North Cook News

Village of Wilmette Appearance Review Committee met Nov. 5.

Here is the minutes provided by the committee:

Members Present: Carrie Woleben-Meade, Chair

Richard Brill

Mason Miller

Charles Smith

Members Absent: Nada Andric

Guests: Brad States, 1440 Sheridan Road

Rick Hulse, 1440 Sheridan Road

Steve Wilson, 1200 Wilmette Avenue

Ed Blumer, 230 W Superior Street, Chicago, IL

Andy Tinucci, 230 W Superior Street, Chicago, IL

Sarah Lyke, 819 Michigan Avenue

Staff Present: Lucas Sivertsen, Business Development Coordinator

I. CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Woleben-Meade called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES; APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING

OF OCTOBER 15, 2018.

Mr. Smith moved to approve the October 15, 2018 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brill. Voting yes: Chair Woleben-Meade and Commissioners Brill, Miller, and Smith. Voting no: none. The motion carried.

III. CONTINUANCES

Mr. Brill moved to continue Case 2018-AR-17, 601 Green Bay Road, and Case 2018-AR- 31, 505 Skokie Boulevard to the December meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. Voting yes: Chair Woleben-Meade and Commissioners Brill, Miller, and Smith. Voting no: none. The motion carried.

IV. CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Miller moved to approve and Appearance Review Certificate for Case 2018-AR-35, 413 Linden Avenue, Secure Futures, Window Sign; Case 2018-AR-37, 1625 Sheridan Road, Mathew Klujian & Sons, Awning; and Case 2018-AR-38, 126 Skokie Boulevard, Osteostrong, Wall and Window Sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brill. Voting yes: Chair Woleben-Meade and Commissioners Brill, Miller, and Smith. Voting no: none. The motion carried.

V. Cases

2018-AR-32 Wil-Shores Condominium Association 1440 Sheridan Road Appearance Review Certificate

Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2018-AR-32, 1440 Sheridan Road, Wil-Shores Condominium Association, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install replacement balcony railings.

Mr. States said they were proposing to replace balcony railings at four different locations on the building as well as at the terrace. The existing railings are past repair and need to be replaced. The new railings will be aluminum railings with a beige finish. They will be surfaced mounted to the side of the balcony.

Mr. Smith asked if they had close up photos of the existing balcony railings.

Mr. States said the existing railings are a type of wire mesh.

Mr. Smith asked the reasoning for replacing the mesh panels with a picket style railing.

Mr. States said they were proposing the picket style for aesthetic reasons.

Mr. Rick Hulse said the association chose the picket style after reviewing several options.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said the first three standards of review apply to this project. She thought all three standards were met.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said she liked the wire mesh, but did not feel anything was wrong with the proposed railing.

Mr. Smith agreed and said the proposed railing would be safer than the mesh and provide better visibility.

Mr. Rick Hulse said the building’s owners selected the beige color so that it blended into the building rather than making a dramatic shift from what is existing.

Mr. Smith asked if there were any historical protection for the building.

Mr. Sivertsen said the building was not a local landmark so there were no restrictions to what could be done to the building.

Mr. Miller moved to approved Case 2018-AR-32, 1440 Sheridan Road, Wil-Shores Condominium Association, for an Appearance Review Certificate to install replacement balcony railings as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. Voting yes: Chair Woleben-Meade and Commissioners Brill, Miller, and Smith. Voting no: none. The motion carried.

2018-AR-33 Wilmette Park District 101 Lake Avenue Variation

Mr. Sivertsen called Case 2018-AR-33, 101 Lake Avenue, Wilmette Park District, requesting an 18 shade tree landscape variation to permit the construction of a parking lot. The case is similar to a request that was reviewed at the previous meeting, however, in this case the landscaping islands are proposed, but they are short the required number of shade trees in those islands.

Mr. Any Tinucci said his firm was the project architect for the Gillson Beach restoration project. He also introduced Ed Blumer with his office and Steve Wilson, Executive Director of the Wilmette Park District. In the instance of the Gillson Beach parking lot, there are two issues forcing them to ask for the variation. The first issue is the flatness of the parking lot. There is currently significant ponding the existing parking lot caused by the lack of slope. They have increased the number of required islands from what is required by code to get more pervious area. When trees are planted in the existing sandy soil the soil needs to be amended with proper soil so the tree will properly grow. That then prevents stormwater from draining through the islands. The second reason for their variation request is to address resident wishes to maintain a view of the lake and not block the view with trees. The Park District had a lengthy public process where resident’s wishes were voiced on this issue. He distributed copies of Park District meeting minutes where residents requested planting less trees so as to not block the view of the lake.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said the first reason stated was because of the engineering of the site, which they developed so she feels the issue is self-created.

Mr. Tinucci said that wasn’t the case. They didn’t want to plant trees in some of the islands to allow as much stormwater to drain through the islands as possible.

Mr. Smith asked how water flows into the islands.

Mr. Tinucci said the curbs are actually flush curbs. Water flows across them.

Mr. Smith asked if there was any underground stormwater system proposed.

Mr. Tinucci said technically yes, but effectively no, since all of the water flows into the sand and out to Lake Michigan.

Ms. Woleben-Meade asked if they were doing any permeable pavers.

Mr. Tinucci said they are doing permeable pavers in the parking stalls. The drives are proposed as asphalt.

Ms. Woleben-Meade asked how many trees were being removed in order to construct the parking lot.

Mr. Tinucci said they were removing plus or minus 60 existing trees and proposing to plant 39 trees. He said in the area just outside of the parking lot they are proposing an additional eight (8) trees, so a total of 47 new trees. He clarified there would be a net loss of 13 trees.

Mr. Brill asked the size of the proposed trees.

Mr. Tinucci said they would all be code complaint 4-inch caliper at planting.

Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the applicant’s statement that stormwater won’t drain through amended soil as quickly as it will through sandy soil.

Mr. Tinucci said that is correct.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said trees also collect rainwater so by removing trees they will need to process more water.

Mr. Miller asked if there were types of shade trees that do well in a mix of soil.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said shade trees are not naturally grown in sandy soil.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said she agrees that she doesn’t want to see a wall of trees, but there are other options for incorporating shade trees into this project. She sees there being two issues. The need to replace the trees which are being removed and then the need comply with the parking lot landscaping requirements.

Mr. Tinucci said the variation was only for the parking lot landscaping requirement, as there was no specific code requiring a one to one tree replacement requirement.

Mr. Sivertsen clarified; the tree canopy coverage requirement did not apply to institutional projects.

Mr. Tinucci said some of the trees that are being removed are not in good condition.

Mr. Smith said while they are replacing some trees it is the optics of the Park District needing a landscape variation that is a problem. As a resident, he is very proud of the trees in town. He is not sure the absence of a shade tree is going to solve their drainage issue.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said she thinks the entire community is excited about the project, so she doesn’t want the applicant to interpret the commission’s comments to mean they don’t support the project. They have a responsibility to consider the request by looking at the standards of review for this one particular issue.

Mr. Smith said the center aisle and the area to the north seem to be missing the majority of the required shade trees. He asked the applicant to explain why those areas were designed without shade trees.

Mr. Tinucci said they were trying to be sensitive while also understanding that trees are super beneficial to parking lots. They were trying to find locations for trees that would provide an overall benefit to residents. Trees along the drive aisle would not necessarily screen parking spaces, but rather the drive aisle. They were placing the trees on the west side of the parking lot to help provide shading for most of the parking lot. They were trying to also leave the view corridors open down the middle.

Mr. Smith wanted to know if there was any data for the number of residents that enter the beach from the bluff versus driving or biking.

Mr. Tinucci said they were trying to relocate all pedestrian and bike traffic to the center approach.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said she understands the thought behind not planting trees in strategic locations, however, there is still an opportunity to plant additional trees without affecting the view corridor. She wanted to know if there was a way to provide additional trees to help fill the gap between what is proposed and what is being lost.

Ms. Sarah Lyke, 819 Michigan Avenue, said she was speaking on behalf of four families who live on Michigan across from the parking lot. She said the request was a unique circumstance given the location of the parking lot next to Lake Michigan. The area was one of the few areas providing a sweeping view of the lake. There are many residents who use the bluff above the lake that would benefit from the view. She felt that the variation request did not go far enough in reducing the trees in the parking lot. She shared a photo of the lakefront showing how much of the lake is currently viewable.

Mr. Smith said he had never heard of a tree described as an impediment in a park.

Mr. Brill said there are islands where shade trees are not proposed. He wanted to know what they were proposing to plant in those areas rather than shade trees.

Mr. Tinucci said they were proposing low prairie style grasses.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said she doesn’t believe there is a hardship in this case. She understands the desire to protect views of the lake. She asked Mr. Wilson if there was an opportunity to plant trees elsewhere.

Mr. Wilson said they have a lot of land where they could potentially plant trees. He agrees with Ms. Lyke in that this park is unique. He would like to provide a view corridor to the lakefront. He understands the commission’s job and their point of view, but asked them to consider all the trees the Park District already has. The hardship is very specific to this location.

Ms. Woleben-Meade asked the commissioners to provide their opinions. Mr. Brill said the grasses are not as aesthetically pleasing as a shade tree.

Mr. Smith said he really appreciates the use of pervious pavers in the parking lot and thinks there is a concept that he can buy into; however, he doesn’t know if he can get behind the loss of trees. He doesn’t think there is necessarily a hardship that prevents the shade trees from being planted. That being said, he believes there was the intent to follow the code, and he would support the request.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said she also has a hard time believing there is a hardship. If the community is losing 18 trees she thinks there has to be a place to put them if not in the islands.

Mr. Miller said he thinks they need to take the engineers at their word. It’s not a money issue it’s more of an engineering issue. He doesn’t have an issue with the parking lot layout as proposed.

Mr. Sivertsen said as a reminder, this is a variation request. The Commission will be making a recommendation to the Village Board. They will likely consider this request at their first meeting in December.

Mr. Smith asked Ms. Woleben-Meade if she was looking for a motion that would ask the Village to consider planting trees somewhere else in lieu of providing them in the parking lot islands.

Ms. Woleben-Meade said was looking for a compromise, but that would be up to the Park District.

Mr. Wilson said the intent of the Park Board over the last year is to get away from the piecemealing of planting trees by way of their memorial program. They have placed a moratorium on resident’s ability to buy a tree in a park, pending a professionally designed landscape plan being prepared. It would be a problem to specify a certain number of trees to be planted in a specific park without that plan having already been prepared.

Mr. Smith said there doesn’t necessarily need to be an agreement that a specific number of trees be planted in a specific park.

Mr. Smith moved to recommend approval of Case 2018-AR-33, 101 Lake Avenue, Wilmette Park District, requesting an 18 shade tree landscape variation, with a request for the Wilmette Park District, in the course of their future park planning, include the addition of 13 trees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller. Voting yes: Chair Woleben-Meade, and Commissioners Brill, Miller, and Smith. Voting no: none. The motion carried.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no additional public comments.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

At 8:26 p.m., Mr. Smith moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller. Voting yes: Chair Woleben-Meade, and Commissioners Brill, Miller, and Smith. Voting no: none. The motion carried.

https://www.wilmette.com/download/agendas_and_minutes/arc/minutes/2018/ARC-11-07-2018-Minutes.pdf