be an electrical fan
and can lights. He stated that the concrete stoop will support a brick paver
patio. He reviewed the roof pitch and confirmed that the gutters and
downspouts will match those on the house.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Clair explained that the
projecting roof on the rear elevation of the three season room is intended to
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 3 of 10
provide protection for the door. He stated that the roof will extend far enough to
allow the gutter to dive into it, about six inches, and will be supported by
brackets. He stated that the dormer on the front elevation will not be seen in
combination with the projecting porch roof. He commented that the front
dormer has a strange pattern and appears as though it should be one window.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Clair commented that
he is not sure whether there is a downside to recessing the pediment to match
the setback but commented from a design perspective, he would not support
that approach. He explained that the Arborvitaes were planted a year and half
or two years ago and have grown significantly since that time. He stated that
they should grow three to five feet a year, ultimately reaching forty feet in height.
He reiterated that the three season room will not be seen from the street or from
the neighboring properties.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Mr. Clair discussed the
pediment above the door explaining how it works with the eave. He noted that it
would be easier and cheaper to run the gutter straight across the front, without a
projection. He stated that in his opinion, the design, as proposed offers human
scale and character.
Board member Bires stated that the models were helpful in understanding the
study that has been done on the roof forms.
Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Notz invited public
comments. Hearing none, he invited final comments and a motion from the
Board.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of a building scale
variance based on the findings detailed in the staff report and the Board’s
discussion. He stated that the recommendation is subject to the following
conditions.
1. Any modifications made to the plans as the result of final design development
shall be clearly called out on the plans submitted for permit and a copy of the
plans originally provided to the Board, with the areas of change highlighted,
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.
2. All exterior light fixtures, if any are proposed, shall fully shield the source of the
light and direct light down. Cut sheets of all exterior fixtures shall be submitted
for review and will be subject to approval prior to installation.
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 4 of 10
3. Plans for construction parking, material staging and tree protection shall be
submitted for review and will be subject to approval by the City’s Certified
Arborist, City Engineer and Director of Community Development.
a. Parking of construction vehicles on Oakwood Avenue is not permitted
since this is a route for commuter buses and other traffic related to the
Central Business District.
b. Off-site parking may be required and permits for parking in the public
lots may be purchased from the City.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by a
vote of 6 to 0.
4. Consideration of a request for approval of signage and exterior lighting for the
new Chase Bank Building under construction at 884 S. Waukegan Road.
Owner: 884 S. Waukegan Road, LLC (Frank Mariani 50%, John Fiore, Jr., 50%)
Representative: Jonathan Krissoff, Market Director for Real Estate, JP Morgan
Chase and Company
Chairman Notz asked the Board members for any Ex Parte contacts or conflicts of
interest, hearing none; he invited a presentation from the petitioner.
Mr. Krissoff stated that the bank building, as previously approved by the Board, is
under construction and, as directed by the Board, the signage and exterior
lighting are now presented for the Board’s review and approval. He introduced
the Chase Bank project team members
Ms. McCloud stated that she oversees signage for Chase Banks. She stated that
Chase is pleased with the outcome of the process to date and the design of the
building. She described the monument sign proposed on the Waukegan Road
frontage noting that it is designed to be compatible with the building. She stated
that the sign is proposed in generally the same location as the recently removed
McDonald’s monument sign. She stated that the stone base will match the stone
on the building. She described the soft edge lighting proposed around the
perimeter of the letters and explained that it is intended to provide a soft wash of
light on the sign. She noted that during the day, the nickel color on the face of
the sign will provide a contrast to the stainless steel letters. She described the wall
signs proposed on the building. She stated that black letters are proposed, with
halo illumination, to provide a soft wash of light behind the letters and a soft wash
of light on the stone. She reviewed the proposed locations of the wall signs in
relation to the entrance to the building and the elements of each elevation. She
described the location of the ATM on the south side of the building and the
signage proposed to call attention to the location. She noted that edge lighting
is proposed around the ATM. She noted that the words “Lake Forest” are
proposed as part of the west facing wall sign in response to a request from a
resident at the last meeting to help identify the train station stop. She added that
a temporary marketing sign is proposed on the site to announce the construction
of the new bank.
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 5 of 10
In response to a request from Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the
proposed monument sign. She stated that the sign conforms to the maximum
allowable size of twenty five square feet. She stated that as proposed, the sign is
about twenty two and a half inches. She stated that the overall height of the sign
is consistent with the maximum height allowed by the Code, five feet, and is
illuminated. She stated that the sign as proposed includes two graphic images
which together, total less than fifteen percent of the total face of the sign and
therefore, are consistent with the Code from a size perspective. She noted
however that the City’s Design Guidelines discourage the use of logos however,
the Board can approve the use of graphics. She noted that the graphics as
proposed appear discreet and generally consistent with the high quality
character intended for the building. She stated that as proposed, the sign is
generally consistent with other bank signage in the area. She stated that findings
in support of the monument sign are detailed in the staff report along with
recommended conditions of approval.
In response to questions from Board member Friedman, Mr. Meseck confirmed
that the intent is to match the true limestone on the base of the building adding
that the pieces of stone will be smaller to achieve a pedestrian scale.
In response to questions from Board member Walther, Ms. McCloud confirmed
that the interior of the sign is not visible. She stated that the edges of the letters
are frosted and opaque. She stated that the face of the letters is a brushed
stainless steel and the light, a soft glow, will appear only along the edges of the
letters.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Ms. McCloud reviewed the
materials on the sign noting that the sign itself has a brown nickel finish, the
reveals are a darker nickel color, and the face of the letters is aluminum.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. McCloud explained the
graphic noting that the extra, small octagon on top of the normal logo identifies
that the location offers Chase Private Client services.
Chairman Notz invited public comment, hearing none, he invited final questions
or comments from the Board, hearing none; he invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of the monument
sign based on findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of
approval.
1. Finishes shall be brushed as opposed to shiny or glossy.
2. Lighting shall be turned off after business hours for retail uses in the area.
3. Prior to the issuance of a permit for the monument sign, and once the
building has taken shape, a mock-up of the monument sign shall be
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 6 of 10
installed to allow final verification of the specific siting, size and
appearance of the sign.
4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the construction plans
for the monument sign for plantings around the base of the sign. The
plantings near the sign shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s
Certified Arborist to verify that the plantings serve to soften and screen the
structural base of the sign.
At the request of Chairman Notz, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the proposed wall signs.
She explained that on a corner property, the Code permits two wall signs and
limits the total size of the two signs to twenty five square feet. She stated that four
wall signs are proposed, one on each elevation, and each sign is proposed at just
over nineteen square feet. She stated that the proposed wall signs exceed the
Code limitations both in number and size and as a result, Chase is requesting a
variance. She noted that in combination with the monument sign, the proposed
wall signage, on all elevations, is excessive and is more signage than appears on
any other bank. She stated that staff recommends that the wall sign be
eliminated from the south elevation because that elevation has limited visibility
and signage for the ATM is also proposed on that elevation. She stated that wall
signs on the north and east elevations are reasonable given the prominence of
those elevations from Waukegan Road. She stated that the signage on the west
elevation is out of the ordinary and exceeds what is permitted in the Code
however, as noted by a resident at the earlier meeting, adding “Lake Forest” to
the sign could help to identify the train station stop. She stated that if the Board
chooses to recommend approval of three wall signs, rather than two as permitted
by the Code, at a size larger than permitted by the Code, consideration could be
given to eliminating the graphic on the wall signs on the east and west sides of
the building. She noted that the graphic will already be visible on the monument
sign on the east side of the building and adding it to the wall sign on the east
elevation will be duplicative. She commented that the blue logo proposed for
the signs could appear as stark in combination with the aluminum letters but
noted that Chase representatives have stated that the blue will be a subdued
color.
Ms. McCloud stated that Chase Bank is comfortable with the conditions as
presented by staff. She stated that the bank was aware of the Code limitations,
but presented the desired signage for consideration. She stated that the bank
expected and accepts the limitations as recommended by staff.
In response to questions from Board member Walther, Ms. Czerniak confirmed
that there is an access easement located along the western portion of the
property to provide access to Forest Square. She stated that it is not a public
street, but is open to the public.
In response to questions from Board member Walther, Ms. McCloud confirmed
that the words “Lake Forest” will be illuminated. She explained that the diffuser is
intended to soften the light coming from the graphic. She stated that the intent is
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 7 of 10
that the intensity of the light will be the same for the letters and graphic symbol.
She stated that the paint on the black letters is specified to combat the elements
and may appear to have a sheen initially but should soften to a satin finish. She
stated that a mock-up of the paint color on the letters will be provided once the
building is in place.
Board member Bires stated that he is supportive of the wall signs as proposed
subject to the conditions as recommended by staff.
In response to questions from Board member Reda, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that
the staff recommendation allows the graphic as part of the wall sign on the north
elevation but eliminates the graphic on the east and west facing wall signs. She
stated that staff recommends that the fourth wall sign, proposed for the south side
of the building, be eliminated. She reiterated the importance of a mock-up once
the building is in place to allow the Board, as would normally occur, to see the
size and placement of the letters in the context of the building. She explained
that Chase is requesting approval of the signage at this time so they have a sense
of the types and numbers of signs that will be permitted. She stated that final
details can be resolved, including the intensity of the lighting, once mock-ups are
in place.
Board member Reda noted the importance of assuring that the lighting of the
signs is not too bright and does not reflect on to elements of the building. He
noted that the Code does not permit up lighting on buildings adding that light
should not spread on to the building façade.
Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, Chairman Notz noted
that it is important to document the aspects of the site that differentiate it from
other sites such as the visibility from all sides, the surrounding traffic patterns, the
adjacency to the railroad tracks and the lack of any adjacent residential
properties. He stated that in his opinion, this approval does not set a precedent
for other sites because each site is considered based on its own unique setting
and attributes.
Board member Walther added that the owners of the adjacent property to the
north stated support for the overall project at past meetings.
Chairman Notz invited public comments, hearing none, he invited final comments
from the Board, hearing none; he invited a motion.
Board member Reda made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to
allow three wall signs instead of two and to allow the signs together, to exceed
the permitted 25 square feet. He stated that the variance is based on the unique
characteristics of the site as discussed by the Board, the adjacency to public
streets on two sides, a public easement and railroad tracks on a third side and
based on the inclusion of “Lake Forest” in the sign on the west elevation, facing
the railroad tracks. He stated that the motion is also based on the findings in the
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 8 of 10
staff report and the discussion of the Board. He stated that the motion is subject
to the following conditions of approval.
1. No wall sign is permitted on the south facing elevation.
2. The blue graphic shall only be permitted on the north facing façade.
3. The blue graphic shall be eliminated from the east and west facing signs.
4. Lighting in the wall signs shall be turned off after business hours of retail
establishments in the area and no later than 9 p.m.
5. The finish on the letters and graphic shall be brushed or flat, rather than
glossy.
6. Prior to the issuance of a permit for any wall signs, and once the building
has taken shape, a mock-up of the wall signs shall be installed to allow final
review of the proportion and scale of the signs in relation to each building
façade.
7. Illumination of all of the signs shall be reviewed after installation to assure
that the intensity of the light is subdued, that the light source is not visible
and that light does not spillover on to or reflect off of nearby walls, windows
or other building elements.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by a
vote of 6 to 0.
In response to questions from Board member Walther Ms. Czerniak stated that
temporary “opening soon” signs can be approved at the staff level with the
issuance of a time-limited permit. She noted that the contractors currently have
signs at the site so the temporary signage overall will need to be considered to
avoid over signing the property even in the short term.
In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Meseck stated that the opening of
the bank is scheduled for late November or early December.
At Chairman Notz’ request, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the information provided to
staff to date on the exterior lighting planned for the site. She stated that it is staff’s
understanding that the light poles and fixtures in the parking lot will be consistent
with those in the adjacent parking lot to the north, a standard type used
throughout the City. She stated that no other lighting on the site is identified on
the plans but added that safety and security lighting at the entrances and at the
ATM will be needed. She stated that staff will work closely with Chase as the site
evolves to assure that lighting is consistent with the character of the area. She
stated that after installation, the lighting near the ATMs will be reviewed to assure
that the intensity is consistent with the lighting at other ATMs in the area while at
the same time, meeting public safety needs.
Mr. Meseck noted that the staff information is incorrect and explained that the
parking lot light poles as proposed are taller than the lights at Forest Square to the
north. He explained that by having taller lights, the foot candles needed to meet
the Automated Teller Machine Security Act can be achieved with fewer lights
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 9 of 10
than if the poles are shorter like those at Forest Square. He stated that a light level
of at least two foot candles is required within 50 feet of the ATM drive-up and
within 50 feet of the front entry where an ATM will be accessible to pedestrians.
He stated that the lights in the areas of the ATMs will remain on through the night.
He stated that the taller poles are not inconsistent with the massing of the building
adding that they will not look out of place. He stated that the light poles are
proposed at 25 feet, about five to seven feet taller than the parking lot lights at
Forest Square. He noted that in the pedestrian areas, ten foot poles are
proposed. He stated that if the light poles in the parking lot are lowered, more
poles will be needed. He reviewed some options for lowering the lighting levels
off hours.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that some of the
information presented on the lighting was not clear to staff from the materials
submitted. She suggested that the proposed 25-foot lights should be looked at
carefully in the context of the neighboring commercial development. She added
that the building was designed with the intent of making it feel a part of the
commercial development to the north noting that taller lights may set it apart.
Chairman Notz stated support for consideration of shorter poles even if that
means a few additional poles.
In response to questions from Board member Walther, Mr. Meseck reviewed the
proposed locations of the light poles adding that an additional pole near the
accessible parking space will probably be needed regardless of the pole height.
He stated a willingness to work with staff to finalize the height and number of light
poles. He confirmed that recessed lighting will be located under the canopy,
near the ATM. He stated that light poles will likely be needed in the area in
addition to the lighting under the canopy.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Meseck confirmed that the
parking lot lights along the perimeter of the site can be equipped with drop down
shields to prevent light spill off of the site.
In response to questions from Board member Walther Mr. Meseck stated that
some work is needed to determine how many lights will be needed to achieve
the desired lighting levels with shorter light poles.
In response to questions from Chairman Notz, Mr. Meseck stated that sconce
lighting is proposed on the pilasters. He stated that the overall lighting on the site
will be reviewed and refined.
Ms. Czerniak commented that given the study and refinement that is needed on
the lighting plan it may be helpful to have a subcommittee of the Board work with
the petitioner and staff to review a refined and more detailed lighting plan.
Building Review Board Minutes – July 5, 2018 Page 10 of 10
Chairman Notz agreed that a subcommittee would be appropriate given the
changes from the materials presented to staff and the questions raised by the
Board. He stated support for the conditions as recommended by staff with the
added condition that a further detailed and refined lighting plan will be
presented to a subcommittee of the Board and will be subject to the
subcommittee’s review and approval. He invited public comment, hearing none,
he invited a motion.
Board member Reda motion to recommend approval of exterior lighting in the
parking lot and on the building subject to the following conditions of approval.
1. Parking light lots shall be consistent with the lights in the adjacent parking
lot to the north.
2. A detailed overall lighting plan shall be presented and will be subject to
review by a subcommittee of the Board and staff. The detailed plan shall
reflect all exterior lighting proposed on the site; parking lot lighting, lighting
for pedestrian areas, lighting at the ATM, under canopy lighting, decorative
lighting and any other exterior lighting that is proposed.
3. A lighting reduction plan shall be submitted to achieve lower lighting levels
on the site after business hours recognizing that minimum lighting levels must
be maintained at and around ATMs. The lighting reduction plan shall be
subject to review and approval by a subcommittee of the Board and staff.
The motion was seconded by Board member Friedman and was approved by a
vote of 6 to 0.
OTHER ITEMS
5. Opportunity for the public to address the Building Review Board on non-agenda
items.
No public testimony on non-agenda items was presented to the Board.
6. Additional information from staff.
No additional information was presented by staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine Czerniak
Director of Community Development