Shorewood design review board reopens record, then closes after debating whether Capitol Drive project 'substantially depreciates' neighboring properties

The Shorewood Design Review Board on Dec. 19 reviewed a court-ordered remand of its 2022 approval of the design for a multi‑family redevelopment at 2418, 2420 and 2428 East Capitol Drive and, after extended attorney argument and board discussion, voted to close the reopened hearing and record that the board does not anticipate substantial depreciation of the project site or neighboring properties.

The remand stems from a circuit-court decision that found the administrative record lacked an explicit finding on whether the project’s exterior design elements would cause a “substantial depreciation” in value of neighboring properties. The court sent the matter back for the design review board to “flesh out” the record on that specific question before the case returns to the Board of Appeals and the circuit court.

Joe Wirth, the village attorney handling the litigation, told the board the court’s direction was narrow and procedural: the board should review the original submission and expand the administrative record only by explaining the reasoning that supported its prior approval on the depreciation question. “The court remanded with instructions that you follow my order and expand the record to include a discussion of the element of whether the design elements of this project substantially depreciate either the property itself or the neighboring properties,” Wirth said.

Attorney Joe Sincata, representing the East Capitol Neighbors Association (ECNA), argued the existing record lacked facts to support a no‑depreciation finding and offered an expert affidavit from real estate broker Dan Mickelson as an offer of proof. Sincata said the circuit court had found “the record here [was] bereft of facts that could support a finding that the project would not substantially depreciate the value of the neighboring properties,” and urged the board either to accept additional factual submissions or to acknowledge the absence of sufficient factual support.

Board members disagreed about how far the board could go. Several board members who participated in the 2022 review said they had considered massing, pedestrian scale and materials at the time and that those points could be reflected in the minutes; others warned that accepting new factual evidence on remand could amount to an improper “do‑over.” Several board members with design experience described the building’s materials, fenestration and massing as steps taken to reduce scale and to integrate with the corridor.

Board member Ryan, identified during the meeting as a registered architect, said the project included measures such as a lighter fourth floor, corner treatments and alley access for parking that reduced perceived bulk and helped maintain a pedestrian scale. Another board member summarized his view as: “I would say that this looking at this building, there would be nothing on this building that says it would depreciate any value of anyone around it.”

Sincata emphasized that his clients were not saying the project certainly depreciated property values, only that the record lacked the factual basis to reasonably reach the court‑required conclusion. Dan Mickelson’s affidavit, circulated to counsel, stated the affiant’s opinion that a single‑purpose, high‑density, multi‑family building with first‑floor parking “will have a substantial negative effect on single and two‑family property values in the surrounding area,” and that the effect is greater as proximity increases; Sincata characterized that as expert opinion submitted to the board as an offer of proof.

After questions about procedure and evidence — including that DRB meetings historically were not recorded and that minutes therefore were treated as the official record — the board considered motions. A board member moved “to close discussion to allow the meeting minutes to reflect that we, as the design review board, do not anticipate substantial depreciation of this building and neighboring buildings.” The motion was seconded, called, and the chair announced the motion carried.

The board’s action was procedural: it closed the reopened hearing and instructed staff to reflect in the minutes that the DRB does not anticipate substantial depreciation. The board did not accept or reject the expert affidavit on the record during the public meeting, nor did it adopt new factual findings beyond its discussion; members differed on whether testimony from board members who had attended the 2022 hearings should be treated as a permissible clarification of the original record or as an impermissible supplement. Under the process described at the meeting, the DRB’s clarified record will return to the Board of Appeals and ultimately to the circuit court for further review.

The item drew sustained debate about the scope of the DRB’s role. Sincata argued the DRB must consider scale, massing and shadow effects when deciding depreciation; Wirth and other village counsel advised the board to limit its findings to the exterior architectural and design elements presented in the original submission and to avoid re‑litigating underlying zoning entitlements.

Next steps: the board’s clarified record will be submitted into the appellate sequence specified by the circuit court. The meeting record shows the DRB debated both whether to accept new factual submissions and how to document the deliberations already held; the court will evaluate the sufficiency of that record under its remand order.