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