1995-04-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes •
•
1.
-
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS •
• VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIg
' TUESDAY , APRIL 18 , ' 1995 •
•
I . ' CALL TO ORDER •
Chairman Richard. Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
to order at 7 : 40 P . M . on Tuesday , April 18 , 1995 in the Council
Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . .
II . ROLL• CAL
Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul , B . Entman , L . Windecker ,
L . Arbus and H . Heinri•ch QUORUM;
Commissioners Absent : . H . Hefler
Bldg . Dept . Liaison: Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney : Richard Skelton
Village Board Liaison : John Marienthal , Trustee '
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 21 , 1995 - Motion to approve was made by Com . Windecker and
seconded by Com . Kearns .
There were no additions or corrections .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns., Entman , Windecker , •
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY None
ABSTAIN - Paul
Motion Passed 5 to 0 , 1 abstention .
• Minutes of March 21 , 1995 were approved as submitted . •
February 28 , 1995 - Motion to approve was- made by Com . Kearns and
seconded by Com. Windecker .
• There were no additions or corrections .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman , Paul ,
Windecker and Heinrich '
NAY - None • •
• ABSTAIN - Arbus
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 , 1 abstention
Minutes .of February 28 , 1995 were approved as submitted .
IV BUSINESS
A . ' 486 - 516 Parkview Terrace , The Coves
Municipal Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts•
Mr . Don Frailing , , Sales Manager for Edward Schwartz & Company , • "
1110 Lake Cook Road , Buffalo Grove , IL 60089 (537-2600 ) was'
• sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Frailing'
summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the
• purpose of permitting the six foot ( 6 ' ) stockade fence along
the rear lot line of the Coves ' building located at 486-516 ' •
Parkview Terrace to remain as constructed . '
•
T
The fence was installed along the north boundary of the pro-
perty under the assumption that the abutting property was all
in the Office and Research Zoning District . After it was
`.1 installed, they were informed that the section abutting the
Fire Station was in violation' because the Fire Station is zoned
R-1. and the height .l imitation is five feet .(5' ) .
•
If the fence was cut down to five feet (5' ) , the step-down '
effect would not be aesthetically pleasing. The fence is
needed to screen the property. from the Fire Station and some of
the residents have expressed the desire to have a higher fence.
Fire Chief Tom Alienspaugh has no objections to the fence.
•
Ch. Heinrich noted the fence has been installed and there have '
been no objections from residents , so he does. not object .
Com. Paul , Com. Windecker , Com. Arbus , Com. Kearns and
Com. Entman had no questions or objections.
•
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we grant the request made by Edward Schwartz & Co.
for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15,20.040,
•
pertaining to Re�'sidential Districts , for the purpose of
permitting 'a six foot (6' ) stockade fence to remain as
constructed; along the rear lot line of the Coves' build-
ing located at 486 to 516 Parkview 'Terrace', abutting the.
Buffalo Grove Fire Station which is Zoned R-1* .
The fence will' not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare; and will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.,
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , Windecker ,
Arbus' and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed -• 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen' ( 15) days - May 4 , 1995.
B. 244 Cottonwood Road, David and Monica Arnolde
Municipal Code, Section 15. 20.040 Residential District
David Arnolde was sworn in and the public hearing notice was
read. Mr. Arnolde summarized the reasons for requesting a'
•
variance of the Fence Code:'
•
1 . They have an irregularly shaped corner lot
with a small rear yard. '.
' 2 . The property line curves and a fence along the
building line would be located in the middle of
the rear yard. '
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 18, 1995 - Page Two •
•
4.: When the Arnoldes have children, a fence will
be essential .
4. They have a dog and it. could jump a three foot '
(3' ) fence. . They also plan to get a second dog.
5. Neighborhood children often cut across the yard .
and antagonize the dog. The Arnolds do .not want
to be responsible for a .child getting bitten.
6. Other neighbors walk their dogs and let them into
• the yard to bother their dog.
Mr . Arnolde presented. photographs of the property. He said
they informed all their neighbors of the proposed fence. and
• there were no objections.
•
One neighbor was present , Mr . Dan Rudin, 245 Cottonwood, .
verified that he has often seen people let their dogs into
the yard and it could be dangerous for children to try to
play with such a large dog.
The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated March 31 , 1994, states:
"No obstruction is created for the intersection by the pro- .
posed fence. " •
Com. Entman, Com. Kearns and Com. . Arbus had no questions or
. objections.
Com. Paul verified that the fence will be •inside the trees.
No problem. The variance is proper .
Loi Com. Windecker had no questions or objections.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
•
I move we grant the request of David and Monica Arnolde,
' 244 Cottonwood, for variance of Municipal Code, Section
15 . 20.040,. pertaining to Residential Districts, for
the purpose of constructing a .five foot (5 ' ) wooden
shadow box fence that would extend past the building,
line along Maple Drive , as indicated on the plat of
survey submitted with the application.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, the
proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare. 0
Com. Paul seconded the -motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , , Windecker ,
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - .None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15) days - May 4 , 1995:
• . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
�,,,,J April 18, 1995 - Page Three
•
•
•
• C. 901 Highland Grove Drive , Arthur and Marcy Rubin
Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040 ,- Residential Districts
. Arthur- and Marcy Rubin -were sworn in and the public hearing
notice was read. Mr . Rubin summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a five
foot (5' ) . wood fence that would extend past the building line
along Fabish Drive: .
.1 . The rear yard is small and the ground slopes.
2. The patio on the north side covers almost. half
of the rear yard.
3. The only flat area on the lot is at the south .
end of the side yard along Fabish Drive.
• 4. . Their children and friends need a safe play
• area because the corner is very busy. •
5. They are planning to do' some landscaping and ,
the design includes knowing the placement of
the fence.
• The previous owners were granted a variance and constructed
an open picket fence ten feet ( 10' ) past the building line,
pursuant to the. Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review,
dated May 3, 1991 , which stated: "The abutting property is
a near-side driveway, and the fence should be set back ten •
• feet ( 10'' ) from the sidewalk. "
•
• The Rubins original request was for a similar fence to be .
constructed five feet (5' ) from the sidewalk, but after
considering the Village Engineer 's Line-of-Sight Review,.
dated March 31 , 1995 , which states: "Our recommendation of
May 3, 1991 , is unchanged , and the fence, should be set back
ten feet ( 10' ) from the sidewalk, " they agreed that there
could be a line-of-sight problem. They are willing to
compromise with the Zoning Board.
Ch. Heinrich observed that sidewalk is within the property
line and it is approximately twenty-one feet (21 '.) from the
house He asked if they have informed their neighbors?
•
Mr . Rubin replied that none of their neighbors object to the
proposal . One possible modification would be . t'o angle the
fence from the ten foot (10' ) distance out toward the side-
walk.
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Rubin that the Zoning Board cannot
grant a variance without the Village Engineer 's approval .
The request could be Tabled until a revised plan can be
submitted to the Village Engineer .'
Mr . Rubin said he talked to Mr . Richard Kuenkler and described
the proposed alteration. Mr. Kuenkler said he didn' t think
there would be a line-of-sight issue, but there could be an
appearance issue.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 18 , 1995 - P.age Four
No formal report has been submitted and Ch. Heinrich told
the Rubins that without a written' opinion, no decision would
be. made. The Commissioners were asked for their comments:
Com.. Paul - Recalled the discussion concerning the original
request and in his opinion the fence should remain as it is.
A fence five feet (5' ) closer to the sidewalk would obscure a
small child from the next door driveway. This is a difficult
situation and the Zoning Board must consider public safety.
Com. Windeck.er - Ascertained that the Rubins were not aware
of the issues concerning fences when they purchased the house.
He citedthe previous discussion and said he would not' change
his view that the driveway of the- house next door had to be
protected and the fence should be ten feet . ( 10' ) from the
sidewalk.
Com. Arbus - Asked if an additional five feet (5.' ) ' would be
a gain?
• Mr . Rubin said he would accept three (3) additional feet
because it would add quite a bit of usable space to the
yard.
Com. Arbus would not violate Mr . Kuenkler's review. The ZBA •
tries to keep fences away from the sidewalk to prevent injury
to pedestrians and bike riders. Three feet (3' ) would only
increase the size of 'the yard by a hundred and fifty square
feet (150 sf . ) . The corner is very busy and he would be
willing to compromise if the Village Engineer gives approval .
Com. Kearns - Remembered the previous discussion and said
he sympathizes with the petitioner because the side yard is .
the only flat area, but at this time he would not change the.
ten foot (10' ) distance.
•
Com. Entman - Because of potential liability, he would- not
violate the Village Engineer 's recommendation, but he would
be willing to consider. an alternate proposal . He recommended
Tabling.
•
Ch. Heinrich agreed they would' not be gaining much even if
the additional five feet (5' ) was allowed. The fence would
have to be angled sharply and it would only slightly increase
the size of the yard.
Mr. Rubin was open to any suggested compromise, even lowering
the height of -the fence.
After further discussion, Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Rubin that
his options were to withdraw the petition, a'sk for vote and
appeal to the Village Board of Trustees , or Table .until , next
month.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 18, 1995 Page Five
•
'Mr. and Mrs. Rubin decided to Table. They will discuss the
situation .with-the Village Engineer •and amend the petition. ' • .
•
Com. Windecker made a motion to' Table until . May 16 , 1995.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion. •
Roll Call Vote:, AYE - Entman," Kearns , Paul , Windecker ,
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed 6 to 0:
. D. 46 W. Fabish Drive, A. Gregg and Robin French
Municipal Code, Section 15:20.040 • - Residential Districts
A. Gregg and Robin French were sworn in and the public hearing
notice was read. Mr . French summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a- fence
past the building line along Hilldale Lane:
1 . They do not have any fence and they have .
a young son so they need a secure. yard.
2. They hope to get a dog.
• 3. . They have a small rear yard but the lot is '
long and narrow, so the additional space
would . give them fuller use of the property. .
4. They would construct a five foot (5' ) •
scalloped cedar fence for aesthetic purposes.
• The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated March 31 , 1995, states:
"The proposed • fence is in an acceptable location and no .
abutting driveway exists. " .
•
The French' s are requesting the fence to be located twenty
('20' ) from the building line.
Ch. Heinrich said a' variance of twenty feet (20' ) would put the
fence five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk and would not be appro-
•
priate, Typically a distance of ten feet (10' ) is' reasonable;
and would keep the area open.
•
Com. Arbus - Would be willing to °permit. a fence eight feet (8 ' )
from the building line because this fence would be the only one , "
on the. block and would be clearly seen from the front windows
of the houses at 902 and 904 Hilldale Avenue.
•Mrs. French said they have a tree that' is about nine to ten
(9 - 10) feet from the building line and they would like to
keep the, tree inside the fence.
Com. Paul - Also Observed that this would be the only fence
that would be seen all the way down the block: He would not
object 'to a variance of eight feet (8 ' )' from the . buildi.ng line.
. . Com. Kearns and Com. Entman agreed that .an eight foot (8 ' )
variance was acceptable.
�./ ZONING BOARD .OF APPEALS .
April., 18 , 1995 - Page S i x
•
a t •
•
Ch. Heinrich. explained the options to Mr. and Mrs. French:
Ask for a vote on the petition as requested" and if denied, •
they can appeal' the Village Board, or amend their petition
•� and ask for a variance of eight feet (8 ' ) . After considering
their options, Mr. and Mrs. French amended their petition and .
requested a variance of. eight. feet (8' ) from the building line.
Com. Paul made the following motion:
I move we grant the request made by A. Gregg and
Robin French, 46 W. Fabish Drive., for variance
of Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to
Residential Districts,' for the purpose of
constructing a five foot (5' ) wood fence that.
would extend eight feet west of the west building
line
The fence would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare and. would not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns, Paul , Windecker ,
Arbus and. Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - May 4, 1995.
, E. 240 Navaho Trail , David and Phyllis Carlson
Fence Code, Section 15.20.040 Residential Districts
Mrs. Phyllis Carlson was sworn in and the public hearing notice
was read. Mrs. Carlson explained that they have had on-going
problems with the neighbors at 94 Forest Place and have not
been able to enjoy the yard for the past four years. She .
summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the
purpose of constructing a six foot (6' ) fence along the
interior property line:
1 . The neighbors have four dogs (4) and one
dog (a pit bull mix) is especially vicious. •
It has dug under the existing chain link
fence and comes into their yard. •
2. The Carlson's have two children and a dog.
The children cannot play outside or take
friends outside because of ,the dogs.
3. One of the neighbor 's dogs is a Dalmatian
that- can jump the existing chain link fence.
4. The yard is unsightly. Large' weeds grow
through the fence. Weed killer has been costly.
5. They cannot. enjoy the patio because of the
odor from next door.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
`„J April' 18, 1995 - Page Seven
•
The Carlsons discussed the situation with the neighbors at
94 Forest Place and. they have no objections to the six foot
(6 ' ) fence. Other neighbors were also agreeable.
The Commissioners had no questions or. objections. The only
people who will see the fence are the petitioners and their
neighbors.
•
Com. Entman made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of David and Phyllis Carlson,
240 Navajo Trail , for variance of Municipal Code,.
Section 15.20.040, . pertaining to Residential Districts ,
for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6' ) wood
fence along, the interior property Line, returning to
the house.
The fence to be located as depicted on the plat of survey
submitted with the application. The fence is to be con
structed in accordance with plans and specifications '
approved by the Village. The proposed variance and •.
the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, '
safety and welfare.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Entman, Paul , Windecker , •
Arbus and Heinrich •
NAY - None
Motion Passed, - 6 to 0. Findings of Fac,t Attached. .
Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days . Mar 4, 1995.
F. 1309 Witney Lane, Curt Mankoff
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.32.020 •
Construction of Gazebo - 20% Rear Yard Coverage
•
Mr . Curt Mankoff was sworn in and the public hearing notice was
read. Mr. Mankoff said the reason for requesting a variance is
because they are improving their property with the installation
of a swimming pool and they want to construct a gazebo, but the
gazebo would increase the rear yard coverage by a total of 142
square feet over the permitted 20% coverage. They have inform-
ed their neighbors of the plan and there have been no objec-
tions.
The Village Engineer 's Review, dated April 1G, 1995 , states:
"A drainage plan will need to be submitted addressing the
difference in grade along the rear and side lot lines, but
• I ,do not anticipate any problems. " Mr . Mankoff agreed to
provide the required drawings.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 18, 1995 - Page Eight
•
}
•
Mr. Mankoff said they have a small yard, but they want to
stay in their home and improve the property. The proposed
landscaping will be installed.
. � •
Ch:' Heinrich said the design is very nice. -No questions.
Com. Entman, Com. Kearns, Com. Paul , and Com. Windecker had
no objections to the proposed variance.
Com. Arbus disclosed that 'he is acquainted with the petitioner
but this will not affect .his opinion and he had no objections.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that
Curt Mankoff , 1309 Witney, be granted a variance of Zoning.
Ordinance, Section 17.32:020, pertaining to Location of
Accessory Buildings and Structures, for the purpose of con
structing a gazebo that in combination with the 'swimming pool
would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation by 142 .
square feet, pursuant to the plat of survey submitted with
the application.
Construction to conform with the Codes in accordance with •
plans submitted to and approved by the Village. Unique '
conditions having been demonstrated, the proposed variance.
will not alter the essential character of 'the neighborhood.
Com. Arbus seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns , Paul , Windecker,
Arbus and Heinrich -
• • NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
An Ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed
on the May. 1 , 1995 Village Board Agenda. . Permit may be
• issued on May 4, 1995.
G. 51 Mc Henry Road, IHOP (Formerly Shoney's) - 'Signs
Sign Code, Sections 14.20.030, 14.20.070 and 14. 20.080 •
• , Mr .. Robert Jessen, Jessen Associates , Inc. , 4242 Kirchoff Road,,
Suite B, 'Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 (359-7720) was sworn in.
The public hearing notice was read. ,
Ms.. Paulette Ramsay, Development Coordinator and National Sign
Coordinator , IHOP Corporation, 525 North Brand Boulevard, 3rd
Floor, Glendale, California 91203-1903 (818/240-6055) was also
sworn, in. She synopsized the expansion program that IHOP is
conducting in the midwest that includes ten ( 10) Shoney's
restaurants throughout the Chicago area. They want to improve
the building located at 51 Mc Henry Road and some of the' signs
will require the following variances:
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 18, 1995 - Page Nine .
• 1. Ground Sign #1- The existing ground sign will be
refaced and requires a variance because it is located
• within the setback. The cabinet will be repainted.
It is an illuminated sign.
2. Wall Sign #3- A box sign will be installed on the
north elevation of the building facing the shopping
center. It will replace the Shoney's sign and it will
be smaller in size. The sign is very important because
it will attract• the attention of patrons of the shopping
center who may not be local residents.
3. Sign #2 on the west elevation of the parapet facing •
Route 83. This sign will read "International House of
Pancakes" and will identify the restaurant to older
customers. Not all people recognize the IHOP logo name.
the sign.requires a variance because it exceeds the area
permitted by the Sign Code. The.color of the this sign
will be red lettering on a white background, per the
Appearance Commission's recommendation.
There will be a standard IHOP 'sign over the doorway on the west
elevation. This sign does not require a variance. There will
also be an IHOP sign on The Grove ground sign at the entrance,
to the shopping center on route 83.
The corporate colors are two shades of blue, white and red. •
The building will be repainted white. The roof will be dark
blue and the trim will be lighter blue. The awning over the
atrium area and the' trim line under the windows will be red.
This IHOP restaurant will open as a corporate store and will'
become a franchise in approximately six. (6) months. It is
• very possible that a local residept will take it over.. Until
then the regional office will maintain the building. It will
be opened at 6 A.M. and remain open until 10 P.M. or 11 P.M. at
first, then, depending on business, it may stay open 24 hours.
•
The Appearance Commission.reviewed the signs on Feb. 23, 1995
and recommended approval of a variance.
The Village Engineer's Review, dated March 31, 1995, states:
"The proposed (ground Y sign does not affect the line-of-sight."
Com. Paul, Com. Windecker; Com. Arbus, Com. Kearns, and
Ch. Heinrich had no objections. Com. Entman objected to
the International House of Pancakes sign on the roof.
•
The Commissioners all agreed that IHOP is a quality restaurant
and with the possibility of a theater at the Town Center, the
business should do well.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. •
• `,/ April 18, 1995 - Page- Ten
•
Com. Arbus made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees
�. •that the request being made by 'IHOP Corporation,
525 North Brand Boulevard, Third .Floor , Glendale, CA,
be granted the following variances of the Sign Code:
a. Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts,
and Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs, for
the purpose of permitting a ground sign to be located
within the required setback.
b. Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs for the
purpose of installing a wall sign on the north elevation
and to permit an addition wall sign on the west elevation.
Signs are recommended pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010,
Sub-section B.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion. •
Roll Call Vote: • AYE - Entman (Ground sign and sign on the
north elevation. )
Kearns , Paul , Windecker, Arbus,
and Heinrich - All signs.
• NAY - Entman (Parapet sign on west elevation. )
Motion Passed 5 to 1 and 6 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached:
An Ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed on
the May 1 , 1995 Village Board Agenda. Permit may be issued.
on May 4, 1995.
Com. Arbus left the meeting at 9:00 P.M.
H. . .Buffalo Grove Road and Route 83 , INDECK - Multiple Signs
Sign Code, Section 14.20.020 - Office and Research District
Mr. Tim McParlan, Project Manager for Indeck. Energy Services,
Inc. , 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 300, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
. (520-3212) and Mr. Douglas Mosser , Architect , V.P. of OAI
Otis Associates , Inc. 1450 East American Lane, Schaumburg, IL
60173-4989 (517-7100) were sworn in. The public hearing
notice, published in the Buffalo Grove-Wheeling-Long Grove
Herald on. March 30, 1995 , was summarized.
Mr. Mosser presented a site plan and a rendering of the Indeck
Energy Services .Corporate Headquarters. building. There will be
an American Enterprises Bank on the first floor . The 3-story
building will be located at the •corner of Buffalo Grove Road
and Route 83. Park District property is located to the
northwest . •
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS '
April 18, 1995 Page Eleven
•
•
•
There will be two (2) major entrances, one on Buffalo Grove
Road and one on Route 83 with. a right-in-only entrance at the
corner of Route 83 that will mainly . service the bank.
Signs in the Office and Research .District are limited to a •
total of 32 square feet , and ground signs cannot be located
within the building setback lines. All the proposed signs
require variances, with possibly the exception of the bank ,
identification ground 'sign at the corner. •
Mr. Mosser described each sign and its location: •
1 . Signs #1 and #1A are INDECK signs. They will be
• located over the entrances on Buffalo Grove Road
• and Route 83. The signs are 3' x 21 ' totaling 63
sq. ft . The individual letters will have a satin
bronze finish and back lighting.
2. Signs, #2 and #2A are American Enterprise Bank signs.
They will be located to the right of the bank
entrances on Buffalo Grove Road and Route 83. The
signs are 1 ' x 28' totaling 28 sf . and the letters
also have a satin bronze finish with back lighting:
3. Ground signs, #3 and #3A, are located within the
setback areas on Buffalo Grove Road and Route 83.
These signs , will be 10'8" x 8' and will have the
• name of the bank in ,6" bronze letters and a AEB logo
in 1 ' high bronze letters. There will also be a
green/white cash station identification box sign.
These ground signs will be constructed with materials that
match the building. The bases are Eden's Bedface Limestone. ;
with a Minnesota Northern Buff-finished stone cap. The sign •
faces are recessed Buff-finished stone. Letters are all bronze
with a satin' finish. The ground signs will be illuminated with
ground lights and the bases will be landscaped.
• 4. .Ground sign', #3B, - is a single-faced bank identifi-
cation sign that will be located at the corner of
the site. It will 8' in height with a sign panel
that is 5'4" x 13' The logo has been eliminated.
Ground sign #3B will be constructed along with the temporary
bank building and some permanent landscaping will be instal _
. led.' There will' be an identification sign on the building and
directional signs indicating the entrance to the drive-up
windows. The temporary bank facility will be used only during
construction of the •building. It will then be removed and the
landscaping completed.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 18, 1995 Page Twelve .
The bank will employ from 70 to 75 people and will occupy
• about 5,000 square feet of first . floor area. Indeck will
occupy about 50% of the building including the third floor
approximately 60% of the second floor.
There were no questions from the audience. _
•
The Commissioners had no objections to the proposed signs. •
Com. Paul commented that each sign was justified. They are
tasteful and not overdone.
•
Com. • Vindecker asked if there were any provisions for other
tenants to have signs?
•
Mr. McParlan replied that Indeck eventually .expects to occupy
the entire second floor. Other tenants will. not have signs.
Com. Kearns and Com'. Entman had no objections or questions.
Ch. Heinrich commented that the architecture of the building
and the signs are well done. . This will be an asset to the
community. He had no problem with the variations.
•
Com. 'Entman made the following motion: •
•
, I move we , recommend to the Village Board. that the
request being made by Indeck Energy Services ,
1130 Lake Cook Road, for variances of Sign Code, Section
14.20.020, pertaining to Office and Research Districts ,
be granted, for the purpose of constructing three (3)
ground signs that would exceed a total of thirty-two
square feet (32 sq. ft . ) and be located within the
building setback lines and permit multiple wall signs
on the building at the northwest corner of Buffalo .
Grove Road and Mundelein Road (Illinois Route 83) .
The total of four (4) wall signs and three (3) ground
signs identifying INDECK and the American Enterprize Bank
are• to be constructed in accordance with plans and '
specifications submitted to and• approved by the Village.
Variances for said signs are recommended pursuant to
Sign. Code, Section 14.44.010, sub-section B.
•
The Village Engineer 's Review, dated March 31 , 1995 ,
states: • "The proposed signs do not affect the .line-of-
.
- sight . "
Com.' Windecker seconded the motion.
• Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Entman, Paul ,
Windecker, and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to O. Findings of Fact Attached.
An Ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed on'
the May 1 , 1995 Village Board Agenda.. Permit may be issued
on May 4, '1995.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS . • ,
April 18,: 1995. Page •Thirteen
•
46
V . ANNOUNCEMENTS
None .
VI . ADJOURNMENT
Com . Kearns made a motion to adjourn .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion .
Ch . Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 25 P . M .
*Respectfully submitted ,
Shirley Bates ,
Recording Secretary
• 1 '
•
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 18 , 1995 - Page Fourteen