Loading...
2013-03-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ii-movED A5 SU REGULAR MEETING /bM i � N4ilo) �3 BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Au Also Present: Les Ottenheimer,Village Trustee William Raysa, Village Attorney Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner Commissioner Au arrived at 7:32 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 19, 2013 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 19, 2013. Corn. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Minutes approved as submitted. NEW BUSINESS 251 MILWAUKEE AVENUE, BERKSON AND SONS - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 1 of 16 r.-,---,ri rf,,-;:••,"7:- 1:7";el n L.;11-2 .1,,,;,; . •;.. L., H -1.1i, ti,av, .,.,...;,,.:,J,......:. :., L.iii II 11 IP \.....i .....i ..... Mr. Art Holland, Holland Design Group, 1090 Brown Street, Wauconda, Illinois 60084, was present and sworn in. Mr. Holland explained that he represents Berkson & Sons and there is still a need for the sign. The property is a large two-story office complex with numerous offices available. They are requesting a six (6) month extension. The property is along Milwaukee Avenue. The existing sign is double-sided. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Holland if he has any information concerning the current vacancy percentage. Mr. Holland stated that he spoke with the leasing agent today and she said it was pretty much the same as last year. Ch. Entman recommends a review of status of the sign in six (6) months. Mr. Raysa advised that the color sign rendering should be corrected to reflect the correct address of the property. The current rendering shows an address of 251 Milwaukee Avenue, Wheeling, Illinois. The correct address is 251 Milwaukee Avenue, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Mr. Holland will correct the sign rendering. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Atrium Realty I, LLC, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" sign located at 251 Milwaukee Avenue. Petitioner to appear at the September 17, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the sign. Corn. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the September 17, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 1200 W. DUNDEE ROAD, COMET NEON ON BEHALF OF GOLDMAX - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.16.030 AND SECTION 14.16.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE PROPOSED WALL SIGN TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIGN LENGTH PERMITTED BY TWELVE (12) INCHES ON THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING; AND TO ALLOW THE EXISTING WALL SIGN TO REMAIN AS INSTALLED THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM SIGN LENGTH PERMITTED BY FIFTY (50) INCHES ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 2 of 16 Mr. Paul Rzewuski, Comet Neon, 1120 N. Ridge Avenue, Lombard, Illinois 60148, was present and sworn in.The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on February 27,2013 was read. Mr. Rzewuski explained that they are looking for relief in the length restriction for the wall signs. Although the signs are below the allowable square footage, they are too long. The building is only allowed one-third of the length of the building for signs. The surrounding properties are allowed a lot more, like eighty (80) percent. They are not looking to put up a larger sign than allowed,just relief from the length restriction. Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated March 7, 2013 into the record. Com.Cesario asked Mr.Rzewuski about the circumstances surrounding the south elevation wall sign being installed without a permit. Mr. Rzewuski stated that they had a new employee that was to handle permits. They submitted the permit application as they always do. The Village responded by letter.The letter was received but did not get forwarded to the person handling this job.The employee saw that there was a fee to be paid for the contractor's registration and she believed that was the permit fee.She advised that the permit was in hand.Due to this mix up,they now keep a list and make photocopies. When they submitted the permit application for the second sign, it was brought to their attention that the permit was never issued for the south elevation wall sign.They immediately were proactive about it.Regardless,they would still be before the Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)requesting the variances.Com.Cesario stated that the south elevation sign was installed. Mr. Rzewuski advised that they want to move that sign to the east elevation. On the east elevation,that sign would only be twelve (12) inches longer than allowed and would be fifteen (15) square feet less in area than allowed. Com. Cesario asked that the new proposed sign would then go on the south elevation. Mr. Rzewuski stated that they are looking for the sign to cover fifty (50) percent of the wall length on the south elevation, but they would be approximately four (4) square feet under the allowed sign area. Com. Cesario asked Mr. Rzewuski if he had modeled what that sign would look like if were installed to Code. Mr. Rzewuski stated that the sign would be almost illegible. A third of the length at twenty five(25)feet is just over an eight(8)foot long sign on the south elevation.The letter size is almost too small to make the channel letters out of. Com. Cesario stated that the sign would be approximately two-thirds (2/3)the size of the proposed wall sign. Mr. Rzewuski stated that is correct. Mr.Rzewuski advised that he provided a color photograph of the center located directly across the street, competing for attention, whose signs are well over, possibly eighty (80) to ninety (90) percent of the length. They are looking for fifty (50) percent of the length. They are not asking for a lot on the south elevation. Com. Windecker stated that even though Mr. Rzewuski did not have the permit,they still put the sign up,which was made special, as testified to at the ART meeting.The sign was already ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19,2013 PAGE 3 of 16 fabricated and would have been out of specification to begin with. In addition, a variation was not applied for at that time knowing that the sign was over the limit of the Code. He asked why a double line sign was not utilized for the south elevation. Mr. Rzewuski stated that a stacked sign does not look good. Corn. Windecker advised that eleven (11) other communities have a stacked sign. Mr. Rzewuski replied that there is not enough vertical wall space. The logo does not look good stacked. He could put a much larger sign on the south elevation if the sign was stacked. However, it looks better for GoldMax, for the community, for everyone, to have the sign one (1) line of copy and have less of a foot print in terms of square footage on the elevation. He is just looking for relief pertaining to the length. All the other businesses in this commercial district are allowed more length. Com. Windecker stated that there are no other Cash for Gold competitors in the area. Mr. Rzewuski clarified he meant general retail competition. Com. Windecker stated that the GoldMax location in Palatine at Lake Cook Road and Rand Road has a smaller Cash for Gold sign and also removed some signs completely. He was curious as to why they would want to install such a large sign without stacking it in order to fill up the area which would be within Code. There are numerous towns where the wall signs are two (2) or even three (3) lines. It is not unique that the ZBA is objecting to a single line sign because the impression he got at the ART meeting was that the installer does not really put up anything but single line signs. But that is not the case. Corn. Shapiro stated that in the ART minutes he saw testimony that the ground sign is not valuable. He asked if GoldMax is looking to remove that sign or will they retain that sign in addition to all the wall signs. Mr. Rzewuski stated that GoldMax is not looking to remove the ground sign. He does not have access to the lease but they may not be allowed to do that. Corn. Shapiro stated that he does not believe that the Village would have an issue with people removing signs. He confirmed that the Petitioner is requesting these signs in addition to a ground sign that was testified to as not being valuable. Mr. Rzewuski replied that GoldMax tracks their calls. Ch. Entman stated that the ZBA knows that the south elevation wall sign was installed prior to obtaining the proper variance and/or permit. He believes that is inexcusable. He knows it happens. He has been Chairman a long time and he has seen that happen a lot. There is no reason that the south elevation wasn't properly addressed, that a sign was installed on the wall, made in excess of the allowable limits without obtaining the permit. He has seen a lot of things like this over the years and he thinks it is inexcusable. Also, from what he can see from the materials submitted with the application, the name of the business is identified as Midwest Goldbuyers dba GoldMax. Then there is a sign on the south elevation that says GoldMax. He is not sure if this is a legally recognized assumed name. If it is not, then it is not necessarily a legally recognized name. Then on the east elevation, the ZBA is being asked to allow a Cash for Gold wall sign. He does not know if that is a legally recognized name by law. There two (2) different names for which he is not sure if either one is a legally recognized name. Now we are just putting up names on buildings which may or may not be the name of the business or a legally authorized assumed name. The ZBA is then at the whim of anyone that wants to put up anything they want to as a sign. He does not like that and it is not proper to do that. The other ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 4 of 16 thing he does not like is the size of the sign. The ZBA has asked petitioners numerous times if there are alternative sign packages and have been told there are not only to find out that there are. In this case, there are obviously other GoldMax stores that utilize two (2) lines of copy. Exhibit E is the depiction of the elevations with the proposed signage. He believes the Exhibit is deceiving because in reality when you go to the site to see the signage, it appears to be much larger. The sign that was installed on the south elevation appears to cover almost the entire length. It may not, but it is pretty massive. The fact that the shopping center building behind this one has larger signage has no relevance at all. The buildings across the street have no relevance as well. There is also a ground sign on the property, and not just a monument sign on the ground, but one that is elevated. You can see that sign from everywhere in addition to the window signage. If you do not know that there is a gold store here at some point in time then you probably have your eyes closed when you are driving by. It is so obvious. There is no need for anything larger than what the Ordinance would allow at that location. There are signs everywhere, there is signage in the windows and there is a ground sign. He does not see the hardship. He does not believe that the criteria has been met to allow the ZBA to consider the variation. For future reference, it is very important to ensure that permits are issued or variations applied for before installing a sign. Installing a sign then asking for relief is not a hardship. Ms. Laurette Monahan, GoldMax, 300 N. Martingale, Schaumburg, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Ms. Monahan stated that the GoldMax name and all their operating names are legally recognized by the State. They are registered and licensed. The statement concerning the ground sign may have been misinterpreted in terms of what was said at the ART meeting. It was not meant to be said that the ground sign is invaluable. What was said is that the ground sign does not provide the same recognition to the customer base as the wall signs do. They track all of their signage with every single customer that comes in their store. They track advertising and they track signage. They ask if they have seen a sign spinner, from the television or radio commercial, did they drive by. All of those numbers are tracked with every single customer and reported monthly. The owners follow that information and that is how they determine the viability of the businesses and that is how some of their stores are determined to be closed if volume drops.The ground signs are almost never mentioned. It is not that you do not see them, but they are not the main draw. To the point that there is a lot of attention and signage at this site, there is, but in this business sometimes if you are not looking for it and it does not apply to you, you will not notice it. She might drive by a pet store or some type of restaurant that does not appeal to her and not even know that it is there. She can see, to a point, why the ZBA is saying they understand how you cannot notice the business. The signage, the building signage and the wording is what draws people attention. They see their advertising and the match it with the sign. So it does make a difference and they do notice it. The sign, which is their logo, is one (1) line straight across. They do make a two (2) line sign for the very small, narrow storefront locations. In this case, there is enough space to not have to do that. They would rather not modify their logo and their look if they have the room. It is not that there is not another choice out there; it is not the preferred choice because that is not their logo. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 5 of 16 Corn. Windecker asked why they bothered spending all the money on a ground sign if it is basically immaterial because there is such a flashing array of signs on the building. A sign on the south and a sign on the east on a very small outlot and all the neon in all the windows. If every business did that we would look like Coney Island. That is not right. Corn. Shapiro asked about the feedback statistics for the ground signs versus the wall signs. Ms. Monahan stated that she does not have that information with her. She does not monitor that herself, those numbers go directly to ownership. Corn. Shapiro asked Ms. Monahan if she believes that the ground sign has to remain even if they do not believe that it drives in traffic. Ms. Monahan stated that the business is a competitive business. If you have the advantage of having another sign, she does not see why you would not actually use it. If the sign is there most businesses would probably use it. Corn. Shapiro started to ask that if the sign is not providing value why would the Petitioner. Ms. Monahan interjected that is not what she is saying. She is not saying the ground sign does not provide any value; it is not the main source. She does not have the lease for the property in front of her, they may be required to maintain that sign because there is a sign there. Most landlords will not have the tenant put a blank panel in a sign if a business occupies the space. Com. Shapiro stated that the ground sign is strictly for the lot and not used by the entire shopping center. Com. Shapiro stated that the Village has had businesses come in and remove signs. It is not one that is required by the shopping center and it is only for that location. Ms. Monahan advised that she cannot speak to that, if it is allowed or not. She does not know if they are required to keep that sign. Com. Shapiro asked Mr. Sheehan if the signs in the windows are considered signs. Mr. Sheehan stated that they are window signs.The Sign Code allows window signs to cover up to forty(40) percent of the windows on each elevation. Corn. Shapiro asked Mr. Sheehan if these window signs are in compliance with the Sign Code. Mr. Sheehan advised that based on what he can see in the photographs,they are. Com. Cesario stated that he appreciates that the total square footage of the signs are under the allowable. Looking at the photograph, he can kind of understand how the sizes are trying to match each other, especially if you are looking at the building from the corner. He would have liked to have seen what a compliant sign would have been. Not having seen that, he is trying to guess what a compliant sign would look like. It would be helpful to see that difference is. Ch. Entman stated that he does not want his comments misconstrued. He is not saying that there is no signage that should be allowed and that a business does not need signage, of course they do. His point is that there is way too much signage and the proposed is too large at this location. There is a ground sign and there are two (2) elevations for wall signs on a busy corner. What the Ordinance allows should be sufficient. As far as he knows, there is no competition in that area. This is the gold store on this corner and in this area. If customers are looking for the business,there is plenty out there to allow them to find it. He is not persuaded by the argument that a lot of large signs are needed. He believes that it is clear that the sign proposed for the east elevation, Cash for Gold, has nothing to do with the name of the business. It is either Midwest Goldbuyers or it is GoldMax. He does not see where Cash for Gold is a relevant sign on ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 6 of 16 any wall. He noted that in the minutes from the ART meeting it was suggested that some alternatives be submitted to the ZBA to review. Some of the comments from the Commissioners was that they would have liked to have seen a depiction of what the signage would have looked like in scale at the allowable lengths and maybe some alternatives as well. Mr. Rzewuski stated that he brought that up at the ART meeting and based on his conversation with Mr. Sheehan it was his understanding that if it came down to smaller length, could the ZBA agree on a shorter length without a drawing. He cannot provide drawings with the signage depicted in four (4) inch increments. To save time he would like to talk about one (1) sign and then other. They are not asking for more area than allowed. If they stack the sign they could go bigger than what is shown on the Exhibit. It would be a bigger footprint and would not look good. They are trying to make the building look nice with less of a footprint. The proposal is less than what is allowed per the Code, it is cleaner and nicer. The east elevation sign would be fifteen (15) square feet under the allowable. Is that sign too big? He would prefer not to be tabled for another month. Ch. Entman replied that at the ART meeting it was suggested to bring in alternatives. The ZBA likes to see them pictorially so they can envision what the sign will actually look like. That was not provided. There is nothing in front of the ZBA that shows what the signs would look like if signs were designed at what the Ordinance allows as opposed to this proposal or alternatives. Com. Shapiro asked if Exhibit E is to scale. Mr. Rzewuski stated that it is to scale. Also, when he referred to competition, he is talking about general retail competition in the area. Noodles & Company and the other stores, they have ground signs as well. There are loads of signs. It is a heavily signed area. They are not asking for much based on the area. Eight (8) feet would be almost nothing on the south elevation. Corn. Au asked Mr. Sheehan if the Ordinance allows for signs other than the business name. Mr. Sheehan stated that the current Ordinance is neutral on sign content. The Village does not really get involved with content. The Village Code prescribes that a sign or sign package comply with requirements regarding size, color, number and placement. Mr. Rzewuski stated that was never brought up to him. It was his impression from the ART meeting that the ART members thought the proposed signs looked clean and nice, much nicer than what was up before. There were box signs up there before. These are more expensive signs. The ball was dropped on the permit and once he knew about it, he could not move any faster to rectify the situation. Corn. Cesario stated that he agrees that the signs look cleaner as one (1) line of signage when you look at the backdrop of what is behind the building. When you look at the center behind it, you see one (1) row of signs. These would fit more nicely together. He also understands why they want the south and east elevations to be close to the same height for the consistency. His only concern is that it would be nice to see what the south elevation sign would look like if done to Code. Fifty (50) inches off is a big difference from the current Code. He understands that it is not a big wall but there is a good amount of signage on that corner. It has nothing to do with what Mr. Rzewuski does, it has to do with how many signs, how much signage, how aggressive the signage is and thinking about what is best for the rest of the community. ..J ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 7of16 Mr. Rzewuski asked, for the east sign, if twelve (12) inches longer seem too big. Com. Cesario stated that to him it looks kind of big for what it is. Granted it is a bigger wall and it fits in better. It is twelve (12) inches bigger out of the entirety of the wall. On the south elevation, we are talking about fifty (50) inches. Now that is a lot bigger, especially for the size. He is not saying that a stacked sign is a better sign. He is just saying that it would be nice to see what something less than fifty (50) inches over would look like, especially when there is a significant amount of signage on that corner. Mr. Rzewuski stated that he would be willing to reduce the proposed south elevation wall sign, but wants to leave the east elevation wall sign as proposed. Mr. Rzewuski asked if the ZBA would be amenable to allow the south elevation wall sign to be twelve (12) inches over the allowable length. Ch. Entman advised Mr. Rzewuski that he can amend his petition and ask the ZBA to vote on it as amended. Mr. Rzewuski amended his petition to request the proposed south elevation wall sign to exceed the maximum length permitted by twelve (12) inches. Com. Cesario asked if the south elevation wall sign would be reduced in scale to meet the new proposed length. Mr. Rzewuski advised that the sign would be reduced over all to be proportionate in height to the new length. It would most likely be approximately sixteen (16) inch high letters. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Cesario made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Comet Neon, 1120 North Ridge Avenue, Lombard, Illinois 60148 on behalf of GoldMax, 1200 W. Dundee Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.16.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.16.070, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing the "Cash for Gold" wall sign (to be relocated from the South elevation) to exceed the maximum sign length permitted by twelve (12) inches on the East elevation of the building; and to allow the proposed "GoldMax" wall sign to exceed the maximum sign length permitted by twelve (12) inches on the South elevation of the building. The height of the "GoldMax" sign is to be reduced proportionately to the length. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated March 7, 2013. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection A. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 8 of 16 AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Shapiro, Au NAY—Steingold, Entman ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 4 to 2. Item to appear on the April 15, 2013 Village Board agenda. 15-45 E. DUNDEE ROAD, 14 DUNDEE ROAD, LLC - ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.44.030.1, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF FORTY-FIVE(45) FEET BY ELEVEN (11) FEET SIX(6) INCHES Mr. Nick Vittore, Svigos Asset Management, 580 N. Bank Lane, Suite 33, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on February 27, 2013 was read. Mr. Vittore explained that they have been planning the redevelopment of the Cambridge Commons Shopping Center located at the corner Dundee Road and Buffalo Grove Road for sometime. The Dominick's controlled the anchor space in the center up until the end of 2011. When that lease expired they were able to take control of the center and begin the redevelopment preparations to resurrect the center from what it looks like now to more of a community focal point. Svigos Asset Management has managed this property and 14 Dundee, LLC has owned this property since 2003. When they came into possession in 2003 there was not much they could with the center because it was controlled by Dominick's. Once Dominick's had moved across the street, the center had dwindled down and it has been very difficult to try to attract high quality tenants. The real reason, in their opinion, is the lack of a strong anchor tenant and an updated facade. They are now looking to place a new facade on the center and update the entire grounds, including landscaping, to try and put the center back to what is was when it first came into existence. When they looked at this center and what their options were, the center was originally designed for a grocery store. The parking layout is good. The building footprint is not bad. Dominick's operated at this location for a long time until they switched to format of seventy thousand (70,000) square foot stores. They thought about knocking this center down but they do not know what they would gain from that and believe that the community would suffer from that. Demolition is evasive with a lot of dust and noise and it would take a lot longer. The building is not a bad use. To bring it into 2013 the arched barrel roof is very difficult to get away from. Everyone associates that barrel roof with Cambridge Commons. They want to give the appearance of a brand new building and cover the barrel roof. They also want to cover up the roof top equipment as much as they possibly can. When standing across the street he can see roof top equipment and that is not ideal for anyone to look at. Increasing the height of the roof will give the appearance of a brand new building and will also remove the sight of the barrel roof from the street. On the inside, they will be able to maintain the barrel roof and will be able to use that to their advantage and create a loft-type feel. They do not see any other way resurrect this building to the 21st century without building the mansard roof and the facade in front to extent up at the height they are requesting. LJ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 9 of 16 Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated March 7, 2013 into the record. Corn. Windecker asked what the height of the barrel roof is at its highest point. Mr. Vittore stated that the barrel roof is slightly higher than thirty (30)feet. Com. Cesario stated that the proposed façade does not look that much taller than what is there now. He believes it is an attractive look. Com. Shapiro asked if there is a Fresh Farms store that will lease that property. Mr. Vittore stated that there is a good chance that they will be able to reach an agreement with Fresh Farms. Com. Shapiro asked if the rendering depicting Fresh Farms is just for illustrative purposes. Mr. Vittore stated that the architect that designed the Fresh Farms in Wheeling is being used for this project. They would like to put a Fresh Farm store in the center. Currently Rogan's Shoes is occupying the space. Corn. Shapiro asked if there will be sufficient parking. When looking at the site plan there does not appear to be a lot of parking for a large grocery store. Mr. Vittore explained that the east parking lot is quiet large. He believes there are two hundred seventy five (275) parking spaces. Com. Shapiro asked if the number of tenants will be reduced in the center. Mr. Vittore replied that initially when they approached this their plan was to keep Rogan's Shoes and have them occupy the space to the west. Illinois Dental Center would remain in their current location. Unfortunately they found out that Pat Rogan has had a change of heart in the 11th hour. Right now they are talking to anyone and everyone who will listen to their sales pitch for tenants on the west side of the center. Ideally they would like to do one (1) larger space on the west. Corn. Shapiro stated that if there are the same number of tenants that are in the center today, plus a large grocery store, it does not seem like there is enough parking. However, he does believe that the proposed facade changes are a much improved look to the center. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Vittore if any of the current tenants will remain after construction. Mr. Vittore stated that they have a pretty strong indication from Little Caesar's that they would like to stay if they can accommodate them. They are trying to get a larger tenant in the center. In the event that they can secure a tenant like that, Little Caesar's would vacate the center. The northwest corner space in the center would be pretty valuable and they would try to get a fast but casual restaurant, such as a Panera or Corner Bakery. But they would have to go out to market on that. The development with Rogan's Shoes has happened in the last ten (10) days. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Vittore if Rogan's Shoes are not staying in the center. Mr. Vittore responded that Rogan's Shoes will not be taking the space on the west side of the center. Ch. Entman asked about that status of the current leases. Mr. Vittore advised that there is no one left in the center except for Illinois Dental Center and Little Caesar's. Rogan's is on a temporary lease. Their initial plan for construction would be to address the facade right away and then start the interior work. Ch. Entman stated that he is not really in favor of the proposed height of the façade. The building will go from a height of just under thirty one (31) feet to over fifty six (56) feet. That is a massive structure. The building looks beautiful as far as what is being `.J ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 10 of 16 depicted. The aesthetics and the design of the architectural looks nice, but he has an issue with the size. It is huge. We are talking about a five and a half(5-1/2) story building compared to the current roof height of thirty one (31) feet. Even with the HVAC equipment he cannot see where the twenty six (26) extra feet comes in. Albeit it is commercial and this is a fairly busy corner in the Village. There is residential to the east and he just does not like the look of it as far as the height. If the height is reduced he would not have a problem. He thinks it is too big. He thinks it is really ominous-looking and it does not serve a purpose. In addition, there is the situation of not having any tenants in the center. He will be the first to admit that there is a need because this is a very worn out looking center. It is not very successful. It obviously needs to be redone. He welcomes the opportunity for management to do that but he does not like the proposed height and there is not even a tenant committed. He cannot see it being a necessity to have the building that high. He is not sure what can be done to reduce the height, but he is personally not in favor of that large structure in the front. Mr. Vittore stated that the proposed facade is very similar to what they did in the Wheeling shopping center. It is no coincidence that Fresh Farms in on the depiction. Fresh Farms is not going to commit to this deal if they cannot provide them with a structure in appearance that is along their branding. The big grand entrance, the cultured brick, the large facade, is somewhat at their direction. If the request is to be denied and the barrel roof maintained, he does not believe they would be able to proceed with a tenant like Fresh Farms. They want Fresh Farms because they do a huge amount of business and they tend to be a positive addition to a community. It gives residents a nice alternative to the Wal-Mart or Target grocery shopping. Ch. Entman stated that he agrees with Mr. Vittore. There is no question that management wants a successful retailer that has some quality behind it. He is not disputing that. He just believes that the building would be way too big. If there is a commitment in writing, a lease for example, signed by Fresh Farms for ten (10) years on that space subject to ownership being able to update the facade. However, even with that commitment, that does not mean that it would change his mind. But it means management would have something to show that there is something in this transaction that is contingent upon the height. Maybe then there might be some way to work it because we are getting committed value to that center. But just to build it with the hope that it will happen; he personally cannot go along with that. Mr. Vittore stated that they would not have had the architect go through the effort of preparing plans to this point, which have been extremely expensive. They are extremely confident that this is going to happen if they can get the building to look the way that Fresh Farms wants. Ch. Entman explained that in the past proposals have been made to the ZBA based on certain information and based on that information they may have been granted only to find out that things had changed.That may be why he is hesitant. Com. Cesario asked Mr. Vittore to walk the ZBA through how the existing barrel roof that maxes out thirty one (31) feet needs twenty five (25) more feet to square it off. Mr. Vittore explained that to give the same look and appearance and the same theme that was done at the Wheeling shopping center, to have a mansard roof with inlaid gutters and the cultured brick and the slate roof, they went to the architect and told them to make it as attractive as a building that they can without having to knock the building down and keeping it in line with the look that Fresh Farms wants. The Wheeling center has been a great success. They have quite a bit of experience ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 11 of 16 with the architect. They do not want to build more than they absolutely have to in order to achieve the look. The architect, ownership and himself believe that this is what needs to be done in order achieve those goals. To cover the barrel and to create a new look. If this building does not look new from the outside, it will make it very difficult for any retailer, especially a grocer, to go in the there and be successful. He has seen before where management will do a Dryvit attachment on the top of the building and that does not really help the retailers or the center. This type of construction is a long term investment with high quality materials. This is as efficient as they can make it in terms of the height to achieve the goals of making it a new building and covering the barrel roof. Com. Cesario stated that based on Exhibit E, the main structure maximum height is forty three and a half (43-1/2) feet, not including the tower front. The proposed facade does look nicer and the center needs a face lift, but does it need thirteen (13) more feet for that largely aesthetic front tower. Mr. Vittore stated that Exhibit F2 reflects the HVAC equipment that can be seen from the street level. When there is a grocery store, there will be an extensive amount of equipment on the roof. They also cannot come up with any other solution that they feel achieves a revitalization of the center. They do not feel that there is a more efficient way to achieve their goal without going thirteen (13) feet higher on the building. They would like to go lower but it is not in the cards in terms of the tenant and covering the barrel roof. Corn. Cesario stated that the roof top equipment is not going to be ten (10) feet high. Mr. Vittore responded that the barrel arches over thirty (30) feet. If they do not increase that roof height, you will be able to see the arch, because the arch is going to go away behind the facade. Without a facade and the lower roof of forty three (43) feet, you will see that arch from certain angles as you approach the center. Corn. Cesario stated that they are asking to add thirteen (13) more feet just to get to the forty three(43) feet, then to add another thirteen (13) feet to that, that is an awful lot. Mr. Vittore agreed that it would be a large structure. Corn. Cesario added that it appears to be more for the aesthetic visual appeal than actually for a practical nature of hiding roof top equipment. Mr. Vittore agrees that it is not solely to hide the roof top equipment; the primary goal is to hide the arch. When looking at Exhibit E, you would never know that the arch is there. The proposed roof line would cover the barrel roof completely. Corn. Cesario responded that roof line is forty three and half (43-1/2) feet. That roof line is not the issue. Mr. Vittore stated that he understands what Corn. Cesario means. The ZBA is talking about the tower at the main entrance to Fresh Farms. To answer the question about the need for the tower roof line is that there would be no Fresh Farms without a nice, large entrance that keeps in line with their brand. Corn. Au stated that she does not mind the height in the front because if you just square off the barrel roof it will look like it was sloppily done. It will not be proportionate with the windows and the brick facade. She understands that they are trying to preserve the dome as well as make it look nice. She asked Mr. Vittore how high the roof line is at the Wheeling location. Mr. Vittore stated that the roof is fifty seven (57) feet high. That is also a large structure and they had the same conversations with the Wheeling Board as well. That is a very problematic area due to Palwaukee Airport but they have not had any trouble with it. They do believe that the building does fit into that area quite well. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 12 of 16 Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Vittore what they plan on having in the extra twenty (25)feet. What would be above the barrel roof? Mr. Vittore responded that it would be a mansard roof. It's a structure that would look like a roof. There will not be anything behind the front façade. Corn. Windecker stated that if the height was brought down to forty (40) feet it would be a less shallow roof. Mr. Vittore stated that the line of shopping center would have to change completely because the pitch of the roof would be different and he does not know if the inlay of the gutters and such would change. They would have to go back to the drawing board. Com. Windecker asked what the store in Wheeling has as far as the height of the tower. Mr. Vittore stated that they have the same mansard roof. Corn. Windecker asked if the grocery store is one (1) level. Mr. Vittore stated that it is one level. There is a small mezzanine in there but that is only ten (10) or fifteen (15) feet up. Corn. Shapiro stated that when you look at the Wheeling façade, you see a gap between the upper roof line and the lower roof line. So they are not really attached. What if the entrance was spread out wider so the roof line could be brought down and still keep the same proportions. At forty three (43) feet, the HVAC and the barrel roof would be covered up. You can bring the height down and still have a grand entrance. Mr. Vittore replied that they have looked at this plan extensively to try and achieve the goal. At the point where you start to have the arch hit the peak of the roof everyone will associate it with the previous structure and then you are talking about a much different type of center. He is not sure if they would be able to maintain the barrel with a lower roof line. Corn. Shapiro asked if Mr. Vittore knows the height at the point where you would still be able to see the arch. Mr. Vittore does not know that information. Corn. Shapiro stated that the proposed height is not necessarily the minimum height that would hide the barrel roof. Mr. Vittore explained that the proposed height is not going to fifty six (56) feet for the sake of fifty six (56)feet. To maintain the opening, the expanse that is there now, this is in proportion to how the space should look. There is no way to cover the barrel roof and reduce the height of the façade. They want to keep it as low as they can. They do not want to tear the building down. Com. Shapiro confirmed with Mr. Vittore that the arch, as depicted on Exhibit F, from ground to ground, will be maintained and covered by the new façade. Com. Shapiro also confirmed with Mr. Vittore that the proposed fifty six (56)feet is what is required to screen the HVAC equipment from the street level view. Mr. Frank Sears, 50 Lake Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Mr. Sears explained that he is the President of the Bordeaux Condominium Association. It is the building immediately to the east of the shopping center. Many of their windows face the center. He is opposing the request. Particularly due to the increase in the height, which they believe is totally unnecessary. The proposed facade changes would not add five (5) percent to the good appearance of a remodeled shopping center. The roof on the Fresh Farms in Wheeling is not a mansard roof. It is a typical gabled roof. It is a hipped roof on the entrance to the building and the balance of the building has a typical gabled roof. He only had a chance to look at the proposed elevations once. He did not see any form of a mansard roof on this proposed building. But it would be possible to hide the barrel roof with a form on mansard. He believes the best use of a zoning appeal would be to correct an obvious error or omission in the zoning ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 13 of 16 plan or to relieve an owner of an unclear or unnecessary hardship caused by the zoning provisions or to provide an alternate for a logical, but legal improvement. In this case, in addition to imposing an arbitrary and unnecessary roof height that will limit the skyline views and light for it's neighboring properties, this appeal ignores and brushes off the existing zoning standards of the Village. This corner is not State Street, it's not Broadway and 42' Street, it's a Village with sound, reasonable standards of zoning and development for business operations. Adding another eleven and a half(11-1/2) feet of the roof is not relief to an unjust standard and in any way. It would set a precedent for others to appeal to the ZBA to circumvent existing standards that would not support an unreasonable request. No one is hurt or constrained by upholding the zoning laws on this parcel. The Village's standards are reasonable and sufficient. They should be kept in place and he asks the ZBA to reject this request. It is unbelievable to him that a plan could not be developed within the scope of forty five (45) feet. He does not know why hiding the barrel dome of the existing roof is so important. He does not believe it is very important. He thinks making the entire structure look pretty is the prime goal to attract customers into the stores. The people will not be looking at the roof from corners a block away; they will be looking at the façade. Ch. Entman stated that he believes that the goals of the property manager and developer can be accomplished in a less erroneous fashion. There is a need and the Village wants successful retail in the center. But he has seen enough over the years that there is always a solution other than just one extreme or the other. One extreme would be to not do anything; and one extreme would be to construct something like this and he is of the opinion that there is the ability to arrive at something that accomplishes the goal which is to redevelop this center and bring in successful tenants, but balance that with the needs of the residents and protecting the aesthetics. Mr. Vittore added that the Plaza Shopping Center, where Dominick's is currently located, has two (2) extremely large towers that he is confident are over forty five (45) feet in height. He believes this is a center that can be competitive. The goal of the economic incentive package that was put together with the Village Board was to try to create a community focal point that generates large amounts of revenue for the Village in a positive way. He does not believe that putting together a haphazard building and having Fresh Farms walk away from the deal will help the Village. He also does not believe that it will help the owner of the property. He does not think that the owner of the property will be truly motivated to do much with the property if they do not have anyone to give them incentive like an anchor tenant like Fresh Farms. Com. Cesario stated that the vast majority of the building will be under forty five (45) feet. He asked what percent of the building would be over forty five (45) feet in height. It appears to be a relatively small portion of the building, but he would like to know what the percentage would be. Mr. Vittore does not have the information and he does not want to guess. Trustee Ottenheimer stated that he does not believe that the Village appreciates that fact that there is a threat being made that unless the variance for the height is granted you will take your backhoe and go home. He has not heard any valid testimony or evidence that the same thing ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 14 of 16 can't be accomplished with the height ten (10) feet lower. You are asking the ZBA to approve this for Fresh Farms with no commitment from Fresh Farms. It is like your asking for a single use. What if the ZBA grants the variance for Fresh Farms and for some reason they do not commit. He doesn't know if the ZBA would want to make the variance subject to Fresh Farms only or get more evidence in terms if can this be done ten (10)feet lower in height. Ch. Entman stated that this is a building without a committed tenant and the ZBA is being asked to approve to build without anything to say that there will ever be a tenant there. Absent evidence like that, he cannot approve the request. He asked if Mr. Vittore would want to discuss with the owners if there is something that shows to the ZBA that there is, in fact, going to be a major anchor tenant, such as Fresh Farms, for a certain period of time. Then the ZBA would have something to substantiate the approval. Right now there is no comfort level that would commit anybody to do anything; but once the variance is granted, the Village is stuck with it. He asked if Mr. Vittore would like to discuss the matter further before a vote is taken to see if he can bring some evidence that there are actual commitments of some type from an anchor tenant. That would be more information to allow the ZBA to evaluate the request. It does not mean that the ZBA would vote one way or the other. From what he has heard from the Commissioners there is more information needed. Mr. Vittore stated to Trustee Ottenheimer that it is not as much of a threat but a worry that they cannot present a building that Fresh Farms would occupy. They would hate to have Fresh Farms walk away from the deal over ten (10) feet. It is not a threat that they will take their building and run. On the other hand, if the cash flow is not there, it is not there. Mr. Vittore requested to Table the petition to the next ZBA meeting. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made a motion to Table the request made by 14 Dundee, LLC on behalf of Svigos Asset Management, 580 N. Bank Lane, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.44.030.1, pertaining to Height Regulations, for the purpose of allowing the height of the building to exceed the maximum permitted height of forty-five (45) feet by eleven (11) feet six (6) inches, to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals scheduled for April 16, 2013. Corn. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the April 16, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 15 of 16 ANNOUCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Windecker and seconded by Corn. Au. Voice Vote —AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:07 P.M. Submitted by, Qvi A A6wciOL___ arnka• Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 19, 2013 PAGE 16 of 16