Loading...
1991-03-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , MARCH 19 , 1991 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 20 P . M . on Tuesday , March 19 , 1991 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , B . Entman , H . Fields , L . Windecker and R . Heinrich QUORUM . Commissioners Absent : J . Paul and R . Lewandowski Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Ed Schar , Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 15 , 1991 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by Com . Windecker and seconded by Com . Fields . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Fields , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Kearns Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention Minutes of January 15 , 1991 approved and will be placed on file . February 19 , 1991 - Tabled . Commissioners not present . IV . BUSINESS A . 517 Crown Point Drive , George and Kathleen Rossmann Commons of Buffalo Grove PUD Agreement - Ordinance #78-26 Exhibit B , Site Data Sheet - Construction of Addition The Public Hearing Notice was read . George and Kathleen Rossmann were sworn in . Mrs . Rossmann summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They want to construct an addition that would extend the family room and increase the size of the kitchen . 2 . Mr . Rossmann recently had knee surgery . He needs the space for exercise equipment that he uses to strengthen his leg . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page One Ch. Heinrich asked the Rossmanns if they were aware of the PUD rear yard restrictions when they purchased the house? `./ Mrs . Rossmann responded , "No, they were not . " The exercise equipment is now in the dining room. The house has a basement , but it has a dropped ceiling and in some places , it is only 5-1/2 feet high. Mr . Rossmann is over 6 ' . They have discussed the proposed addition with their neighbors and there were no objections . Mrs . Rossmann presented photo- graphs of the house and yard . The deck will be removed and the addition will not extend out as far as the existing deck. The materials used to construct the addition will match the existing house . They are requesting a 10 foot variance. Comments from Commissioners: Com. Entman: Asked about Mr . Rossmann' s knee surgery and if the exercise equipment is used for therapy? Also asked if it would be possible for them to move to a larger house? Mr . Rossmann responded the equipment is necessary for reha- bilitation. They just purchased this house and are well satisfied with the neighborhood and school system for their 9 year old son. Com. Windecker and Com. Kearns : No objections . Com. Fields : Asked if the exercise equipment could be put into the basement? Mr . Rossmann said they could put one machine in the basement , but most of it is too large and heavy. They could not get it down the narrow stairs . No questions or comments from the audience. Com. Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of George L. and Kathleen M. Rossmann, 517 Crown Point Drive , for variance of The Commons of Buffalo Grove , PUD Agreement , pertaining to Ordinance No. 78-26 , Exhibit B - Site Data Sheet , requiring a rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet , be granted. The addition shall not exceed ten ( 10) feet into the rear yard setback. The structure will be a 1-story room addition to match the existing structure and be constructed with materials in like kind and quality. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Two Addition shall be constructed pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove . Petitioners having exhibited unique circumstances , the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. The Village Engineer ' s Drainage Study, dated March 5 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " The petitioner has been informed that no alteration to the grade is allowed within five feet (5 ' ) of any rear or side lot line or within any existing swale. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Entman, Windecker , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . B. 1137 Lockwood Court East , James G. and Jennifer Osters Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 .020 - Construction of Addition The Public Hearing Notice was read. James and Jennifer Osters were sworn in. Mr . Osters summarized the reasons for request- ing a variance: 1 . The 1-story 30 ' x 30 ' addition is needed to accommodate Mr . Osters parents . They have been experiencing financial problems , after a business failure. They have been renting a house , but it is being sold . 2 . The Osters have 4 children and the house is not large enough. 3 . They have considered improving the basement but going up and down stairs may become a problem as the Sr . Osters advance in years . 4 . Because of the way the house is canted on the lot , a variance is only needed for one corner . 5 . The plans have been submitted and approved by the Building Department . The materials used for the addition will match the existing house The roof lines will also match. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �✓ March 19 , 1991 - Page Three Ch. Heinrich asked if they have informed the neighbors to the south about their plans . They will be the only ones affected. Mr . Osters replied that they have talked to both of their neighbors and they have no objections. Comments by Commissioners : Com. Entman: No problem. The lot is large and the lot to the south is set back because of the cul-de-sac. He noted that the addition is off-set and asked if they had considered making it flush with the south face. Mr . Osters responded that it was considered but there is not enough room to accommodate the interior design they desired . Com. Windecker : Asked if they planned to convert the addition into a separate apartment because is will have a self-contained kitchen and furnace , etc. Mr . Osters answered , "No. " Com. Kearn: Do they have any future plans for the addition. Mr . Osters said they would probably use the area for a hot tub. They have a 10-year old daughter , 8-year old twin boys and a 3 year old boy. They will be able to use the extra room. Mrs . Osters added that their family room and the new living room are connected with french doors which could be removed to make a "great room. " Com. Fields : Commented that it is a large addition and asked if they had considered a 2-story addition which would not take up so much of the lot? While the neighbors to the south do not object , it is possible that future owners might not agree. Mr . Osters replied that a 2-story addition would also require his parents to climb stairs . The addition would only be visible from their neighbor ' s two (2) dining room windows and the neighbors have a shed and a swimming pool between their house and the proposed addition. Ch. Heinrich commented that a 1-story addition is the most appropriate for the proposed use . There were no comments from the audience. Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Four Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move we grant James G. and Jennifer Osters , �.J 1137 Lockwood Ct . East . Variance of to Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40.020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required rear yard setback. Hardship having been established. Unique circumstances exist . The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood. The addition will be constructed to match the existing structure. Plans to be approved by the Village Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Mr . Dempsey commented that the ZBA has the authority to grant a variance of up to 11 . 6 ft . because the required setback is 35 feet . The Village Engineer ' s drainage review, dated March 6 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " The petitioner has been informed that no alteration to the grade is allowed within five feet (5 ' ) of any rear or side lot line or within any existing swale. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields , Kearns , Entman, Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . C. 275 W. Dundee Road, Century 21 Wallace E. and Bernice Berth Sign Code , Section 14 . 20.070, Ground Signs The Public Hearing Notice was read. Wallace and Bernice Berth were sworn in. Mr . Berth summarized their reasons for request- ing a variance . They have purchased the property on the south side of Dundee Road and Betty Drive for the purpose of recon- structing the existing building into a real estate office . The property has been annexed and zoned by the Village. The site plans have been approved and they are requesting two variances of Sign Code , Section 14. 20.070: 1 . For the purpose of erecting a sign that would be within 250 feet of an existing ground sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Five An identification sign is necessary for the business and it is a state law, as well as a requirement for their Century 21 franchise . 2 . The ordinance requires a 10 foot setback , and they are requesting a 5 foot setback. The Appearance Commission recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , dated August 23 , 1990 , specifies a 10 foot set- back . If the sign is setback 10 feet , it will be situated in the retention basin and/or between two of the existing trees that they have agreed to preserve , under the annexation agreement . The sign will be below grade if they locate it in the retention basin and its visibility will be greatly affected if it is between the two trees . The sign is 6 ft . x 10 ft . and they would like to have the bottom of the sign above car level which would be 5 ft . , so the height will be 11 ft . The landscape plan was presented. The two existing signs , Dunell Center sign and the Buffalo Court sign are both set back 5 feet . Ch. Heinrich observed that the height of the sign could be raised if is located within the retention basin, but he conceded that it would be obscured by the existing trees . Com. Entman: Commented that a 5 ft . setback would place the sign very close to the sidewalk. He suggested a lower sign. He asked why they want a 6 ft . x 10 ft . sign because it is larger than necessary. Mr . Berth replied that their frontage qualifies them for a 60 sq. ft . sign. They want to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood, so they do not want any signage on the building. The sign will not be illuminated at night . Mr . Berth did not object to lowering the sign and they will use ground cover instead of bushes around the base . He would prefer a lower sign as long as the line-of-sight is not restrictive. The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated March 6 , 1991 , states : "The sign location does not present a problem. " Mr . Kuenkler ' s drawing was discussed and it was agreed that there does not appear to be a line-of-sight problem, but to avoid any speculation, the motion could carry a condition that the location is subject to review by the Village Engineer . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Six L Mr . and Mrs. Berth agreed to Ch. Heinrich' s suggestion. Com. Kearns and Com. Windecker had no comments or objections. Com. Entman commented that the area is highly commercial and even though the sign will be close to other signs , it would not be offensive. Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board that the request of Wallace E. and Bernice Berth, Century 21 , 275 W. Dundee Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14. 20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs , for the purpose of erecting a ground sign that would be within 250 feet of existing ground signs and 5 feet from the property line, be granted . One recommended variance will allow the ground sign to be closer than 250 feet from existing signs on the properties to the east and to the west of 275 W. Dundee Road. The second variance is to allow the sign to be placed 5 feet from the north property line along Dundee Road. A condition of said variance is that the sign is to be constructed with the base of the bottom of the sign to be no more than 3 feet from ground level , subject to a further study by the Village Engineer as to any line-of-sight problems and subject to any modification of height , by the Village Engineer , to whatever height above 3 feet that he would consider to be safe , not to exceed 5 feet off the ground ; and the distance between signs is to be 125 feet , within 10 feet either direction, also to be approved by the Village Engineer . Variance to be subject to Sub-section B of Sign Code , Section 14. 44.010: 1 . The proposed signage is of particularly good design and good taste ; and 2 . The entire site has been or will be particularly well-landscaped. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Seven Com. Al Viehman (Appearance Commission) was present and commented that the discussion reflects the intent of the aesthetic review with reference to line-of-sight and location on the property. A setback of 10 feet was specified because it is the Code Requirement . Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields , Kearns , Entman, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board of Trustees for the April 1 , 1991 agenda. V. COMBINED WORKSHOP Continuation of ZBA and Appearance Commission discussion on criteria pertaining to signage for buildings such as Riverwalk. Workshop started at 9 : 10 P.M. See Attachment . VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS None VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Entman made a motion to adjourn after the Combined Workshop. Com. Fields seconded them motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10: 10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 1:(vee-gg Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Eight ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COMBINED WORKSHOP TUESDAY , MARCH 19 , 1991 The Combined Workshop of Zoning Board Commissioners and Appearance Commissioners began at 9 : 10 P.M. The subject discussed was signage for buildings such as Riverwalk . Those in attendance were : Richard Heinrich, ZBA Chairman Bruce Entman Howard Fields Louis Windecker Ed Larsen, AC Chairman Fred Weissman Richard Gordon Al Viehman Bruce Kahn, Trustee Tom Dempsey, Village Attorney Ed Schar , Bldg. Dept . Liaison Tim Beechick , Hamilton Partners ZBA Ch. Heinrich summarized Mr . Beechick ' s first submittal of a 31 foot ground sign to be situated near the Lake-Cook/Milwaukee Avenue intersection where the overpass is going to be constructed. There was speculation whether such a sign would be effective and it would be a departure from the usual Buffalo Grove sign standards . Mr . Beechick agreed to present an alternative to Zenith that would give them two signs . One sign could be located at the east entrance to Riverwalk on Lake-Cook Road and the other on Milwaukee Avenue , north of the intersection. Mr . Beechick was also asked to find out what address Zenith would be using for sales tax purposes . Mr . Beechick distributed copies of the Zenith lease agreement . (Attached) One clause stipulates that there be a sign at the entry to the motor court on Milwaukee Avenue giving Zenith identification. This has been done . Another section relates to identification near the intersection of Lake-Cook and Milwaukee Avenue . Hamilton Partners will try to work out an agreement with the property owners of the easement on the corner . It is considered County property but Buffalo Grove has jurisdiction over it and they will submit any type of signage to the Village for approval . When the Zenith Corporation was considering Buffalo Grove as a site for their corporate offices , Hamilton Partners polled the Village Trustees to determine if lettering would be permitted on the building. The annexation agreement limits lettering to the concourse for retail establishments . The Trustees gave him a verbal "green light" for a ground sign that would exceed 20 feet in height . The lease specifically states that Zenith wants a sign that can be seen from the intersection subsequent to the overpass . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Nine Mr . Beechick said he understood the concerns of the commissioners _, at the last meeting, relative to the size , height , location and effectiveness of the 31 foot sign that was proposed. He agreed to Li inform Zenith about the discussion and approach them with the alternative that was proposed consisting of two smaller signs . Zenith was not open to changing the agreement which was subject to Village approval . They feel the 31 foot sign will give them some exposure because it will be seen above the overpass . Zenith has signed a 15 year lease for their corporate headquarters and signage is a very important issue to them. Mr . Beechick presented a site plan with two signs and he will approach Zenith again with the proposal after they are moved in and settled. The signs are 20 feet in height with a 4 foot base , for a total of 24 feet . Mr . Beechick presented a site plan showing the location of the over- pass and the off ramps . The total height of the intersection will be 26 feet , but the grade elevations are not available because the final engineering has not been completed. Construction will not begin until Fall of 1991 . Mr . Beechick agreed that there is merit in having two signs . One would be located at the east entrance and the second one would be on Milwaukee Avenue on Riverwalk property. In response to the tax issue , there will be some sales from the Buffalo Grove office , but they also sell through distributors . ZBA Com. Fields stated that Group Bull , an affiliate of Zenith Corp. is a tenant in a building he manages in San Diego, CA. He confirmed that most corporate sales are handled through regional offices , and not through corporate offices . ZBA Ch. Heinrich stated that Buffalo Grove could be criticized by Wheeling and Riverwoods for permitting extraordinary signage . If a variance is granted for an oversize sign, it could carry a condition relative to sales tax . Mr . Beechick said he would not address this issue with Zenith. Mr . Dempsey commented that such a condition on the variance might not be enforceable . AC Ch. Larsen said that attaching any sales stipulation to a variance could be embarrassing to the Village . He asked how many people , employed by Zenith, might be moving into Buffalo Grove? The answer was approximately 200. Mr . Beechick compared existing Village structures with relation to height and the distance from residential areas . Their first Buffalo Grove Business Park Building is a 3-story brick office building , 211 feet in length and 40 feet tall to the top of the parapet wall . The Business Park monument sign complied with the Sign Code and needed no variance. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Ten The 31 foot Riverwalk sign is 75% of the height of the Business Park building . The edge of the Riverwalk sign is only 4 feet wide and it will look like a pencil against the backdrop of the Riverwalk building. The 15 foot width of the Riverwalk sign face represents less than 5% of the width elevation of the Riverwalk building . The height of Riverwalk is 197 feet and the sign is 31 feet tall . The distance from the Business park building to the rear yards of the houses across Lake-Cook Road is less than 2/3rds the distance between the Riverwalk sign and the residential area across Milwaukee Avenue . Mr . Beechick said he could have line-of-sight drawings done , if necessary. He came to report on his discussions with Zenith. ZBA Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Beechick if he preferred to have two 24 foot high signs or one 31 foot high sign. Mr . Beechick said he was willing to pursue the two 24 foot signs with Zenith, but he added that there would have to be a second (directional ) sign at the east entrance. It could be a low sign. The location of the sign on Milwaukee Avenue has been moved to the North and either sign would be located in the area marked on the site plan. If Zenith does not agree with the 24 foot signs , he will be in to pursue a variance for the 31 foot tall sign. ZBA Com. Entman asked if Zenith is the only tenant that has been granted signage . The sign appears to be large enough for more than one name . He suggested using building materials that would permit increasing the height of the sign after the overpass is completed. AC Ch. Larsen commented that the sign should be legible . If the sign height was increased to 50 feet and the width kept at 15 feet , the letter height is restricted , and the value of the sign is not increased. The characters on the bottom line of the sign are about 14 to 16 inches . The standard rule for readability is 40 feet per inch of character height . Also , as height increases , the eye takes in the perspective of the sky, so the sign begins to shrink. AC Com. Weissman noted the Zenith lease specifies that the sign must be visible at all times from Lake-Cook Road , and he commented that no sign will be visible from Lake-Cook. At the corner of Milwaukee Avenue , no sign will be visible to traffic traveling east on Lake-Cook road , but a sign at the east entrance would be seen after cars get past the overpass structure. Mr . Beechick said that Zenith understands that the original location near the corner is not going to be permitted and has agreed with the location indicated on the site plan, north of the first location, . and he has agreed with a height of 31 feet . This would not be changed even if the sign is not visible from the overpass . The total height of the existing marketing sign is 19 feet and it looks very small compared with the building. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Eleven ZBA Ch. Heinrich cautioned that once the Village approves a higher sign than what the code permits , similar requests could be made by other developers . AC Ch. Larsen contended that Riverwalk is a unique piece of property that will not be replicated in B.G. and no precedent will be set . Mr . Dempsey agreed a precedent will not be set because the ZBA considers each petition on a case by case basis . ZBA Com. Entman asked how far the sign would be from Milwaukee Ave . Mr . Beechick estimated it would be 50 feet from Milwaukee Avenue and about 200 feet from the other side of the street . AC Com. Gordon observed that not only the height of the building is unique, but there is a tremendous amount of surrounding open space . A 31 foot sign will not only seem small in comparison to the height of the building , but it will seem small because it will be situated within a large parcel of land with nothing around it . Trustee Kahn suggested asking the Staff to draft an ordinance that would relate to the fact that this development is out of the scope of the intent of the normal sign ordinance . ZBA Ch. Heinrich expressed his opinion that he would not want to have this type of signage incorporated into the Sign Code . He does not like any tall signs , including the car dealer signs . Mr . Dempsey said if a provision for signage of this size is within the Sign Code , it could be restricted to the amount of property acreage . His preference would be to have the ZBA recommend granting variances on a case by case basis . An ordinance can be drafted that is tailored to the many specific distinguishing characteristics of the property. The Findings of Fact can also be drafted according to the uniqueness of the circumstances . The language will not be limited by the Code . Trustee Kahn commented that a 31 foot sign could be somewhat invasive to the residents across the road but , in relation to the scope of the property , it is a quality structure and it will look small . ZBA Ch. Heinrich expressed concern that if the 31 foot sign does not satisfy Zenith after the overpass is constructed , they will come asking for more height . Mr . Beechick said he likes the ZBA' s suggestion and he will present the two sign package to Zenith again. But if they are not agreeable , the 31 foot sign may be submitted to the ZBA for a variance because that is what he has agreed to in the lease . ZBA Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Beechick to submit the directional sign that will be located at the east entrance on Lake-Cook Road at the time the variance is requested . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Twelve Trustee Kahn inquired what kind of future signage will be requested when the second Riverwalk building is constructed and he has a major tenant that requires signage before signing a lease . Li Mr . Beechick agreed that this is an issue he will have to face , but he pointed out that there is space on the proposed sign for another tenant and hopefully it will be acceptable . If he cannot lease the space and he will come back to discuss the situation. Trustee Kahn agreed that the Trustees would be able to make that decision when the time comes . ZBA Ch. Heinrich asked Ch. Larsen what size letters he would advise to make the sign readable? AC Ch. Larsen replied that the speed of the traffic would have to be considered , but for the sign to be readable by a person standing 480 feet away, the characters should be 24 inches in height . The width of the proposed 24 foot high sign would permit Riverwalk to have 24 inch letters , but not Zenith Data Systems . If ZENITH would be adequate by itself to identify enough people , it could be made larger . As the height is increased , the size of the letters should be increased. The width of the 31 foot sign would have to be increased from 15 feet to about 20 feet in order to accomplish the same effect as the 24 x 15 foot sign. ZBA Com. Fields asked about placing letters on the granite area of the building, or on the first level of offices . Mr . Beechick said they do not like to put signage on their build- ings and about 90% of their ID signs are monuments . If he cannot convince Zenith to accept the ZBA' s proposal , then he will submit the 31 foot sign that he has agreed to in their lease . AC Ch. Larsen said that if he was the tenant he would want to have 3 foot letters on the top floor of the parking garage. This would give them the best signage and they would not need a variance . Mr . Beechick said they are mainly concerned with aesthetics . They did consider letters on the top floor , but the Village did not want the building to have signage and neither does Hamilton Partners . Zenith is moving in at the end of March and he plans to approach them again early in April . He will be talking to the top vice- presidents and will present the advantages of having two signs that will give them better exposure on both thoroughfares , vs . one sign that is remote from the intersection. He will use the diagrams that have been presented at this time . Mr . Beechick said the total height of the first sign is 31 feet including the base . Illumination has not been discussed . When he returns for the variance he will be prepared to submit all the signage. He thanked the ZBA and the AC for the discussion. The Workshop ended at 10 : 10 P.M. Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 19 , 1991 - Page Thirteen