Design Review Board

Village of Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals Regular Meeting December 18, 2025 at 7:00 PM Police Department 410 Green Bay Road AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments 3. Approval of Minutes a. November 20, 2025, Regular meeting Minutes 4. Continued Applications a. Case No. 25-19-DR: 560 Chestnut Street — Neapolitan: Certificate of Appropriateness for a recent storefront painting on the Subject Property (Amended case). 5. New Applications a. Case No. 25-26-DR: 24 Green Bay Road — North Shore Barbershop, Mast Partners, LLC.: A Certificate of Appropriateness to allow for the proposed exterior alterations of the front elevation. The Village Council has the final authority on this Certificate of Appropriateness, and the DRB is only a recommended body. 6. Other Business a. January 15, 2026, Regular Meeting — Quorum Check 7. Adjournment NOTICE Public comment is permitted on all agenda items at the meeting. If you wish to provide testimony or comments prior to the meeting, you may provide them one of two ways: (1) by sending an email to planning@winnetka.org; or by sending a letter to Community Development, Village of Winnetka, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, IL 60093. All agenda materials are available at www.villageofwinnetka.org/agendacenter. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041). Page 1 of 29  1 Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 2 November 20, 2025 3 4 Members Present: Colin Kennedy, Acting Chairman 5 Chris Baggett 6 Wesley Barker 7 Fritz Duda 8 Peter Evanich 9 10 Members Absent: Katie Moor 11 Heather Niehoff 12 13 Village Staff: Ann Klaassen, Assistant Director of Community 14 Development 15 Davorka Kirincic, Building and Code Enforcement 16 Manager 17 18 Call to Order & Roll Call: 19 Acting Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board 20 Members present. 21 22 Public Comments: 23 No comments were made at this time. 24 25 Approval of Minutes: 26 Chairman Kennedy asked if there were any comments or corrections or for a motion to approve the 27 October 16, 2025 meeting minutes. A motion to approve the October 16, 2025 meeting minutes was 28 made by Mr. Baggett and seconded by Mr. Barker. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously 29 passed, 5 to 0: 30 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Kennedy 31 NAYS: None 32 33 Continued Applications: 34 a. Case No. 25-19-DR: 560 Chestnut Street - Neapolitan LLC: A Certificate of Appropriateness to 35 allow exterior painting of the storefront that does not match the shade of pink approved by the 36 Design Review Board at its September 18, 2025 meeting. 37 Ms. Kirincic identified the applicant who asked for the case to be rescheduled to the December 18, 2025 38 meeting and asked for a motion. A motion was made by Mr. Baggett to continue the matter to the 39 December 18, 2025 meeting. Mr. Evanich seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion 40 unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 41 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Kennedy 42 NAYS: None 43 44 b. Case No. 25-20-DR: 986 Green Bay Road - Sit Still Kids Salon: A Sign Permit and Sign Code 45 Variations to allow a new window, door, and wall signs. 46 Ms. Kirincic identified the applicant who also asked for the matter to be continued to the December 18, 47 2025 meeting since they are still working with the homeowner’s association with regard to the wall sign. 48 She then asked for a motion. A motion was made to continue the matter to the December 18, 2025 Page 2 of 29  Design Review Board November 20, 2025 Page 2 1 meeting was made by Mr. Barker. Mr. Duda seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion 2 unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 3 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Kennedy 4 NAYS: None 5 6 New Applications: 7 a. Case No. 25-24-DR: 510 Winnetka Avenue - Oberweis Ice Cream and Dairy Store: A Sign Permit 8 and Sign Code Variations to allow existing window signs (window decals, posters, and floating window 9 signs) to remain. 10 Ms. Kirincic summarized the request for the currently installed signs to remain. She identified the 11 property’s location and zoning classification as well as its first floor location in an illustration. Ms. Kirincic 12 also identified the interior wall signs and die-cut text. She noted that notice was sent to neighboring 13 properties and summarized the DRB’s prior approval recommendation and Certificate of 14 Appropriateness in April 2025 with the Village Council providing approval in May 2025. She also 15 identified the floating window signs: “Share Happiness” and ice cream cone sign installed on interior red 16 tile wall, which applicant installed after their DRB approval and would like to remain. The applicant also 17 installed at entrance windows the red film which did not contain text and is not count toward signage. 18 Ms. Kirincic described the signs’ measurements, location and positioning in significant detail as well as 19 the elements of the approval which require approval and zoning variations. She then referred to the 20 standards and design guidelines the Board is to consider and asked if there were any questions. 21 22 A Board Member asked if Signs B, C and F required variations. Ms. Kirincic responded identified the 23 signage on Briar Street which required a variation and referred to the portions of the request which 24 required variations. The Board Members confirmed Signs C, D and E are in compliance and summarized 25 the aspects of the request which require variations. 26 27 Jennifer Peterson, the Oberweis VP of Marketing, referred to the garage’s “Share Happiness” signage 28 which she described as being placed in an awkward location. She stated that behind the Sign B is office 29 which she described as a narrow office space and is located on the window. Ms. Peterson described Sign 30 D as a pre-printed ice cream cone which is illuminated and installed on the side wall of refrigerators. She 31 confirmed they would cap off the illumination. She confirmed Signs C, D, E, and F are all currently 32 installed. 33 34 Ms. Kirincic stated the Board is to provide a recommendation for the sign permit to allow existing 35 storefront window signs to remain which were installed after the prior approval was granted as well as a 36 recommendation on the sign code variations to allow the existing window signs which exceed 10% of 37 their respective window areas, to allow to remain existing window signs that are not dye cut and are not 38 limited to individual letters and logos and a third variation to allow the total area of all window signs, 39 wall signs and awning signs to exceed 15% of the total area of sign street exposure. 40 41 Chairman Kennedy asked if there were any questions. A Board Member referred to Sign D and stated 42 Signs A, B and F are worthy of discussion. He referred to his concern relating to precedent and 43 monotony in terms of its appearance. He also referred to the Board’s consideration of a prior sign 44 application in Hubber Woods for second floor window frosting which is different than this situation. 45 Another Board Member agreed with the comments made which mostly applied to Sign B in his opinion 46 and suggested it to be revised. Another Board Member agreed with the comments made. The Board 47 Members discussed the location for the various signage’s’ positions. Ms. Kirincic provided the Board 48 Members their options in terms of their recommendation to the Village Council. Page 3 of 29  Design Review Board November 20, 2025 Page 3 1 2 Chairman Kennedy asked for a motion to include a recommendation with condition. A motion was made 3 by Mr. Baggett for the Sign permit and Sign Code Variations to allow existing window signs (window 4 decals, posters, and floating window signs) to remain. Mr. Baggett also moved to recommend approval 5 to allow the installed window signage to remain, subject to the condition that the window poster 6 sign/ice cream sundae image at the “B” window (West bank of windows) be replaced with frosted white 7 glass. Mr. Duda seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 5 to 0: 8 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Kennedy 9 NAYS: None 10 11 b. Case No. 25-25-DR: 490 Hibbard Road - Winnetka Park District / Winnetka Platform Tennis 12 Club: A Certificate of Appropriateness to allow changes to the design of the previously approved 13 addition to the existing paddle hut. 14 Mr. Duda recused himself from the discussion of this matter and left the meeting at this time. 15 16 Ms. Klaassen summarized the proposed changes to a design approved in 2021 to the existing paddle hut 17 and confirmed the correct property address. She stated the request is for a Certificate of 18 Appropriateness to allow changes to the previously approved addition and deck expansion. Ms. Klaassen 19 identified the paddle hut and court location and confirmed the Village Council adopted an ordinance 20 allowing an amendment to a special use permit to allow construction of two additional courts located 21 the west of the paddle hut. She also stated a paddle hut addition was also approved but has not yet 22 been constructed. 23 24 Ms. Klaassen referred to an illustration showing what was approved in 2021 versus the proposal and 25 described the new proposal with the purpose of providing additional lounge space. She noted the 26 proposed addition is actually a reduction in size over the prior approval and described its 27 measurements. Ms. Klaassen also referred to several elevations of the proposed improvements. She 28 noted no public comment was received and outlined the next steps in the process noting the Board has 29 final jurisdiction. Ms. Klaassen then asked if there were any questions. 30 31 Chairman Kennedy also asked if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. 32 33 Costa Kutulus, the Director of Parks and Maintenance, described the project as a culmination of many 34 years of working with the Winnetka Platform Tennis Club. He also introduced Colin Cross, the Winnetka 35 Platform Tennis Club President, and Bryan Butola, the project’s lead architect. Mr. Kutulus then asked if 36 there were any questions. 37 38 Mr. Barker questioned the current capacity of the existing structure and what the occupancy would be 39 with the proposed addition. Mr. Kutulus estimated it to be 50 people with the increased capacity 40 amounting to under 100. Chairman Kennedy asked what was the driver for the change. Mr. Kutulus 41 responded the driver was capacity, the amount of leagues and usage. Colin Cross informed the Board 42 they have a 15 member board which went through seven drawings in order to determine the best and 43 most optimal structure for the future of paddle play in Winnetka. He stated with regard to the revised 44 drawing and movement to the west, there is one area with two gathering areas and that there are two 45 leagues playing on the same night. Mr. Cross stated having two separate places would optimize the use 46 of the space with the usage growth they have been experiencing. 47 Page 4 of 29  Design Review Board November 20, 2025 Page 4 1 Mr. Baggett asked how the decision was made to reduce the square footage. Mr. Cross responded while 2 the covered patio is used in the winter, with regard to the total roofed coverage area, it would be equal 3 to the existing area in that they would be giving up internal area for external area. 4 5 Chairman Kennedy asked if there were any other questions. No additional questions were raised at this 6 time. He then asked for a motion. Mr. Barker moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the 7 amended design for the previously approved addition to the existing paddle hut and elevated deck. Mr. 8 Baggett seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 9 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Evanich, Kennedy 10 NAYS: None 11 12 Other Business. 13 a. December 18, 2025, Meeting – Quorum Check. 14 The Board Members discussed their availability. 15 16 Adjournment: 17 Chairman Kennedy asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Baggett and 18 seconded by Mr. Barker. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 4 to 0: 19 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Evanich, Kennedy 20 NAYS: None 21 22 The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. 23 24 Respectfully submitted, 25 26 Antionette Johnson 27 Recording Secretary Page 5 of 29  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/SIGN BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2025 SUBJECT: 560 CHESTNUT STREET – NEAPOLITAN LLC. - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR RECENT STOREFRONT PAINTING (AMENDED CASE NO. 25-19-DR) INTRODUCTION On December 18, 2025, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to consider a request submitted by Kelly Golden (the “Applicant”), the owner of Neapolitan, LLC. located at 560 Chestnut Street (the “Subject Property”) to allow recent painting on the portions of the exterior storefront that do not match the shade of pastel pink approved by the DRB at its September 18, 2025, meeting. SEPTEMBER 18, 2025, DRB MEETING On September 18, 2025, the DRB first considered the Applicant’s request to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow recent storefront painting changes. The staff report for the September meeting can be found in Attachment A2. After hearing from staff and the Applicant, the DRB discussed the proposed paint changes. Board members supported making paint changes to the storefront to align with store branding but expressed concern that the currently applied pink shade was too bright. It was noted that the elevation on the proposed rendering, which showed a pale/blush pink color, looked beautiful and elegant, but was a different shade of pink than the one currently applied at the storefront. It was decided that the Board will approve the application with the condition that a paint sample of the desired pale/blush pink color be applied to a portion of the façade, in a couple of areas with different materials (limestone, metal, fascia, and wood), to see how the paint takes to other materials. Also, it was concluded that staff will share by email a photo of a color paint sample applied to the storefront with Board members and get electronic approval of the color shade (in order to get back to the Applicant quickly and not postpone the project). After approval of the specific color shade, the Applicant would be able to proceed with painting the whole storefront. Ultimately, by a vote of 6-0, the Board approved the Applicant's application, conditioned on approval of the specific color by staff and the Board, which will be conducted electronically in some fashion. A copy of the September 18 meeting approved minutes can be found in Attachment B. Page 6 of 29  Applicant’s storefront painting prior to the September 18th DRB meeting Applicant’s rendering with pastel pink paint approved by the DRB at its September 18th meeting Applicant’s business storefront painting following the September 18th DRB meeting Page 7 of 29 Proposed paint change In response to the conditions at the September 18 DRB meeting, the Applicant repainted a portion of the exterior storefront. Since the painted portion does not match the pastel pink shade approved by the DRB at its September 18, 2025, meeting, and the DRB members did not agree to approve (electronically) the painted changes, the applicant requested to return to the DRB to discuss the painted changes further. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the Design Review Board is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” The Board must determine if the recent storefront paint color complies with the above standards and the following design guidelines. See Attachment B2. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Village’s Design Guidelines provide general guidance on the design and appearance of exterior façades on commercial buildings and additionally provide guidance on commercial storefront doors and window material and color selection, recommending that the selection be sympathetic to the overall building color palette and consider the adjacent building materials within the structure, immediately adjacent structures, structures within the same block, and structures across the street. RECOMMENDATION At the December 18, 2025, Design Review Board meeting, the Board is scheduled to consider the Applicant’s request to find that the recent storefront paint changes on the portion of the front façade to be appropriate and compatible with the Design Guidelines and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Board may decide to act on one of two options: 1) Continue further review of the application to a date specific to provide the Applicant and/or staff additional time to address questions and comments from the Board. 2) Adopt a motion approving or a motion denying a certificate of appropriateness for proposed exterior elevation alterations. If the Board wishes to adopt a motion of approval or denial, a Board member may want to make a motion such as the following: Page 8 of 29  Move to approve [deny] a certificate of appropriateness for the design of the paint changes on the portion of the front façade on the Subject Property, subject to the following conditions: A. [If the Board chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation, it will want to include the conditions here.] The Board’s determination is based on evidence in the record, or a public document, and upon the following four findings of fact: (1) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; (2) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board, and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A2: September 18, 2025, DRB Meeting Staff Report Attachment B2: September 18, 2025, DRB Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 29  ATTACHMENT A2 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2025 SUBJECT: 560 CHESTNUT STREET - NEAPOLITAN - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR RECENTLY STOREFRONT PAINTING CHANGES (CASE NO. 25-19-DR) INTRODUCTION On September 18, 2025, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to consider a Certificate of Appropriateness application submitted by Kelly Golden (the “Applicant”), the owner of Neapolitan, LLC located at 560 Chestnut Street (the “Subject Property”), requesting approval to paint portions of the exterior storefront. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the west side of Chestnut Street between Spruce Street and Elm Street in the Elm Street Business District. It is zoned C-2 General Retail Commercial and is located in the Commercial Overlay District. Figure 1 below identifies the location of the Subject property. On the next page, Figure 2 shows the entire front façade of the building with the Applicant’s business, as recently painted, and Figure 3 shows the Applicant’s business storefront prior to the recent painting. Location of the Subject Property Figure 1 – Subject Property – Location Map Page 10 of 29  Frontage of the 560 Chestnut Street - Neapolitan Figure 2 – Subject Property – View of the entire building from Chestnut Street Figure 3 - Subject Property - Applicant’s business storefront before the recent storefront painting changes CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant requests approval to allow recent painting of the storefront, including painting the entrance ceiling, limestone entrance walls, limestone front columns, door, door trim, windows trim, and transom, in pink color as shown in Figure 3 below and Figure 4 on the following page: Page 11 of 29  Figure 3 – Subject property – Storefront elevation with proposed paint changes Figure 4 – Proposed paint for storefront A copy of the application materials is included in Attachment A. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the Design Review Board is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the Page 12 of 29  immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” The Board must determine if the recent storefront paint color complies with the above standards and the following design guidelines. See Attachment B. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Village’s Design Guidelines provide general guidance on the design and appearance of exterior façades on commercial buildings and additionally provide guidance on commercial storefront doors and window material and color selection, recommending that the selection be sympathetic to the overall building color palette and consider the adjacent building materials within the structure, immediately adjacent structures, structures within the same block, and structures across the street. SUMMARY The Applicant requests that the DRB find the recent storefront paint color changes on the front façade to be appropriate and compatible with the Design Guidelines and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Attachment B: Design Guidelines Excerpt Page 13 of 29  ATTACHMENT A Village of Winnetka CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A, I L L I N O I S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C,OA 2..0-i..-S- -9 °}Q CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION Project Address: ______::;µ�',_o__ c_·�_h_�...... s.::;.-·...1..+.J..1...l..1-=0�1- _________ t_-a_____, § Name of Business (es):___.__...._._�-'---f'--o _____l_1_·...... -"'---------,.,r.a;;;;;,--:;a;�=-=-::--::c=:-=- Application is hereby made for the following work (please check all that apply): E IVE Sign Sign Permit Application attached? c SE p O 2 2025 � Awning Awning Pennit App cation attached? lJ � BY:_______ Other (general description) _-'r7 ;_;;_.f.�, l ._. 1 ..._....._ l [ _,.__________ ________ _ / l Please provide a de�led description of the pro�sed �ork (attach additional info�ion such as material spe i!!ca\ions, photograJ?hs, etc.): � .,1 I'\ l • trtc;_ � , RI VV1 1 4 Do (S C{ htI �111 rJ� 6 r' C(l-.. A .1 (Yon1- l/We hp�by certi� that "r5 �/ e_, I I'"'( at G � lt1 ,t J t (Lessee/0wncx:Y of the property located ""\,? 0 C-n-fstt:ffi[ 1 (address), 1 am/we are authorized to submit plans for alterations of the subject property. I/We agree to perform the subject work in accordance with the conditions of approval by the Winnetka Design Review Board as well � all other applicable codes, rules, and regulations of the Village of Winnetka FOR QFFICE USE ONLY SIGNED COA applied for (date): c� PRlNTED NAME(S) . a I I ADDRESS COA Case Nwnber: PHONE NO. , , • . • ..., I COA Issued (date): EMAIL kJJ"!0 oe11pJ/4111 �hlr eeo( Pe� �$135 □ $575 PRIMARY DESIGN FIRM CONTACT NAME -�Pl M��1 �,.+,, U _::.w:=�Ji: 1,:jjc;=-·=r-=/=o-=-(:.,2:= ADDRESS PHONENO. EMAIL Page 4 of4 Page 14 of 29 iC:.----c. ---' �--'-c� - , --' _ ,__ --- - ·.- -- ,� Page 15 of 29 n11p I it111 Page 16 of 29 Page 17 of 29  ATTACHMENT B Architectural Series of Asphalt Shingles (3 ply) (See figure 49) Wood Shingles (Fire treated) Slate (See figure 48) Real Copper (No other metal roofs are allowed) Figure 46 Institutional only Flat roofs must be hidden by parapet on primary / secondary facades. Commercial and Multiple- Family Flat roof must not be visible from street, pedestrian, or open spaces. d. Door and Window Materials: Commercial, Mixed Use, Institutional, Multiple- Family Residential: Entry doors should be wood or aluminum stile and rail with varying degrees of glass. Public entry doors should be Figure 47 fully glazed whereas private and semi- private entries should be primarily solid panel doors. Storefront window units should be either paneled aluminum or brass. Many original storefronts, some with transom windows, remain in the districts. Efforts should be taken to repair and renovate these systems Figure 48 where feasible. Window frames should be wood, steel or aluminum. Vinyl windows are not acceptable. Muntin divisions should be real divided glass or simulated with spacer bars. Snap-in muntins are not acceptable. Color selection should be sympathetic with the overall building color palette and take into account the adjacent building materials within the structure, immediately adjacent structures, structures within the same block and Figure 49 structures across the street. Entry door hardware is to be exterior grade with weather-resistant finish. Hardware design and finish is to be appropriate with facade articulation, color palette and district character. Glazing should be clear glass without tint or film. 25 Building & Architecture Page 18 of 29  ATTACHMENT B2 Minutes Adopted October 16, 2025 1 Minutes Adopted September 18, 2025 2 3 Winnetka Design Review Board/Sign Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes 4 September 18, 2025 5 6 Members Present: Katie Moor, Chairperson 7 Chris Baggett 8 Wesley Barker 9 Fritz Duda 10 Peter Evanich 11 Heather Niehoff 12 13 Members Absent: Colin Kennedy 14 15 Village Staff: Davorka Kirincic, Building and Code Enforcement Manager 16 17 Call to Order & Roll Call: 18 Chairperson Moor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken of the Board Members present. 19 20 Public Comments: 21 No comments were made at this time. 22 23 Approval of Minutes: 24 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any comments or corrections or for a motion to approve the July 17, 2025 25 meeting minutes. A motion to approve the July 17, 2025 meeting minutes was made by Mr. Barker and seconded 26 by Mr. Baggett. A vote was taken and the motion unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 27 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Moor, Niehoff 28 NAYS: None 29 30 New Applications: 31 a. Case No. 25-13-DR: 933 Green Bay Road - Visual Comfort & Co.: Sign Permit to allow a new wall and 32 double-faced projecting signs, all of which will be on the new building’s Green Bay Road elevation of the Subject 33 Property. 34 Ms. Kirincic summarized the application in detail for the Board, identifying the property’s location and zoning 35 classification. She also referred to the Village’s Sign Code as well as to Village Design Guidelines the Board is to 36 consider. 37 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any questions. Ms. Niehoff referred to the backlit lighting and questioned 38 how it would operate. Frank Lambert, representing the applicant from the design sign company, responded that it 39 would be halo or reverse backlit lighting. Ms. Niehoff also asked for the reasoning for the 18-inch size. Ms. Kirincic 40 explained in terms of the design guideline recommendations. Mr. Lambert explained the limitations of how the 41 letters are fabricated and noted the lower-case lettering would be smaller, with only a few letters measuring 18 42 inches. Ms. Niehoff described it as massive. Mr. Lambert estimated the smaller letter height to be 14 inches and 43 stated that samples were previously provided to the Board for their review. He also described the LED wattage 44 that would be used. Ms. Kirincic provided the Board with additional information. 45 46 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any other questions. She indicated the letter size appeared to be a 47 manufacturing issue. Ms. Niehoff commented that the letter size did not seem appropriate and referred to its scale 48 in relation to neighboring buildings. Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to approve the application as submitted 49 or for the applicant to conduct further investigation to determine whether the sign could be scaled to meet the 50 design guidelines, along with an alternative method of backlighting. A Board Member commented the sign is nice, 51 but the Board Members are wrestling with the width. Another Board Member agreed with the comments made 52 and added that it would embrace the Hubbard Woods business district. Another Board Member agreed with the 53 comments made and that the size should be reduced. Page 19 of 29  Design Review Board September 16, 2025 Page 2 1 2 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to approve the request. A motion to approve the request was made by Mr. 3 Duda and seconded by Mr. Baggett. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 to 1: 4 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Moor 5 NAYS: Niehoff 6 7 b. Case No. 25-14-DR: 191 Linden Street - Saints Faith Hope & Charity Parish: Certificate of 8 Appropriateness to allow the replacement of the existing roof on the south wing of the school at the Subject 9 Property. 10 Ms. Kirincic summarized the application in detail for the Board, identifying the property’s location and zoning 11 classification. She stated the applicant also provided site plans and referred to the Certificate of Appropriateness 12 Standards and Village Design Guidelines recommendations for the Board’s consideration. Chairperson Moor asked 13 Board members if there were any questions. No questions were raised at this time. 14 15 Chairperson Moor asked for the applicant’s presentation. Dennis Levin, the church’s general contractor, 16 introduced himself to the Board and explained the reasoning for not using clay tile for the roof replacement as 17 opposed to the metal roof used on other buildings in the surrounding area of the school campuses. Mr. Levin 18 explained the reasoning behind their selection, which included cost and the fact that the proposed roof would 19 match the other roof elements. Chairperson Moor asked if they had considered using different roofing materials. 20 Mr. Levin responded that they did and explained their choice, which included the length of time the roof would 21 last. 22 23 A Board Member asked if there is a history regarding other metal roofs. Ms. Kirincic explained that the special use 24 previously requested for the Parish Center included specifications for a metal sheet roof. Chairperson Moor 25 referred to a 2005 GIS image, which showed a metal roof for the church and gym buildings. Ms. Niehoff agreed 26 with Chairperson Moor that it would be better to use higher-quality materials, while acknowledging the complexity 27 and budget concerns. She then stated consistency would be provided on the campus. A Board Member asked if it 28 would be prefinished metal and for the warranty information. Mr. Levin confirmed that it is correct and that it 29 would have a 25-year warranty. 30 31 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to approve the request as presented. A motion to approve the request as 32 presented was made by Mr. Evanich and seconded by Ms. Niehoff. A vote was taken, and the motion was 33 unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 34 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Moor, Niehoff 35 NAYS: None 36 37 c. Case No. 25-15-DR: 520 Green Bay Road - BMO Bank: Certificate of Appropriateness to allow exterior 38 building and landscaping alterations on the Subject Property. 39 Chairperson Moor noted that the applicant asked to withdraw. Ms. Kirincic confirmed that the applicant had 40 withdrawn the application and provided a summary of the request to the Board. 41 42 No vote was taken at this time. 43 44 d. Case No. 25-16-DR: 847 Elm Street - Little Elm: Sign Permit to install window and projecting signs, and 45 Certificate of Appropriateness to allow storefront improvements and removal of the existing awning and awning 46 valance sign from the previous business on the Subject Property. 47 Ms. Kirincic summarized the application in detail for the Board, identifying the property’s location and zoning 48 classification. She also referred to the Village’s Sign Code as well as to Village Design Guidelines that the Board is to 49 consider. Additionally, Ms. Kirincic brought to the Board’s attention that the PowerPoint Applicant submitted to be 50 present at the meeting includes additional door window signage, decal updates regarding (including a change of 51 the color), and a different entrance door color than submitted initially with their applications 52 Page 20 of 29  Design Review Board September 16, 2025 Page 3 1 Chairperson Moor asked for the applicant’s presentation. Kittie Brandtner introduced herself to the Board and 2 stated that they planned to have one large windowpane instead of two aluminum windows. She also mentioned a 3 side divert near the front door, where the logo decal would be placed, making it visible from the sidewalk. Ms. 4 Brandtner noted that there would be no logo on the main window to elevate the space and add charm. A Board 5 Member asked if the blade sign was fixed or on chains. Ms. Brandtner confirmed the blade sign is fixed. He then 6 referred to the design guidelines, which recommend against swinging signage. A Board Member questioned the 7 material to be used. Ms. Brandtner provided a sample to the Board for their review. She also referred to the 8 limestone, which would remain with the brick above. Ms. Brandtner then confirmed that the door would change, 9 along with the quartz on the bottom. 10 11 Ms. Niehoff commented that it looked great. Chairperson Moor agreed with Ms. Niehoff’s comments. Chairperson 12 Moor suggested that the Board approve the request, conditional upon the applicant resubmitting it with the decal 13 positioned on the side, featuring new text at the door window, and a different text and door color. 14 15 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to approve the request with a condition. A motion was made by Mr. Baggett, 16 conditional upon the applicant's submission of a revised rendering that includes the decal and updates the 17 proposed signage materials with new text colors and door window signage, as presented in the meeting's 18 PowerPoint. Mr. Duda seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion was unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 19 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Moor, Niehoff 20 NAYS: None 21 22 e. Case No. 25-17-DR: 555-557-559 Chestnut Street: Certificate of Appropriateness to enable the 23 sandblasting, tuckpointing, re-painting, and replacement of two existing windows on the alley elevation of the 24 Subject Property. 25 Chairperson Moor identified the property owner for the commercial building and stated the request is to allow 26 exterior repair and alterations to the existing structure and that the applicant is seeking approval to enable 27 sandblasting, tuckpointing, repainting, and replacement of two windows on the alley elevation. Ms. Kirincic 28 provided additional information to the Board. 29 30 Chairperson Moor stated that the two windows are shown on page 92. She then asked for a motion to approve the 31 request as presented. A motion to approve the request as presented was made by Mr. Baggett and seconded by 32 Mr. Barker. A vote was taken, and the motion was unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 33 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Moor, Niehoff 34 NAYS: None 35 36 f. Case No. 25-18-DR: 914 Green Bay Road - Sante Integrated Health and Wellness: Sign Permit to install 37 door window and projecting signs at the first-floor entrance of the Subject Property. 38 Chairperson Moor stated the applicant is requesting that the Board consider a sign application as the commercial 39 space lessee as well as a proposed door window and projecting sign at the entrance. 40 Ms. Kirincic summarized the application in detail for the Board, identifying the property’s location and zoning 41 classification. She also referred to the Village’s Sign Code as well as to Village Design Guidelines that the Board is to 42 consider. 43 44 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to approve the request as presented. A motion to approve the request as 45 presented was made by Ms. Niehoff and seconded by Mr. Barker. A vote was taken, and the motion was 46 unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 47 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Moor, Niehoff 48 NAYS: None 49 50 g. Case No. 25-19-DR: 560 Chestnut Street - Neapolitan: Certificate of Appropriateness requesting 51 approval to paint portions of the exterior storefront on the Subject Property. 52 Chairperson Moor stated the applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for recent storefront painting 53 changes. Ms. Kirincic summarized the application in detail for the Board, identifying the property’s location and Page 21 of 29  Design Review Board September 16, 2025 Page 4 1 zoning classification. She also referred to the Village’s Sign Code as well as to Village Design Guidelines that the 2 Board is to consider. 3 4 5 Chairperson Moor asked if there were any questions. Ms. Niehoff questioned the difference between the blush 6 and brighter pink colors. Ms. Kirincic explained to the Board and stated that the applicant was asked to provide 7 additional information. A Board Member noted that the rendering seemed to include more painted areas than the 8 current storefront photos, which reflect recent paint changes. Ms. Kirincic provided clarification to the Board. 9 10 Chairperson Moor asked for the applicant’s presentation. Kelly Golden, the owner, provided a paint sample to the 11 Board. She stated they intended to paint the metal, which she described as dark, along with the door entryway to 12 the pink color they use for their store branding. She referred to the attempts made regarding the paint having 13 different shades and asked if there were any questions. 14 15 Chairperson Moor described the color as very bright, and per the design guidelines, she read from the design 16 guidelines: “Colors shall be used with restraint. Excessive brightness should be avoided.” She commented that she 17 preferred the pale pink color, which would still complement the brand well. She noted that the elevation on the 18 rendering, which shows a pale/blush pink color, looks so beautiful and elegant. Ms. Niehoff asked if the color is 19 used throughout the store. Ms. Golden responded to the Board. She confirmed that the limestone and columns 20 would not be painted. Ms. Golden also stated that the color has been tested in terms of its appearance. The Board 21 Members then discussed the shade of pink colors and their intended uses in detail. They liked the pastel 22 pale/blush pink shade shown on the proposed renderings and directed the applicant to get as much of that shade 23 as they could on the storefront. Ms. Neihoff stated that with bright pink color and white limestone columns, the 24 overall appearance looks choppy. It was also concluded that board members would not mind all limestone 25 columns to be painted as shown on the rendering, as mentioned earlier, if the applicant can match that pale/blush 26 shade of pink. It would give a cohesive look to the storefront. 27 28 Ms. Niehoff suggested that if one bright shade of pink is vital to the applicant, it should only be done at the 29 entrance door and the recessed portion. She also stated it is essential to the building as a whole; a lighter 30 pale/blush pink color should be used in order to make it more contiguous. Chairperson Moor agreed with Ms. 31 Neihoff's suggestion and referred to several public comments she had received. Ms. Golden stated that she 32 appreciated the Board’s comments and is willing to return to the Board with a lighter pink color. The Chairperson 33 emphasized the importance of reviewing a paint sample before approval, noting that a photo of the paint does not 34 do justice. Mrs. Kirincic suggested that applicants can paint one smaller portion of the storefront to try to match 35 the preferred pastel pale/blush pink color and present it at the next DRB meeting for approval. The applicant 36 agreed to match the pale/blush pink color from the application material’s rendering as closely as possible. 37 However, she requested that the approval process be expedited to avoid a one-month delay in painting the 38 storefront. She is embarrassed by the storefront's current appearance and would like to paint it as soon as 39 possible. Members discussed how to expedite approval without waiting for next month's DRB meeting, while still 40 checking and approving a new shade of pale/blush pink that matches as closely as possible, as shown on the 41 application elevation rendering applied to the storefront. 42 43 It was decided that the Board will approve the application with the condition that a paint sample of the desired 44 pale/blush pink color be applied to a portion of the façade, in a couple of areas with different materials (limestone, 45 metal, fascia, and wood), to see how the paint takes to other materials. Also, it was concluded that staff will share 46 by e-mail a photo with a color paint sample applied on the storefront with Board members, get approval of the 47 color shade electronically (that way get back quickly to the Applicant and not postpone the project). After approval 48 of the specific color shade, the Applicant would be able to proceed with painting the whole storefront. 49 50 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to approve the request with a condition. Mr. Duda moved to approve the 51 Applicant application, conditioned on approval of the specific color by staff and committee, which will be 52 conducted electronically in some fashion. Mr. Barker seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion was 53 unanimously passed, 6 to 0: Page 22 of 29  Design Review Board September 16, 2025 Page 5 1 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Moor, Niehoff 2 NAYS: None 3 4 Other Business. 5 a. October 16, 2025, Meeting – Quorum Check. 6 The Board Members discussed their availability. 7 8 Adjournment: 9 Chairperson Moor asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn was made by Ms. Niehoff and seconded by 10 Mr. Duda. A vote was taken, and the motion was unanimously passed, 6 to 0: 11 AYES: Baggett, Barker, Duda, Evanich, Moor, Niehoff 12 NAYS: None 13 The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. 14 15 Respectfully submitted, 16 17 Antionette Johnson 18 Recording Secretary Page 23 of 29  MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF WINNETKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVORKA KIRINCIC, AICP BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2025 SUBJECT: 24 GREEN BAY ROAD - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR SIGNIFICANT EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS (CASE NO. 25-26-DR) INTRODUCTION On December 18, 2025, the Design Review Board (DRB) is scheduled to hold a public hearing on an application submitted by North Shore Barbershop, Mast Partners, LLC. (the “Applicant”) as the lessee of the portion of the commercial space located at 24 Green Bay Road (the “Subject Property”), to allow a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed exterior alterations of the front elevation. Given that the property is in the C-1 Limited Retail Commercial District, the Village Council has the final authority on the Certificate of Appropriateness. In this instance, the DRB is only a recommending body. The Subject Property is located on the west side of Green Bay Road between Winnetka Avenue and the municipal boundary with the Village of Kenilworth, in the Indian Hill Business District. It is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and is not located in the Commercial Overlay District. The Applicant will occupy a portion of the first floor next to The House Tutoring Lounge in the same building. Figure 1 below identifies the Subject Property. Figure 2 and Figure 3 on the next page show the current storefront with the existing garage door, which will all be removed upon approval of the proposed storefront elevation alterations. A mail notice has been sent to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Property, in compliance with the Village Code. Subject Property Figure 1 – Location Map – Subject Property – 24 Green Bay Road Page 1 Page 24 of 29  Figure 2 - View of the whole building at Subject Property from Green Bay Road Figure 3 – The current front elevation of the future North Shore Barbershop, Mast Partners, LLC PREVIOUS APPROVALS On March 20th of this year, DRB approved a Sign Permit to install window and wall signs for the business next door, The House Tutoring Lounge, in the same building as the Subject Property. CURRENT REQUEST The Applicant is seeking approval to allow exterior building alterations to the portion of the Green Bay Road storefront elevation, including the installation of two storefront glass windows and an entrance door (which will match the color and materials of the windows and doors at The House Tutoring Lounge, next door), in place of the existing metal garage door, as shown in the illustration below. The Applicant has provided a photo of the Green Bay Road elevation showing the location of the garage door to be replaced with new storefront glass windows and entrance door, all of which are included in the application materials, Attachment A. Page 2 Page 25 of 29  Proposed new storefront windows and entrance door. The rendering shows proposed storefront windows and the entrance door instead of the existing garage doors CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CONSIDERATIONS As established by the Village Code, the Design Review Board is to consider the following four (4) factors in determining whether to recommend approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness: “(1) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood;” “(2) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations;” “(3) whether the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board; and” “(4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity.” The Board will need to determine if the proposed exterior alterations comply with the above standards. DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS The Project abides by the Village Design Guidelines, as the applicant maintains the materials and colors currently on the building. The building's form will not be altered, as the existing garage door opening will be used. RECOMMENDATION At the December 18, 2025, Design Review Board meeting, the Board is scheduled to consider the design of the Applicant’s proposed portion of the exterior building front elevation alteration. After hearing from the Applicant and the public, the Board may decide to act on one of two options: 1) Continue further review of the application to a date specific to provide the Applicant and/or staff additional time to address questions and comments from the Board. Page 3 Page 26 of 29  2) Adopt a motion recommending approval or a motion recommending denial of a certificate of appropriateness for proposed exterior elevation alterations. If the Board wishes to adopt a motion recommending approval or denial, a Board member may want to make a motion such as the following: Move to recommend approval [denial] of a certificate of appropriateness for the design of the proposed portion of the exterior building front elevation alterations on the Subject Property, subject to the following conditions: A. [If the Board chooses to place conditions as part of its recommendation, it will want to include the conditions here.] The Board’s recommendation is based on evidence in the record, or a public document, and upon the following four findings of fact: (1) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood; (2) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are appropriate to and compatible with adopted Village plans for and improvements in the immediate neighborhood, and including both urban design and site arrangement considerations; (3) the proposed external architectural features and site improvements are consistent with applicable Village design guidelines and such standards and criteria as may be adopted by the Board, and (4) the probable effect of the proposed external architectural features on the integrity of the immediate vicinity. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Application Materials Page 4 Page 27 of 29  ATTACHMENT A Village of Winnetka CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION V I L L A G E O F W I N N E T K A, I L L I N O I S 01:PARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Dl.:VELOl'Ml:NT COA 2-02 � - l 3d q CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION Prnjl'<:l AdJn:ss: _J.0.__G�eeV\ &c. �J. 1'.) � s� 'J- Nmm' of Bui-incss(I!:-:): -gl'f �be,r.sl..cr_1 Jv1 qsf- "Pa r1 hev-J; lLC .,....,.. 0 E c e-,-v-En i, ('!:._ 1\pplicati()ll ii- hcrchy madl' for the li.1llowing ,nirk 1plc:1�c dicck all Iii.ii apply 1: gn Sign Permit ,\pplicatinn 011.ichcJ·! ✓ n NUV 2 4 2075 u 1,·ning A\\'ning Pcnnil Applic;t1i1111 attachcd·! 1hcr (general dcscripti,111 I BY: ______ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY COA applied for {date): ADDRESS COA Case Number: PH<>NE Ntl. COA Issued (date): Ei'vlAIL COA Fee D $135 □ $515 PRIMARY Dl:SIG� flRi\l CONTACT Nr\l\lE ADDRESS PHO�E NO. Ei'.-1AIL Page 4 of 4 Page 28 of 29  EXISTING STOREFRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED FRONT STOREFRONT ELEVATION Page 29 of 29