Loading...
1989-11-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21 , 1989 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8:13 P.M. on Tuesday, November 21 , 1989 at the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Blvd. II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: M. Kearns, D. Stolman, J. Paul, B. Entman, H. Fields and R. Heinrich. QUORUM. Commissioners Absent: R. Lewandowski Bldg. Dept. Liaison: James Sylverne Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Board Liaison: Sid Mathias, Trustee III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sept. 19, 1989 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Fields. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Stolman, Entman `el and Fields NAY - None ABSTAIN - Paul and Heinrich Motion passed - 4 to 0. Minutes of Sept. 19, 1989 approved and will be placed on file. October 17, 1989 - Deferred, attending commissioner not present. IV. BUSINESS A. 1516 Quaker Hollow Court North, Edward and Marjorie Mc Kee Fence Code, Section 15.20.040 - Residential Districts The public hearing notice was read. Mr. Edward Mc Kee was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Quaker Hollow Court North and Thompson Boulevard: 1 . The rear of the property abuts Weiland Road. When the house was purchased, they were told by the developer that there would be 6 foot fence along the rear property line up to Thompson Blvd. Since the Fence Code does not permit this for safety reasons, the fence stops at the building line, which is 30 feet north of the property line along Thompson Blvd. 2. The Mc Kees have a small son and need a fenced yard for his protection from traffic on Weiland. They mould like to construct a fence that mould extend 10 to 15 feet north of the sidewalk on Thompson Blvd. 3. There is a deceleration lane for southbound traffic on Weiland and the fence could taper down from 6 feet to 4 feet along Thompson Blvd. The Village Engineer's Line-of-Sight review dated Nov. St, 1989 states that the proposed fence conflicts with the desired sight distance, and further encroachment is not recommended. If the fence is tapered to 3 ft. within 25 ft. of the corner, it mould be acceptable. Ch. Heinrich said the reason for the height restriction is for traffic safety; and to reduce liability for the petitioner and for the Village. Mr. Mc Kee said they do not want to cause a safety problem, but they were misled by the developer. Their plat shows a 6 foot fence to the corner and they want to maximize the use of their property. Ch. Heinrich responded that the Village does not warranty a developer's misstatements. The Village Ordinance does not allow encroachments greater than 3 ft. in height within 25 ft. of the corner property line. Comments from Commissioners Com. Paul: The ZBA cannot deviate from Mr. Kuenkler's recom- mendation. He mould prefer a fence 15 feet from the property line, as opposed to 10 feet, to keep the corner as open as possible. Com. Entman: Agreed, no fence within the 25 foot radius and 15 feet from the sidewalk. Com. Fields: Parked on Thompson and matched traffic. The corner is extremely dangerous and many cars did not stop at the intersection. The fence must stay 3 feet high within the 25 foot radius, but could go back up to 4 feet along Thompson Blvd. Com. Kearns: Agrees that the Village Engineer's study must be followed. He understands the problems with the reverse corner lots, but the fence should stay 15 ft. from the sidewalk. He suggested the height be kept 4 ft. outside the 25 ft. radius. Com. Stolman: Agrees with the recommendation of the Village Engineer. `./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Two Mr_ Mc Kee asked if the ZBA could give some options, and let them choose one at a later date. In the absence of the Village Attorney, Trustee Mathias said the ZBA can grant a variance, but the petitioner can go less than what the variance permits. Various options were discussed. Com. Fields observed that children can easily climb a 3 foot fence, but a 4 foot fence would be sufficient. Com. Paul suggested that a 5 foot fence could be built, if it is kept outside the 25 foot radius along Thompson Blvd. Mr. Mc Kee agreed to amend his petition, and asked if the style could be selected later. They have been considering a board-on-board type for along Thompson Blvd. Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Edward Mc Kee, 1516 Quaker Hollow Court North, for a variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, to permit construction of a fence south of the south building line in the side yard. Said fence shall extend 15 feet north of the lot line parallel to the sidewalk along Thompson Blvd. Any portion of the fence within the 25 foot radius at the northeast corner of the site shall not exceed 3 feet in height. With reference to the Village Engineer's Line-of-Sight Study, dated Nov. 2, 1989, the height may up to 5 feet outside of the 25 foot radius. A transition piece, tapering from 6 feet to 5 feet, may be included along the east border. Hardship having been demonstrated. Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich recommended the best option would be to build a 5 foot fence, outside the 25 foot radius. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Stolman, Kearns, Paul, Entman, Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Permit may be issued in 15 days. Findings of Fact attached. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Three B. 1527 Quaker Hollow Court South , Neil and Dana Plotsky Fence Code, Section 15.20 . 040 - Residential Districts The public hearing notice was read . Mrs . Dana Plotsky was sworn in . She was represented by attorney Elaine Gleicher, 1525 Quaker Hollow Court South . Ch . Heinrich observed that this situation is basically the same as the previous request. The Village Engineer 's Line-of- Sight Review , dated November 2, 1989, makes the same recommen- dation: "fence height is restricted to 3 feet within 25 feet of the corner of the property ." Mrs. Plotsky said they have 2 children under the age of 3. The 3 year old , and neighbor 's children , could climb a 3 foot fence. They would like to have a higher fence for safety reasons. Ch . Heinrich said he would recommend the same option, to build a 5 foot fence, outside the 25 foot radius, 15 feet from the sidewalk along Thompson Blvd . . Mrs. Plotsky responded the Village Engineer 's review states "the fences should be set back 5 - 10 feet from the sidewalk. Ch . Heinrich responded the Village Engineer 's review states minimum distances and the ZBA has the purgative of making the final decision and has been consistent in the granting of variances for fences to be located 15 feet from the property line. Mrs. Gleicher said she has a view of the corner from her kitchen , and because Weiland Road angles, cars must stop at the corner of Thompson Blvd . , in order to safely pull out. Ch . Heinrich replied that the Line-of-Sight study is regulated by State Statutes. In case of an accident, and the Village would be liable, as well as the property owner, if any encroachment is permitted within the line-of-sight. Mrs. Plotsky considered the same options that were discussed with Mr. Mc Kee, 1516 Quaker Hollow Court North, and agreed to amend the petition to stay 15 feet from the property line. The style of the fence will be 1 " x 6" dogear solid western red cedar, to match the existing fence which was constructed by the developer. No comments from the Commissioners. No questions or comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Four Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Neil and Dana Plotsky, `./ 1527 Quaker Hollow Court South, for variance of the Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, to permit construction of a 5 foot wood fence beyond the building line, at the corner of Quaker Hollow Court South and Thompson Blvd. Said fence to be at least 15 feet from the property line along Thompson Blvd. If it encroaches within the 25 ft. radius of the corner of Weiland Road and Thompson Blvd. , the fence shall be reduced from 6 feet along the rear property line to 3 feet; or it can be 5 feet in height, not encroaching the 25 foot radius, along Thompson Blvd. Hardship having been established. Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Fence shall comply with the Village Engineer's Line-of- Study, dated November 2, 1989 and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Fence may be tapered from 6 feet to 5 feet along Weiland Road. Cam. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Stolman, Kearns, Paul, Entman, Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Permit may be issued in 15 days. Findings of Fact Attached. C. Lot 7 on Circle Drive, Dennis and Dianne Ehrhardt Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020 - Pertaining to: Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations The public hearing notice was read. Mr. Dennis Ehrhardt 1318 Gail Drive was sworn in. He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a house. 1 . The lot narrow, but is 1/2 acre in size. 2. The home that is proposed will only fit on the lot if it is set forward of the 30 foot front building line about 2 to 3 feet. Mr. Ehrhardt described the drawing showing the positioning of the other houses on Circle Drive. Circle Drive is not a typical street, with the houses in a straight line. The proposed house will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Five The Village Engineer's Line-of-Sight Study, dated Nov. 2, 1989 states no drainage problems would be created by the construction of the house. Ch. Heinrich commented that the variance is minor and he had no problem with the request. Hr. Sylverne explained that variances mere published for both the front and rear yards is because the distances are tight and to allow for a slight construction error. Hr. Ehrhardt commented that the location of the lot is in the area where they want to live, and he has designed the house to give them as much rear yard as possible. He asked if a pool could be put in the side yard? Ch. Heinrich responded that it would be permissible,as long as it is kept within the ordinances. They could have a patio, but it probably could not be enclosed, because it would require another variance. There were no objections or comments from the commissioners. Trustee Mathias asked Hr. Ehrhardt if he is aware of the Village's Recapture Ordinance regarding the sewer system. Hr. Ehrhardt responded that he knows about the requirements. Com. Stolman made the following motion: I move that petitioners, Dennis and Dianne Ehrhardt, 1318 Gail Drive, be granted a variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a home that would encroach into the front and rear yard setback. The front yard variance is not to exceed 4 feet and the rear yard not to exceed 1 foot. Economic hardship having been demonstrated. The said variances will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields, Entman, Paul, Kearns, Stolman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Permit may be issued in 15 days. Findings of Fact Attached. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Six D. Buffalo Grove Business Park, Hamilton Partners, Inc. Sign Code, Section 14.20.070 - Ground Signs Relocation of Monument Sign - 600 Lake/Cook Road \./ Notice of the public hearing was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on Friday, October 27, 1989. Michael J. Rolfs was sworn in. Mr. Rolfe is a Partner with Hamilton Partners, Inc. ; 1130 Lake Cook Road, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 (459-9225). He stated the reasons for requesting a variance in order to relocate the entrance sign for Building 9, 600 Lake/Cook Road. The aesthetics and location of the sign were approved by the Appearance Commission on Thursday, August 24, 1989; and a permit was issued. When the sign was being staked out, Mr. Rolfs realized the site was located within a landscaped area, very close to a large tree and too near the corner of the building. The landscaping would have blocked the view of the sign from westbound traffic on Lake/Cook Road. This location was also not appropriate from an appearance standpoint and it could have caused a safety problem if the sign could not be seen by oncoming traffic. The entry is right in/right out only, without a deceleration lane, and the sign at the proposed location is much more visible. The setback at the proposed location is more consistent with the other Buffalo Grove Business Park ground signs along Lake/Cook Road (Zierk's and Crest Hil ). After visual inspection the sign location was moved closer to Lake/Cook Road. The footings and foundation had been poured when worked was stopped, and the variance was required because the sign will be less than 10 feet from the property line. The Village Engineer's Line-of-Sight Study of Nov. 2, 1989, states the proper sight distance will be provided if the sign is located a few feet from the sidewalk as proposed. The Appearance Commission did not review the new site plan because the aesthetics of the sign were not changed. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Kearns - No objection as long as the line-of-sight is not affected. Cam. Stolman - No problem. Cam. Paul - No problem with the location, but he questioned the height of the sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Seven Mr. Rolfs replied that it is the same height as the Chase Plaza sign on Arlington Heights Road. This is the last piece of property at the B.G. Business Park, and because the site is smaller, there was not enough distance to have a lower, wider ground sign. Considering the speed of traffic on Lake/Cook Road, a vertical sign will identify the building better and will permit safer entry into the parking area. Com. Entman - No strong objection, except 4 feet is close too sidewalk. Com. Fields - Asked for clarification of the safety factor. Hr. Rolfs explained that the speed of traffic on L/C Rd. makes it difficult to turn into the driveway. Remax Realty Co. is a tenant and they will have many people coming in. Lake/Cook Road curves just before reaching the building, and the sign will be seen at a better angle if located near the sidewalk, and people will have time to make the turn. Com. Fields commented that the original 14-1/2 foot height of the sign and the original 15 foot setback was approved. He questioned whether there was any hardship. Hr. Rolfe responded that beside the aesthetic hardship, which includes being consistent with the other B.G. Business Park signage, there is an economic hardship involved in removing the footings and foundation, which were inappropriately started. He estimated that the cost of the sign would be doubled. Ch. Heinrich - Asked how many tenants could occupy the building and how many will be identified on the sign? Hr. Rolfs replied that there could be 4 to 5 tenants, and there are three spaces on the sign. It is possible that there will only be 1 or 2 tenants. Ch. Heinrich said he understands the hardship, but the height of the sign is a problem. The spatial effect of a sign 14-1/2 feet in height, 4 feet from the sidewalk is too close. The ZBA has been recommending lower signs. The rest of the development has lower signs, except for Chase Plaza. He requested lowering of the sign. Mr. Rolfs responded that the financial hardship includes the designing of the sign, the contract for its construc- tion, and the cost of materials, which have already been purchased. The tenant (Remax) is threatening a lawsuit because they do not have the identification that is specified in their lease. If Remax should leave, the tax base will drop because the building would be empty. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Eight Ch. Heinrich repeated his concern with the visual effect of the sign so close to the sidewalk. It would require a variance for height equal to setback as stated in the Sign Code. The original location was approved with a 15 foot `./ setback from the property line. The sign is too high. Hr. Rolfs said the actual setback is closer to 6 feet from the property line. The sign was only moved 9 feet from the original location. Two tenants have been promised signage, and their sizes are specific. If the numerals have to be removed, they could be put on the building. He would prefer not to do this, because tenants want to have the building identified. Ch. Heinrich asked if the bottom tenant space could be eliminated? This would lower it 3 feet, making it about 12 feet high. Mr. Paul agreed the sign is too high and asked if the sign could be made wider? Mr. Rolfs said "no" because all the materials are purchased for the width of the sign as proposed, including the pre- cast sign frames, and the bronze numerals. The foundations are in and the weather is getting beyond the point where they could be changed. Remax is a real problem. The second tenant has not signed a lease. Mr. Rolfe agreed to compromise on the height, but the width must remain. Com. Entman said he understands the situation, but he does not understand why the project was started without proper approval. Now money has been invested, planting has been done, and footings have been put in where the petitioner "hope" the sign will be permitted. This is a problem. Mr. Rolfe said he is responsible for what was done and apologized. He said he will reduce the height of the sign, but he added that the original site was really inappro- priate because it was too close to the building. Ch. Heinrich recalled that the Chase Plaza entrance sign was given a variance, for the height/distance ratio. If the height is changed, it should be reviewed by the Appear- Commission again. Dennis Ehrhardt, an Appearance Commissioner, was present. Ch. Heinrich asked his opinion? Mr. Ehrhardt responded that he would like to see the sign as reduced in height as much as possible, and still permit the tenant spaces. He would consider 12 feet acceptable. Mr. Rolfs agreed to drop the second 3 foot tenant space. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Nine Trustee Mathias informed Mr. Rolfe that if the ZBA does not make a favorable recommendation to the Trustees, he can present his hardship at the Village Board meeting. `./ A Poll was taken: Can. Entman - Would probably accept the reduction of one panel. Com. Fields - 12 ft. height and 4 ft. from sidewalk Com. Kearns - 12 ft. height would be all right. Cam. Stolman - 12 ft. OK, but suggested the Village Board review the language in the lease. (Mr. Rolfs agreed to supply copies. ) Com. Paul - Reluctantly agreed to 12 ft. height Com. Fields - More comfortable with 12 ft. height Com. Stolman asked the cost of moving the sign? Mr. Rolfe replied the total cost of the sign was $10,000. So far, approximately $4,000 has been spent on the excavation and footings. The cost to relocate the sign would be an additional $4,000 plus relocation of much landscaping including the removal of two 6 inch trees. Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board for Hamilton Partners, c/o Michael Rolfe, pursuant to entrance sign at 600 Lake/Cook Road, variation of Sign Code, Section 14.20.070 - Ground Signs; for the purpose of relocating of the entrance monument as shown on the exhibit, (approximately 6 feet from the property line) with the further stipulation that the total height be a maximum of 12 feet, including the coping. Financial hardship was established. Cam. Stolman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul, Kearns, Stolman, Heinrich NAY - Fields and Entman Motion Passed - 4 to 2. Findings of Fact Attached. The sign is to be reviewed by the Appearance Commission. The next Village Board meeting will be held Dec. 4, 1989. Trustee Mathias suggested that Mr. Rolfe attend the meeting to answer any questions that may be raised by the Trustees. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Ten V. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None. VI . ADJOURNMENT Com. Kearns made a motion to adjourn. Com. Stolman seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page Eleven D. Buffalo Grove Business Park, Hamilton Partners, Inc. Sign Code, Section 14.20.070 - Ground Signs Relocation of Monument Sign - 600 Lake/Cook Road Notice of the public hearing was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on Friday, October 27, 1989. Michael J. Rolfs was sworn in. Mr. Rolfs is a Partner with Hamilton Partners, Inc. ; 1130 Lake Cook Road, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 (459-9225). He stated the reasons for requesting a variance in order to relocate the entrance sign for Building 9, 600 Lake/Cook Road. The aesthetics and location of the sign were approved by the Appearance Commission on Thursday, August 24, 1989; and a permit was issued. When the sign was being staked out, Mr. Rolfe realized the site was located within a landscaped area, very close to a large tree and too near the corner of the building. The landscaping would have blocked the view of the sign from westbound traffic on Lake/Cook Road. This location was also not appropriate from an appearance standpoint and it could have caused a safety problem if the sign could not be seen by oncoming traffic. The entry is right in/right out only, without a deceleration lane, and the sign at the proposed location is much more visible. The setback at the proposed location is more consistent with the other Buffalo Grove Business Park ground signs along Lake/Cook Road (Zierk's and Crest Hil ). After visual inspection the sign location was moved closer to Lake/Cook Road. The footings and foundation had been poured when worked was stopped, and the variance was required because the sign will be less than 10 feet from the property line. The Village Engineer's Line-of-Sight Study of Nov. 2, 1989, states the proper sight distance will be provided if the sign is located a few feet from the sidewalk as proposed. The Appearance Commission did not review the new site plan because the aesthetics of the sign were not changed. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Kearns - No objection as long as the line-of-sight is not affected. Com. Stolman - No problem. Com. Paul - No problem with the location, but he questioned the height of the sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page A. Mr. Rolfe replied that it is the same height as the Chase Plaza sign on Arlington Heights Road. This is the last piece of property at the B.G. Business Park, and because the site is smaller, there was not enough distance to have a lower, wider ground sign. Considering the speed of traffic on Lake/Cook Road, a vertical sign will identify the building better and will permit safer entry into the parking area. Cam. Entman - No strong objection, except 4 feet is close too sidewalk. Com. Fields - Asked for clarification of the safety factor. Mr. Rolfe explained that the speed of traffic on L/C Rd. makes it difficult to turn into the driveway. Remax Realty Co. is a tenant and they will have many people coming in. Lake/Cook Road curves just before reaching the building, and the sign will be seen at a better angle if located near the sidewalk, and people will have time to make the turn. Com. Fields commented that the original 14-1/2 foot height of the sign and the original 15 foot setback was approved. He questioned whether there was any hardship. Mr. Rolfs responded that beside the aesthetic hardship, which includes being consistent with the other B.G. Business Park signage, there is an economic hardship involved in removing the footings and foundation, which were inappropriately started. He estimated that the cost of the sign would be doubled. Ch. Heinrich - Asked how many tenants could occupy the building and how many will be identified on the sign? Mr. Rolfs replied that there could be 4 to 5 tenants, and there are three spaces on the sign. It is possible that there will only be 1 or 2 tenants. Ch. Heinrich said he understands the hardship, but the height of the sign is a problem. The spatial effect of a sign 14-1/2 feet in height, 4 feet from the sidewalk is too close. The ZBA has been recommending lower signs. The rest of the development has lower signs, except for Chase Plaza. He requested lowering of the sign. Mr. Rolfe responded that the financial hardship includes the designing of the sign, the contract for its construc- tion, and the cost of materials, which have already been purchased. The tenant (Remax) is threatening a lawsuit because they do not have the identification that is specified in their lease. If Remax should leave, the tax base will drop because the building would be empty. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page B. Ch. Heinrich repeated his concern with the visual effect of the sign so close to the sidewalk. It would require a variance for height equal to setback as stated in the Sign Code. The original location was approved with a 15 foot setback from the property line. The sign is too high. Mr. Rolfs said the actual setback is closer to 6 feet from the property line. The sign was only moved 9 feet from the original location. Two tenants have been promised signage, and their sizes are specific. If the numerals have to be removed, they could be put on the building. He would prefer not to do this, because tenants want to have the building identified. Ch. Heinrich asked if the bottom tenant space could be eliminated? This would lower it 3 feet, making it about 12 feet high. Mr. Paul agreed the sign is too high and asked if the sign could be made wider? Mr. Rolfs said "no" because all the materials are purchased for the width of the sign as proposed, including the pre- cast sign frames, and the bronze numerals. The foundations are in and the weather is getting beyond the point where they could be changed. Remax is a real problem. The second tenant has not signed a lease. Mr. Rolfs agreed to compromise on the height, but the width must remain. Com. Entman said he understands the situation, but he does not understand why the project was started without proper approval. Now money has been invested, planting has been done, and footings have been put in where the petitioner "hope" the sign will be permitted. This is a problem. Mr. Rolfe said he is responsible for what was done and apologized. He said he will reduce the height of the sign, but he added that the original site was really inappro- priate because it was too close to the building. Ch. Heinrich recalled that the Chase Plaza entrance sign was given a variance, for the height/distance ratio. If the height is changed, it should be reviewed by the Appear- Commission again. Dennis Ehrhardt, an Appearance Commissioner, was present. Ch. Heinrich asked his opinion? Mr. Ehrhardt responded that he would like to see the sign as reduced in height as much as possible, and still permit the tenant spaces. He would consider 12 feet acceptable. Mr. Rolfe agreed to drop the second 3 foot tenant space. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page C. Trustee Mathias informed Mr. Rolfe that if the ZBA does not make a favorable recommendation to the Trustees, he can present his hardship at the Village Board meeting. A Poll was taken: Coo. Entman - Would probably accept the reduction of one panel. Com. Fields - 12 ft. height and 4 ft. from sidewalk Com. Kearns - 12 ft. height would be all right. Can. Stolman - 12 ft. OK, but suggested the Village Board review the language in the lease. (Mr. Rolfs agreed to supply copies. ) Com. Paul - Reluctantly agreed to 12 ft. height Com. Fields - More comfortable with 12 ft. height Can. Stolman asked the cost of moving the sign? Hr. Rolfs replied the total cost of the sign was $10,000. So far, approximately $4,000 has been spent on the excavation and footings. The cost to relocate the sign would be an additional $4,000 plus relocation of much landscaping including the removal of two 6 inch trees. Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board for Hamilton Partners, c/o Michael Rolfs, ` pursuant to entrance sign at 600 Lake/Cook Road, �f variation of Sign Code, Section 14.20.070 - Ground Signs; for the purpose of relocating of the entrance monument as shown on the exhibit, (approximately 6 feet from the property line) with the further stipulation that the total height be a maximum of 12 feet, including the coping. Financial hardship was established. Com. Stolman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul, Kearns, Stolman, Heinrich NAY - Fields and Entman Motion Passed - 4 to 2. Findings of Fact Attached. The sign is to be reviewed by the Appearance Commission. The next Village Board meeting will be held Dec. 4, 1989. Trustee Mathias suggested that Mr. Rolfs attend the meeting to answer any questions that may be raised by the Trustees. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 21 , 1989 - Page D. \upd'