Loading...
2011-04910/06/2011 9 0 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -49 GRANTING VARIATIONS FROM CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE BUFFALO GROVE SIGN CODE BG Car Wash. at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road WHEREAS, the Village of Buffalo Grove is a Home Rule Unit pursuant to the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and WHEREAS, the real property ( "Property ") hereinafter legally described is zoned in the B -1 Business District and is commonly known as 1691 -1697 Weiland Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois; and, WHEREAS, request was made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC. for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing at which it received testimony on the requested variations; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals made certain findings of fact, made a positive recommendation for the variations, and prepared minutes of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Buffalo Grove hereby determine and find that the requested sign variations are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sign Code (Title 14 of the Buffalo Grove Municipal Code) , and that (1) the requirements of the Sign Code would cause undue and unnecessary hardship to the sign user because of unique or unusual conditions pertaining to the property, (2) the granting of the requested variances will not be materially detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity, (3) the unusual conditions applying to the specific property do not apply generally to other properties in the Village, and (4) the granting of the variances will not be contrary to the general objective of the Sign Code of moderating the size, number and obtrusive placement of signs and the reduction of clutter. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, COOK AND LAKE COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, as follows: Section 1. The preceding WHEREAS clauses are hereby adopted by the Corporate Authorities and made a part hereof. Section 2. Variations are hereby granted to Sections 14.20.030 and 14.20.080 of the Village Sign Code (Title 14 of the Buffalo Grove Municipal Code) for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package for the following legally described Property: Lot 2 in the Old Weiland Subdivision, being a Subdivision of part of the northeast '/< of Section 28, Township 43 north, Range 11, east of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the Plat thereof recorded December 18, 1996 as Document 3912044, in Lake County, Illinois. Commonly known as: 1691 -1697 Weiland Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 Section 3. The variations are subject to the following conditions: A. The sign shall be installed per the approved Uniform Sign Criteria and Exhibits submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the variation application, and B. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated September 2, 2011 Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, and approval. This Ordinance shall not be codified. AYES: 6 — Berman, Trilling, Sussman, Terson, Stein, Ottenheimer NAYES: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None 2 0 PASSED: October 17, 2011. APPROVED: October 17, 2011. ATTEST: age Clerk F: \docs \clients\ 103.3100 \ORD \000106608.docx 0 1691 -1697 WEILAND ROAD, BG CAR WASH MANAGEMENT, LLC - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.080, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A SECOND WALL SIGN FOR EACH TENANT IN THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1691 -1697 WEILAND ROAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE Mr. John Imreibe, BG Car Wash Management, 2711 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on July 28, 2011 was read. Mr. Imreibe explained that the building is a multi- tenant commercial building built about 13 years ago that was occupied by one (1) tenant through January 2010. He is trying top lease out the additional spaces. It has come up numerous times during lease negotiations that while the tenants are allowed to have signage on the west elevation, which faces Weiland Road, the tenants would not be allowed signage on the east elevation. The tenants are concerned that customers will not be able to identify their business with no signage above their actual storefront. It is a unique building because the actual back side of the building is up against the road. He does not believe that there is another building in Buffalo Grove that has that unique feature where the back of the building is right up against the road. In this situation, the building is facing Weiland Road so traffic on Weiland will identify the businesses on the west elevation. He is asking to allow signs on both the west elevation and on the east elevation, which would be the main entrances to the tenant spaces. Numerous proposed tenants that he has met with have requested signage on the east elevation. He has met with Village staff and the ART and he has come up with a uniform sign package that would address the concerns of the tenants and would also provide adequate protection for himself and the Village. The proposed sign package would allow him and the Village to control the signage. He is waiving his right to place any signs on the south elevation of the building, which is currently occupied by a mortgage company. He would waive that right if he were allowed to have signage on both the east and west elevations of the building. That would reduce the total allowable area of signage from what is currently allowed. With the approval of the variance request, he would have a better chance of bringing tenants into the building and into the Village. Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated August 3, 2011. The ART withholds any recommendation pending the submittal of the requested information as identified in the minutes. Ch. Entman asked if Mr. Imreibe has seen the ART minutes. Mr. Imreibe stated that he has seen the minutes and has subsequently met with Village staff to address the ART recommendations. Mr. Imreibe added that some of the items addressed in the ART minutes are not on the Table for this request, such as the proposed Dunkin Donuts mono lift. That does not concern this request. Also the ART requested that he utilize the ground signs to identify the tenants in the building. He has been to numerous ZBA meetings before and he is aware that the ZBA does not like multiple tenants on a ground sign. The existing ground signs were approved by variance as well so he is not looking to modify them. Com. Shapiro stated that on the east elevation of the building, there are only two (2) doors. The other two (2) signs would then be located over portions of the building that are not entrances. Mr. Imreibe stated that the entrances to the northern most unit and the southern most unit are on the north and south elevations of the building. The storefronts face east, but the entrance doors are around the corner. Com. Shapiro stated that he is not sure how the sign on the east elevation of the building would help those tenants. Mr. Imreibe stated that the proposed sign package and variances are strictly for tenants that are coming into the center so they can identify where the business is located. The signs would be right above their storefront window. Customers may see the sign on the west elevation facing Weiland Road, but once you come around into the parking lot area, they need to be able to locate that DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 0 space. Com. Shapiro stated that he understands. He has been to the locations. He does not see the necessity for signs on both elevations. The west elevation obviously tells people that they are there and they can enter the center. Once they enter the center, he is not sure how much confusion is really there once they enter the parking lot. The amount of signage seems excessive for the buildings size and location. Plus, Dunkin Donuts is also located on both ground signs. Mr. Imreibe stated that there are two (2) issues with that. The grounds only have two (2) businesses on them, the car wash and Dunkin Donuts. Dunkin Donuts currently has existing wall signs on both the east and west elevations of the building. All he is asking for to allow the other tenants to be able to have signs on both elevations. Com. Shapiro stated that it seems that the Petitioner is giving a lot of signs to Dunkin Donuts. Royal Touch has multiple panels in the grounds signs. It seems that there could be a compromise, where the ground signs are utilized more. He would support signage on the west elevation of the building. Once people are in the parking lot, he does not believe it is such an issue to identify which business they are going to. Com. Windecker stated that on the proposed building elevation marked as Exhibit "G ", it depicts two (2) entrances on the east elevation of the building. He confirmed with Mr. Imreibe that there will be two (2) entrances on the east elevation. Com. Windecker confirmed that the building address range is 1691- 1697 Weiland Road. He asked Mr. Imreibe why there are big numbers on the door on the south elevation of that building that are 1701. Mr. Imreibe stated that 1701 is the address of the car wash. It is not the address of this building. Com. Windecker asked if those will be taken off that door. Mr. Imreibe stated that he does not believe that there are the numbers 1701 on that building. Com. Windecker stated that he was at that building and those numbers are there and are very large. There are two (2) side doors, one (1) on the north and one (1) on the south. The door on the south shows 1701. The one on the north is covered with all kinds of Dunkin Donut ads. Mr. Imreibe stated that the door on the south elevation does not read 1701, it reads 1691. Com. Windecker asked if the address is coming off the door. Mr. Imreibe stated that he could take the address off the door. Com. Windecker stated that if he is voting for something for 1691 -1697 Weiland, it will not cover 1701 Weiland Road. Mr. Imreibe confirmed that it would not cover 1701. 1701 Weiland Road is the address of the car wash. The south elevation of the building in question has always read 1691 and north elevation, which is the Dunkin Donuts entrance, should read 1697. Com. Windecker asked how the addresses for the building break down. Mr. Imreibe stated that the units break down to 1691, 1693, 1695 and 1697 Weiland Road. 1697 is the northern most unit, which Dunkin Donuts currently occupies. 1691 is the southern most unit. Com. Windecker stated that at the ART meeting, it was requested that a picture of the building be provided to the Building Department. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Village went out and took photographs of the existing building. Com. Windecker stated that there are four (4) signs for Dunkin Donuts; three (3) signs for the car wash and two (2) signs for pricing of the car wash. Com. Windecker stated that the current building is in need of repair. He asked what was located on the east elevation of the building that was ripped down. Mr. Imreibe stated that there was a decorative aluminum panel. There have been numerous storms recently and one of the storms damaged the panels. Com. Windecker asked if that was a sign. Mr. Imreibe stated that it was not a sign. Com. Windecker stated that there are four (4) electrical boxes that are open that have electrical connections in them. Mr. Imreibe stated that those were not from signs. Those were from where the flashing came back to the building for the aluminum. The panels were damaged. Com. Windecker asked about the purpose of the aluminum. Mr. Imreibe stated that the aluminum was a decorative piece in the center of the building. It almost looked like a white picket fence type of piece. Cam. Windecker asked Mr. Imreibe if he feels that signs on the east elevation will help. He suggested to convert one of the ground signs to identify the tenants in the building. Mr. Imreibe stated that he does DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 r . ' 0 not believe that was one of the concerns that some of the proposed tenants have. The tenants are concerned that once someone makes the turn and enters the parking lot, now they have no way of distinguishing where the business is located. Consumers will not be able to identify relative to where the space is in the building. Com. Windecker asked about a simple identification sign located on each business. There are currently no retail businesses there, except Dunkin Donuts, right now. Mr. Imreibe stated that they have three (3) businesses; one (1) business is in for permit, a nail salon. There is the proposed nail salon, Baytree Lending, which is already in the building and Dunkin Donuts. The building is a four (4) tenant building. Com. Windecker inquired about the sign that Mr. Imreibe stated that he would waive his right to. Mr. Imreibe stated that the tenant located in unit 1691 is a corner unit. There is a right -of -way on Weiland Road and Old Weiland Road. They could technically put up a sign approximately seventy four (74) square feet in area on the southern elevation. Com. Windecker asked if he is being told that Mr. Imreibe is requesting three (3) sides of signs. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is not asking for three (3) signs for that unit. Com. Windecker stated that a corner unit would only get two (2) sides of signs at the most. Mr. Imreibe stated that without going through the variance process that unit could pull a permit for a wall sign on the south elevation of the building. Com. Windecker stated that then there should not be any signs on the east elevation. There are no variances granted for any signs on the east elevation. Mr. Imreibe stated that Dunkin Donuts currently has a sign on the east elevation. Com. Windecker stated that Dunkin Donuts did not have a variance for that sign. Mr. Imreibe stated that he does not know if Dunkin Donuts had a variance or not, but they currently have one (1) sign on the east elevation and one (1) sign on the west elevation. Com. Windecker stated that he will not vote for a menagerie of signs saying the same thing for four (4) units. There are two (2) large ground signs that say the same thing. Then there are two (2) more Dunkin Donuts signs. That is four (4) Dunkin Donuts signs and now it is being requested to add another six (6) signs and maybe throw in a sign on the south elevation of the building. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is saying that based on the proposed uniform sign package, he would not put a sign on the south elevation because it would serve no purpose. He would like to allow the tenants that come into the building to put signage on the east elevation and the west elevation. The west elevation signage will allow consumers to see them from the roadway and the east elevations signage will allow the consumers to find the tenant space once they enter the parking lot. Com. Windecker asked about the need for such a large sign to identify the four (4) tenant spaces on the east elevation. There is already a large sign for Dunkin Donuts on the east elevation that was some how put up without a variance. Mr. Imreibe stated that he did not put up that sign. Representatives from Dunkin Donuts are not present at the meeting. He is just the building owner. He is just asking if it is possible to get signage on both elevations so his future tenants do not have to go through the variance process. He would like to have approved a uniform sign package to eliminate future signage issues. Signs would only be allowed on the east and west elevations, that would be it. He would like exposure to both the east and west elevations of the building. Com. Windecker stated that if the ZBA allowed every building that has four (4) stores in it to have signs on the front and back there would be a real problem. Mr. Imreibe stated that he understands what Com. Windecker is saying, but this building is unique in the fact that the store fronts do not face the street. The actual back of the building faces the street. Com. Windecker stated that the signs should be on the store fronts which are the back of the building and to place an identification sign just so people do not get lost going through the same door. It is not like each space has its own entrance. Mr. Imreibe stated that each space does have its own entrance. Com. Windecker stated that four (4) signs would be on the east elevation when two (2) of the entrance doors are on different elevations, one (1) on the north and one (1) on the south. Mr. Imreibe stated that it would not make sense to put a sign on the north and south elevations for the two (2) end units. Com. Windecker DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 n U asked if Mr. Imreibe will allow Dunkin Donuts to put up a third sign on the north elevations over the entrance. Mr. Imreibe stated that he will not allow a sign on the north elevation. He has put together the uniform sign package. Com. Windecker stated that there are things in the proposed uniform sign package that do not belong there. Com. Windecker stated that what is being proposed is that a sign will be placed over a window but the entrance is on another elevation. Mr. Imreibe stated that the purpose is to justify where the tenant space is in the building once they enter the center. Ch. Entman stated that he is familiar with the property. He is a customer of the car wash. He is confused a great deal with this request. Part of his confusion comes from having reviewed the ART minutes of August 3, 2011. There were quite a few comments requesting either a change or additional information. He also has a concern for excessive signage in quantity and size. He does not believe that the request has been brought to a point that where it can be presented to the ZBA where everything has been resolved so that it is in more or less final form. It appears that there is a proposal, there was an ART meeting, there was apparently a lot of discussion at the ART meeting because the minutes are quite extensive and now it is to be hashed out at the ZBA. He is not willing to do that. He knows generally what is being requested. He understands there will be four (4) tenants in the building, one (1) of which is Dunkin Donuts. There is another tenant currently in the building, a proposed nail salon in the works and one (1) vacant space. He believes that it is clear from not only what he read in the ART minutes but also from what he has heard here that there is not much issue with signage on the west elevation of the building. There appears to be, not only from testimony here but also in the ART minutes, concurrent objection to any signage on the east elevation of the building. There appears to be a lot up in the air still such as other signs, signs on the ends of the building, the number of signs, the size of signs, the location of each individual sign, etc. It is quite confusing. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan if the Petitioner had gotten back to the Village to address the open issues. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Petitioner has responded to some of the comments that were raised at the ART meeting, but not all of them. Village staff did meet again with the Petitioner and his architect late last week. Some of the questions were answered and there were several proposed changes which were indicated in the memorandum to the ZBA dated August 15, 2011 as well as the revised Uniform Sign Package that has been submitted for review. The proposed mono lift for Dunkin Donuts has been deferred at this point to limit the amount of confusion, so the questions pertaining to that issue have not been addressed. Staff can continue to work with the Petitioner if the ZBA would like to provide staff with direction. Ch. Entman stated that he is not in a position to approve or disapprove the proposed (revised) uniform sign package at this time because he needs to review it in more detail. He believes that when the proposed sign package comes before the ZBA for approval staff and the ZBA have more or less reached a consensus or have reached a point where the issues can be addressed at a hearing. He is not in a position to vote on the package at this time. Com. Windecker would like to see the proposed sign package similar to other sign packages that are existing for other centers within the Village. Cam. Au asked if Mr. Imreibe has considered putting a small sign above the actual entrance of each store front. She understands the request for signs facing Weiland Road for the advertising value, but then when they are in the parking lot, they are already there. Nobody will end up in the parking and not know where to go out of the four (4) stores. Mr. Imreibe stated that he was under the impression that developing two (2) signs of the same size would be more cost effective for the tenants. Also, he wants to have a uniform look to the building. Allowing each tenant to put up some type of identification signage DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 0 . 1 0 wherever they wanted and not in a uniform sign package as he has proposed could potentially cause the building to look very ugly. Com. Au stated that the sign package does not need to include two (2) equal walls. The sign package could limit the east elevation signs to a much smaller size. She feels like there are different solutions to the issues. By approving the uniform sign package as proposed she feel as if it would be giving the Petitioner's tenants special permission that no other building would be allowed to have. She stated that it would be helpful to provide a sample sign superimposed on the building elevation. Currently the building elevations just show empty square boxes. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is not applying for a sign permit. He is not the tenant. Com. Au stated that the sample sign could be very generic, just a sample. It does not have to be a specific store. Mr. Imreibe stated that he would take that into consideration. He does not see where the proposed sign package would have any kind of adverse effect on anyone. The signs that are visible are only facing customers that are coming into the center. There is a railroad on the east elevation. There would not be anyone there to see the signs except the customers in the parking lot. It would make the tenants more comfortable to have signage on the east elevation. Com. Au does not agree with that statement. If she were in the parking lot looking for unit 1697 she will see the sign and not see a door, then she will probably try to go into unit 1695 because that is the next door that she sees. In order to accomplish what the Petitioner is trying to accomplish, people will need to know the layout of the building. Com. Shapiro stated that he understands the unique location of the building. Another unique feature of the building is that there are windows on both sides. It is not like anyone will not know what they are walking into. He does not believe that anyone would mistake the nail salon for the Dunkin Donuts. If there is any part of the request that he could support on the east elevation it would be signs over the units that have doors. He does not see the purpose of signs over windows when there is not a door located there. His guess is that people will know where they are going. He does not see how this sign package would help any business in the Village by having a sign on both sides. If there were any compromise at all, he would say a sign over a door would make sense than a sign over a window. Ch. Entman has reviewed the ART minutes numerous times. He can identify approximately half a dozen major comments and requests and approximately half a dozen minor comments or requests that took place at the ART meeting. He notes that there was a follow up meeting on August 11, 2011 with staff and the Petitioner. He does not know at this time how many, if any, of the comments or requests have been taking care of, what took place at the subsequent meeting between only staff and the Petitioner, and he would like to see the uniform sign package proposed to the ZBA in such a fashion that comments, questions, requests, that took place at any meetings before the Petitioner comes before the ZBA be finalized to the extent that the ZBA has something that says this is where we stand so the ZBA knows what they have to deal with. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan if the uniform sign package was submitted by the Petitioner or was it prepared by staff on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Sheehan stated that there were discussions with the Petitioner initially and the Petitioner was supplied with several versions of existing sign packages. The Petitioner then put together their proposed sign package which was reviewed by the ART.. Ch. Entman advised that the following issues should be addressed prior to the ZBA reviewed the proposal. There seems to be opposition to the proposed wall signs for the east elevation. There has been concerned raised about if there is signage, on the east elevation, where would that signage be located. There are comments in the ART minutes concerning using small signs to identify tenant spaces. There are comments regarding putting a small sign over each entranceway as an alternative. These should be addressed before a recommendation is made. DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 0 Ch. Entman asked the Petitioner if he would like the ZBA to vote on the request at this time. Mr. Imreibe stated that he would prefer to Table the request until the next regular meeting. Ch. Entman read into the record a facsimile received on August 16, 2011 addressed to the BG Zoning Board with a subject of Signage Public Hearing which states "To the protectors of our zoning and building codes: Your honor, I was distracted by the SIGNAGE on Aptakisic and Weiland. SAFETY FIRST! Say NAY to MORE SIGNAGE! In Weiland and Aptakisic. Public Hearing, Tuesday, August 16, 7:OOpm. Residents of Aptakisic and Weiland." There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Au made a motion to Table the request made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1701 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item Tabled to the September 20, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 0 4 1691 -1697 WEILAND ROAD, BG CAR WASH MANAGEMENT, LLC - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.080, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A SECOND WALL SIGN FOR EACH TENANT IN THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1691 -1697 WEILAND ROAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE Mr. John Imreibe, BG Car Wash Management, 2711 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 and Mr. David Wytmar, Groundwork, Ltd, 351 W. Dundee Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, were present and sworn in. Acting Ch. Windecker read the email submitted by Bruce Entman, Chairman of the ZBA, dated September 20, 2011 into the record. Mr. Wytmar stated that they have spent numerous meeting with Village staff and the ART going through the proposal. Since that time they have submitted to the ART considerations and commentary on all the items that were discussed. At the last ART meeting Commissioner Windecker and Trustee Trilling were present. They addressed all the issues. The latest ART minutes show what was discussed and they did get a positive recommendation from the ART that the signage is necessary and appropriate in this specific location and that the location is unique in the Village. Com. Lesser stated that he read the ZBA minutes and the ART minutes. He understands the need for signage on the west elevation and he does agree with some of Ch. Entman's comments concerning the idea of a centrally located sign with changeable sign panels for the west elevation. That type of sign would be helpful to the owner as a landlord in operating that building because constantly mounted and removing signs as tenants change the damage to the building facade becomes visible and an eyesore. As for the east elevation, he believes that the Petitioner needs to accomplish in some minor way identify where tenants are located. It is a small center and it is very easy to identify where each tenant is located. He feels that the proposed east elevation signs are unnecessary. It is an industrial area to the east. Com. Cesario asked the Petitioner to clarify specifically what they are asking the ZBA to do. Mr. Wytmar stated that they are requesting a variance to allow a second sign on the east elevation of the building. Currently three (3) of the tenant are allowed one (1) wall sign and one (1) tenant is allowed two (2) wall signs pursuant to the Sign Code. They are looking to limit the size of the sign and restrict the sign to only the east and west elevations of the building and to allow tenants to have a second sign, one (1) on the east and one (1) on the west. Cam. Cesario asked about the hours of illumination for the signs. Mr. Wytmar stated that the signs would be illuminated until 10:00 p.m. or until the business closes. This way, if there is a pizza place that stayed open until 11:00 p.m. they could have an illuminated sign while they are open. Com. Cesario asked if the color scheme is consistent with the recommendation of the ART. Mr. Wytmar replied that it is consistent with the recommendation. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that he believes at the final ART meeting they spent a lot of time discussing every line with a fine tooth comb and came up with the final presentation that is before the ZBA tonight. This proposal was agreeable to the ART. He believes a lot of time was spent going over the proposal. He believes that if the proposed signs help people locate an entrance with the way the building is laid out he is amenable. DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 0 Com. Shapiro stated that at the last ZBA meeting he did not feel the need for the second wall signs on the east elevation. This property is unique and with the entrances facing east it is on the side of the building that does not face the roadway. The east elevation signs would not be detrimental to any neighborhood or any portion of the Village except for the railroad tracks. He is willing to support the request based on the unique circumstances. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Shapiro made the following motion concerning the proposed Uniform Sign Package for 1691 -1697 Weiland Road: I move we grant the request to approve the Uniform Sign Package for 1691 -1697 Weiland Road dated September 2, 2011 and recommended by the ART minutes dated September 2, 2011. Com. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Shapiro, Windecker NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Com. Shapiro made the following motion concerning the Sign Code variation request for 1691 -1697 Weiland Road: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1701 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. Subject to the ART minutes dated September 2, 2011. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub - section A. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Shapiro, Windecker NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the October 17, 2011 Village Board agenda. . DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS FINDINGS OF FACT ON VARIATION OF SIGN CODE THE BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: A. Applicant: BG Car Wash Management, LLC B. Location: 1691 -1697 Weiland Road C. Zoning District: B1 Business District D. Type of Sign: Wall Signs - To allow a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. E. Characteristics of Signs (including maximum sign size): UNIT WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 1) Unit 1691 3' -8" High x 6' -4" Wide 3' -0" High x 5' -2" Wide 2) Unit 1693 3' -8" High x 7' -3" Wide 3' -0" High x 5' -11" Wide 3) Unit 1695 3' -8" High x 6-10" Wide 3' -0" High x 5' -7" Wide 4) Unit 1697 3' -8" High x 6' -9" Wide 3' -0" High x 5' -6" Wide F. Lot Characteristics: Irregular rectangular shaped lot located at the southeast corner of Aptakisic Road and Weiland Road. II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA: North - Unincorporated Lake County South - Unincorporated Lake County East - Railroad Right of Way West - 131 Business District III. VARIATION SOUGHT: Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. 1V. EXHIBITS DEPICTING VARIATION: A. Exhibit "A" - Site Plan B. Exhibit "D" - Letter dated July 18, 2011 Draft Findings of Fact BG Car Wash Management, LLC 1691 -1697 Weiland Road September 20, 2011 Page 1 of 3 C. Uniform Sign Package dated September 2, 2011 D. Uniform Sign Package Exhibit "A" E. Uniform Sign Package Exhibit "B" F. Uniform Sign Package Exhibit "C" V. VILLAGE ENGINEER'S REPORT N/A VI. VARIATION POWER & CRITERIA: Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub - section A VII. PUBLIC HEARING: After due notice as required by law, a copy of said publication notice being attached hereto as Exhibit C, the Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings regarding the proposed variance on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 and Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Blvd., Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 at 7:30P.M. The applicant, Mr. John Imreibe, BG Car Wash Management and Mr. David Wytmar, Groundwork, Ltd, testified at the hearing and presented documentary evidence. The following objectors appeared at the hearing: None The following sent written objection prior to the hearing: Anonymous letter undated received by fax on August 16, 2011. Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit J are the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings held on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 and Tuesday, September 20, 2011. VIII. FINDINGS: The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the criteria as set forth in Section 14.44.010, Subsection A of the Sign Code have been met in that the Petitioner has shown: 1. That not allowing the variance will cause undue and unnecessary hardship due to the following unique or unusual circumstances: Draft Findings of Fact BG Car Wash Management, LLC 1691 -1697 Weiland Road September 20, 2011 Page 2 of 3 A. To identify the entrances for the tenants in the building. 2. That granting the requested variance would not be detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity; 3. That the unusual conditions applying to the specific property do not apply generally to other properties in the Village; and, 4. That granting of the variance will not be contrary to the general objectives of this the Village's Sign Code of moderating the size, number and obtrusive placement of signs and the reduction of clutter. IX. CONDITIONS: The variance shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign is to be installed per the approved Uniform Sign Criteria and Exhibits submitted with the application. 2. Subject to the ART minutes dated September 2, 2011. X. CONCLUSION: The Zoning Board of Appeals, by a vote of 5 to 0, recommends to the Village Board to grant the request made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1701 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. Dated - September 20, 2011 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, IL Bruce Entman, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Draft Findings of Fact BG Car Wash Management, LLC 1691 -1697 Weiland Road September 20, 2011 Page 3 of 3 0 TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COMMISSIONERS FROM: BRIAN SHEEHAN Deputy Building Commissioner /Operations DATE: July 27, 2011 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:30 P.M. — Council Chambers, Village Hall 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois RE: 1691 -1697 Weiland Road, BG Car Wash Management, LLC Sign Code, Sections 14.20.030 and 14.20.080 Attached please find the documents and exhibits that have been submitted for the following variance: Request is being made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1701 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Herald. If you have any questions regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact me at 459 -2530. Brian Sheehan BS /jk Attachments PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Buffalo Grove Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Request is being made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1701 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. Legal Description: Lot 2 in the Old Weiland Subdivision, being a Subdivision of part of the northeast '/a of Section 28, Township 43 north, Range 11, east of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the Plat thereof recorded December 18, 1996 as Document 3912044, in Lake County, Illinois. Commonly known as: 1691 -1697 Weiland Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, IL Bruce Entman, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE Department of Building & Zoning Fifty Raupp Blvd, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 -2196 Phone 847 - 459 -2530 Fax 847- 459 -7944 July 27, 2011 Mr. John hnreibe 2711 Mannheim Road Des Plaines, IL, 60018 Dear Mr. Imreibe, This is to inform you that the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing relative to the request for variance of the Sign Code, to allow a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package, has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. You, or an authorized representative, must attend the meeting to answer any questions the Zoning Board Commissioners may have. A copy of the Agenda is posted inside Village Hall or you can access the Agenda at www.vbg.org. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (847) 459 -2530. Sincerely, Brian Sheehan Deputy Building Commissioner /Operations BS /jk VILLAGE OE ' B TFALO GROVE. Department of Building & Zoning Fifty Raupp Blvd. Buffalo Grove. IL 60089 -2196 Phone 847- 459 -2530 Fax 847- 459 -7944 APPLICATION FOR VARIATION APPLICANT �� LL L ADDRESS 1 1 (i RC�2� ll'(lYrl l C� S ot'�cY) TELEPHONE NUMBER 7 �1 '1(�� PP o-` lr oZ) j ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Y 7 PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE +J LL ZONING DISTRICT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: J rye f-1A-c;�JA eJ SECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE V FROM WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED: 1 `� d 0 `sD sec- PURPOSE OF VARIANCE: �11 I6 J -�er1aV\k ; V e�t/lr 1.1 1a 1� lgYl . Applicant must submit a letter stating what the practical difficulties or particular hardships are in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Ordinance and describing the proposed work or change in use. A plat of survey or plot plan, drawn to scale, must be attached hereto and made a part of this application. Petitioner must submit proof of ownership such as a deed, title insurance policy, trust agreement, etc. 1 (we) hereby certify that the legal title of the premises being the subject of this application is vested in G_y- l ,6asln IYMreuorxtL m and that all statements contained in this application are true and correct. I (we) furt her understand th& any misrepresentation in connection with this matter may result in a denial of the relief sought. Furthermore, I (we) have attached a list containing the names and addresses of all contiguous property owners if requesting a fence variation, OR a list of all property owners within two hundred fifty (250) feet in each direction of the subject property r all other variations- exclusive of public ways, as such are recorded in the Officer of the Recorder of Deed of Cook County am hake County. OWNER, PARTNER IN TITLE, CORPORATE OFFICER, BENEFICIARY OF TRUST AGENT (Strike out all but applicable designation) If signed by an Agent, a written instrument executed by the owner, establishing the agency, must accompany this application, FILING FEE MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION FEE PAID $! 0o RECEIPT NUMBER 9Y- `/'%90 DATE /q LOT 2 IN OLD WEILAND SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 43 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED DECEMBER 18, 1996 AS DOCUMENT 3912044, IN LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. SUBJECT TO: GENERAL REAL ESTATE TAXES FOR 2005, 2006 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS; ORDINANCES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE; BUILDING LINES; COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD; LEASE OF THE REAL ESTATE WITH J.P. INVESTMENTS, INC.: MATTERS NOTED ON THE PLAT OF SUBDIVISION AND ACTS OF GRANTEE AND OF THOSE: CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER GRANTEE. Permanent Tax Number. 15 -29- 217 -002 -0000 together with the tenements and appurtenances thereunto belonging. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto said party of the second part, and to the proper use, benefit and behoof forever of said party of the second part. This deed Is executed pursuant to and in the exercise of the power and authority granted to and vested In said trustee by the terms of said deed or deeds In trust delivered to said trustee in pursuance of the trust agreement above mentioned, This deed is made subject to the lien of every trust deed or mortgage (if any then: be) of record in said county given to secure the payment of money, and remaining unreleased at the date of the delivery hereof. / ' /� Q Reserved for Recorder's Office �j t � 265;3 TRUSTEE'S DEED 1 ` I59jj IIIII�IIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII This indenture made this 14th day RECORD of February, 2006, between MARY ELLEN DEfiVENTEf: CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST LAKE COUNTY ► XL RECORDER 02127!2006 - 092 A.H. Q5 COMPANY, a corporation of Illinois, RECEIPT := 272282 292 V as successor trustee to FIFTH THIRD BANK, as Trustee under the RHSP $10.00 DRAWER *: 29 provisions of a deed or deeds in pa trust, duly recorded and delivered to said company in pursuance of a bust agreement dated the 17th day of December, 1996, and known as Gs. Trust Number 3050 , party of the first part, and BG CARWASH MANAGEMENT, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company whose address is: 2711 Mannheim Rd. Des Plaines, IL 60018 party of the second part, WITNESSETH, That said party of the first part, :in.consideration of the sum of TEN and no1100 DOLLARS ($70.00) AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE considerations in hand paid, does hereby CONVEY AND QUITCLAIM unto said party of the second part, the following described real estate, situated in Lake County, Illinois, to wit: LOT 2 IN OLD WEILAND SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 43 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED DECEMBER 18, 1996 AS DOCUMENT 3912044, IN LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. SUBJECT TO: GENERAL REAL ESTATE TAXES FOR 2005, 2006 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS; ORDINANCES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE; BUILDING LINES; COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD; LEASE OF THE REAL ESTATE WITH J.P. INVESTMENTS, INC.: MATTERS NOTED ON THE PLAT OF SUBDIVISION AND ACTS OF GRANTEE AND OF THOSE: CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER GRANTEE. Permanent Tax Number. 15 -29- 217 -002 -0000 together with the tenements and appurtenances thereunto belonging. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto said party of the second part, and to the proper use, benefit and behoof forever of said party of the second part. This deed Is executed pursuant to and in the exercise of the power and authority granted to and vested In said trustee by the terms of said deed or deeds In trust delivered to said trustee in pursuance of the trust agreement above mentioned, This deed is made subject to the lien of every trust deed or mortgage (if any then: be) of record in said county given to secure the payment of money, and remaining unreleased at the date of the delivery hereof. / ...... . T.r IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said party of the first part has caused its corporate seal to be hereto s}(t>_xed, and has caused its'. name to be signed to these presents by its Assistant Vice President, the day and year first above writien. ^r � 1 CORPORATE SEAL g �gQ0,1L��aa State of Illinois County of Cook SS. CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST COMPANY, as T By: I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the above named Assistant Vice President of CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST COMPANY, personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument as such Assistant Vice President appeared before me this day In person and acknowledged that he /she signed and delivered the said instrument as his/her own free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act of the Company, and the said Assistant Vice President then. and there caused the corporate seal of said Company to be affixed to said instrument as his/her own free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act of the Company. Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 141" day of February, 2006Af-, "OFFICIAL SEAL" � GRACE MARIN NOTARY PUBLIC PROPERTY ADDRESS: NOTARYPUBLICSTATEOFILLINOIS 1691 -1897 Welland Road M Commission Expires 03ro9 /2009 Bu8a1p Grove.7L "80089 AFTER RECORDING, PLEASE MAIL TO: NAME 161174U-alb "6 ADDRESS h0 -5• Ilhelenc ,t IA U. OR CITY, STATE 6r evee4). /L (Ad1 SEND TAX BILLS TO: �G L;ar�l, JVlQawt�ft� LLC Gas Piazt%eS, EL 6obr� This Instrument was prepared by: CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST COMPANY 181 W. Madison 17u' Floor Chicago, IL 60602 BOX NO. # 0000005373 0 JY� STATE A COUNTY TAX yr D r- mm 1 d L 0 L AH nM m m X O m Z n r' 4 -c 2 lob # 0000005373 0 W N yr D O mm d L 0 L AH nM X 0 July 18, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Village of Buffalo Grove 50 Raupp Boulevard Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 To the Zoning Board of Appeals: ZONING ING BOARD OF APPEALS EXHIBIT Re: Variance Request Uniform Sign Package Weiland Road Commercial Building 1691 -1697 Weiland Road Buffalo Grove, Illinois We are requesting approval of a Uniform Sign Package for the above referenced building. This request includes a variance from the sign code to allow each tenant to have up to two wall signs on the building, of which one would be on the west side of the building (facing Weiland Road) and one on the east side of the building (facing the parking lot, where each tenant entrance is located). We are requesting that this matter be scheduled for the August 16, 2011 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please see the attached Uniform Sign Package for additional information regarding this request. In addition, we believe that due to the unique conditions of this specific building and property, we meet the conditions of hardship. The following are the conditions of hardship, along with our responses that address each condition: Condition #1: The literal interpretation and strict application of the provisions and requirements of this Title would cause undue and unnecessary hardships to the sign user because of unique or unusual conditions pertaining to the specific building or parcel or property in question: Response to Condition #1: This specific building has a unique condition within the Village, because the street frontage of the subject building Is on the west side of the building, while the parking and the entrances to individual units is on the east side of the building. This causes a hardship because the public has difficulties finding the entrance of a business that it has identified on the street side of the building. Condition #2: The granting of the requested variance would not be materially detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity. Response to Condition 42: This variance would not be materially detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity because the duplicate signage area faces the back of the site, and would not be visible from the street. The view from the east side is also obstructed by the railroad line along the east property line. Condition #3: The unusual conditions applying to the specific property do not apply generally to other properties in the Village; and Response to Condition #3: The unusual conditions applying to this specific property do not apply generally to other properties in the Village, as the signage for most businesses is at the entrance to the business. Condition #4: The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the general objective of this Title of moderating the size, number and obtrusive placement of signs and the reduction of clutter. Response to Condition #4: The granting of this variance will not be contrary to moderating the size, number and obtrusive placement ofsigns and the reduction of clutter. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed, or need additional information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your ongoing assistance. Very truly yours, BG Car Wash Management By: 1 14 11' JcWn Imreibe Site Location: 1691 -1697 Weiland Rd. Site Location 1901 / J R D APTAKISIC 32 234 236 256 258 1651 1695 3 Co 0 CTW 238 254 CTE 260 1653 1693 ° 555 1655 1691 C 1700 1691 - B 240 250 262 1657 1689 .° � 264 1659 6 242 IIu JOSEPH CT. 248 266 6� �6 LO n m cv N n 268 .. I . r li I I� r r r I� In `' L11 CJl (!I nj 2 N a c`ru G'1 21° �� w uM� to N � .Ni cNn � 2 0 2 cT w r `° V � g 2�0� 212 oN CT. N. 1521 8 1601 16� 'Z11 '- Cnn to crn f r cn r IS 9 35 1607 9 -1 274 ro �° oWO X32 2Cj 1511 w cn I / r r ti5 1509 CD 2 w �' 6p9 27 (5 276 1506 °cn ti5ti� 1506 1507 17 C / 0 213 `'� 278 1504 35 1512 1504 1505 1504 37 1510 0 OT P1. 1509 280 1512 8 211 34 1514 1502 1503 1502 1502 1514 / 6 209 1507 281 282 1500 1516 1500 1501 rn o / 4 = 207 C� w 283 284 M � 1516 '- 205 !y o 285 1423 M 1424 1423 203 �6 �' Z 1425 1422 1421 1501 1527 1412 1409 1404 33 c'p p9 0 1423 1420 1419 IS 503 1525 1400 �'OS 14 0 1421 1418 1417 ISO> 1523 1500 C9T �� p� ti 203 1,9 1417 1416 1415 1521 / 1416 1413 1414 1413 1509 38 1Slg 1 414 1411 1412 1411 El APTAKISIC 0 LOCATION-MAP Weiland Road Commercial Building 1691 -1697 Weiland Rd., Buffalo Grove WEILAND From 1.877.0.3839 Tue Aug 16 11:39:22 2011 PST%e 2 of 2 To the protectors of our zoning and building codes: "Your honor, I was distracted by the SIGNAGE on Aptakisic and Weiland!" SAFETY FIRST! Public Hearing, Tuesday, August 16, 7:00 pm Residents of Aptakisic & Weiland VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE Department of Building & Zoning Fifty Raupp Blvd. Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 -2196 Phone 847 - 459 -2530 Fax 847 - 459 -7944 July 27, 2011 Dear Property Owner, This is to inform you that a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals is being scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. Request is being made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1701 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Herald. As a neighboring property owner, you are hereby notified of the public hearing and invited to attend if you wish to be heard. A copy of the Agenda is posted inside Village Hall or you can access the Agenda at www.vbg.org. If you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, y Brian Sheehan Deputy Building Commissioner /Operations BS /jk 0 ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting AUGUST 3, 2011 1691 -1697 WEILAND ROAD, BG CAR WASH MANAGEMENT, LLC EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS AND SIGN CODE VARIATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Management Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner /Operations Carol Berman, Deputy Building Commissioner /Administration Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Mr. John Imreibe, BG Car Wash Management, LLC PROPOSAL Mr. Imreibe is proposing exterior building modifications to the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road. The proposed modifications include color changes to the building and to construct an exterior mono lift for Dunkin Donuts on the west elevation of the building. Also, request is being made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1701 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the proposed Uniform Sign Package. This request is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on Tuesday, August 16, 2011. Mr. Imreibe explained that he is proposing to change the colors on the building from the current white, black and yellow to earth tone colors. The existing black and yellow band is fading. Dunkin Donuts would like to have a mono lift and wall sign installed on the west elevation facing Weiland Road. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is trying to find ways to identify each tenant space. In conjunction with the proposed sign package, variations have been requested to allow a second wall sign for each tenant in the building. Mr. Sheehan asked if plans have been submitted for the tenants in the two middle spaces. Mr. Imreibe stated that he will be submitting plans for a nail salon shorthly. The mortgage company has moved into the space farthest south and the new nail salon will be located next to the mortgage company. Mrs. Neukirch asked about the existing ground sign located next to the building. Mr. Imreibe stated that currently the ground sign has a car wash panel, car wash price panel and a Dunkin Donuts panel. He has been advising new and prospective tenant that they will not be allowed any signage on the ground sign. w • He would like to keep the ground sign for the anchor tenants. Dunkin Donuts also already has two (2) wall signs. He would like the tenant to have a second sign facing Weiland Road to help identify the tenants in the building. Mr. Imreibe also advised that he would to install fabric awnings over the windows to dress up the building and protect the building from the elements. Com. Windecker asked about other Dunkin Donuts locations that have a mono lift. Mr. Imreibe stated Dunkin Donuts have the mono lift at several other locations. Most are on the stand alone stores but some are at in line retail locations. Com. Windecker stated that Dunkin Donuts has tenant panels on both ground signs on the property and questioned why they also want two wall signs. Mr. Imreibe stated that Dunkin Donuts currently has two (2) wall signs. Mr. Sheehan asked if Dunkin Donuts would be reusing the existing wall signs. Mr. Imreibe is not sure if they would reuse the existing or install new ones. Com. Windecker would like the height of the existing building to be provided. Mr. Imreibe stated that he can get the measurement. He added that he is requesting the signage on behalf of Dunkin Donuts because they have signed a ten (10) year lease. He also advised that he will not modify the exterior of the building for any other tenant other than Dunkin Donuts. He believes that the proposed mono lift is compatible with the other proposed modifications. Mr. Sheehan asked if Mr. Imreibe could provide the addresses of some of the other Dunkin Donuts locations where the mono lift has been utilized. Mrs. Neukirch stated that she cannot support the request for the mono lift without seeing some other comparable features added to the building. She also stated that she cannot support wall signs on both the east and west elevations of the building. A drawing accurately depicting the location of the doors for each of the tenant spaces was requested to be provided. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is requesting signs on both elevations since the entrances to the tenant spaces are facing the railroad tracks. The requested signs are for the benefit of customers being able to locate the tenants once they enter the parking lot. Once the building is completely occupied it will be difficult to identify the tenant locations. Mr. Sheehan requested that both existing and proposed elevations for each elevation of the building be provided. Mr. Imreibe added that part of the reason for the request is so that every tenant that comes into the building would not have to apply for a variance for a second wall sign. Currently customers have a difficult time in the parking lot and with multiple tenants it will be more difficult. He would like the ground sign to remain with just the two (2) major tenants on the property. Com. Windecker asked what makes Dunkin Donuts a major tenant. Mr. Imreibe stated that Dunkin Donuts pays a lot more in rent than the other tenants. Com. Windecker suggested that it might be better to propose changing the current ground sign in lieu of asking for additional wall signs. Mr. Sheehan agrees and believes that the existing ground sign in front of the building could be modified to include tenant panels in lieu of four additional wall signs on the west elevation. Mrs. Berman asked why the proposed wall signs on the west elevation are not centered over the windows. Mr. Imreibe stated that the proposed wall signs are actually centered over the lease space. The windows do not accurately reflect the location of the lease spaces. Mr. Pfeil agrees that the signs, aesthetically, would look better if they were centered over the windows. Mrs. Neukirch requested that the dimensions of the sign band be provided and to limit the wall signs to within the sign band. She also requested that a sample of a sign on the west elevation be provided. Mr. Imreibe stated that he can provide a sample of a sign on the west elevation but he does not know for sure what a tenant will request for signage. Mr. Sheehan stated that normally a uniform sign package for a shopping center would limit the number of colors in order to create some uniformity. He suggested that the proposed sign package by amended to limit the number of sign colors. Mr. Pfeil stated that the lease spaces appear to be close in dimensions and that the signs should be identical in height and width. Mr. Imreibe stated that the architect, Dave Wytmar, took the dimensions for the proposed wall signs based on the criteria set forth in the Sign Code. Mr. Sheehan confirmed that Mr. Wytmar kept everything consistent with the Sign Code. Mr. Sheehan suggested that the signs on the east elevation could possibly be much smaller since at that point their use is not as much an advertizing use but are being used in locating the entrance to the business. This might also be accomplished by using window or door signage with the name of the business. The signs on the west elevation may look better if they were more uniform in appearance. Mrs. Berman stated that the ART recommends scheduling a meeting with Mr. Wytmar present. Mrs. Berman also requested renderings of all elevations of the building be provided with the existing signage shown. Mr. Sheehan stated that he would research what signs are existing for Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Imreibe stated that he understands the comments of the ART although he does not understand the issue with the proposed signs on the east elevation since they would face the railroad tracks. Mr. Sheehan agrees with Ms. Berman and that it might be beneficial to sit down with all parties present to discuss this matter further. If that could not be accomplished prior to the August 16 ZBA meeting, the matter could possibly be tabled at the ZBA meeting for the next meeting date, but that would be up to the petitioner. Mr. Imreibe inquired if the sizes of the wall signs would be dictated by the name of the business. Mr. Sheehan advised that in most of the exisiting sign packages, the size of the sign is usually allowed to be up to a certain percentage of the lease space. The length of the name of the business will play a major part in the length of the sign, as most companies will try and keep the height and width somewhat complementary. Mr. Sheehan stated that he would provide photographs of all the existing elevations and the two (2) ground signs. Mr. Imreibe should provide photographs of other Dunkin Donuts locations that feature the mono lift and rework the proposed elevations to show the proposed wall signs possibly centered over the windows. Mrs. Berman asked what Dunkin Donuts would do if the mono lift was not approved. Mr. Imreibe stated that Dunkin Donuts would most likely just keep their two (2) existing wall signs. Mr. Imreibe provided samples of the proposed colors "Sandstone" and "Sierra Tan" and also provided a material sample of the proposed awnings. RECOMMENDATION The ART will withhold any recommendation pending the submittal of the following requested information: 1. Provide all existing and proposed building elevations and signage (Village staff to provide); 2. Modify the proposed uniform sign package to limit the number of sign colors and to provide a uniform dimension (width) for all wall signs; 3. Provide the dimensions of the sign band on the west elevation and limit the proposed wall signs to within the sign band; 4. Reduce the size of the proposed wall signs on the east elevation; and 5. Review the possibility of utilizing of the existing ground sign located in front of the building to identify the building tenants; 6. Provide the addresses of some of the other Dunkin Donuts locations where the mono lift has been utilized. 0 1 w Once the requested information has been received, further review will be conducted and a recommendation will be provided. Due to the number of outstanding issues and varied opinions, a second meeting is recommended with all parties present to discuss this matter further. Prepared by: Julie Kamka Building & Zoning Department ART (Appearance Review Team) Meeting SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 1691 -1697 WEILAND ROAD, BG CAR WASH MANAGEMENT, LLC SIGN CODE VARIATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE PRESENT Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Management Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner /Operations Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Louis Windecker, ZBA Commissioner Joseph Wallace, Plan Examiner Steven Trilling, Village Trustee John Imreibe, BG Car Wash Management, LLC David Wytmar, Groundwork, Inc. PROPOSAL Mr. Wytmar reviewed the revised proposal. When the building was constructed thirteen (13) years ago, Dunkin Donuts was the only tenant in the building. However, the building was designed as a multi- tenant building. Dunkin Donuts had no reason to install signage other than what they currently have on the front and the back of the building in terms of wall signs. There is an existing ground sign. Dunkin Donuts has since relocated to a smaller space in the building. There are currently three (3) other tenant spaces in the building. Incoming tenants will need signage for their tenant spaces. The building is unique in that it is the only building in the Village that fronts up to a roadway and does not have the parking between the street and the building. When driving by the building, the signage is necessary to see the building tenants from the street. Once people drive around the building, signage will be needed to find the tenant spaces. If the signage is not there, people may think that the business is no longer there. They have put together a Uniform Sign Package so that every tenant does not have to apply for a separate variance for a second wall sign. The Uniform Sign Package would limit the wall signs to the east and west elevations of the building only. That way tenants would not have to spend a great deal of time requesting a variance. Tenants would be advised that they would be allowed a wall sign on the east and west elevations of the building, no other wall signs allowed. Also, tenants would not be allowed to be on the ground signs, other than Dunkin Donuts. Dunkin Donuts does currently have wall signs on both the east and west elevations of the building. Those signs were approved outright as part of the construction of the building and the car wash building. The Petitioner has worked with staff to work through all the concerns of the ART and ZBA. They have agreed to reduce the size of the wall signs on the east elevation of the building that faces the parking lot in order to minimize the signage. They have also outlined the hardship of the Petitioner. � w Trustee Trilling asked if there are any proposed changes to the existing ground sign. Mr. Wytmar stated that they are not making any changes to the existing ground sign. Trustee Trilling confirmed with Mr. Wytmar that the tenants, other than Dunkin Donuts, will not be identified on the ground sign. Trustee Trilling also confirm that both the north and south ground signs have both the car wash and Dunkin Donuts panels on them. Both the north and south ground signs are basically the same. Mr. Wytmar advised that the ground signs were installed at the time the buildings were constructed. They were modified when Mr. Imreibe took ownership of the properties. Trustee Trilling asked if the ground signs are within two hundred fifty (250) feet of one another. Mr. Imreibe stated that the ground signs are well beyond two hundred fifty (250) feet of one another. Mr. Sheehan advised that a variance was granted a few years ago for the ground signs to allow changeable copy for the car wash pricing only. That way Mr. Imreibe would not have to request a separate variance every time he wanted to change the car wash price on the ground signs. Trustee Trilling asked if the car wash building and the commercial building are under the same ownership. Mr. Imreibe confirmed that he owns both properties. Mr. Wytmar stated that purpose of the Uniform Sign Package is not to allow tenants more signage, but to provide a duplicate sign on the other side of the building so people can find the tenant once they enter the parking lot. Putting signage on the ground sign would not achieve their goal. By having a Uniform Sign Package, tenants will be advised that they will not be allowed signage on the ground sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that based on previous discussions, the Petitioner is proposing signs on the east and west elevation of the building and no other elevation. It has been discussed to put signs on the awnings instead of a wall sign, but the Petitioner did not believe that would be cost effective as they would have to change the awning every time there was a new tenant. The Petitioner did not want to modify the ground sign and have to go through the variation process with the ground sign. They believe that their request to allow wall signs on both the east and the west elevations is best solution for both the tenants and for the Petitioner. They also feel that to allow wall signs on the east will help direct customers to the correct unit. They have discussed why they felt windows signs would not be appropriate or as easily readable and useable for potential customers to find the locations of the units. Mrs. Neukirch stated that the Petitioner has done a nice job of addressing all the questions of from the ZBA in the commentary. She believes that the additional documentation is helpful because it is a good illustration of sample wall signs and how they would be positioned on the building. Mr. Wytmar stated that the Exhibit of the sample signs shows that if there are two (2) units a tenant can place the signs anywhere. It may not just be the two (2) end units, but the middle units as well. A sign will have to fit within the allowable sign area. The goal is to make it look as nice as they can. The Petitioner wants the building to look nice. The Village will provide oversight as well. Com. Windecker stated that on the commentary under comment number 9, it states that if a new tenant comes into space, the existing wall sign would be removed and new wall sign would need to conform to the Uniform Sign package. Com. Windecker stated that a new tenant would not have a right to the existing Dunkin Donut signs. Mr. Wytmar stated that is correct. Dunkin Donuts has the two (2) wall signs. Both signs are the same size on both the east and west elevations of the building. If a new tenant comes into that space, the entire wall sign on both elevations would come down and those signs cannot be reused. The tenant would have to put a new sign up that would have to conform to the Uniform Sign Package. Mr. Imreibe added that he believes that he can get Dunkin Donuts to comply with the new sign sizes. Mr. Sheehan stated that most of the new Dunkin Donuts signs are different than those existing on the building today. They tend not to use the box signs but use channel letter style signs. Mr. Wytmar stated that the Exhibit with the sample signs with the sign area boxes is a good example of signage in this day and age. Everyone has a certain style and look that they are going for. For example, if T- Mobile only occupied one (1) unit they would have a very narrow sign just because the sign area is limited in both directions. Mr. Sheehan asked if the sign area on the east elevation is limited to eighty (80) percent. Mr. Wytmar stated that it is roughly eighty (80) percent. He rounded up to the nearest inch to make it easier for the sign manufacturers. The uniform sign package has a specific maximum sign dimension that can be placed on both the east and west elevation, and the east elevation size is approximately 80% of the west elevation allowable size. Trustee Trilling asked about the number of egresses for each tenant space. The egress is equally as important as the signage to know how to get in and where to get into the spaces. Some units have south elevations and north elevations where the sign will not be located over the doorway or entrance. It appears that one (1) tenant space does not have a secondary means of egress. He was looking at the elevations without any floor plans; he was counting the number of doors and it did not add up. Mr. Wytmar stated that was the case up until they came into this process.. When it became a multi- tenant building they provided a corridor in the back that allows a secondary egress for the two middle spaces, while the end units both have two exits. The electrical service panels and the knox box are also located in this corridor area. Mr. Wytmar stated that Com. Windecker had a lot of concerns at the ZBA meeting. Com. Windecker stated that he still does not believe that the signs on � w the east elevation make much sense in terms of their size. The reduction was minimal. There will still be eight (8) signs no matter how you look at it. The signs on the east elevation will be appealing only to the trains traveling past on the tracks. The other issue is that the Petitioner could put up a directory sign with tenant panels and the building addresses. He does not believe that the people of Buffalo Grove will not be able to locate four (4) simple places. There is a big Dunkin Donuts sign and three (3) small units. It is overkill on signage. There will be ten (10) signs up; two (2) wall signs, one on each side of the building for each tenant and the two (2) ground signs. That is why it was suggested at the last ZBA meeting to utilize the ground sign for the other tenants. Other ZBA Commissioners thought that if signs are on the west elevation, there is not much of need for signs on the east elevation except possibly a directory to the door that has the address on it and a panel large enough to see, but not three (3) feet high. The signs for the east elevation were only reduced by eight (8) inches. Trustee Trilling asked about the size of the current Dunkin Donuts sign. Mr. Wytmar stated that he believes it is right at the three (3) foot eight (8) inches high by six (6) foot nine (9) inches wide. That is the maximum size permitted without a variation. Trustee Trilling asked if it is the Petitioner's intent to upgrade the sign architecturally to look more representative of the sample signs Exhibit. Mr. Wytmar stated that Mr. Imreibe is encouraging the channel letters although more people are getting away from the box signs. The Uniform Sign Package does allow box signs. Mr. Sheehan asked if any thought was given to allowing Dunkin Donuts the existing box sign but requiring all new signs to be channel letters. Mr. Wytmar stated that these days signage is a lot more sophisticated and people are always coming up with something better. For example the new Dunkin Donuts signage has a coffee cup logo that is a box sign but it is cut to shape. Mr. Sheehan stated that would be looked at as a logo and not as a box sign. Mr. Wytmar added that the point he is trying to make is that businesses want to represent their stores appropriately and they want the sign to look nice. Twenty (20) years ago you could put big block letters up and that worked. These days everyone is creating nicer signs. No one knows what will happen in the next several years. There are certain limitations that a box sign provides and people will always be creative. This is not a building where you will get a nice long sign across the building. The signs will be small and compact. Part of what they are seeing is that these days everyone is in their cars and all they do is drive and no one wants to get out of their car. As people are driving by and they drive into the parking lot if there are cars parked in the front row people cannot see window signs. People come into a center and see a sign and know that is what they are looking for. He went to City Park looking for the Pot Belly's restaurant. He saw the sign on the outside and he was taking pictures of it. He went into the center and he did not see the sign so he thought that they had closed and moved away. It was not until he had walked around the center a bit that he found the Pot Belly's sign on the side kind of hidden. It hit them that this is how things work. If people see a sign for a nail salon as they have driven past it several times and want to try that nail salon and they go into the parking lot and they do not see it, W 1 0 they see a blank wall, they will think that the nail salon went out of business and will go to another nail salon. He does not believe that people will get out of their cars to look for a building directory. They are trying to complete against that lost business. There has not been an issue with regulating signs on the back of a building because tenants do not want a sign on the back of the building because no one will see it. This building is unique in that the back of the building faces the street and the tenants need people to recognize that they are still in business. Mr. Imreibe stated that if the Uniform Sign Package is not approved it will cause issues with tenants wanting a sign on the east elevation and another tenant wanting the sign on the west elevation. The nail salon has already expressed that she would like her sign on the east elevation of the building. She does not want a sign on the west elevation. He does not want to have some signs here and some signs there. There would be no uniformity. This Uniform Sign Package is essential and needs to be done. Every shopping retail center has signage above their storefront. It is vital to be able to see the sign from a distance. Com. Windecker stated that there should be either a Uniform Sign Package where everybody is represented on the west elevation and possibly the east elevation. There is an appearance of the building from the roadway that the Village does not want to disrupt. Mr. Wytmar stated that the way the Sign Code reads is that the tenants would be allowed signage that is one (1) size that can be placed either on the east elevation or the west elevation or they could put it on the north elevation or the south elevation. With the Uniform Sign Package the tenants would be required to provide a wall sign on the west elevation. If the tenant would want a sign on the east elevation it would have to be smaller and only if there is a sign on the west elevation. The tenant may opt not to have a sign. It may be a type of business that does not generate walk in traffic and does not need signage. The proposed Uniform Sign Package is very clear how it works and he believes it makes sense. Mr. Imreibe added that if the Uniform Sign Package is not approved, the nail salon tenant could, technically, put a larger sign on the east elevation of the building with nothing on the west elevation. He believes that would not be aesthetically pleasing. Mrs. Neukirch stated that since the last meeting she has had an opportunity to look at other municipal regulations and look at this building. This is somewhat new territory to the Village because there is no other multi- tenant commercial building in the Village at this time similar to this building. She understands the concerns of Com. Windecker. She is amenable to the revised Uniform Sign Package that was submitted. The signage on the east elevation truly does not face any residential properties; it does not face anyone other than the people driving behind the building. She does not believe that anyone from the community would object. When she is driving around she does not count the number of signs. She believes that it makes sense to know where a business is located. She is inclined to support the revised request. She appreciates the work that was done to get to this point. She needed to understand why window signs would not work. It also makes sense regarding awning signs and having to change them every time there is a new tenant. Mr. Sheehan stated that in the photograph of the east elevation of the existing building there is a van. If there was a window sign there he would not be able to read the sign. He can understand the Petitioner's view of window signs not being effective, especially if there are numerous SUV's parking across the front of the lot. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is at the site quite often and if you go to the site between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Dunkin Donuts is very busy. They are technically the only tenant in the building and have been the only tenant in the building. It is surprising how many people walk to the other set of doors and pull on those doors trying to get into Dunkin Donuts. He has seen earlier drawings of the building and Dunkin Donuts originally proposed the wall sign to be centered on the building, but they chose to locate the sign closer to the door to direct people into the entrance. Trustee Trilling stated that this is a unique building because it is constructed of a split face block, which is not consistent with other types of materials that have been used in shopping centers. This is more of an industrial look. He believes that may be because of the car wash building located next to it. The Petitioner has tried to dress the building up with a glazed block as a ribbon or accent. It also created more difficulty in trying to create a uniform sign band because on most other commercial buildings the area above the storefront is a clean, neat space. Here there are three (3) colors to begin with. There is a lot going on, a lot more than what the Petitioner's want going on. But it is what the Petitioner has. Mr. Wytmar added that at the time that building was constructed, channel letters were really expensive. Everyone went with a square box sign. It was not an issue back then. This is an example of how signage keeps changing. Trustee Trilling stated that to him the box sign is ugly relative to newer or better signage that is available. He would deter tenants from using a box sign but there needs to be a consistent background behind the channel letters because some colors do not go well with yellow and black. He agrees that people need to know on Weiland Road that their destination is there as they are driving by. He agrees that as you drive around the corner into the parking lot, you need to know where you are going. Because if you do not know where you are going, it is not readily apparent that store is either in place or that they are physically operating. He would be apt to just turn around and keep driving down the street. You need the identification to know which door you enter to get in. The other part is how you get in. There are entrances on the north and south elevations of the building. With Dunkin Donuts, people have become accustomed to knowing that you have to go around the corner to enter the unit. He recalls the first time he went there he did not know where to enter the unit. He does not see an issue with the two (2) doors in the center of the building. There may be an issue with the southern most tenant space. Hopefully when people come around the corner they will see the entrance on the south before they enter the parking lot. He agrees that there needs to be visibility otherwise it will not benefit the tenant. Mr. Sheehan stated that once people are in the parking lot, the size of the sign does not need to be as large as on the west elevation. The proposed east elevation wall signs have been down sized. He is inclined to support the request. Mr. Wytmar stated to Trustee Trilling that they discussed requiring that the signs are located over the entry to the tenant unit, but if someone drives into the parking lot they may not see the sign on that elevation. Mr. Sheehan stated that if the sign was over the entry for Dunkin Donuts people would not see it unless they are at the car wash. Trustee Trilling stated that he believes that on the west elevation it is more important to have uniformity as a building, especially when people drive by everyday. On the east elevation he believes that it is less important to have uniformity and more important to have directional type signage. Mrs. Neukirch agrees and does not believe it would look good if the Village limits to one (1) sign and the tenant has to pick which side they want the sign on because it would look like a hodge podge. Mr. Wytmar stated that Sign A Rama used to be on Dundee Road next to the Kinko's. He has seen the sign a hundred times. He drove into the parking lot and the sign was not there, so he drove away. They were out of business. They want to be real clear that they are not looking for more signage opportunities for each tenant. For example the Jersey Mike's has a wall sign on one (1) elevation of the building and then on the backside of the building, there is a different style logo sign. They are not trying to allow all of the tenant's different styles of signage. They want to be very specific in that if there are stack letters on one (1) elevation, then they will have the stack letters on the other elevation as well. It is the same sign; just one (1) is smaller. They want consistency. Mr. Wytmar explained that every business in Buffalo Grove already has two (2) signs; the sign you see from the street and the sign you see from the parking lot. In most cases they are the same sign. If you drive by and you see a sign, you drive over and go into the parking lot, park, and get out of your car and you see the sign and say that is where you are going. Two (2) signs serving two (2) purposes but most of the time it is a single sign. Mr. Sheehan asked if under the Sign Criteria Wall Signage Requirements, Number 4, the Petitioner would be willing to add that on the west elevation the sign shall be centrally located over the space. Then on the east elevation the tenant would have the option to locate the sign where they want it. Trustee Trilling added that the Petitioner should come up with a centerline dimension of each sign. The west elevation Exhibit submitted is very clean and neat even though the signs are shown in the center of the tenant's space. In order to continue with the pattern that has been established, the current Dunkin Donuts sign would need to be moved. Currently on the west elevation, the Dunkin Donuts sign is off to the side. He asked if the Petitioner is willing to move that sign in order to continue with the pattern. Mr. Imreibe stated that he believes he can get Dunkin Donuts to move that sign or replace the sign. Mr. Wytmar stated that he understands what is being requested. However, if a tenant comes in and wants to take three (3) tenant spaces or two (2) spaces, would it be the center of the entire space. The idea is that generally the signs will be spaced out. The building will look nice and the signs will not be all clumped together. There are also trees located in front of the building facing Weiland Road. There is one (1) tree that would be right where one (1) of the wall signs would go. Do they put the sign behind the tree, do they cut the tree down or do they move the sign over a little bit. Trustee Trilling stated that there is the ground sign. He suggests that the Petitioner look at what is going on at the site and bring back something that makes sense. Mr. Wytmar asked for clarification on what he is supposed to bring back. Trustee Trilling stated that he cannot see anything else but addressing the many possible sign combinations that could occur at this building. Mr. Wytmar stated that there will always be what ifs. Trustee Trilling stated that the Petitioner could go with the proposed as the planning tool. The signs are for the purpose of identifying that the business is there. Once someone drives around to the east side the signs would be more directional and not as much of identification. He believes that the Petitioner can keep the pattern on the west elevation regardless of whether there is one (1) tenant taking three (3) spaces or one (1) tenant taking two (2) spaces. Because if a tenant is taking three (3) spaces, the sign could go there and would still be alright to go in there or there (pointing to an area on the Exhibit). Mr. Wytmar and Mr. Imreibe agree. Mr. Imreibe stated that he believes that nine (9) out of ten (10) times the tenant will want to center the sign anyway. Trustee Trilling responded that the problem with centering is that this building was not built like most retail centers where there is a demarcation between tenant spaces with columns or something visual from the outside that delineates the tenant spaces. There is nothing here that tells someone where a space starts or stops. Mr. Imreibe stated that if you look at some of the new retail developments they utilize different brick colors to distinguish the separate spaces that are available. Trustee Trilling stated that it could be something as simple as creating reveal or a shadow. It could be all kinds of things that delineate tenant spaces. Here you will never be able to tell from the west elevation where the tenant spaces begin and end. Mrs. Neukirch asked Trustee Trilling if he would feel comfortable that under Placement, if they reference the Exhibit, marked as Exhibit "A ". Trustee Trilling stated that each case would need to be looked at. Mr. Wytmar stated that they will add the language that the signs shall generally be uniformly spaced and generally centered in orchestration with the west elevation. Mr. Pfeil asked if logos will be permitted. Mr. Wytmar stated they included logos that are regionally or nationally recognized. Com. Windecker asked what is 0 meant by regionally recognized. Mr. Sheehan stated that Portillo's is a good example of regional. Mr. Wytmar added that Deerfields Bakery would be considered a regional logo. Go Roma right now is a regional logo. Mr. Sheehan stated that it could not be a single store and would have to be approved by both the landlord and the Vilalge. Mr. Wytmar stated that Platinum Nails would not be allowed a logo because it is a one (1) location business. Com. Windecker asked about the hours of operation for Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Imreibe stated that Dunkin Donuts is open from 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Com. Windecker advised that the Petitioner is requesting to allow the signs to be illuminated until 11:30 p.m. Mr. Wytmar stated that the signs would be illuminated no later than 11:30 p.m. Com. Windecker stated that normally a time limit on illumination is established. Mr. Imreibe stated that until the building was recently finalized with the electrical work there were two (2) timers; one (1) for parking lot lights and one (1) for the Dunkin Donuts signage. Dunkin Donuts was in control of the signs. He stated that he can require that the signs are on a timer within each tenant space. Mr. Imreibe asked about the concern with illuminated signs. Com. Windecker stated that 11:30 p.m. is not usually approved. Mr. Sheehan added that if the business is closed there is no need for the sign to be illuminated. If the business is open all night that is a different story. Com. Windecker stated that the other night, the Dunkin Donuts sign was on late and they were not open. Trustee Trilling stated that if one (1) sign is illuminated and the other three (3) are not, it should be uniform in some fashion. Mr. Imreibe asked if it was the ground sign or wall sign on late. Com. Windecker stated that it was the wall sign. Mr. Imreibe stated that he would address that issue with each tenant. Com. Windecker stated that it is OK if Dunkin Donuts wants to advertise but he does not believe that the sign has to be on at 11:30 p.m. He believes that turning the sign off at 10:00 p.m. would be sufficient if they close at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Imreibe agrees. Mr. Wytmar asked if it would be amenable to allow the signs to be illuminated to 10:30 p.m. on week days and 11:30 p.m. on the weekends. Trustee Trilling stated that he believes it would be the same no matter what because these spaces will not be used any later on the weekend than they would during the week. It would be different if there was a bar or restaurant use. Mr. Sheehan suggested tying the sign illumination to either 10:00 p.m. or the hours of operation of the tenant. Mr. Imreibe stated that he believes that the Dunkin Donuts sign is on a photo cell which is why it is on all night. He stated that he can put a timer in for each tenant's sign. Mr. Sheehan confirmed with Mr. Imreibe that the existing fagade would be replaced to its original condition after a sign is removed in lieu of just patching the glazed block. Trustee Trilling asked that this requirement to be added to the Uniform Sign Package as he would not want to see a bunch of patching done, but the damaged block fully replaced. Mr. Sheehan stated that based on the conversations he will recommend approval of the proposed Uniform Sign Package and sign variation with the requested changes. There were no additional questions or comments from the ART. Mrs. Neukirch made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Uniform Sign Package dated August 26, 2011 with the proposed language changes as discussed. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Wallace, Neukirch, Windecker, Pfeil, Sheehan, Trilling NAY — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Recommendation to be forwarded to the ZBA for the September 20, 2011 meeting. Prepared by: Julie Kamka Building & Zoning Department UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE WETLAND ROAD COMMERCIAL BUILDING 1691 -1697 Weiland Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois September 2, 2011 GENERAL: Approved signing may occur within the limitations specified herein. Tenant shall identify its premises by signage at its expense. Tenants shall install all wall signage subject to the following: 1. For each Tenant, one (1) wall sign is allowed on the west elevation (facing Weiland Road) and one (1) additional wall sign is allowed on the east elevation (facing the parking lot) provided it generally matches (or a reduction of) the wall sign on the west elevation. 2. No sign, advertisement, notice or other lettering shall be exhibited, inscribed, painted or affixed on the building, except as specifically approved, in writing, by Landlord. 3. All attachment devices, wiring clips, transformers, lamps, tubes and other mechanisms required for sign shall be concealed. 4. A seven day, 24 hour time clock shall be provided for illumination of Tenant's signs during required hours designated by Landlord. Sign illumination shall be turned off by the end of the hours of operation or by 10:00 PM, whichever is later. 5. All signage shall conform to the Buffalo Grove Sign Code, unless otherwise modified herein. 6. Signage shall be subject to Landlord and Village staff approval, and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7. Tenant signage on awnings is not allowed. 8. Tenant signage on the north elevation and the south elevation is not allowed. 9. Signage required or requested by the Village or by the Fire Department is exempt from this Uniform Sign Package. PERMITTED WALL SIGNS: Only the following types of signs and sign components and devices shall be permitted: 1. Individual, internally illuminated channel letter signs. 2. Internally illuminated box signs. WALL SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Size A. Maximum size of signage for Tenant Units shall be: UNIT WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 1) Unit 1691 3' -8" High x 64" Wide 3' -0" High x 5' -2" Wide 2) Unit 1693 3' -8" High x T -3" Wide 3' -0" High x 5' -11" Wide 3) Unit 1695 T -8" High x 6-10" Wide 3' -0" High x 5' -7" Wide 4) Unit 1697 3' -8" High x 6' -9" Wide 3' -0" High x 5' -6" Wide B. If a single Tenant combines adjacent units, the maximum width of signage for the individual units shall be combined. Maximum height listed may not be increased. C. When multiple rows of lettering are used, overall height is not to exceed maximum height listed, including space between rows. D. Signage for a particular tenant in existence at the time of this Uniform Sign Package is not required to reduce its size to conform to these requirements. E. When a Tenant leaves, the sign shall be removed and the building face at the sign shall be restored. 1 2. Style A. Lettering shall be subject to Landlord and Village staff approval. B. Logos shall be permitted subject to Landlord and Village staff approval. C. Business names whose colors, fonts and text styles are nationally or regionally recognizable or trademarked shall be permitted subject to Landlord and Village staff approval. 3. Colors and Material A. Colors for channel letters shall be black, white, red, brown, or blue. Sign face shall be a uniform color, except for nationally or regionally recognizable or trademarked business names. B. Colors are subject to Landlord and Village staff approval. C. No exposed neon tube lighting shall be used on exterior signage. D. 0.040 aluminum returns shall be black, white or shall match the color of the sign face. E. Raceways shall be provided for channel letters, and those raceways shall be of a color that generally blends to the background of the building. 4. Placement A. Signage shall not be any closer than F from either end of Tenant's lease space. B. Signage shall generally be centered vertically between the top of the windows and the top of the building parapet. C. Wall signs on the west elevation shall generally be evenly spaced and visually centered on window /door openings or the walls between window /door openings, similar to Exhibit A. 5. Mounting A. Mount directly onto building with no exposed connections. Channel letters shall have raceways. Final electrical hook up to be performed by a licensed electrical contractor. No exposed cable or wiring shall be permitted. Tenant to repair any holes made during install, or will be made and billed to Tenant. 6. Approval A. Two (2) sets of sign shop drawings are to be submitted to the Landlord for approval. B. After Landlord's approval of sign shop drawings, the Tenant shall submit the drawings to the Village of Buffalo Grove for their approval. PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE FOR THE COMPLETION OF SIGN DRAWINGS: 1. Landlord's approval of Tenant's store layout drawings or working drawings shall not constitute approval of signs. Within 30 days of receipt of lease package from Landlord, Tenant shall submit to Landlord sign drawings and specifications. Sign shop drawings shall clearly show the location of each sign on each elevation and indicate graphics, color, materials and construction and attachment details. 2. Within a reasonable period after receipt of said sign shop drawings, Landlord shall return one (1) set of said sign shop drawings marked either "Approved ", "Approved as Noted ", or "Revise and Resubmit ". If said sign shop drawings are returned without Landlord's approval, said sign drawings shall be revised and resubmitted to Landlord for approval within 15 days of Landlord's transmittal. 3. Tenant shall not construe Landlord's approval of the sign as approval by Village for sign permit. After approval by Landlord, Tenant's sign contractor shall submit to the Village for required sign permit. Send copy of sign permit approval to Landlord prior to installation. PA W 0 AMENDMENTS: 1. Tenant shall be able to submit a written request for an amendment, if desired, from regulations required in this sign criteria. Any request for a sign criteria amendment shall be reviewed and approved by the Landlord and the Zoning Board of Appeals. DURATION: 1. This Uniform Sign Package and any variance contained herein shall remain in force and shall not expire unless significant alterations are made to the building exterior or to the site. Change of businesses within the building would not constitute a significant alteration. END ki PRESENTED TO THE APPEARANCE REVIEW TEAM Meeting #' ,jiA Date: Action: e:Oy+'4f 10� go PAINTED CMU BAND EXHIBIT A UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE Weiland Road Commercial Building 1691 -1697 Weiland Rd., Buffalo Grove September 2, 2011 EXISTING SPLIT FACE MASONRY (WHITE) 1697 WEILAND ROAD 1695 WEILAND ROAD 1693 WEILAND ROAD 1691 WEILAND ROAD 20' -3 1/2" FRONTAGE 20' -8 1/2" FRONTAGE 21' -11" FRONTAGE 19' -1" FRONTAGE WEST ELEVATION (FACING WEILAND ROAD) , c i� PAINTED CMU BAND EXISTING SPLIT FACE MASONRY (WHITE) EXISTING GLAZED CMU BANDS (WHITE) EXHIBIT B UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE Weiland Road Commercial Building 1691 -1697 Weiland Rd., Buffalo Grove September 2, 2011 5' -2" WIDE 5' -11" WIDE 5' -7" WIDE 5' -6" WIDE X 3' -0" HIGH 7 1 X 3' -0" HIGH X 3' -0" HIGH X 3' -0" HIGH (MA � (MAX) (MAX) / (MAX)7 /J7 L..._ I 1691 WEILAND ROAD 1693 WEILAND ROAD 1695 WEILAND ROAD ' 1697 WEILAND ROAD 19' -1" FRONTAGE 21' -11" FRONTAGE 20' -8 1 /2" FRONTAGE 20' -3 1/2" FRONTAGE EAST ELEVATION (FACING PARKING LOTS TT - ---_Tl EXHIBIT C UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE Weiland Road Commercial Building 1697 WEILAND ROAD NORTH ELEVATION (FACING CAR WASH) XT- - 11 - -.4 1691 WEILAND ROAD SOUTH ELEVATION (FACING OLD WEILAND ROAD) o Grove 2, 2011 r L • Page 1 of 2 BG Car Wash Managemant, LLC entmanlaw .►'' to: bsheehan 09/20/201101:38 PM Hide Details From: entmanlaw @aol.com To: bsheehan @vbg.org Brian: I hope all is well. I just want to discuss this matter. I spoke to Julie earlier today, to advise her that I most likely will not be in attendance at the ZBA meeting tonight. As a result, she suggested that I provide you with any comments I may have, in regard to this matter. In that regard, please note the following: 1. 1 prefer, as always, the smallest sign possible, under the allowable circumstances. 2. 1 prefer, as always, signage that is aesthetically pleasing, and that allows for easy installation and removal, with no, or damage or visible evidence of removal. 3. 1 am not necessarily in agreement with Mr. Wytmar's assertion that ground signage would not allow patrons to locate the specific businesses. 4. As I have stated numerous times over the years, I believe the type, size and content of all signage is directly dependent upon, and should be subject to the nature of the business. A professional office usually does not, depending upon the circumstances, have the same factors for the signage as, say, a retail establishment. Also, as we have always discussed, a destination business may not have the same signage needs as a drive -by, impulse -based business. 5. All signage should be uniform, especially in regard to colors, size and location. Dunkin Donuts included, as a condition of approving any Sign Package.. 6. 1 do not agree with the conclusion derived by Mr. Wytmar's "Potbelly" story. 7. This is a small strip center, not, obviously Town Center or City Park. I am not of the opinion that the issues facing those centers are all relevant to this property. It is not difficult to determine, with only four tenants, who they are and where they are located. Even if you are forced to get out of the car, you are within a few feet of an entrance allowing you to determine the tenant, not a mile away, as with larger properties. 8. Mr. Imreibe was concerned that without a sign package, some tenants would want signs on the east, and some on the west. That is not the point. A sign package could, conceivably, provide for all signage to be on only one elevation, say the west. 9. 1 agree with restrictive hours of illumination, as short as possible. 10. 1 agree that the use of logos must be carefully regulated and SPECIFICALLY defined, so that there is no future dispute. 11. 1 agree that the Village must have the right of final approval and determination, where prudent or required. 12. 1 agree with the comments that the painting and colors of the building should betaken into account, be file: / /C: \Users \sheehbp\AppData\Local\ Temp \13\notesC91 C27 \— web7141.htm 9/20/2011 Page 2 of 2 uniform and in conformance with aesthetics. 13. 1 do recognize that this property is located in such a manner as to not be intrusive into residential areas, and is also semi - industrial in nature. I do believe, however, that these factors should not necessarily allow for numerous or unneccesary signage. As proposed, the sign package provides for a great deal of signage. If I could attend, I would like to discuss and obtain information as to the use of one tenant identification sign on the east side of the property, in lieu of separate wall signs for each tenant on the east elevation. The west elevation is fine, but perhaps a ground sign (either along the entrance into the parking lot or the existing ground signs), or, or one wall sign, placed centrally on the east elevation (perhaps in the center of the building over the entrance), with changeable panels identifying each tenant. I believe that one, strategically placed, reasonably sized and aesthetically appropriate tenant identification sign would be functional and in concert with our goal of regulating signage. Sorry for this lengthy memo. If you should have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. Best wishes, Bruce file:// C:1 Usersl sheehbp \AppDatalLocal\Temp1131notesC91 C271— web7141.htm 9/20/2011 *.. SAMPLE WALL SIGNS Weiland Road Commercial Building 1691 -1697 Weiland Rd., Buffalo Grove August 26, 2011 Allstate oca TNT WEILAND ROAD 1695 WEILAND ROAD 20' -3 1/2" FRONTAGE 20' -8 1/2" FRONTAGE WEST ELEVATION (FAc1NG WEILAND ROAD) 1693 WEILAND ROAD 1691 WEILAND ROAD 21' -11" FRONTAGE 19' -1" FRONTAGE r I • • • • o YQG Allstate WEILAND ROAD 1695 WEILAND ROAD 20' -3 1/2" FRONTAGE 20' -8 1/2" FRONTAGE WEST ELEVATION (FAc1NG WEILAND ROAD) 1693 WEILAND ROAD 1691 WEILAND ROAD 21' -11" FRONTAGE 19' -1" FRONTAGE r I • • • • o YQG Allstate 1691 WEILAND ROAD 1693 WEILAND ROAD 19' -1" FRONTAGE 21' -11" FRONTAGE EAST ELEVATION (FACING PARKING LOT) 1695 WEILAND ROAD 1697 WEILAND ROAD 20' -8 1 /2" FRONTAGE 20' -3 1/2" FRONTAGE TT... -I] x.........1,,. - -A UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE Weiland Road Commercial Building 1691 -1697 Weiland Rd., Buffalo Grove August 26, 2011 1697 WEILAND ROAD NORTH ELEVATION (FACING CAR WASH) ,.T- - -„ - - - - 1691 WEILAND ROAD SOUTH ELEVATION (FACING OLD WEILAND ROAD) STATE OF ILLINOIS) ss COUNTY OF COOK 1 CERTIFICATE I, Janet M. Sirabian, certify that I am the duly elected and acting Village Clerk of the Village of Buffalo Grove, Cook and Lake Counties, Illinois. I further certify that on October 17, 2011, the Corporate Authorities of the Village passed and approved Ordinance No. 2011 -49 GRANTING VARIATIONS FROM CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE BUFFALO GROVE SIGN CODE BG Car Wash, 1691 -1697 Weiland Rd. prepared, and a copy of such Ordinance was posted in and at the Village Hall, commencing on October 18, 2011 and continuing for at least ten days thereafter. Copies of such Ordinance were also available for public inspection upon request in the Office of Village Clerk. Dated at Buffalo Grove, Illinois, this 18`h day of October, 2011. Vi age Clerk (L4,1-Z �0�f By 10/06/2011 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -49 GRANTING VARIATIONS FROM CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE BUFFALO GROVE SIGN CODE BG Car Wash. at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road WHEREAS, the Village of Buffalo Grove is a Home Rule Unit pursuant to the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and WHEREAS, the real property ( "Property ") hereinafter legally described is zoned in the B -1 Business District and is commonly known as 1691 -1697 Weiland Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois; and, WHEREAS, request was made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC. for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing at which it received testimony on the requested variations; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals made certain findings of fact, made a positive recommendation for the variations, and prepared minutes of the public hearing; and WIIEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Buffalo Grove hereby determine and find that the requested sign variations are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sign Code (Title 14 of the Buffalo Grove Municipal Code) , and that (1) the requirements of the Sign Code would cause undue and unnecessary hardship to the sign user because of unique or unusual conditions pertaining to the property, (2) the granting of the requested variances will not be materially detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity. (3) the unusual conditions applying to the specific property do not apply generally to other properties in the Village, and (4) the granting of the variances will not be contrary to the general objective of the Sign Code of moderating the size, number and obtrusive placement of signs and the reduction of clutter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF r TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, COOK AND LAKE, COUNTIES, ILLINOIS, as follows: Section 1. The preceding WHEREAS clauses are hereby adopted by the Corporate Authorities and made a part hereof. Section 2. Variations are hereby granted to Sections 14.20.030 and 14.20.080 of the Village Sign Code (Title 14 of the Buffalo Grove Municipal Code) for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691 -1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package for the following legally described Property: Lot 2 in the Old Weiland Subdivision, being a Subdivision of part of the northeast 1/4 of Section 28, Township 43 north, Range 11, east of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the Plat thereof recorded December 18, 1996 as Document 3912044, in Lake County, Illinois. Commonly known as: 1691 -1697 Weiland Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 Section 3. The variations are subject to the following conditions: A. The sign shall be installed per the approved Uniform Sign Criteria and Exhibits submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the variation application, and B. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated September 2, 2011 Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, and approval. This Ordinance shall not be codified. AYES: 6 — Berman, Trilling, Sussman, Terson, Stein, Ottenheimer NAYES: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None 2 PASSED: October 17, 2011. APPROVED: October 17, 2011. ATTEST: 'Vil'lage Clerk F:Adocs \clients\ 103.3100\ORM000106608.docx