Village of Wilmette Appearance Review Commission met April 2.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
Members Present: William Bradford, Chairman
Daniel Elkins
Mason Miller
Craig Phillips
Charles Smith
Carrie Woleben-Meade
Members Absent: Nada Andric
Guests: Anthony Ruth, 1440 S. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL
Chris Miehle, 225 W. Ohio, Chicago, IL
Craig Most, 225 W. Ohio, Chicago, IL
Rob Rejman, 303 E. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL
Heidi Hoppe, 2402 Isabella, Evanston, IL
Lyle Haerle, 215 N. Milwaukee, Lake Villa, IL
Staff Present: Lucas Sivertsen, Business Development Coordinator
I. Call To Order
Chairman Bradford called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. Approval Of Minutes; Appearance Review Commission Meeting Of March 5, 2018.
Ms. Woleben-Meade moved to approve the March 5, 2018 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Phillips. Voting yes: Chairman Bradford and Commissioners Elkins, Miller, Phillips, and Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
III. Consent Agenda
Mr. Phillips moved to approve Case 2018-AR-09, 3201 Old Glenview Road, Sprouted, Wall Sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes: Chairman Bradford and Commissioners Elkins, Miller, Phillips, Smith and Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
IV. Cases
2018-AR-07 1100 Laramie Avenue
Loyola Academy Appearance Review Certificate and Variation
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2018-AR-07, 1100 Laramie Avenue, Loyola Academy for an interior parking lot landscaping variation, a ground sign variation, and an Appearance Review Certificate to permit the construction of an addition and parking lot expansion.
Mr. Smith recused himself from the discussion of this case. He stated he is a principal of Canon Design who will be presenting the architecture portion of the case.
Mr. Chris Miehle and Mr. Craig Most stated they were with Terra Engineering and are the civil engineers on the project.
Mr. Most said the landscape plans in the case report were slightly different from what was presented previously to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Some of the plant quantities have changed and more specific information was provided on the landscape islands.
Mr. Bradford asked the applicant to address the request for a landscape variation to maintain the existing non-conforming landscape islands.
Mr. Miehle said they would like to minimize the impact to the existing parking lot. This is a phased project and the parking area in question would become a theater in a future phase of the project. In addition, they wish to maximize the green space to the area south of the proposed parking lot. By changing the dimensions of the islands to make them conforming they would need to add more parking to the south.
Mr. Bradford asked what was required and what was existing.
Mr. Sivertsen showed the existing parking area on the Sheet L1001 where additional islands would be necessary to meet code.
Ms. Woleben-Meade said it looked like they would need to remove four parking spots in order to add the required islands.
Mr. Miehle said that was roughly correct.
Mr. Miller asked if they were meeting the required number of parking spaces.
Mr. Miehle said they were adding parking to the site with these improvements.
Mr. Bradford said it seemed like they would only need to saw-cut a small portion of asphalt to add the islands.
Mr. Elkins did not think it made sense to install parking islands with canopy trees if they are only going to remove them as part of the next phase. He realizes the phase might not happened, but at the same time, it is part of an existing lot.
Mr. Bradford thought the cost was small when compared to the overall project.
Mr. Elkins thought the overall impact of the islands would be minimal considering the other landscaping they were already proposing along Laramie Avenue.
Ms. Woleben-Meade thought it would be good to let the applicant present the rest of the project before discussing further. If they were only talking about four shade trees maybe they can go somewhere else on the site that will have a longer life-span.
Mr. Most said they are providing building foundation plantings along the edge of the new aquatic addition. New plantings are proposed within the new portion of the parking lot. They are also providing substantial screening along Laramie to screen the parking lots from the views of neighbors to the west with shade trees, lower plantings and ornamental fencing.
Mr. Bradford asked about the lawn area shown on the far east of Sheet L1001.
Mr. Most said that was a rendering error and that the area would remain asphalt.
Mr. Phillips asked if that was the main vehicular egress from the property.
Mr. Most said the main vehicular entrance to the property would be on Sheet L1003, near Forest Avenue on the south side of the property. The main egress would be in the same location as is exists which is west of the entrance to the addition. Other egress points exist at multiple locations on Illinois and Laramie Avenues.
Mr. Bradford asked for clarification on the location of the proposed ground sign.
Mr. Most said it could be found on Sheet L1003 just north of the drive aisle.
Mr. Elkins asked what variations were needed for the ground sign.
Mr. Sivertsen said institutional uses are allowed one ground sign per street frontage. Because they already have a sign along Laramie, a variation is required for a second ground sign.
Ms. Woleben-Meade said there were two species of plants that the commission doesn’t typically allow. The Wintercreeper and Japanese lilac tree are generally avoided, but the commission has approved their use in some instances. She doesn’t have an issue with their use in this manner. The Birchleaf spirea has issues with survival and she recommends replacing with another species like Anthony water spirea.
Mr. Bradford asked for more information on site lighting.
Mr. Miehle said he did not have a hard copy of the lighting plan.
Mr. Sivertsen said he had a copy of the photometric plan presented to the Zoning Board. It was difficult to read however, it does state that the maximum illumination at the property line would be 0.5 foot candles.
There was discussion about the type of light pole fixtures and bulb types.
Mr. Miehle said they intended on matching the existing fixtures that were out there.
Mr. Phillips said the luminaire schedule on Sheet E0601.1 stated the finish of the fixtures would be white.
Mr. Tom Clune stated he was with Cannon Design and would be presenting the architectural plans. He said they were building a new natatorium in the same location as the existing natatorium. The proposed addition would increase the size of the building to the east and south. They will also be enclosing a portion of the building that is currently an open walkway to the east of the natatorium addition. The east and west elevations are very simple and unfenestrated. The focus of the design is the south elevation. The entire south elevation is fully glazed. The top two-thirds are quadruple glazed polycarbonate material called quad wall. The bottom third is insulated storefront glass. The frame around the entire wall is shown as limestone. The brick that was used in an addition from 1993 is still made and will be used in this addition.
Mr. Miller asked if the quadwall would have any horizontal joints. He also asked which color of polycarbonate material was proposed.
Mr. Clune said he thought they might introduce some mullions so it doesn’t look too monolithic. The quad wall material was just approved by the Loyola buildings and grounds committee the previous week so they were still working out some of those details of the elevation. He said the material comes in three levels of translucency. They’re more likely to go with the most transparent of the three. They will know more once the manufacturer completes some mock-ups that will be reviewed at the site.
Mr. Bradford asked for the finish material of the storefront window system.
Mr. Clune said it would be clear anodized aluminum to match the gymnasium addition.
Mr. Bradford asked how they plan to finish the foundation wall below the storefront window. The grade drops at the east end of the wall exposing a large portion of the foundation.
Mr. Clune said the landscape plans have since been revised so the grade does not descend as shown in the south elevation plan.
Mr. Phillips asked if they have decided on the roof top screen.
Mr. Clune said they were going with the corrugated metal EcoScreen shown on the last page of the packet. It is a perforated metal screen that has a slightly translucent quality. The finish will be similar to the clear anodized aluminum of the storefront window.
Mr. Bradford asked about the basement shown in East West Section 2.
Mr. Clune said there is an existing basement that contains some mechanical and pool equipment.
Mr. Bradford asked Mr. Clune to go into more detail on the roof top screen renderings.
Mr. Clune said they were showing what the screen would look like from the sidewalk on both the Lake Avenue and Laramie Avenue sides. The renderings show screening on the east, south and west sides, but not on the north side since it would be screened by the building.
Mr. Bradford said it sounded like the south elevation is still being refined.
Mr. Clune said the detailing of the quad wall still needs to be developed further, however, the south elevation will look as drawn. The elevation would have tall glazing, side to side and top to bottom, two-thirds quad wall, one-third glass.
Mr. Bradford said if you look at both the existing natatorium and the gymnasium addition done in the 1990’s there’s definitely a structural articulation based off the structural bays. His take on the proposed south elevation is that it is somewhat stark. If they were thinking of doing mullions on the south elevation, he suggested using those in the quad wall to pick up on the rhythm of the structural columns on the existing building.
Mr. Clune said earlier versions did have a more pure expression of the columns, but when they developed the plans further it did not read as an extension of the structure.
Mr. Bradford said even doing a double mullion would help provide a subtle acknowledgement of the existing structure.
Mr. Clune said one of the advantages of this material is that you will see the structural bracing of the quad walls at night when the interior illumination is greater than the exterior.
Mr. Elkins asked about the brick pattern on the east elevation. What kind of pattern is on the existing building?
Mr. Clune said the original building has coursing with intermittent header courses; however, the 1993 addition does not. They were therefore not proposing to do that type of pattern.
Mr. Elkins said given its function the east side of the existing building isn’t that interesting; however, he’s still disappointed not much design thought was put into the east side of the proposed addition. He would like to know more about the stone joints on the end. The bottom of the west elevation has some stone. He would like to see the plan developed a little more showing how the brick is jointed and detailed.
Mr. Miller said the concept is nice, but it is going to come down to the detailing.
Mr. Elkins said he does not have a problem with the schematic plans, but he would like something more developed for him to vote on.
Mr. Bradford said the applicant has a few options. They could ask for the entire case to be continued, or for them to vote on the variation requests related to the site work and then continue the Appearance Review Certificate vote on the building to a later meeting.
Mr. Bradford asked if anyone from the public would like to discuss the case of ask any questions.
Mr. Rob Rejman representing Loyola Academy said they would like to request approval for the site work so they could continue that work as soon as possible. They are on a tight timeline and would appreciate the help to move the project forward. He has noted the comments regarding advancement of the plans and would like to come back with that information at a later meeting.
Findings The commission found the requested landscape variation and sign variations were in keeping with the appearance codes of the code. The parking lot landscaping in question had been in existence for a long time and the phasing of the project created a unique circumstance that would be a hardship if the landscape requirements were strictly enforced. Additional landscaping along the perimeter of the parking lot exceeded what is required by code. The proposed ground sign is in keeping with the character of other signs in the area.
The existing ground sign is not located near the proposed ground sign event though they are displayed along the same frontage.
Decision Mr. Elkins moved to approve Case 2018-AR-07, 1100 Laramie, Loyola Academy, requesting an interior parking lot landscaping variation, a ground sign variation and an Appearance Review Certificate for an expansion to the existing parking lot, and site work, with the condition that the new parking lot lighting fixtures match the existing. The motion was seconded by Ms. Woleben-Meade. Voting yes: Chairman Bradford and Commissioners Elkins, Miller, Phillips, and Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
Ms. Woleben-Meade moved to authorize the Chairman to prepare the report and recommendation from the Appearance Review Commission for Case 2018-AR-07. The motion was seconded by Mr. Elkins. Voting yes: Chairman Bradford and Commissioners Elkins, Miller, Phillips, and Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
Mr. Elkins moved to continue Case 2018-AR-07, 1100 Laramie, Loyola Academy to the May 7, 2018 meeting to discuss the Appearance Review Certificate of the building addition. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller. Voting yes: Chairman Bradford and Commissioners Elkins, Miller, Phillips, and Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
2018-AR-01 3201 Old Glenview Road
Wilmette Child Development Center Appearance Review Certificate
Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2018-AR-01, 3201 Old Glenview Road, Wilmette Child Development Center for an Appearance Review Certificate to address outstanding items of their conditional approval including playground equipment and fencing.
Ms. Hoppe said they have done more work and now have a layout for the playground, playground equipment selected, and fence material selected. She said the playground is roughly 3,000 square feet, which is slightly larger than what is required by DCFS. It is divided into two separate areas. One for the younger children and one for the older children. Children will either walk up the grass hill to get to the playground or they will come out at the level above the day-care space and walk through the parking lot to the playground. She wasn’t sure if the material in the playground equipment fall zone will be mulch or poured in place rubber. Either way, it will be tan in color. She said there are two shade structures shown on the plans; however, they will only install one.
Mr. Haerle said they will eventually install two shade structures. They want to move one of the shades from their existing location to the proposed playground. If they cannot move it, then they will install a new cantilevered shade. Either way it will be imbedded in the ground and will not be able to be removed.
Mr. Smith asked how far down the fence post footing will be set. The frost line is at 40 inches so it will need to be below the frost line.
Mr. Smith said he had some concerns with the proposed travel path located in a drive lane.
Ms. Hoppe said they may use that path in the winter if the snow is not removed from the hill.
Mr. Haerle said when he was out at the site last week someone brought up the same concern as Mr. Smith. A possible solution would be to extend an existing path from the main building entrance. He estimated they would need to add about 25-30 feet in order to extend the path to the proposed playground.
Mr. Smith said he finds it counterintuitive to send kids out into traffic when it’s inclement weather.
Ms. Hoppe said she understands. While there’s not usually much traffic on that end of the parking lot there could be.
Mr. Haerle said extending the existing sidewalk provides a better solution.
Ms. Woleben-Meade moved to approved Case 2018-AR-01, 3201 Old Glenview Road, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install playground equipment and fencing, with the conditions that 1) the fence will have 42 inch concrete footings, and 2) a walkway will be provided from the building to the playground with a crosswalk where the walkway passes over a driveway. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. Voting yes: Chairman Bradford and Commissioners Elkins, Miller, Phillips, Smith, and Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
V. Public Comment
There were no additional public comments.
VI. New Business
Mr. Sivertsen stated the new architect for the Women’s Club is still at work determining what parts of the building can be salvaged so they can update their code check.
VII. Adjournment
At 8:42 p.m., Mr. Elkins moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Phillips. Voting yes: Chairman Bradford and Commissioners Elkins, Miller, Phillips, Smith, and Woleben-Meade. Voting no: none. The motion carried.
https://www.wilmette.com/download/agendas_and_minutes/arc/minutes/2018/ARC-04-02-2018-Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up