Members of the Village of Wilmette Appearance Review Commission met Monday, July 11.
The Wilmette Appearance Review Commission approves applications for appearance review certificates; issues recommendations on applications for sign variations; and issues recommendations on applications for variations to landscaping and screening ordinances. The commission meets at 7:30 p.m. on the first Monday of each month in the Training Room at Village Hall, 1200 Wilmette Ave.
Here are the meeting minutes as provided by the Village of Wilmette Appearance Review Commission:
VILLAGE OF WILMETTE
1200 Wilmette Avenue
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040
MEETING MINUTES
APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 11, 2016 7:30 P.M. COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER, RM 106 3000 GLENVIEW ROAD
Members Present: Tim Sheridan, Chairman
William Bradford Dan Collyer Daniel Elkins Mason Miller Carrie Woleben-Meade
Members Absent: Craig Phillips
Guests: Nancy Vert, 1107 Greenleaf Ave
Joseph LaJeune, 406 Green Bay Rd, Kenilworth, IL Dan Marguerite, 535 Green Bay Rd Mike Kritzman, 201 Sheridan Rd Scott Freres, 201 Sheridan Rd Becky Hurley, 201 Sheridan Rd Georgia Bozeday, 506 Park Ave Joseph Martens, 506 Park Ave Michelle Leonardo, 202 Girard Ave Laura Topel, 141 Maple Ave Kurt Topel, 141 Maple Ave Joseph Shipley, 117 Maple Ave Thomas Ramsdell, 524 Park Ave Sally Cummings, 510 Park Avenue
Staff Present: Lucas Sivertsen, Business Development Coordinator
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sheridan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES; APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING
OF JUNE 6, 2016.
Mr. Bradford moved to approve the June 6, 2016 meeting minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
III. CONTINUANCES
Mr. Elkins moved to continue Case 2015-AR-45, 930 Greenleaf Avenue, Women’s Club; Case 2016-SZC-01, 3232 Lake Avenue, Joseph Freed & Associates; Case 2016-AR-11, 1314-1318 Wilmette Avenue, Sam Gambacorta; and Case 2016-AR-25, 711 11th Street, Enamel & Root to the August 1, 2016 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Bradford requested Case 2016-AR-21, 328 Linden Avenue; and Case 2016-31, 90 Skokie Boulevard be removed from the consent agenda.
Mr. Bradford moved to approve an Appearance Review Certificate for Case 2016-AR-28, 800 Ridge Road; and Case 2016-AR-30, 3520 Lake Avenue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
V. CASES
2016-AR-20 1107 Greenleaf Avenue Kashian Bros. Appearance Review Certificate
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2016-AR-20, 1107 Greenleaf Avenue, Kashian Bros, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install windows along the west elevation.
Ms. Nancy Vert stated she was representing Kashian Bros. A stone sill will be installed for each 3 foot by 3 foot fixed window. The color of the metal window frame will match the existing windows on the building.
Mr. Elkins said there is limestone incorporated into the banding on the building. Where the proposed windows are located there’s an existing banding with other colored brick. He asked if that brick would be removed and replaced with the limestone sill.
Ms. Vert said that was correct. The brick would be removed and replaced with the stone.
Mr. Elkins said the existing limestone banding is flush with the face of the building. He wondered if the sill should extend past the face of the building to provide a drip edge.
Mr. Bradford said he would recommend the drip edge.
Ms. Vert said they would extend the sill to provide a drip edge.
Mr. Elkins moved to approve Case 2016-AR-20, 1107 Greenleaf Avenue, Kashian Bros, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install two windows on the west side of the building with the notation that the color of the window frames and glass will match the existing windows on the building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben- Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
2016-AR-18 601 Green Bay Road Mona Lisa Stone & Tile Appearance Review Certificate and Sign Variation
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2016-AR-18, 601 Green Bay Road, Mona Lisa Stone & Tile for an Appearance Review Certificate for further approval of their Appearance Review Certificate and sign variation.
Mr. Joseph Lajeune said they removed the exterior wooden cladding and found a few surprises. The original window above the doorway leading to the second floor was intact. They are proposing to leave it as is. There was some question about the steel columns at the last meeting. They were found to be in good condition and they are proposing to leave them as is. The engaged pilasters and capitals are gone. They will brick-in that portion.
Mr. Sheridan said the cornice does not wrap around to the side of the building. He noted that the drawing should reflect that it does not wrap around or extend past the east elevation.
Mr. Lajeune said he spoke with his neighbor and they agreed that it would be okay for him to place his dumpster next to their dumpsters. The rear of the building inside the new fence could then be used as a patio for both buildings. The stairs leading to the basement would be enclosed, but he asked if the fence needed to go all the way to the other buildings since the dumpster or a/c condenser wouldn’t be located back there anymore. He said the condenser was relocated to the roof.
Mr. Sheridan said the condenser would need to be screened if it was moved to the roof. They could screen the unit with the existing parapet walls, or if they weren’t tall enough to screen the units then they could install a fence or some type of screen around the unit. He thinks the fence along back of the building is a good solution.
Mr. Elkins said the projecting sign was labeled “to be determined”. He wanted to know if the commission was being asked to vote on the sign.
Mr. Lajeune said the location and the size of the sign was determined, but not what the sign would look like or say.
Ms. Woleben-Meade said it was difficult to vote on the sign without a complete proposal.
Mr. Sheridan said he thought the commission is okay with the location of the sign so that his electrician can run the wire, but since he hasn’t yet determined what the sign will look like it may be premature to vote on the entire sign.
Mr. Elkins said he liked to idea of them keeping the original window above the entrance to the second floor, but is unsure of how the entrance and window relate to what is shown in the drawings.
Mr. Sheridan said the drawing SKA-03 needed to be updated to accurately reflect what is proposed.
Mr. Bradford asked what they intended to do with the existing door to remain.
Mr. Sheridan asked if they would be removing the door and replacing it with a glazed door.
Mr. Lajeune said it was his intent to keep the door.
Mr. Bradford said Mr. Lajeune and his architect should think more about the detail of that doorway. He thinks the remaining items are the sign variations, stairwell enclosure in the back, the condensing unit, and the entrance to the second floor space.
2016-AR-17 201 Sheridan Road Baker Demonstration School Appearance Review Certificate and Sign Variation
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2016-AR-17, 201 Sheridan Road, Baker Demonstration School, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install new playfields and multi-use courts, construction of accessory structures, relocation of a trash enclosure and play areas, installation of awnings and lighting, a variation to display more than on sign per frontage, and a 20 square foot sign area variation.
Mr. Scott Freres provided an overview of the proposal. The school went through a visioning exercise which led them to reexamining their grounds and coming up with a campus master plan. He detailed the components of the plan and presented drawings of the proposed improvements.
Mr. Freres stated part of the proposal that was still open to a few options was the location of the trash enclosure. Their initial plan was to move the dumpsters 16.9 feet away from the west property line. That location is still within the side yard setback, which requires them to seek a setback variation. They have looked at other locations that might be more acceptable to the neighbors and they came up with two different options. One of the options located just north of the western playgrounds directly adjacent to the main drop off area. The other option is located just north of the eastern playground as vehicles exit the site onto Sheridan Road.
Mr. Freres said the sign proposal included the two existing signs and one new ground sign facing Sheridan Road. The sign facing Green Bay Road would be one of their only exposures to the outside world. The lettering of the proposed sign is roughly ten square feet, however, the sign ordinance states that 10 square feet is their limit of the size of the entire sign. They feel the materials proposed for the sign and the size of the sign will have little impact of the streetscape along Sheridan however, it will provide enough visibility for the school.
Mr. Collyer asked if the neighbors along Maple has an opinion of the trash enclosure options.
Ms. Topel said her screened in porch is adjacent to the trash enclosure shown in option #1. Her garage is located next to the originally proposed trash enclosure. She likes the original location better than option #1.
Ms. Michelle Leonardo said she lived along the west property line of the school at Girard Avenue. Her backyard backs up to the western playground.
Mr. Elkins said he doesn’t have any questions about the proposal. He commends the school and Lakota Group for their proposal. He understands the concern regarding the trash enclosure and acknowledged that it would need to be resolved.
Mr. Bradford asked if the Commission was being asked to determine the location of the trash enclosure.
Mr. Sheridan said the applicant needs pick one of the options in order for the Commission to provide a vote.
Mr. Freres said they wish to have the Commission vote on the original proposal of the trash enclosure located approximately 17 feet of the west property line.
Ms. Woleben-Meade asked if they were proposing a column on the south side of the drive along Sheridan and how the retaining wall was designed.
Mr. Freres said the column would connect to the fence running along Sheridan and would match the ground sign. He said the retaining wall along Sheridan would be concrete and the plantings would be located on the lower side of the retaining wall.
Ms. Woleben-Meade asked for the type of paving surface that will be underneath the pergola.
Mr. Freres said the pavers would be Whitacre-Greer in North Shore Blend.
Ms. Woleben-Meade said the planting plan looked great, however, there was one invasive species of plant. There are four Barberry shrubs which need to be replaced.
Mr. Miller said he liked the proposal and that he had just one question on the proposed ground sign. If they are proposing the match the stone piers along Sheridan they should consider removing the dark baseboard on the ground sign to better match the existing wayfinding piers.
Mr. Freres said they could make that change.
Ms. Leonardo said overall she thinks the school and The Lakota Group has given a very comprehensive look at the project. She had just a few comments. She noticed there was some new playground equipment proposed on the southwest portion of the playground. She wanted to know why the playground equipment has gotten larger.
Mr. Freres said the equipment hasn’t gotten larger, they have just combined the two pieces into one. The new piece of equipment will actually be lower than the pyramid climber.
Ms. Leonardo said she was looking forward to not having playground equipment next to her.
Mr. Kritzman said the main reason they made the change to equipment was because they will have a large drainage pipe on the west yard. That pipe is being pushed further away from the west property line and therefore they need play equipment with a slimmer profile
Ms. Leonardo thought the sun shades on the west side should be a more permanent material like the awning material on the north side. Lastly, she said Option #2 was her preferred location for the trash enclosure.
Mr. Joseph Shipley said he lives at 117 Maple just east and north of the trash enclosure shown in Option #2. He said he would be concerned over the visual effect of the trash moving closer to him.
Mr. Kurt Topel said the dumpsters are now right on the lot line. The original proposal shows them moved 16 feet off the property line, which he totally supports. He said they build the house and designed it with the garage in the front of the house because it would block the dumpsters.
Mr. Freres said the sun shades are very durable. The material is permeable so water will drain right through. It is made by Landscape Forms.
Mr. Sheridan said he felt the proposal met the standards of review for an Appearance Review Certificate. All sides of the site received design consideration. While some neighbors may feel the location of the trash enclosure will negatively affect them, the applicant has done the best job at weighing all of the concerns and is certainly making the current situation better. The one species that is on the invasive species list is being modified to another species on proposed plant list.
Mr. Sivertsen said the sign variation will be a recommendation to the Village Board. That recommendation won’t go to the Village Board until August. The Village Board will be considering the expansion to their special use which includes the location of the trash enclosure. That meeting will be held tomorrow night. Assuming the Commission approves the location of the trash enclosure as presented and the Village Board does the same that decision will be final. If the Village Board approves another location for the trash enclosure the applicant would need to come back to the Appearance Review Commission and seek approval for that modified location.
Mr. Bradford asked if the Commission can approve the Certificate with the condition that any three of the options are acceptable.
Mr. Sivertsen said the Commission could make that a condition with they wished.
Mr. Freres said he would like the Commission to vote on the original proposal.
Ms. Woleben-Meade moved to approve Case 2016-AR-17, 201 Sheridan Road, Baker Demonstration School for an Appearance Review Certificate to install new playfields and multi-use courts, construction of accessory structures, relocation of a trash enclosure and play areas, installation of awnings and lighting with the conditions that the color of the cedar fence will be as shown, the lighter blue awning fabric will be used, Whitacre-Greer in North Shore Blend pavers, that the four proposed Barberry shrubs will be replaced with four shrubs on the proposed plant list, and that the lower banding of the ground sign will be removed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
The Commission found the sign to be consistent with the character and appearance of signs nearby. The variation is not self-created because and will not impair the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood.
Mr. Elkins moved to recommend Case 2016-AR-17, 201 Sheridan Road, Baker Demonstration School for a variation to display more than on sign per frontage, and a 20 square foot sign area variation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben- Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
Mr. Bradford moved to authorize the Chairman to prepare the report to the Village Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
2016-AR-26 535 Green Bay Road Backyard Barbecue Store Appearance Review Certificate and Sign Variation
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2016-AR-26, 535 Green Bay Road for an Appearance Review Certificate to remodel the exterior of the building including installation of outdoor grilling equipment, lighting, wall cladding, a trash enclosure, a sign variation to display a wall sign at a business without street frontage, and a 3% wall sign coverage variation.
Mr. Chuck Cook said his is the architect representing the owner of Backyard Barbecue, Dan Marguerite. The said the store will proposing to move from their location on Greenleaf across Green Bay Road to 535 Green Bay Road which is behind Tsing Tao. A majority of their work will be to the interior, but they will be doing some work to spruce up the exterior. He reviewed the plans which were provided in the case report. He said portions of the exterior will be clad in corrugated galvanized metal. A natural stone will clad the bottom of the wall as well as the chimney. The smaller one story element will be clad in salvaged barn wood. The rest of the building will be painted in a neutral tone (Benjamin Moore – Greenwich Gate, CSP-170) to compliment the proposed materials. The trash enclosure and the roof top screening will be a shadowbox wood fence which will receive an opaque stain by Olympic in Cape Cod Gray.
Mr. Sheridan said he doesn’t have a problem with anything in the presentation. It’s a great re-use of an interior lot. He asked if they could reduce the size of the sign so that it wouldn’t require a size variation.
Mr. Dan Marguerite said they can reduce the size of the sign so that it is conforming.
Ms. Woleben-Meade suggested a fence be installed along the property line adjacent to the handicapped parking space labeled #8. It would provide additional safety for vehicles who might cut the turn into the parking lot. A bollard would work as well.
Mr. Marguerite asked if it could be a stone wall.
Mr. Cook suggested doing a stone column at the end and then a fence from the column to the building.
Mr. Miller asked if there could be something to better identify the entrance.
Mr. Cook said they had talked about possibly doing an awning over the entrance to better identify the main entry, but that it was not part of the current proposal.
Mr. Elkins asked the commissioner’s what they thought about the corrugated siding. He wondered if it was a legal material by the zoning ordinance. He understands why they want to use the material in this application and he is not against it, but wanted to know how it relates to the Jaguar dealership’s request to use a similar material.
Mr. Sivertsen said only the Alucobond required a variation from the Village Center design standards.
Mr. Elkins said he thought the commissioners were ok with the use of the Alucobond, but that they objected to the use of the corrugated material.
Ms. Woleben-Meade said the difference with this application and the Jaguar dealership is the amount of the material used and the proximity to the street.
Mr. Elkins said he like the use of the material, but wanted to make sure the Commission was being consistent in their opinion. He said if it’s the right gauge and if installed properly it can look really nice.
Mr. Cook said they will use expose screws to fasten it to the existing CMU and will have metal trim and coping.
Mr. Thomas Ramsdell said he’s an attorney representing the owner of 518 Park Avenue and he himself lives at 524 Park Avenue which is the closest residence to the subject case. He asked for clarification of where the trash enclosure would be located.
Mr. Elkins said it would be located on the northeast corner of the property.
Mr. Ramsdell said he knows the existing building is not attractive, but he’s not sure shinny aluminum will be attractive either.
Ms. Woleben-Meade said the painted CMU will be facing the residential properties, not the corrugated metal.
Mr. Ramsdell asked if the screening on the roof top were necessary.
Mr. Sheridan said the roof top units were required to be screened.
Mr. Ramsdell asked if there were existing HVAC units on the roof.
Mr. Cook said there were units they would be replacing and some that would be new.
Mr. Ramsdell asked if the screening could be more compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Cook said they chose a lighter color so that it disappears into the sky more. A dark color would draw more attention to it.
Mr. Elkins said he agrees with that decision.
Mr. Ramsdell asked if there was a height requirement for the screen.
Mr. Sheridan said it needed to be as height as the unit to property screen it. He thinks the proposed screening is a great solution.
Mr. Ramsdell questioned if the renderings were misleading.
Mr. Cook said the modeled renderings were accurate. They are set at what a 5 feet 8 inch tall person would see.
Mr. Ramsdell asked if the larger HVAC was a result of the use that was proposed for the building.
Mr. Sheridan said any improvement that is made to a non-single family residential building would need the commission’s review.
Mr. Ramsdell asked what the commission felt about the use of corrugated metal.
Mr. Sheridan said he thinks it is a very good solution which is appropriate for its use.
Mr. Ramsdell said he thinks the proposal fails to meet numbers 2, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15 of the standards of review for an Appearance Review Certificate.Ms. Sally Cummings said she lives at 510 Park Avenue. She feels Ms. Woleben-Meade’s idea to add a wall at the handicapped parking space would concern her. It would add another component of something that someone will have to navigate that would really concern her.
Mr. Marguerite said he didn’t know how many people cut-through 535 Green Bay Road’s parking lot.
Ms. Woleben-Meade said they could vote on the proposal without the fence.
Mr. Elkins said there’s already parking on the property now. He didn’t think they were increasing the amount of parking spaces on the property.
Mr. Cook said the spaces weren’t currently striped, so it was difficult to say they were adding parking.
Mr. Miller said the fact that they were adding striping might improve the safety of traffic movement through the property.
Mr. Ramsdell said he knows it is not under the commission’s purview, but he thinks the traffic problems in the alley cannot be overemphasized. He discussed the problems in the alley.
Ms. Georgia Bozeday said she lived at 506 Park Avenue. She said she felt there wasn’t enough input requested of the neighbors. Baker School performed a lot of outreach as part of their campus master plan.
Ms. Marguerite said after the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, Dan Marguerite offered to talk to the neighbors.
Mr. Sheridan read through the Appearance Review Certificate standards of review. He said the proposal met the applicable standards of review. Improvements are being made to the building to improve the look as well as provide screening for the trash enclosure and root top units. The look is an improvement compared to the other commercial buildings in that alley.
Mr. Bradford moved to approve Case 2016-AR-26, 535 Green Bay Road for an Appearance Review Certificate to remodel the exterior of the building including installation of outdoor grilling equipment, lighting, wall cladding, and a trash enclosure, in accordance with the plans submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben- Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
Mr. Sheridan said an unusual circumstance exists since the property does not have a street frontage. The sign on the north elevation is a reasonable solution. The signage fits the character of the building.
Mr. Elkins moved to recommend approving Case 2016-AR-26, 535 Green Bay Road for a sign variation to display a wall sign at a business without street frontage to display a sign facing north. The motion was seconded by Mr. Collyer. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
Mr. Bradford moved to authorize the Chairman to prepare the report to the Village Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
2016-AR-21 328 Linden Avenue North Shore Associates Appearance Review Certificate
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2016-AR-21, 328 Linden Avenue, North Shore Associates, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install a projecting sign.
Mr. Sheridan said the bracket shown in the sign plans will not fit under the cornice. He asked for there be a stipulation in the approval that the bracket will be under the cornice and that it will not affect the cornice above or the awning.
Mr. Bradford moved to approve 2016-AR-21, 328 Linden Avenue, North Shore Associates, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install a projecting sign, provided the bracket to the projecting sign be installed between the two cornices. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
2016-AR-31 90 Skokie Boulevard Reavy Fitness Appearance Review Certificate
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2016-AR-31, 90 Skokie Boulevard, Reavy Fitness, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install a wall sign.
Mr. Elkins said there are a lot of signs already displayed for the business. He wondered how they go about approving the conforming sign with non-conforming signage being displayed by the business.
Mr. Sivertsen said you can make it a condition of approval that the applicant remove the non-conforming signage.
Mr. Elkins moved to approved Case 2016-AR-31, 90 Skokie Boulevard, Reavy Fitness, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install a wall sign, contingent on the removal of the non-conforming window signage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben- Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Vert said she thought the Backyard Barbecue Store’s proposed store will be stunning.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:00 p.m., Mr. Elkins moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bradford. Voting yes: Chairman Sheridan, and Commissioners Bradford, Collyer, Elkins, Miller, Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
Alerts Sign-up