Loading...
1981-09-21 - Village Board Committee of the Whole - Minutes SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS, HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 , AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS. President Clayton called the meeting to order at 8:28 P.M. Those present were: President Clayton; Trustees Marienthal , Stone, O'Reilly, Hartstein, Gerschefske and Schwartz. Also present were: William Brimm, Acting Village Manager; William Raysa, Village Attorney; James Doyle, Assistant Village Manager. Trustee Schwartz stated that the Appearance Commission had expressed some concerns to him regarding direction to them and review of the existing sign package and other Appearance Commission matters. Appearance Commission Chairman Don Hardt read the following statement: "This Workshop was requested by the Appearance Commission because of recent actions by the Village Board. Specifically, the reversal of the ZBA decision denying the variance per Irving 's For Red Hot Lovers pylon sign. We hope that this Workshop can provide the Appearance Commission with direction on various aspects of the existing Sign Code. In addition, we hope to get your feelings so that the Appearance Commission can administer the policies established by the Village Board. Our questions are meant to get a feeling of your individual ideas and hopefully will result in con- structive direction with respect to future petitioners. We are not questioning the Board's authority to make decisions or rulings, but our questions are directed towards determining the reasons behind the decision- making process so that we may all work for the betterment of the Village." Following are the Appearance Commission 's General Questions Pertaining to the Sign Code, along with the response of the Board to same: 1 . Is the Sign Code too restrictive to the Buffalo Grove business community? Trustee Hartstein responded that he did not think that the Sign Code is too restrictive, but thinks that perhaps there could be some "polishing-up of the Ordinance. Mr. Hardt stated that the Appearance Commission finds problems with the Sign Code that they did not originally anticipate. The Appearance Commission is going to recommend some changes to the Sign Code, discuss these recommended changes with the ZBA, and then present the changes to the Board. 2. Should the restrictions of the Sign Code be relaxed for economic times? Trustee Schwartz stated that he personally did not feel that the Sign Code should be any less restrictive because of economic times. Mr. Schwartz thinks that, since there is an appeal possible of the Appearance Commission 's decision to the Board, perhaps individual Commissioners or Trustees may look differently on economic hardship because of the economy. t-' v M COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE TWO 3. Does the Village Board look at the ramifications of granting a variance; i .e. is the Board concerned about establishing precedents? Trustee Marienthal stated that he does take economic hardship of a businessman into consideration, but he is also aware that a sign variance which is granted will be there for many years to come. Mr. Hardt asked if there is some way in which a petitioner can be made to show actual economic hardship. Trustee Stone stated that each case must be judged on an individual basis. Trustee Marienthal pointed out that a tenant should check into everything, including the Sign Code, before the lease is signed. 4. Should each business be treated as an individual , or should all businesses be treated as equals? (Do restaurants, for example, get special signage considerations?) Trustee O'Reilly stated that if businesses were treated as individuals , the Sign Code would be totally ineffective. Trustee Schwartz stated that the Sign Code should provide uniformity for signs in the Village. Special circumstances may be taken into consideration, but there should not be different criteria for different types of businesses. Trustee Marienthal pointed out the instance where a restaurant in Buffalo Grove was granted a pylon sign for a trial period of one year to see if, in fact, their business did substantially increase because of the sign. Mr. Hardt pointed out that, when the Board grants a variance, it sets a precedent, and petitioners bring pictures of variances questioning why someone else can have a variance and they cannot. He stated that a great deal of care should be taken when granting variances. President Clayton stated that she thinks the Board does consider greatly the matter of setting a precedent. Mr. Hardt asked how the Appearance Commission is expected to treat precedents. Trustee Gerschefske stated that each case should be treated on an individual basis . 5. Does the Board plan to be more restrictive in some areas, and more lenient in other geographical areas, within the Village? It seems that the Board is more restrictive on Lake-Cook Road than they are on Dundee Road. Trustee Marienthal stated that he would treat every area of the Village the same. No members of the Board disagreed with that statement. 6. Are the resident's rights considered prior to granting variances, or is the Board business-oriented? The answer was that the rights of everyone in the Village are taken into consideration when a decision is made. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE THREE 7. Is the Board influenced by a petitioner's threat to take his business to a location other than Buffalo Grove? The feeling of the Board was that this would carry no more weight than any other factor in the decision. 8. What is the Board's feeling with respect to the current restriction requiring a 300' minimum frontage for the placement of a pylon sign? What about the restriction of requiring a minimum of 500' between any two pylon signs? Trustee Schwartz stated that he would like to have recommendations from the Appearance Commission regarding this question, since they are the ones that deal with the Sign Code on a regular basis. 9. Is the Board in favor of logos? Trustee Hartstein stated that he would, in general , frown upon logos; however, if they are linked to identification of the business, he would consider allowing them. Trustee Stone stated that the policy which has been followed regarding logos has worked very well , and he thinks each case must be handled on an individual basis. 10. Regarding real estate signs, the Appearance Commission is questioning whether or not the restrictions on real estate signs should remain in the Sign Code if they are not going to be enforced. The Board would like the Appearance Commission, in their recommendations, to bring to the Board's attention the portions of the Sign Code which are not being enforced. 11 . The way the variation process to the ZBA now stands, the Appearance Commission ife not supposed to review any sign requiring a variation; they are to instruct the petitioner to go to the ZBA; the process is filed and the petitioner appears before the ZBA; the ZBA grants the variance and the petitioner comes back to the Appearance Commission; the Appearance Commission agrees with what the petitioner is submitting for his sign; the Appearance Commission instructs the administrator with the Building Department to issue the permit. If the ZBA denies the variation the petitioner may go to the Board for appeal ; if the Appearance Commission denies the submittal , the petitioner may also go to the Board. The question has come up several times on behalf of the ZBA that they have not been able to get input from the Appearance Commission prior to moving on a variation. Trustee Schwartz stated that the ZBA and the Appearance Commission are charged with two different functions , and he believes that the way the system ideally should work now is proper for the petitioner and `./ the Village. The Appearance Commission will review the above process and make a recommendation to the Board to attempt to streamline the process. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE FOUR 12. Would the Village Board be receptive to a possible change in the Sign Code requiring signage for a new business to conform to the existing Code? Specifically, if a business comes into the Village and there is a name change of the business establishment, we would ask that the legal non-conforming status of the previous sign would expire and that the new sign be required to conform to the existing Sign Code. This is an attempt to improve the signage in the Village without creating a hardship on the existing business community. It should be noted that, if an owner buys a business establishment and keeps the same name as part of the purchased good will , the signage for that business establishment will retain legal non-conforming status. President Clayton asked if there were any objections to the Appearance Commission looking into ordinances as stated above. There were no objections from the Trustees. Mr. Dana Knaak asked for the Board's thoughts regarding Shopping Center Sign packages. Mr. Knaak personally does not feel that they work. Trustee Hartstein stated that he thinks that, generally, the Center Sign package works in setting general standards. Trustee Schwartz suggested that the owners of the shopping centers meet with the Appearance Commission in order to come up with Center sign packages which will be acceptable to all parties. Mr. Hardt stated that the concern of the Appearance Commission is to be fair and equal to all parties. The Appearance Commission then posed some questions to the Board specifically relating to the recent appeal of Irving 's for Red Hot Lovers. I . Was the Board aware of the specific requirements necessary to grant a variance? Which criteria did the Village Board use in granting the variance? The Appearance Commission did not feel that any of the four criteria were met in this instance. 2. Apparently, Irving's For Red Hot Lovers was forced to take a second or third choice for their location in the Center. The Appearance Commission questions why they should allow a proliferation of signs because of a bad business decision on the part of the tenant. 3. The Appearance Commission questioned whether or not the Board had any proof of statements made by Irving's for Red Hot Lovers. A letter from the Appearance Commission to the Village Clerk addressing all points discussed at this workshop is on file in the Clerk's office. President Clayton thanked the Appearance Commission for their input, stating that they had made some good points for Board consideration. Mr. Hardt thanked the Board for their time. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 21 , 1981 PAGE FIVE President Clayton asked that the Appearance Commission submit to the Board, along with their recommendations, justification for those recommendations. Trustee Schwartz complimented the Appearance Commission for the comprehensive job that they are doing. President Clayton also stated that the Appearance Commission has done an excellent job for the Village, and said that they should be very proud of the job that they are doing. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Stone, seconded by Schwartz, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was unanimously declared carried by voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. 4i1,,,,Ar ._ (. St t .� �.«.Janet M. rabian, Village Clerk