General

Minutes adopted July 20, 2023 1 Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 2 June 15, 2023 3 4 Members Present: Katie Moor, Acting Chairperson 5 Fritz Duda 6 Maggie Meiners 7 Heather Niehoff 8 Michael Ritter 9 10 Members Absent: Paul Konstant 11 12 Others Village Officials Present: Kirk Albinson 13 14 Village Staff: David Schoon, Director of Community Development 15 Davorka Kirincic, Building and Code Enforcement 16 Manager 17 18 Call to Order & Roll Call: 19 Mr. Schoon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and took roll call of the Board Members present. He 20 then asked for a motion to appoint Ms. Moor as Acting Chairperson. A motion to appoint Ms. Moor as 21 Acting Chairperson was made and seconded. A vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 22 to 0: 23 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 24 NAYS: None 25 26 Approval of Minutes: 27 a. May 18, 2023, Regular Meeting Minutes 28 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any questions or for a motion to approve the May 18, 2023, 29 meeting minutes. A motion was made and seconded to approve the May 18, 2023, meeting minutes. A 30 vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 31 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 32 NAYS: None 33 34 Chairperson Moor then asked for a motion to take the agenda out of order and consider the One 35 Winnetka agenda item as agenda item no. 4. A motion was made to take the agenda out of order was 36 made and seconded. A vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 37 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 38 NAYS: None 39 40 New Applications: 41 a. Case No. 23-11-DR: 552 Lincoln Avenue - Fons Plant-Based Empanadas/Deep Purple: Sign 42 Permit to allow two window signs and face change on the existing projecting sign at the storefront of 43 Fons Plant-Based Empanadas/Deep Purple. 44 Chairperson Moor asked for the applicant’s presentation. Dan Burns introduced himself as the owner’s 45 representative and identified the blade sign which would be changed. He noted the blade sign is done 46 but has not been installed. Chairperson Moor asked for additional information on the window signs. Mr. 47 Burns described be circular, non-illuminated logo signage and its location. Ms. Meiners questioned the 48 interior hanging signs. Mr. Schoon confirmed they are allowed by code. Ms. Meiners commented that  Design Review Board June 15, 2023 Page 2 1 the proposed signage is nice but together with the floating signage is too much. Mr. Duda questioned 2 the relief being questioned and Mr. Schoon clarified the portions of the request requiring approval. 3 4 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised at this 5 time. She then asked for a motion to approve the request as presented. A motion to approve the 6 request as presented was made by Ms. Niehoff and the motion was seconded. A vote was taken, and 7 the motion passed, 4 to 1: 8 AYES: Duda, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 9 NAYS: Meiners 10 11 b. Case No. 23-12-DR: 768 Oak - Winnetka/Northfield Library: Certificate of Appropriateness to 12 allow the replacement of an existing freestanding ground-mounted sign along Linden Street, as well 13 as the installation of a new freestanding ground-mounted sign along Green Bay Road. 14 Chairperson Moor asked the Board Members if there were any questions or if any clarification is 15 needed. No comments were made at this time. She then asked for a motion to approve the request. A 16 motion to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve the request was made by Mr. Ritter and 17 seconded by Mr. Duda. A vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 18 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 19 NAYS: None 20 21 c. Case No. 23-13-DR: 554-558 Green Bay Road: Awning Permit and Amendment to a previously 22 approved Certificate of Appropriateness. 23 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any questions or if the Board Members needed additional 24 information from the Village staff or the applicant. No comments were made at this time. She then 25 asked for a motion to approve the request. A motion to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to 26 approve the request was made by Ms. Niehoff and seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken, and the 27 motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 28 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 29 NAYS: None 30 31 d. Case No. 23-14-DR: 80 Green Bay Road – John Plunkett Interiors: Certificate of 32 Appropriateness to allow the replacement of existing windows, installation of new exterior building 33 lighting, and painting of the exterior of the building. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this 34 request. 35 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any questions or if the Board Members needed additional 36 information from the Village staff or the applicant. She then asked for the applicant’s presentation. 37 38 John Plunkett introduced himself and Robert Jaydos, the architect. Mr. Jaydos described the existing site 39 which required a lot of interior and exterior work. He also described the windows, roof materials and 40 colors to be used on the project. Mr. Plunkett described the colors as neutral with the current green 41 mansard roof to be changed to a slate gray color and provided samples to the Board for their review. He 42 also referred to the previous sign tower which would be painted a dark bronze color with the proposed 43 sign to be presented at the next Board meeting. Mr. Plunkett then described the request as 44 noncontroversial and an improvement over the existing condition. 45 46 Chairperson Moor asked if there were other questions. No questions were raised at this time. She then 47 asked for a motion to recommend approval of the request as presented. A motion to recommend  Design Review Board June 15, 2023 Page 3 1 approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the request as presented was made by Mr. Duda and 2 seconded by Mr. Ritter. A vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 3 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 4 NAYS: None 5 6 Continued Applications: 7 a. Case No. 22-25-PD: 714-16, 718-732, 736 & 740 Elm Street and 511 & 515 Lincoln Avenue - 8 One-Winnetka Preliminary Planned Development (Continued from April 20, 2023, meeting): 9 Certificate of Appropriateness to allow construction of a new four-story mixed-use building as part of 10 planned development. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. 11 Chairperson Moor provided background for the request and Kirk Albinson’s role in the application’s 12 presentation. She then asked for a motion to appoint Mr. Albinson as presiding officer for this 13 application’s presentation. A motion to nominate Mr. Albinson as Chairperson for the request was made 14 by Ms. Meiners and the motion was seconded. A vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 15 to 0: 16 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 17 NAYS: None 18 19 Mr. Schoon provided a staff introduction including the background of the request and details relating to 20 the application and questions raised by the Board at its previous meeting. He also stated the applicant 21 was asked to clarify some elements which are included on Table 1 of the Staff Report. Mr. Schoon 22 identified two design elements that the Village staff would like to briefly review for the Board, the 23 electronic transformer location and proposed streetscape elements. He identified the concerns raised 24 relating to the transformer location and referred to the lighted bollard theme at the intersections and 25 for the applicant to consider extending the pedestrian light element to the edge of the property on the 26 east and south with the elements being consistent with the Village’s streetscape design. Mr. Schoon 27 then stated in connection with the proposed design elements to be used in the private plaza area, they 28 are asked for more specific information relating to the paving material and proposed seating as well as 29 additional information on the area’s landscaping elements. 30 31 Mr. Schoon then referred to the factors the Board is to consider when reviewing a Certificate of 32 Appropriateness as well as guidelines in making their recommendation to the Village Council. He stated 33 following the applicant’s presentation, public comment and the applicant’s response to public comment, 34 the Board will determine if they are ready to make a recommendation on the project or if they need 35 additional information. Mr. Schoon then asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at 36 this time. 37 38 Chairman Albinson asked for the applicant’s presentation. John Talty of OKW Architects introduced 39 himself and Katherine Talty, the landscape architect, John Murphy and Deidre Klein of Murphy 40 Development to the Board. He referred to the Board’s positive comments received at the April 2023 41 meeting and the issues they were instructed to address. Mr. Talty also referred to the comments made 42 regarding the Lincoln and Elm Street elevations and noted they were sensitive to the issue of scale. He 43 then outlined how the presentation would take place. 44 45 Mr. Talty began by stating the building grew 4 inches in height which would result in better architecture 46 and an increase in the fourth-floor transparency by 8% with the remainder of the factual elements 47 remaining the same. He referred to comments made relating to the pedestrian walkway which they 48 wanted to be safe, well-lit, and welcoming. Mr. Talty stated after much consideration, they decided to  Design Review Board June 15, 2023 Page 4 1 remove the walkway and replace it with a north-south corridor to remain inside the building with access 2 off Elm. He referred to interior underground parking, ground floor commercial space and residential 3 units on the second, third and fourth floors. 4 5 Mr. Talty stated regarding the building’s architecture and aesthetic, he referred to the previous 6 discussion relating to Tudor architecture. He identified some of the gables which contributed to Tudor 7 architecture and described the exterior change to brown stone and white brick which he described as an 8 elegant and beautiful solution. Mr. Talty also stated the top floor and roof of the building were darkened 9 to address transparency and relate to the material’s color palette. He described the Elm Street solution 10 as powerful and explained how they introduced a triple gable element mid-block to break it up and 11 created a double gabled expression at the east end like that at the Lincoln Avenue corner. Mr. Talty 12 stated regarding the view from east to the southwest, he identified the transformer location and noted 13 the pergola previously used as part of the solution was removed. He added the wall along the public 14 parking lot on the east side is articulated and there would be an inset for the backup generator. Mr. 15 Talty then identified the second-floor terraces and bay on the third floor which wrapped the corner. 16 17 Mr. Talty referred to the second-floor courtyard and common area activity for the building with 18 gathering and dining options. He stated that in lieu of using lighter color material, the bays were 19 addressed similarly to the perimeter architecture. Mr. Talty identified areas where the architecture is 20 now wrapped inside the building which would be articulated with a different material color to help 21 activate that space. He then identified the Lincoln elevation and entrance and described the architecture 22 used on it with landscaping addressing the building’s luxury. Mr. Talty identified the ramp leading to the 23 underground parking area and the residential entry point. 24 25 Mr. Talty then stated they were asked to consider the scale from the Elm Street bridge and referred to a 26 rendering and stated the building would not overwhelm the community and would fit comfortably in the 27 community. He also identified streetscape elevations compared to the neighbors. Mr. Talty stated the 28 Lincoln elevation would be viewed as a true elevation of a building with Elm Street never being able to 29 be viewed in that context. He also identified renderings of the color changes and the stone based used 30 on the ground floor on Lincoln and Elm all the way across with the stone rising to meet the third floor on 31 Lincoln. Mr. Talty also identified the true white brick used on the second floor and gables along with the 32 use of white brick and stucco material. Mr. Ritter questioned the gable’s timber material. Mr. Talty 33 responded it would be a cementitious, hardy material which will be used as a divider. He noted the 34 south and east elevations would speak to the same material use. Mr. Talty then described the four sides 35 of the building as four-sided architecture with the building having no back side. 36 37 Mr. Talty identified the elevations of the amenity terrace and described the materials used. He also 38 stated proposed material boards would be provided to the Board for their review. Mr. Talty then stated 39 the building and tenant signage would be presented later with the building’s actual address to be later 40 confirmed. He also referred to the transformer location which was relocated and enclosed to address 41 the Board’s concerns. Mr. Talty then identified the gate, fencing and railings in the rendering as well as 42 the planter at the residential entrance. 43 44 Katherine Talty stated she would identify the landscape changes made based on the architecture 45 evolution. She referred to the corner feature on the building as the bunch of trees which she described 46 as an overhead living pergola, and which was adjusted to respond to the entry door at that corner. Ms. 47 Talty stated they determined a table and chair setup would be more appropriate for that corner. She 48 stated the comments received from Teska relating to streetscape have been addressed. Ms. Talty stated  Design Review Board June 15, 2023 Page 5 1 the plaza surface material would marry the streetscape pallet architecture which she described as deep 2 red brick and would be a banded, stained concrete plaza. She also described the tree’s flush grating 3 system and identified a streetscape holistic streetscape view. Ms. Talty confirmed the private amenity 4 terrace on the second floor would not change. 5 6 Mr. Talty stated regarding lighting, he referred to an illustration of the variety of types which are 7 standard for the Village. He identified the areas where ornamental, parking and apartment lighting 8 would be used. Mr. Talty then identified a comparison of the previous and revised proposal and referred 9 to shed dormers and gables which served to break up the Elm Street corridor elevation and on the 10 Lincoln elevation. He also identified previous and revised elevation comparisons comparing the changes 11 made and stated any other information the Board would like to see is available. Mr. Talty then asked if 12 there were any questions. 13 14 Chairman Albinson first asked for public comment and asked for comments to be limited to three 15 minutes or less. Mr. Schoon noted for the record written comments were received. 16 17 Frank Petrek, 711 Oak, referred to a photo he submitted of windows on the north façade from his 18 building. He stated his concern related to the fact that there were not supposed to be balconies on the 19 south façade. Mr. Petrek referred to his view of the fourth floor, the number of windows and their view 20 and the ability of fourth floor residents of the proposed building to see into their building. He stated his 21 concerns relate to privacy and noise and added his concern also relating to the transformer location 22 with the applicant having done a nice job addressing it. 23 24 John Phelan, President of the Condominium Association, stated his concerns related to the backup 25 generator’s location, its size, and the ability to minimize the amount of noise generated from it. He 26 asked for clarification regarding its proposed location. 27 28 No additional public comments were made at this time. Chairman Albinson then called the matter in for 29 discussion. 30 31 Mr. Duda thanked the Village staff and the applicant for the presentation. He noted he submitted 32 comments at the previous meeting and the applicant addressed all the concerns raised by the 33 Commission. He stated the request met the design guidelines and standards with the revised proposal 34 resulting in a better expression of the Board’s comments. Mr. Duda stated he is in support of the project 35 and added of the previously approved requests for this site over the last several years, the proposal is 36 the best submittal so far. He added he would like to see the project advance from the Board and noted 37 four of the Village Trustees recommended at the January 2023 meeting to get the project moving 38 forward. 39 40 Ms. Meiners agreed with Mr. Duda’s comments and thanked the applicant for considering the Board’s 41 concerns. She stated her only comment related to the fourth floor and asked for the corners of the top 42 floor to be cut in order to not lose ceiling height but visually lower the building height. Ms. Meiners also 43 stated she appreciated the site line provided from the bridge and the proposal looked as though it 44 belonged and is a contemporary proposal. 45 46 Chairman Albinson agreed with Ms. Meiners’ suggestion and stated the factor creating the concern is 47 the cornice piece creating a heavy shadow line making the building feel top heavy. He stated removing 48 the cornice at a minimum would help. Mr. Talty asked for clarification on Ms. Meiners’ suggestion,  Design Review Board June 15, 2023 Page 6 1 which she provided to the applicant. Mr. Ritter commented that if it is taken off entirely, it would 2 appear unfinished. Mr. Talty agreed with the Board’s suggestion and that it is a simple solution which 3 can be achieved. 4 5 Ms. Niehoff stated she also appreciated the applicant addressing the Board’s concerns and noted for the 6 record she did not feel there was a direction to pursue Tudor in any way. She commented that the 7 building needed to be a center piece project for Winnetka and the site, and she did not see it that way 8 yet. Ms. Niehoff then referred to page 34 with the image looking over the bridge. She stated regarding 9 the view and bookend of mimicry from the corner of Hometown Juice, she commented it did not feel it 10 is right to be book ended. Ms. Niehoff reiterated the Board agreed at the April 2023 meeting that the 11 applicant is going in the right direction and that she did not feel it is at the quality level or material use 12 standpoint although she liked the use of white brick. She also commented that the building at the corner 13 of Elm and Lincoln did not come down to the ground enough with the continuous stone base band felt 14 like generic suburban retail versus upscale residential in a mixed-use environment. Ms. Niehoff 15 suggested they break the material at the ground floor and referred to page 22. 16 17 Ms. Niehoff also stated there seemed to be too many different articulations from a coloration and 18 materials standpoint of the outside versus the inside. She referred to page 34 and commented on the 19 scale sold the height and the way the top floor was setback which is positive from a massing standpoint. 20 Ms. Niehoff then asked for a view from Elm looking to the west. She stated she is also concerned 21 regarding the transformer location in terms of precedent. Mr. Schoon informed the Board he could not 22 think of another property where there was a similar condition in terms of the transformer location, 23 which he noted are no longer allowed to be located underground. Mr. Talty responded it could not be 24 located on the east elevation due to the zero-lot line condition in that area or the south elevation. Mr. 25 Schoon confirmed access from either of those elevations would not be allowed to service the 26 transformer in that area, and there are limited onsite options to locate it. 27 28 Ms. Niehoff then referred to the triple gables on Elm and stated she preferred the double gables on 29 Lincoln and questioned their use from the design of units’ perspective. Mr. Talty responded that the 30 units were designed inside out and outside in. Ms. Niehoff commented she preferred more simplicity of 31 elements on the façade and referred to the different expressions. 32 33 Chairman Albinson agreed with Ms. Niehoff’s comments relating to the three gables on Elm and two 34 gables on Lincoln. He commented that the previous Elm elevation felt too long and horizontal, and the 35 revised delivery is not correct. Mr. Talty commented that it is subjective, and they were advised to 36 enhance the wall’s verticality which was done with these elements. He described their attempts to 37 break up the façade and noted they have months of work ahead of them with the proposal not a 38 construction document. He stated they want the project to meet their objectives and the general 39 objectives of the Village and the Board. 40 41 Chairman Albinson commented individually, the elements are nice and referred to the wider expanse of 42 more horizontal with shed dormers in between which he felt were too spaced out and lacked rhythm. 43 He then identified his areas of concern in the illustration and suggested a simplification option. 44 Chairman Albinson then referred to the width of the shed dormer element and commented that it 45 should be simplified. He suggested the gable dormer elements be eliminated with only the shed dormer 46 included. 47  Design Review Board June 15, 2023 Page 7 1 Mr. Talty referred to the comments made several years ago that any project for the site should contain 2 Tudor architecture, which was repeatedly suggested. He stated for the project to advance, their hands 3 were tied, and they had to include Tudor in the proposal. Mr. Talty then stated he appreciated the 4 Board’s comments relating to the inclusion of Tudor. Ms. Niehoff stated the project is very important to 5 the Village and the Board would encourage the project’s advancement. Mr. Ritter agreed with Mr. 6 Talty’s comments relating to the inclusion of Tudor elements and added the project looked great. He 7 stated he felt no changes were necessary but would agree with the removal of the small dormers 8 suggested by Chairman Albinson and Ms. Niehoff. Mr. Duda referred to the approval on the prior project 9 proposal for the site years ago and referred to unintended consequences and to being sensitive to the 10 applicant’s work. Mr. Talty provided the Board with the reasoning for the inclusion of the dormer 11 elements. 12 13 Ms. Meiners asked if there would be an opportunity to reapprove the materials. Chairman Albinson 14 responded there would not. Ms. Niehoff provided clarity relating to her comment about the building 15 coming down in certain areas and referred to the line of material change in the illustration at Elm and 16 Lincoln. Chairman Albinson referred to Image 31 as an example of Ms. Niehoff’s suggestion. Mr. Talty 17 identified the differentiation between each bay as well as additional information on the piers and their 18 materials. The Board Members and Mr. Talty discussed several options regarding relocating the gables 19 and brick to break up the Lincoln and Elm elevations as well as how those alternatives would relate to 20 the sign band. 21 22 Mr. Talty stated regarding the generator’s location, he identified a carve-out and the generator access 23 point. He stated it would only be visible to those parking in the public lot and not to the 711 Oak 24 residents with it generating minimal noise. Mr. Talty then addressed Mr. Petrek’s concerns regarding the 25 private tenant terrace location. He identified the terraces’ locations on the various elevations noting 26 there would be no terrace on the fourth floor. Mr. Talty stated the only terraces on the south side of the 27 building are for two units on the second floor. He stated they were mindful of how the spaces live and to 28 be considerate of the neighbors. 29 30 Ms. Moor then stated she appreciated the nod to Tudor with the new pallet being more elevated and 31 having a more luxurious feel. She stated she understood more after taking Mr. Talty’s comments into 32 consideration and applauded the applicant’s presentation. Ms. Moor also commented she liked the new 33 landscape plan better and identified her concerns relating to the corner on the illustration on page 36 34 which she commented felt corporate as opposed to warm and welcoming. Ms. Talty informed the 35 Board it is stained concrete, and the rendering provided the idea of the color change of two gradients of 36 gray and identified the most accurate photograph in the rendering. She also identified the entry doors 37 which would be accentuated with a low-level planter to define the space. Ms. Moor then stated the 38 project is moving in the right direction. 39 40 Ms. Niehoff asked for additional clarification regarding the courtyard material change which Mr. Talty 41 provided to the Board, noting the intent was to make the courtyard as open and transparent as possible. 42 He also described the proposed materials noting there is a structural implication to the space since 43 public parking is located below. Mr. Talty then provided color samples to the Board for their review. Ms. 44 Niehoff commented she is troubled with how different it appeared from the rest of the building. 45 Chairman Albinson stated he understood from a continuity standpoint and indicated there could be a 46 lighter shade of cementitious material while understanding the applicant’s budget concerns. Mr. Talty 47 explained the reasoning for the color change noting it is a private space. 48  Design Review Board June 15, 2023 Page 8 1 Ms. Niehoff asked who the building would be marketed to. Mr. Murphy responded mostly transitional 2 residents or those selling their homes. He estimated the monthly rent to be $1,700 and up to $14,000- 3 $15,000 per month for the larger units. Mr. Talty provided information regarding the square footage for 4 the various units. 5 6 Chairman Albinson commented the proposal is beautiful and the comments the Board made were 7 splitting hairs. He referred to the rendering on the Elm elevation and the slope change and questioned 8 how it worked with the street and sidewalk. Mr. Talty explained how the grade change would be 9 addressed. Chairman Albinson asked if the lattice and vines in the previous proposal for the parking lot 10 could be reintroduced. Mr. Talty responded it is a zero-lot line and they are challenged with the lack of 11 space for planting. Chairman Albinson suggested an easement be worked out with the Village. Mr. 12 Murphy suggested a decorative screen be used in those locations. 13 14 Chairman Albinson stated at the previous meeting, he referred to his comments relating to color 15 focused on the fourth floor and did not expect an entirely different color pallet. He stated he preferred 16 the original color although he is not opposed to the alternate scheme. Mr. Talty described the color 17 pallet as a far more elegant solution for the building when compared to farmhouse coloring. Mr. 18 Murphy stated the current proposal’s stone enhancements are far beyond those of the previous 19 proposal as well as the addition of copper along with the gutters. Ms. Meiners stated the current color 20 scheme provided enough variation as well as the materials. 21 22 Chairman Albinson asked the applicant if they considered removing the half timbering. Mr. Talty 23 responded they did, and it would have been too pronounced. Chairman Albinson then commented on 24 the transformer’s relocation as being a good solution. He also stated he appreciated the comments 25 made regarding the use of stone and then questioned the timeline. Chairman Albinson asked the Board 26 if they would like to make a recommendation to the Village Council with conditions or to ask the 27 applicant to come back before the Board. Mr. Schoon noted the Board must be clear as to what the 28 conditions are. Mr. Duda suggested the Board approve the submittal with suggestions as opposed to 29 conditions. Mr. Schoon stated that the Village Council is looking for as much clarity as possible from the 30 Board with their recommendation if it should include conditions. Mr. Talty stated the triple gables and 31 double gables can be modified on the Elm and Lincoln elevations and they can go back to the shed 32 dormer expression, the cornice on the fourth floor can be modified with an edge detail to soften the top 33 floor expression, and the horizontal band sitting on top of the retail commercial base can be broken up 34 by pulling the masonry to the ground while considering it be done in an architecturally sensible fashion. 35 Chairman Albinson also included the addition of a screening element on the ground floor wall along the 36 Village parking lot. Ms. Meiners stated she would be in favor of approving the request with the 37 condition of the items mentioned being evaluated noting the applicant has listened to the Board’s 38 previous comments. 39 40 Chairman Albinson then asked for a motion to recommend approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness 41 for the design of the building, streetscape and landscaping proposed for the mixed-use building on the 42 subject property subject to the conditions as outlined by Mr. Talty. 43 44 A motion to recommend approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the One Winnetka project with 45 the following conditions was made by Mr. Duda and seconded by Mr. Ritter. 46 47 1. Replace the triple gable design element on Elm Street and the double gable design element on 48 Lincoln Avenue with shed dormers.  Design Review Board June 15, 2023 Page 9 1 2. Study and modify the cornice on the fourth floor to recede rather than come forward. 2 3. Break up the horizontality of the band that sits atop the commercial storefronts by varying the 3 height of that stone cap. 4 4. Add ornamental lattice to the painted CMU block wall elements on the east and south ground 5 floor elevations to soften the wall behind it. 6 7 A vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 8 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 9 NAYS: None 10 11 Other Business. 12 a. July 20, 2023, Meeting – Quorum check. 13 The Board Members discussed their availability. 14 15 Public Comment. 16 No comments were made at this time. 17 18 Adjournment: 19 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Meiners and 20 the motion was seconded. A vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 21 AYES: Duda, Meiners, Moor, Niehoff, Ritter 22 NAYS: None 23 The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. 24 25 Respectfully submitted, 26 27 Antionette Johnson 28 Recording Secretary