Loading...
2013-04-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes (2) AINlowEB As sc,42:01rroa) slakl 3 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16,2013 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday,April 16, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Also Present: Les Ottenheimer,Village Trustee William Raysa, Village Attorney Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner Commissioner Cesario arrived at 7:43 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 19, 2013 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, March 19, 2013. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—Lesser Motion Passed 4 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 1 of 28 vfr.7771 I Mr. Nick Vittore, Svigos Asset Management, 580 N. Bank Lane, Suite 33, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045, and Mr. Peter Theodore, Camburas & Theodore, 2454 E. Dempster Street, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on February 27, 2013 was read on March 19, 2013. Mr. Vittore explained that after the previous Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting he reviewed the discussions with the architect, Mr. Theodore. They reviewed the comments regarding to the initial renderings. They discussed the height of the arch and the importance of maintaining proportion on a building of this size with such a large expanse of storefront. He told Mr. Theodore to go back to the drawing board and do what he could to bring the height of the building down but keep some type of proportion and essentially start over. A rendering was created by Camburas &Theodore labeled "Reconfiguration with Incorrect Proportions" and was submitted to the ZBA for review. The rendering basically shows that mansard roof removed from the top of the center to try and come in compliance. The owner of the shopping center was not satisfied with this design. They do not believe that it looks good, especially compared to the initial design. They find that the proportions are somewhat disjointed. He asked Mr. Theodore to testify at the public hearing to speak to some of the comments made at the last ZBA meeting. They want to move forward with their original proposal.They feel that is the best- looking design. They have worked for over a year on that design. They do not believe that there is any other approach with this center to maintain something that looks aesthetically pleasing for the community and satisfy the need for a major grocer to occupy the building. Mr. Theodore explained that after Mr. Vittore shared the ZBA's comments with him, he looked at the existing proportions, the constraints with the bow truss building and take the comments to paper to see if there was any merit to the comments. In some respects there is, but he wants the ZBA to look at all the pieces and understand how he arrived at the solution he did. He believes that it is important to look at all the pieces, the complete shopping center, and then look at the center element and ask if the height is something they can live with or is the height something that will be attractive and is it in proportion to the over all building. Their goal was to revamp the entire center. It was not just to deal with the existing bow truss but to look at the smaller retail shops and to screen the mechanical equipment. They looked at how they could identify the storefronts in a more cohesive national tenant fashion. The want to draw quality tenants to the center. In order to do that they want to treat the center as if it is a new building. When you look at the small shops,those set up the guidelines that get them towards the grocer space. They used a glass line of approximately twelve (12) feet to create the windows and the transparency into those small shops, which is standard in the industry for retail architecture. Then you have to factor in the sign panel area. They wanted to provide enough of a sign panel so that the letters could be an accent to the façade but not situated in such a way that the signs become compressed or forced into the sign area. So they came up with a banding of approximately six (6) feet +/-. In capping off that sign panel, they wanted to come up with a cornice treatment which would give a nice articulation to the top of the sign band and a nice lead-in to the roof. That adds another two (2) feet. As you add up the dimensions, the proportions with the glass, the sign band, the cornice and the roof, come into the essence of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 2 of 28 the whole structure. Now to bring down the mass of that structure and capitalize and piggy *•-/ back on features found throughout the neighborhood, they are going to an elaborate roof system. The roof system that they would use would have synthetic slate; it will have a built-in gutter system and brings everything together in a nice, cohesive way that he believes defines the center. While this is a commercial structure they are trying to define it in a way that it can be nestled into a community and not stand out as a structure that is unlike any other building in the surrounding area. When looking at the tower entrance for the grocer space, the challenge he has is the bow trusses that are thirty (30) feet high. They will be replacing all the mechanical equipment on the roof. They have to add structure on the top of the bow truss. In order to accommodate all that without ripping it all down, they are stuck with some of the heights. Dealing with those heights and putting those heights aside, they had one or two options. They could either knock down the entire structure and start over or they could take advantage of the bow trusses. They believe that when they are done revamping the bow trusses, for which they have a lot of different ideas, those trusses are going to add a feature to the interior that will create an environment that will be very unique to the food industry. The grocer is a very successful food paramour. They have done an excellent job at other locations. They provide quality service and their interior environment is rather unique in the food store industry. Rather than tear down the building and start over,they believe they can create a space that has a lot of dynamic and volume to it while working within the constraints of the bow trusses. What they did not want to do is make a weak effort in hiding the bow trusses or playing up the bow trusses. They will be cladding over the trusses and looking at the massing relative to the massing adjacent to it. He looked at flattening the top of the tower and bringing it down within ..d' the Ordinance. The ZBA may find it attractive or not. The look tends to get squatty because of the height relative to the width of the arch. The proportions start to feel as if the arch wants to be compressed into the ground and the beauty of the arch is almost lost.The problem that they have with the elevation is when you merely look at the numbers and you see fifty six (56) feet to the top of the roof, it seems like a height that is very hard to deal with until you realize that the roof is sloping at almost a ten (10) foot radiant and that while you see the elevation at fifty six (56) feet the perception of that building is not going to be a six (6) story building, it will actually be closer to a four (4) story building. When he designed the grocery store down the road and it was being reviewed, the same comments came up and that building is closer to the road and there is a lot of things going on with the building similar in that they believed that tower was out of proportion and he questioned it himself until he saw the trusses going up. He even left himself open to adjusting the trusses, if necessary, if the massing was getting too tall. What he purposely did on the center portion of the proposed roof was he created a gradient on each side of the roof; front, back and sides, to go back at a steep enough angle so the perception of what you see in the elevation is not really true to the example of what will be built. He asked the ZBA to consider both options. They will not tell the ZBA that is one or the other. What they will ask is that if the ZBA looks at both options, look at how the center portion leads into the flanking portions, how it all comes together as a composition. If you put the dimensions aside and look it purely from a massing standpoint, the ZBA has to ask themselves if they are comfortable with the massing or does the massing really bother them. He has completed over a thousand shopping centers, he is licensed throughout the United States and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 3 of 28 he worked in this capacity for thirty (30) years. If he did not feel that the initial proposal was right from a massing standpoint or that the building would be a downgrade to the community, he would not be able to stand before the ZBA nor would he risk his reputation. He believes that the initial proposal is a good solution from the standpoint that when the center is complete the center will look brand new. If he takes that mansard roof off, he would be saving the developer approximately one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in construction costs. So it is not a cost issue, if anything, the developer is spending more money to create a feature that ties the entire center together. Everything that is being proposed is to essentially rebuild the center and attract the type of tenant that they want into the center. They are not looking for transient, non-national tenants; they are looking for quality tenants that will be in the community for a long time. They are rebuilding the retail shops. The entire skin of those retails shops is coming off, they are adding a sub-structure within the retail structure and essentially all they are saving on the retail shops is the concrete slab and some footings; everything else is coming off. When you look at other examples of shuttered Dominick's and arched buildings the solutions to those problems has been very poor and the buildings still come across as a building that was built in the 1970's. He believes the center would be a failure from a financial standpoint for the grocer and it would not characterize where that company is going with their branding. The grocer's goal is to put their best foot forward and to bring their best product to the Village. Ch. Entman read into the record the letter submitted by Svigos Development dated April 9, 2013 which was marked as Exhibit "L"; an 8.5" x 11" color rendering of the original proposal which was marked as Exhibit "J"; and an 11" x 17" black & white rendering labeled "Reconfiguration with Incorrect Proportions" which was marked as Exhibit "K". Com. Windecker asked the Petitioner if they are interested to present the building to the prospective tenant so that the building looks good or for what the tenant will sell inside the building. It becomes a problem to him that the Petitioner is worried about the architecture outside the building when the ZBA really does not know who the tenant will be, if there is a lease. The grocer's location in Niles does not have a fifty seven (57) foot high roof on that building. That building has what he would call a normal roof for a grocery store. He does not know what type of image the Petitioner is trying to project when the ZBA does not know who the tenant is. There is no letter from the grocer indicating they are interested in this location. There is nothing provided in writing that states what exactly will be done. Is the Petitioner only going to update the grocer tenant space?The building is only thirty one (31) feet high now, why does the building have to be fifty seven (57) feet high. The grocer will not have a second floor inside the store. When will the remainder of the center be updated, at the same time under one (1) building permit for the entire building at once or just the grocer tenant space. He does not have the answers for those questions and the promises the Petitioner has made do not mean a thing unless the ZBA sees something that means something. Mr. Theodore responded the store in Niles was an existing Cub Foods store. There were constraints in that store with bar joists and the way the building was constructed. Then it became a Korean market, and then it became the possible grocer tenant. That store was a retro fit in an existing shopping center with a minimal amount of work done to it. It is not unlike the Jewel stores. Regardless of the tenant, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 4 of 28 what are the objectives at this location; it is cosmetically to address the outside,the inside, how will this suit all different people. They are stuck with trusses. To the top of the trusses it is approximately thirty (30) feet. When you look at the "Reconfiguration" rendering, to get a sign and a cornice on the building you will be seventeen (17) feet above the top of the twenty eight (28) feet, for a total of approximately forty six (46) feet. If they did not do any roof at all they would be approximately forty six (46) to fifty (50) feet just to get the flat part of that structure enclosed within the parameters that exist. They are trying to work within the existing structure. If they lowered the proposed roof line down to what the ZBA would like to see they would still be about a five (5) story building. As far as the inside and the outside relating to each and what the Petitioner will get for it; by preserving the trusses the space will have a nice volume to it. The space will have a very unique look to it. This look does not exist in the Village. The building is not a bar joist building, it has trusses. When they walked the space they looked at the trusses and talked about sandblasting the trusses and almost bringing a warehouse market feel to the space to lend itself to a food store or a large box user. It would be a shame if it did not evolve into this warehouse open space that capitalizes on the bow trusses but their goals and objectives right now are to create an open, lofty space. When talking about the height of the building, he asked the ZBA to look at the flat version versus the peaked roof version and ask themselves if it is the height or the massing that they do not like. You cannot look at the number and say that number is bothersome. The numbers are really not relative unless it is adjacent to something that it would not conform with. If the building would be blocking the sun or a pool or something adjacent to the building that has some meaning and the building would be destructive to, then he could understand the height relative to why the ZBA would not want it. He asked if the proportions bother the ZBA when looking at the flat versus the hip roof. Corn. Windecker stated that the Petitioner has to look at something in the area also. There are condominiums in the area that would reflect upon the height of the building. It was stated that the building Niles was a hand me down building and he wonders how business is at that location. Mr. Theodore stated that the Niles store is great but they were shoehorned into an existing shopping center, there was not a lot of money into that facade and they brought their best foot forward on the interior. This center is a complete revamp of the entire shopping center. This is not just one (1) piece of it. It would be real easy for them to just paint the center or take a very non-evasive approach to the redesign, but they are redoing the entire center. Corn. Windecker stated that he understands what the Petitioner is proposing but if you go to a nice grocery store to shop you are not going the store to look at the architecture and spend hours in the store. Usually you go shopping, get out and go home. This proposal is quite different than the architecture in the Council Chambers where you may sit for several hours. A grocery store is a different type of business. He does not know what the Petitioner is planning to do with all the space above. Is the open space above being utilized at the Wheeling location? Mr. Theodore stated that there is a mezzanine in that store. There are offices and they want to have a coffee shop up there. They use the mezzanine for remote equipment as well. Com. Windecker asked if the coffee shop already exists on the mezzanine at the Wheeling location. Mr. Theodore stated not at this time. Corn Windecker stated that is what he is saying and the ZBA does not even know who the tenant will be. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 5of28 Mr. Vittore stated that he has been working with Village staff on this center for years trying to move it in the right direction, something that the community can look at and feel good about. What he looks at now and what the surrounding condominiums look at it is not something to wear on your chest and say that this is a great center in Buffalo Grove. They have worked with staff for such a long time. At the last ZBA meeting he was quite surprised with all the tenant specific questions that he received and he was not well prepared for that. As he addressed in his letter dated April 9, 2013 he was trying to be as specific as possible without breaching any confidentiality they have with perspective tenants. In this day and age with the competition, not only for grocers, but for general retail space, the landlord is not in a position to stick tenants in and out. In the current shopping center they have had transient tenants like Cash for Gold which is not an ideal community-based business. The name Fresh Farms has been brought up and they have been courting them and have had very lengthy discussions with them. The perspective tenant has contingencies that are specific to the design of the outside, the inside, signage and the look of the center. Other locations that the grocer may have are not really relevant as to how they want to move forward in the future. In terms of tenants, he believes it is all well related because the competition these days is fierce and it is definitely fierce in Buffalo Grove when Dominick's has a very strong foothold. They do not want to knock Dominick's out of the marketplace but there needs to be a shopping center that can compete with such a large grocer. Corn. Windecker stated that since this location would be only a mile away from their other location he wonders will this grocer succeed or what will happen. He asked if the Petitioner has anything that they can share with the ZBA to show what requirements the grocer has for design of the building or intent to lease. The Petitioner is telling the ZBA that a lease agreement has been entered into with the grocery store, which is eighty five (85) percent of the entire building. Mr. Vittore stated that the grocer at the Wheeling shopping center is within five thousand (5,000) square feet of the grocer tenant space at this center. Com. Windecker interjected that the ZBA still does not know who is entering eighty five (85) percent of the center. Mr. Vittore asked what the relevance of the actual tenant name is which would have large implications on a confidentiality agreement that has been signed. Corn. Windecker stated the relevance would be for the ZBA to approve something this high or whether the goal can be accomplished within the current regulations. Ch. Entman stated that the Petitioner may or may not have a confidentiality provision in a lease. The identity of the tenant is not really the confidential information, it may be the business terms of the lease, may be ownership of the tenant, but not the identity. The ZBA is entitled to know the identity of the tenant. They will have to complete a tenant identification sheet for the Village and once they move in everyone will know who they are. There is no expectation that information will be private. So the ZBA is not necessarily asking for details of the lease but the ZBA has a right to know who the proposed tenant is going to be under any proposal. That is why the identity of the tenant is relevant. It has a big impact. It is another piece of information that the ZBA uses to address these decisions. He disagrees that the identity of the tenant alone is a confidential matter. It was also indicated in the April 9, 2013 letter that the owners of the shopping center have entered into a lease agreement with a grocery store to occupy 45 E. Dundee Road which is 85% of the entire building. So the grocery store will take almost the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 6 of 28 entire shopping center. The letter continues to state the general terms state that Landlord must `./ provide Tenant with an A-Class shopping center which is in-line with the appearance of the grocer's other locations. This information does not tell the ZBA anything. It does not tell who it is. If in fact there is a lease then the ZBA should know. If it is not leased or there are conditions to the lease or if it is tentative or in the future,the ZBA needs to know. The issue was discussed at length at the previous meeting concerning not granting variances for the shopping center or any shopping center that does not have any tenants. It is relevant. Mr. Vittore responded that the health and success of the anchor tenant is important to the Village of Buffalo Grove but affects the owners of the shopping center more then anyone. If that does not work, then the owners will hang their hats up and be out of business. They are not taking this matter lightly. The proposed tenant will be one that will work very well in the community and they are confident that is what they have. Ch. Entman stated that no one has suggested that the Petitioner is not serious about it, that the Petitioner does not want the center to be a success. He does not know any owner that would not. The point is that it is relevant information that the ZBA is entitled to know. If he does not have that information, it will be very difficult for him to even consider anything. Com. Cesario stated that the ZBA has heard a lot about what has to be done to the existing facade because of the trusses and they have heard a lot about the mystery tenant. If the building were gone and the site was an empty parking lot, how tall would the building have to be, would it be forty five (45)feet or less or would the Petitioner be asking for fifty six (56) feet. Mr. Theodore stated that if the building were gone, based on what he did relative to the needs and wants of the tenant and based on the proportions, he would be asking for fifty (50) feet in height. The accent feature of the tower entrance and to build the structure the way they want to, he would probably be every bit at fifty (50) feet. Corn. Cesario stated that the basis of the accent height request is the particular marketing or image preference of the particular tenant as opposed to the existing structure. Mr. Theodore responded that it is a combination of two things. Corn. Cesario stated that his concern is if this tenant does not succeed here and leaves in a couple years, there will be a very, very tall façade along Dundee Road and empty building which would be even more dramatically barren than what is currently there. He does not argue that the existing structure is not the most attractive in the Village; he does not believe anyone else has. He would love to see the center vital and looking nice. This design is not unattractive but it is a concern because it is very, very tall. Corn. Lesser agrees with Corn. Cesario. Collectively the Village would like to see the center redeveloped and the Petitioner has some wonderful ideas. However, the ZBA is concerned about the proposed height. He agrees that once the redevelopment takes place, if the building is built at the height proposed, fifty six (56) feet, tenants come and go but that building will be there at that height for a very long time.This is a big decision and the ZBA has to give it the level of consideration that they are giving it. He asked the question regarding what the height of the building would be if this were a new, ground up development, ignoring the existing building. Mr. Theodore testified that the building would be roughly fifty (50) feet in height, but also stated that the Petitioner is trying to build the building similar to the building in Wheeling. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 7 of 28 Ignoring the building in Wheeling which had its own set of unique circumstances, in another location what height would a new building for this tenant. Mr.Theodore responded that the smaller retail spaces would be at forty (40) feet in height to the top of the mansard roof regardless. If there was no mansard roof and they were looking at the project purely from a utilitarian standpoint,the building could be twenty four(24)feet. But if you were looking at a Ross Clothing Store, you would be looking at a height of forty two (42) feet. That is their national criteria. It varies depending on the retailer. But if you were purely looking at from a utilitarian standpoint,what could you get on that building and how small could you make the building, you could realistically go down to twenty four (24) feet. If you just take a look at a portion of the building it would not be inconsistent with what you see in the marketplace which puts you at forty(40)feet to the top of the roof. Com. Lesser stated that then the building is twelve(12)or thirteen(13)feet to the bottom of the bar joists and then just decoration above. Mr.Theodore stated that is correct.That decoration gets you a sign panel, it gets you twelve (12) foot glass, and it's get you mathematically to that fifty six (56) foot height. Com. Lesser stated that he is talking about the anchor space. Mr.Theodore stated that the anchor space,if there was not a bow truss that is thirty(30)feet high, could be a lot less. Everything they are proposing is adding costs. Com. Lesser asked what the height would be. For the tenant as indicated in the letter that has been entered into a lease with, if they were doing new construction in a new location what would the building height be.Mr.Theodore responded that a flat structure without a mansard roof would be approximately thirty(30)feet in height. Corn. Lesser addressed Mr.Vittore. In the letter submitted it is stated that there is a lease. He asked if there in fact is a lease signed with an anchor tenant. Mr.Vittore stated there is.Corn. Lesser stated that Mr. Vittore is unwilling to identify the tenant. Mr. Vittore stated that is correct.He added that it is not so much that he is unwilling as he is restricted.He has seen quite a few national grocers place these types of restrictions on them before where they are not allowed to disclose anything.It is not making his job any easier by not being able to disclose the information. Corn. Lesser asked Mr.Vittore if there are certain contingencies in the lease that require certain specifications and/or features of the building in order for the lease to remain in effect. Mr. Vittore stated that is correct. Corn. Lesser asked if the tenant has indicated they would prefer the interior of the existing structure over a newly constructed structure. Mr. Vittore stated that the tenant is very excited with the bow truss roof and they anticipate being able to get the store up and running for them. Com. Lesser asked if Mr. Vittore has had a conversation with the tenant about attending one of the ZBA meetings to testify in the deliberations. Mr.Vittore stated that he has talked to the tenant about coming into a meeting with the Village and the difficultly with that is,from the tenants point of view,this is what they want and if Svigos cannot give it to them,there are other developers that will provide it for them all over the Chicago area. That is a stereo-typical response to a landlord because they want the landlord to jump through hoops. They were not very eager to come to the Village. Com. Lesser stated that if the tenant is established this request should not be unique and the fact that they should appear before a municipal board is not a surprise. He is sure they have done it before. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16,2013 PAGE 8of28 Corn. Shapiro stated that at the ART meeting it was testified to that in order to lease the building they needed that grand entrance. Mr. Vittore stated that is correct. Corn. Shapiro stated that when looking at the proposal he is taking the tenant out of it and asked himself if he would like the look of the building regardless of who the tenant is. He likes both renderings. In the "Reconfiguration" rendering it appears that a different material is being used for the grand entrance and replicated a smaller version of the arch on the west end of the center. As much as the mansard roof looks good; he does not believe that anyone is saying that the original proposal doesn't look good; he feels that if the "Reconfiguration" would be acceptable to the tenant and the height would be acceptable to the ZBA, he does not believe it would be a bad- looking center. As stated, tenants come and go. Either way the center would look way better than it does today. He thinks that the mansard roof fits in with the residential neighborhood behind the center. He believes that there is a pseudo mansard roof on the condominiums next door. If the "Reconfiguration" meets the tenants' needs, he believes it would be more acceptable to the ZBA. Corn. Cesario stated that the comment made earlier about every store being unique in the answer to the question of what is the standard for the tenant. He is trying to reconcile that with the April 9th letter, item 3 which states: "The general terms state that Landlord must provide tenant with an A-Class shopping center which is in-line with the appearance of the Grocer's other locations." He wants to be very clear about what that statement means specifically to the height of the building and if both of the renderings would make sense to the tenant pursuant to that statement. Mr. Vittore stated that the grocer has sat in with them in creating the appearance and he will tell the ZBA something thing that will hopefully make his statements a little more clear, they asked not to have and would specifically would not accept stucco. There are a lot of old shopping centers that get a stucco facade put on them and they try to push a new tenant in and get things going. The grocer is not interested in anything like that. Corn. Cesario stated that the appearance is a look and materials more so than it is the height or some other features of the visual observation. Mr. Vittore stated that for the tenant to be excited about taking this space, the large expanse of store front glass is needed. They like the large expanse of store front glass because it is unique and there is nothing around that looks this good as an old Dominick's. Lincolnwood Produce, for example, is a real sorry attempt at retro- fitting an old Dominick's and they wanted to stay away from that. They want that large entrance and they want that curb appeal to be able to complete. The grand entrance is a requirement. Corn. Cesario stated that the tenant has signed a lease and they have desires, but the terms of the lease do not require those particular things. Mr. Vittore stated that the original proposed rendering is attached to the lease. Corn. Cesario stated that he understands that but the variance required for that rendering has not been approved. Mr. Vittore stated that the challenge they have is trying to maintain that expanse of glass with a proportion. Corn. Cesario stated that Mr. Vittore is referencing a lease that is has been executed with this grocer and part of the variance request is so that the Petitioner can fulfill the requirements of the lease with the grocer. The item of the lease referenced in the April 9th letter is that the appearance will be consistent with the grocer's other locations. Part of the discussion has been that other locations are at various heights and so the question is if the Petitioner presented the rendering with the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 9 of 28 forty five (45) foot height does that satisfy that condition. Mr. Vittore stated that the "Reconfiguration" rendering did not meet their requirements. Corn. Cesario confirmed with Mr. Vittore that the "Reconfiguration" rendering failed to meet the consistency standard for the grocer's properties even though their other properties are taller and shorter. Mr. Vittore stated that even though their other properties are taller and shorter they did not like the "Reconfiguration" rendering. It did not match their criteria. They do have other stores that are in working phase right now. So you can look at stores that are existing and there are constraints but the three (3) or four (4) stores that are lined up to move forward maintain a look consistent with the mansard roof. Com. Windecker asked if Mr. Theodore will be doing the work on the grocer's possible Barrington location. Mr. Theodore stated that he will not be involved with that project. Corn. Windecker asked how the ZBA is to know about all the locations that will be consistent with the proposed. The other issue is that the grocer will take eighty five (85) percent of the center. Where does the developer stand on leasing the other fifteen (15) percent because it is was testified at the last meeting that the existing tenant is moving to a different center. Mr. Vittore stated that they are actively marketing to fill the space with new tenants. Corn. Windecker asked if the entire building will be completed at the same time or will the developer wait until the remaining tenant spaces are leased out. Mr. Vittore stated that they would complete the building at the same time. They would not have half the building look one way and the grocer portion look another. The store front configurations could change based on what tenants they get to lease the space.The cultured stone and brick would all be the same. Mr. Paul Svigos, Svigos Asset Management, 530 Bank Lane, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045, was present and sworn in. Mr. Svigos stated that with the loss of Rogan's Shoes, it allows them to build the entire center at once. The only reason they would have phased it was to build a store for Rogan's, move Rogan's and then build the other portion. Now that Rogan's is gone it makes sense to complete the entire center at once. He stated that the ZBA commented that people go to a grocer store to buy their groceries and go home. He respectfully disagrees with that statement. When you look at Whole Foods, the amount of money they spend on interior images and decoration is huge.They want to keep that shopper in the store longer, because the longer he is in the store the more he will buy. It is a whole new market out there for grocery stores. In the past you would build a box, put a drop ceiling in and they move in. This is why they are having the issues that grocer's such as Dominick's and Jewel Foods are having. They are very utilitarian. The market has changed dramatically where shoppers do want some of the features that this building will have. They are excited about that warehouse look that is there. People spend a lot of money to attempt to recreate what this building has. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Svigos if he mentioned Whole Foods. Mr. Svigos stated that he used Whole Foods as an example. Corn. Windecker stated that he thought the grocer tenant was Fresh Farms. Mr. Svigos responded that he used Whole Foods as an example because they are a national grocer. Com. Windecker asked if Mr. Svigos has a lease with Whole Foods. Mr. Svigos stated that he cannot disclose who the tenant is. They wish they could disclose the information ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 10 of 28 but it is not possible. As a developer they would not build the building, which would cost so much money, without having a tenant. If they wanted to build something and try and find a tenant they would build a very plain building. The cost is astronomical to build a mansard roof and Mr. Theodore mentioned one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). He said it will be closer to three hundred thousand ($300,000) dollars, the difference between the two (2) renderings. As a developer he is looking to do things as inexpensive as possible, but in this case, this tenant is requiring them to build this. Mr. Frank Sears, Cambridge on the Lake, 50 Lake Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Mr. Sears stated that the Petitioner heard the comments from the ZBA at the last meeting but the bottom line is that the Village's Zoning Ordinance does not count. The Petitioner wants what they want when they want it. The problems with the proposed tenant are more important to the Petitioner. The thought that the height of the roof over the entrance to the grocery store will determine whether or not this specific tenant will enter into a lease is preposterous. He does not believe that. It does not make sense. He represents the Cambridge on the Lake Condominium Owners Association, three hundred ninety two (392) units. He repeats their opposition to the request for a higher roof, allowing the roof to make an improper appearance on the building and a problematic precedent for the ZBA. What the Petitioner is doing is coming in and saying they heard the comments but they don't count. They want what they want and the ZBA has to give it to them. He does not believe that is what the ZBA is all about. There is no justification in this case for imposing an exorbitant addition to the existing height. It would needlessly limit and/or impose limits on the sunshine, on the light, on the sky \ line views of their condominiums buildings next door. The argument by the Petitioner for an eleven and a half (11-1/2) foot increase in roof height for this grocery store is needless. It is certainly not essential, not remotely necessary to the appearance of this property. If a substantial change in zoning, especially on a highly visible and prominent property, is to be made it should be made for a special need, a logical, necessary hardship. It should not be made on the basis of a personal preference. He does not believe that the tenant who has entered into a lease for this property will walk away if the height of the roof at the entrance of the property is less than fifty six (56) feet. No one is hurt or constrained by upholding the Village's Zoning Ordinance on this parcel. The Village's standards are reasonable and they are sufficient. He appeals once more to the ZBA to maintain compliance with the existing zoning and then enable that building to be remodeled. It is a grocery store. It is not the Taj Mahal. Ch. Entman believes that whomever is in charge of building this building, for which there is an experienced architect, will make it look good. He knows the architect will make the building look good no matter what height. The architect will give them a good product that is functional. When it comes to the aesthetics of the building he believes it will be accomplished no matter what size the building is at. The next issue is what determines that height. There is an existing building with the desire not to tear it down. There is an unknown tenant that wants to move into that space. The Petitioner is requesting a structure such that the interior space is large, above and beyond what might be required to allow the bow trusses to remain. There were a lot of good questions such as what if this property were a vacant lot and the building was being ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 11 of 28 built from scratch.Then it becomes solely a determinant of what a tenant wants. Sometimes \./ the Village has to balance what they and what the developer wants,what the developer wants to give them,what they say they want even though they may not really want it,or what the ZBA needs to do as a Board on behalf of the residents of the Village.The determinant as to the size and the height should not be just what the tenant may want.He has never liked extremes.The ZBA gets this a lot with signage all the time. People come and want a sign.They want a huge sign,tall sign,graphics,colors, etc.The question always comes up if there are alternative sign packages and the answer is always no. Then the ZBA finds that there are many different alternatives.This is the same thing.There are a million different ways a building can be built. Does the ZBA want to accommodate a Petitioner or occupant? If they do, will it save them money or help their business?On the other hand the ZBA has been through a lot where people come in and say what want or what they need and the next thing you know it falls apart and six (6) months later it is not useful anymore. He could not possibly support the building at that height.Does he want a nice looking facility to go into and do his grocery shopping,absolutely.Is that the determinate that draws him into the store and makes him spend money, absolutely not.There are many establishments that he goes to,whether to shop or eat,that may not be the most aesthetically pleasing and yet they are quality establishments. To him it really does not matter. Last week he went to the new Whole Foods on Rand Road and walked in turned around and walked right out. Beautiful store just like all of the Whole Foods stores, but there was nothing in it. He would not spend his money there just because it looked good. He is also not of the opinion that just because it is a beautiful store people will come in and spend money. He understands that the Petitioner has been advised that there are constraints on `/ confidentiality,but for him,without knowing who the tenant will be and maybe even having the tenant present during these discussions,he cannot support the request. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Vittore if he wants to proceed with the original proposal. Mr. Vittore stated that is correct. After discussing the matter with Mr. Vittore and Mr. Svigos, Mr.Theodore requested to Table the Petition until the May 21,2013 regular meeting. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser 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 May 21, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. Corn.Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario,Windecker,Lesser,Shapiro,Au,Entman .J ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16,2013 PAGE 12 of 28 NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the May 21, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. NEW BUSINESS BUFFALO GROVE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN LOCATED AT 1110 LAKE COOK ROAD Ms. Martha Curnow, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Ch. Entman reviewed the vacancy information submitted by the Petitioner. The leasing sign at 135 Arlington Heights Road was removed and a new permit was applied and secured. Ch. Entman advised that he is a tenant in the Buffalo Grove Business Park, but that will not affect his decision. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Buffalo Grove Business Park, Hamilton Partners, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" sign located at 1110 Lake Cook Road The Petitioner is to appear at the October 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Corn. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Cesario, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item is to appear on the October 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. ROGERS CENTRE FOR COMMERCE, ARTHUR J. ROGERS & COMPANY - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BARCLAY BOULEVARD AND APTAKISIC ROAD Mr. Norman Ross, Arthur J. Rogers & Company, 1601 Barclay Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Ch. Entman reviewed the vacancy information submitted by Mr. Ross. Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 13 of 28 Corn. Shapiro asked for the sign to be repainted based on the sign fading. Mr. Ross agreed to repaint the sign. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Rogers Centre for Commerce, Arthur J. Rogers & Company, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" sign located at the southwest corner of Barclay Boulevard and Aptakisic Road. The Petitioner is to appear at the October 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item is to appear on the October 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 1300-1398 BUSCH PARKWAY, VAN VLISSINGEN - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN 1405-1495 BUSCH PARKWAY, VAN VLISSINGEN - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN Ms. Vickie Burchard, Van Vlissingen, One Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069, was present and sworn in. Ch. Entman reviewed the information submitted by Van Vlissingen. Com. Shapiro asked about the percentage of vacancy for both buildings. Ms. Burchard stated that 1300 Busch Parkway is approximately 2/5t"'s vacant. The building at 1405 Busch Parkway is approximately Y vacant. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Cesario made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for 1300-1398 Busch Parkway, Van Vlissingen, for the existing "For Rent, Sale, or Lease" Sign. The Petitioner is to appear at the October 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 14 of 28 NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item is to appear on the October 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. Corn. Cesario made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for 1405-1495 Busch Parkway, Van Vlissingen, for the existing "For Rent, Sale, or Lease" Sign. The Petitioner is to appear at the October 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Com. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item is to appear on the October 15, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 1691-1697 WEILAND ROAD, BG CAR WASH MANAGEMENT, LLC-SIGN CODE,SECTIONS 14.16.030; 14.16.060 AND 14.20.100 - FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING AN OFF-PREMISES GROUND SIGN LOCATED AT 1691-1697 WEILAND ROAD; FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONFIGURING THE EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED AT 1691-1697 WEILAND ROAD TO ALLOW FIVE (5)TENANT PANELS;AND TO ALLOW THE TENANT PANEL SIGN FACES TO BE REPLACED WITHOUT A VARIATION Mr. John Imreibe, BG Car Wash Management, 1701 Weiland Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on March 28, 2013 was read. Mr. Imreibe explained that this is a multi-tenant building. They have been struggling to find new tenants. He has had some vacancy since January, 2010. Currently there are three (3) tenants in the building with one (1) more vacancy. He has been approached by some existing tenants to try and get them signage on the existing ground sign to help with visibility, especially with northbound traffic on Weiland Road. The wall signs that are currently on the building, from certain angles, are being blocked by the ground sign. It was brought to his attention that this is something that the tenants would like to have. He is willing to downsize the existing tenant panels and reconfigure the ground sign to allow multiple tenant panels. He is also requesting to allow the tenant panels to be replaced without having to apply for another variance, which he has had to do on numerous occasions. That will help if tenants leave and new tenants move in. He would like to set it up this way and keep it this way for the future. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated March 29, 2013 which states: "I have no comment on the proposal." Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated April 2, 2013 into the record, which withheld a recommendation pending the submittal of additional information. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 15 of 28 Corn. Windecker stated when the Petitioner was before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the wall signs, it was suggested that, in lieu of the west elevation wall signs, to change the ground sign and install tenant panels. That suggestion was answered by the Petitioner that he did not want to pursue any tenant panels on the ground sign, that he was only interested in pursuing the tenant panel for Dunkin Donuts. So now we are back to a small piece of land with four units and the request is for six (6) tenant panels on the ground sign. The ZBA is faced with a decision because there is this piece of property with four (4)tenants and a sign that is being requested to add tenant panels to. Royal Touch Car Wash is not located on this property and therefore should be removed from the sign at which time the Petitioner could lower the sign and then traffic could see the west elevation wall signs and then tenant panels become a different issue. So now everyone is looking for three (3) signs a piece instead of just two (2) signs. If the ground sign is lowered, people would be able to see the wall signs more clearly. He does not see then need for tenant panels if the ground sign is lowered in height. He does not understand why Royal Touch Car Wash is on this ground sign when that business is on the other property at 1701 Weiland. The properties were separated. Mr. Imreibe responded that the car wash signage was originally there when he bought the property. He understands that they are two (2) separate properties but he did not want to lose the sign for the two (2) anchor tenants that have been there the longest.To address the concern about what he was trying to accomplish in 2011 regarding the wall signage, he had existing wall signage, the Dunkin Donuts wall signs.They had signs on both sides of the building.The newer tenant saw that and they wanted signs on both sides as well. That was the reasoning behind that. The other reason was the tenants felt that the west elevation would give them the best visibility as far as traffic driving up and down Weiland Road. It was suggested to him that he could put the wall signs on the east elevation for identification purposes but he believes that those signs are twenty(20) percent smaller than the / signs on the west because they are strictly for identifying the tenant space. One of the biggest problems they have had is trying get visibility to the existing tenants and he continues to have one (1) vacancy. One of the questions that constantly come up is whether they can have a sign on the ground sign. He is here tonight to try and remedy that issue and have a clear answer for potential tenants. Corn. Windecker stated that since Mr. Imreibe is requesting the variance for the ground sign he would consider it a new sign and it should correspond to the property itself and not an adjacent piece of property because any other business in the Village cannot have an off-premises sign and as a result, why should the Village give the tenants three (3) signs a piece when the Village would not tolerate that for any other business in the Village. Some businesses that requested a third sign were required to remove one(1) of their existing signs. Corn. Lesser asked Mr. Imreibe if each of the tenants in the building currently have signage on the east elevation. Mr. Imreibe stated that on the parking lot side, the east elevation, the tenants have signs that are twenty (20) percent smaller for identification purposes right above their store front. Com. Lesser replied that they have signs. He stated that there is room for the vacant unit to have a comparably sized sign on the east side as well. Mr. Imreibe stated that is correct. Corn. Lesser stated that on the west elevation facing Weiland Road each of those tenants has signage as well. Mr. Imreibe stated right now two (2) tenants have signs on the west, Dunkin Donuts and the nail salon. The other tenant, which is at the far south end of the building, his sign area on the west elevation is being blocked by the ground sign.This ground sign cabinet. He believes it is because of the setback requirement. This sign is very close to the building. Corn. Lesser stated that Mr. Imreibe is requesting to modify the sign cabinet. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is not modifying the entire ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 16 of 28 cabinet,just the sign faces. He wants an h-member that would separate out the actual face where a Lexan panel would go in. Com. Lesser asked what the purpose is of this request, are the signs on the west side of the building not visible? He is trying to understand. Mr. Imreibe stated that it would resolve the issue of having to come back to the ZBA every time a tenant changes something around. For example if Dunkin Donuts wanted to change their sign, he would need to apply for a new variance. It does not make sense to have to come back for a variance every time there is a panel change. Com. Lesser stated that he is trying to understand the reasoning for the request. Just because the Petitioner would have to come back in for a variance. Mr. Imreibe stated that the ground signs were initially approved by variance. So any change to the panels, whether it is the car wash or Dunkin Donuts, requires a new variance. Dunkin Donuts recently changed their logo so a new variance was applied for, not just a standard sign permit. That has been a little bit of an inconvenience. He is just trying to get better signage because perpendicular signage would read better to traffic on the street. The reason he came in for the wall signage was because there was existing wall signage. Dunkin Donuts would not take down their existing wall signage unless they could get approval to put up a sign on the west elevation and east elevation of the building.Then as the tenants starting coming in they requested the same the signage. So he was caught in a situation where the tenants said "well they have it why can't we have it". That is when he presented the Uniform Sign Package and addressed some of the issues that staff and the Board had at that time. Com. Lesser asked Mr. Imreibe if he would consider removing the off-premises sign from this sign cabinet. Mr. Imreibe replied that he does not want to structurally change the sign because then you are talking about a new sign. Also, that is the main entrance to the facility, whether it is the car wash or the retail building. That ground sign is right at the corner to the side street, which is the main entrance to the center. He believes the proposal would be a great way to help people identify `./ the actual entrance to the car wash. You can see the car wash at the corner but you cannot see the driveway to get to it. Corn. Lesser stated that you can see the entrance to the car wash but everyone has a different perspective on that. He will take the response as a "no" to removing the car wash panel from the sign. Mr. Imreibe stated that is correct. Com. Shapiro stated that he recalls Com. Windecker at the 2011 meeting and he felt that east and west elevation signs on that building were excessive, especially on the east. That side only faces a parking lot and the railroad tracks. Now the Petitioner is telling the ZBA that the signs on the west, that are supposed to drive traffic in, aren't doing their job because an existing ground sign is blocking them. He asked Mr. Imreibe if he feels that it looks ridiculous having that ground sign right next to the wall signs that are right there. Doesn't he believe that it slightly excessive for the size of the property. He can understand wanting to have the ground sign because it is by the entrance but then maybe take the west elevation wall signs down since they are not doing their job as far identifying the businesses and driving traffic in, because literally they are the same signs right next to each other. Mr. Imreibe asked if he was referring to the proposed ground sign tenant panels and the wall signs. The wall signs are actually bigger than what he is proposing for the panels. Corn. Shapiro replied that he is being told that those wall signs are not being seen. Mr. Imreibe stated that as you get closer to the southern part of the building, the ground sign does block some of the wall signage.The northern most unit, which is occupied by Dunkin Donuts, has good visibility. Corn. Shapiro asked if Mr. Imreibe would want to put the tenant panels on the sign that is located on the corner of Aptakisic and Weiland. Mr. Imreibe stated no. Corn. Shapiro stated that is what the Petitioner is saying now.That is also what the Petitioner said about this ground sign and that's why ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 17 of 28 the Petitioner needed the wall signs. He is afraid that the ZBA is getting nickeled and dimed every time the Petitioner wants to add more signage. He believes that the property the ground sign is on, the number of signs is truly excessive. He agrees with Com. Windecker in that removing one of the existing signs would probably make it more acceptable for the size property and the amount of signage, especially on the west end of the building where there will be a ground sign and wall signs. If you remove the Royal Touch panel and lower the ground sign then the wall signs will not be blocked anymore. Mr. Imreibe stated that he does not know what all that would entail, you would structurally change the sign at that point. Com. Shapiro stated that he believes he is being nickeled and dimed on the signage that every year the Petitioner is coming back and saying that was good but now we really need this. He cannot agree to more signage in the exact same location where the wall signs are. Corn. Windecker stated that the Petitioner did say in 2011 that he did not need the tenant panels. Now he needs tenant panels. What's next, the Petitioner will want something else and then the Petitioner will want an electronic sign. He can see it coming and it is only a small piece of land with four (4) tenants. By right and the Ordinance, the piece of land is entitled to only so many signs. If they grant the variance, then the ground sign is like a new sign and the car wash is not on that premises. They are two (2) separate properties. If the ground sign is lowered by four (4) feet there would be visibility for all the wall signs on the west elevation. Then if the Petitioner came in with some type of lower ground sign with just panels for the retail tenants maybe the Board may be more in favor of it. But as it stands now, the proposed rendering, there are too many colors on the sign anyway. He cannot support the request. Li Com. Cesario stated that he recalls the discussion concerning the signs on the east elevation very clearly. In order to access these spaces you have to park in the parking lot, the parking lot is east of the building and there is confusion on the part of customers as to who is in what space. Fair enough. Signs on the east are to avoid confusion. The more of this discussion he hears the more he has no idea of the value of the wall signs on the west when there is already signage advertising the properties knowing that the customers have to go into the parking lot and then see where the tenants are. Consistent with that argument, the way customers behave once they are aware of the situation, they come into the parking lot and then they see the signs on the east elevation which keeps them from being confused. He has a real hard time giving anything more. That is an awful lot of signage for a very small space and part of the reason why it is that much harder to approve a configuration that does not require coming back before the ZBA because the ZBA has jammed in all of these exceptions. When you take a look at the aggregate as it stands today and now proposed it is odd. Corn. Shapiro asked Mr. Imreibe if it would make sense to the reduce the height of the ground sign and just put the word "Entrance"that way people would realize it is a directional sign to get into the shopping center. The wall signs would then serve their purpose and not be blocked and people would know where to turn in to get to all the businesses on that property. Making it more of a directional sign would make more sense to him. Mr. Imreibe asked Corn. Shapiro if he is referring to making the entire ground sign an entrance sign. Com. Shapiro stated to reduce the ground sign down to the size of the Dunkin Donuts panel and replace it with "Entrance". He would believe that ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 18 of 28 is not an advertising sign, that would be a directional sign into the complex while utilizing the wall signage and not having the wall sign blocked by the ground sign. Corn. Au asked Mr. Sheehan what the original variance was that was granted for this sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that there were several variances granted for this sign. One (1) for an off-premises sign because there are two (2) lots out there and both signs have an off-premises entity advertised on them. The second was for changeable copy because there was a car wash price shown on the signs that changed periodically. Corn. Au asked if those are currently applicable to the sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that the sign does still have that but part of what is proposed is to take the price off the sign to make room for the proposed tenant panels. Com. Lesser stated that he could support the request if the sign was reduced in height and the off- premises sign is eliminated from the sign. He recognizes the need to pick up some exposure for those tenants and he agrees with the Petitioner that signage perpendicular to the roadway will help that, but the only way he could support this is if the height of the sign is reduced and the off- premises signage is eliminated. Corn. Au asked if the off-premises portion of the sign is removed would the Petitioner need a variance at all. Mr. Sheehan stated that if the off-premises sign and changeable copy portion are removed and the size of the sign itself was compliant with the frontage, technically they would not need a variance. Mr. Imreibe clarified that any time he wanted to change any copy on the sign he had to come through for a variance. When he changed the car wash sign when he originally bought the property in 2006 he had to request a variance because he was making a change to a sign that was approved as a variance. Dunkin Donuts added their logo to their panel last summer and he needed a variance. Corn.Au replied that if the elements that required the sign to need variances are removed from the sign the Petitioner would no longer need variances anytime he wanted to change a tenant panel. If the off-premises portion of the sign is removed and size complies with the Sign Code,the Petitioner would no longer need variances any time changes are made to the sign. Ms. Jackie Nguyen, Platinum Nails, 1693 Weiland Road, was present and sworn in. Ms. Nguyen stated that she has been a tenant in this center for a year and business is really bad. Every time she has clients make an appointment to come in, they claim they cannot find her location. Google Maps does not even show that she exists. She has contacted Google Maps many times to have them correct the problem, but still people cannot find where she is at. They call and ask her where she is located because they drove past the building. She tells them she is located in the center with Dunkin Donuts, but people still do not know where she is at.That makes it hard for her to do business. She wants to stay and do business in Buffalo Grove for a long time, but this situation does not help her. She could provide supporting documentation from her clients. It would really help her business if the ground sign had all the tenants' names on it. She agrees that ground sign should have all the tenants name on it and the word "Entrance". Business is not that easy these days and if the clients cannot find her she cannot do business. She does not want to shut her business down. She hopes the ZBA can do something to help her and the future tenants that could move into the building too. Corn. Windecker asked Ms. Nguyen if she testified at a previous hearing that she did not want a tenant panel on the ground sign. Ms. Nguyen stated no. Corn. Windecker asked Ms. Nguyen if she is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 19 of 28 not the same person that testified previously. Ms. Nguyen stated that she was at the previous hearing. Com. Windecker stated that if the customer locates the business once, they should know where the business is the second time. Ms. Nguyen replied that she is trying to tell the ZBA that new customers cannot find the business location. She does advertising in all the coupon mailers. The coupons do indicate the address but people will make an appointment and when that time comes no one shows up. She has to call the customer and ask about the missed appointment and they reply that they could not find her and found somewhere else down the road to go. Ch. Entman stated that this is a small building. There are signs on both walls. There is a sign at the corner and the sign at the entrance. That is a lot of signage. He knows that Mr. Imreibe is not the original owner. Someone built the retail building and built the car wash building and then put in the signs. He is hearing the Petitioner say that he needed the wall signs on the building. Now he is hearing the Petitioner say that the tenants need identification of the ground sign because the ground sign is blocking the west side of the building, or at least a portion of it, so those signs are not visible. That is a man-made creation. Granted the Petitioner did not put those signs in, he bought the property. But it is still a man-made creation; that is not natural. He does not see a hardship when someone puts in a sign that blocks other signs so they ask for more signage to alleviate the problem caused by the sign they already put in. That is not a hardship. Is it a problem; yes. Is it an issue,yes, but it is not a hardship for purposes of what the ZBA is being asked to do.There is no way to show how many signs,which signs,which combination of signs is optimal, if at all.You could have twenty (20) signs and they may never have an impact. The ZBA cannot just rely on the Petitioner saying that they have signs but want more signs. The ZBA has to look at the criteria and he is not seeing the criteria being met. If there is a problem with the signs on the west wall of the building and the Petitioner believes if the tenant panel idea is better then maybe the west wall signs should come down. Maybe the wall signs are not doing any good at all. It has been testified to that customers cannot find their locations then maybe the west wall signs are not helping. Maybe the wall signs on the east are not helping either. Maybe the Petitioner does not need any of those and then proceed with a ground sign. As it stands it is difficult for the ZBA because they do not have anything before them to show what, if any, sign, what size signs, what combination of signs or location of signs will ever have a positive impact on the business. He agrees with Corn. Shapiro's suggestion of a directional sign to direct customers into the property. Mr. Imreibe stated that he had met with Mr. Sheehan several months back and he addressed some of the concerns. Mr. Sheehan advised him of some of the issues and concerns when he was addressing the wall signage. There is a recent development that has a ground sign and signage on both sides of the building. This is a unique building where the street side is not the store frontage side. That is the justification for the wall signage. He also had the situation where one of the existing tenants already had two (2)wall signs and was not willing to give that up. He asked Mr. Sheehan about the recent developments that had similar situations. Mr. Sheehan stated that there was a new building put up in Plaza Verde that has Noodles, Moe's and Starbucks that have signage on two (2) elevations of the building as well as a ground sign. Com. Windecker stated that the reason Dunkin Donuts had two (2) walls signs was they were the only one in that building for a long time and they could have two (2) signs on the corner. Mr. Imreibe stated that he thought the Signs Code only allowed a tenant to have one (1) wall ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 20 of 28 sign,but Dunkin Donuts had two(2)signs.Com.Windecker replied that Dunkin Donuts had two U (2)signs because they occupied the whole building. Corn. Cesario stated that the reason why the ZBA struggles so much is because Petitioners will look for the example of whatever they want and say "he go it, I want it to". That is a big concern. The ZBA is worried about precedent and there is already a lot of a-typical elements going on within that property as it is.As far as the Plaza Verde property,that was debated at great length based on sight lines, availability and there were substantial changes to make that work. Ch. Entman reiterated that it is way too much signage.There is nothing in front of the ZBA that he would be able to review that shows any statistical facts or evidence.There are wall signs. He explained to Mr. Imreibe the options available to him. The ZBA could vote on the request as submitted. The ZBA could Table the request to allow Mr. Imreibe to come up with other options. Mr.Imreibe requested to Table his Petition to the next regular meeting.He added that he is not requesting this for his behalf. He is actually downsizing the signage for the business that he occupies on the property. But as the landlord,he is trying to secure tenants and trying to keep tenants in a tough economy. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no .J questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1691-1697 Weiland Road,for variance of Sign Code,Section 14.16.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.16.060, pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.20.100, pertaining to Off-Premises Signs, for the purpose of allowing an off-premises ground sign located at 1691- 1697 Weiland Road;for the purpose of reconfiguring the existing ground sign located at 1691- 1697 Weiland Road to allow five(5)tenant panels;and to allow the tenant panel sign faces to be replaced without a variation,to the May 21, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Corn. Windecker seconded the request. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario,Windecker,Lesser,Shapiro,Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the May 21, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. 1 BANK LANE, FIRST AMERICAN BANK - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.16.030; 14.16.060 AND 14.20.070.D - FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A GROUND SIGN, WITH AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD INTEGRATED INTO IT,THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16,2013 PAGE 21 of 28 FIFTY(250) FEET OF AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET; TO ALLOW THE GROUND SIGN TO FACE A SINGLE FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT; AND TO ALLOW THE SIGN TO BE COMPOSED OF A MATERIAL OTHER THAN A NATURAL MASONRY FINISH Mr. Daniel Olson, Grate Signs, 4044 West McDonough, Joliet, Illinois 60431, was present and sworn in.The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on March 28, 2013 was read. Mr. Olson explained that they are requesting to replace the existing free standing sign that the bank currently maintains with a monument style sign. The existing sign is approximately eighteen (18) feet high and seventy (70) square feet in area. The new ground sign would be ten (10) feet high from grade and approximately fifty (50) square feet in area. The sign would be internally illuminated with routed aluminum faces and they are requesting a variation for the LED portion of the proposed sign. He advised that First American Bank does have ground signs with brick bases at some of their locations. The bank would be happy to use a brick base for the sign. He met with the Village Engineer concerning the location of the proposed sign. There is a public easement on the property and they will be locating the proposed sign in the same location as the existing sign. The hours of operation of the proposed sign would pursuant to the Ordinance, which is 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The technology and the software for the LED portion of the sign would automatically dim the sign down at dusk. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated March 29, 2013 which states: "The proposed sign location is in conflict with a watermain and storm sewer." Ch. Entman also read the email addressed to Julie Kamka from Daniel Olson dated April 9, 2013 which states: "The document that shows the location approved by Public Works is attached. The new sign will remain in the same location on existing base outside of the 20' utility easement." Mr. Sheehan asked for clarification from Mr. Olson regarding the proposed sign location. There is a fifteen (15) foot easement and Mr. Olson talks about a twenty (20) foot easement. Mr. Olson stated that he believes Mr. Kuenkler had told him it was a twenty (20)foot easement. Mr. Sheehan suggested any approval be subject to the approval of the Village Engineer. Ch. Entman also read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated April 2, 2013 into the record. Com. Shapiro stated that currently the bank has a window sign that is the same electronic messaging. He asked if the bank is planning to remove that sign. Mr. Olson advised that the way the bank has evolved with their marketing, approximately ten (10) years ago they put up light boxes inside the branches. Jennifer Lynch, Marketing Coordinator, would have to call the branch locations and the tellers would manually have to change the sign panels. The signs were on hoists and not easy to change. The bank is utilizing the LED technology in the same static way; no flashing, no scrolling, no millions of colors. White text on a black or dark blue background. When they can get approval for an LED ground sign, they take down the big free standing sign and put up a monument style ground sign that has the same function as the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 22 of 28 window sign. The sign in the window is two and a half (2-1/2) times the size of the proposed LED portion of the ground sign. Corn. Shapiro asked about how frequently the messaging is changed on the LED sign. Mr. Olson stated that the sign will be static for fifteen (15) minutes at a time. This is the most unconventional use of an LED display. It fits their marketing perfectly. Any other business owner that would invest in these displays would use every capability of the software, which is flashing, moving, etc. This is an RGB full color message center and the bank puts nothing but white text on it. Corn. Shapiro confirmed that the sign has the ability to do color. Mr. Olson replied yes. Corn. Shapiro stated that if the bank changed their marketing in the future they could use color, images, etc. The technology is there. Mr. Olson stated that the only way to get white is to have RGB, red, green, blue. Any other business would be using all the functions capable with the technology and probably changing the messages on average every two (2) or three (3) seconds. Com. Shapiro stated that the Village does not allow that. He advised that the ZBA would stipulate the removal of the LED window sign. Corn. Windecker stated that according to the testimony at the ART meeting the window sign will be removed and it currently changes every fifteen (15) minutes. Mr. Sheehan stated that based on Exhibit "D2" the letter states that the sign changes every fifteen (15) minutes. Corn. Windecker added that the sign would be located on the concrete casting for the gas station sign that was never completed prior to the bank. Corn. Lesser asked to confirm that the proposed sign will be the only LED changeable copy sign that will be seen from the exterior of the premises. Mr. Olson stated that is correct. Corn. Lesser ./ asked the Petitioner, that while the technology exists within the sign to do flashing, graphics, images and multiple colors, what limitation will be placed upon this sign. Mr. Olson stated that the sign will be static, no flashing, white text only with either a black or dark blue background. Mr. Tim Groark, President of the Winchester Estates Homeowners Association, 54 Woodstone Court, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Mr. Groark stated that he is also attending the hearing on behalf of Mr. Michael Rubin, 30 Woodstone Court, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, which is the closest unit to the proposed sign. Mr. Groark will need more information from the bank concerning the proposed sign. Initially he looked at the application submitted for the variation. The application requires a letter to be submitted stating the practical difficulties or particular hardships that are related to the variance request. He has not seen difficulties or hardship or anything in writing, but conclusions. The ART minutes reflect that the Petitioner needs the sign because it is cumbersome to change the sign in the window regularly. Also, there is a hardship to the bank because they are spending thousands of dollars on these signs. Normally you would not spend the money for this sign without the approval of the ZBA. He thanked Mr. Olson for providing the intended hours of operation of the proposed sign. He also stated that he does not have any information on the brightness of the proposed sign at night. He stated that at night the sign will appear to be brighter. If you look at the ART minutes, it is also stated that the bank would have the ability to override the software and dim the north face of the sign even more than is proposed. It is only the north face of the sign that would affect the neighboring residential units. He would like to know how much the sign could ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 23 of 28 be dimmed and what the lumens will be. If they can limit the lumens on the north face of the sign even further, then why not program the sign that way. It would probably remove any objection the neighboring unit owners would have in that regard.There is another indication on the second page of the ART minutes that the residential units are protected by a landscaping buffer and trees. There is no landscape buffer. There are trees but the threes are bare about six (6) months of the year. So the trees would have no affect on the sign in the winter time when it is the darkest and when the sign might be the most annoying. At this point he is asking that the ZBA Table the request until he can get the information he is requesting because the sign would directly affect the homeowners. Mr. Tom Wroblewski, 74 Woodstone Drive, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Mr. Wroblewski stated that he also on the Board of Directors for Winchester Estates. Part of their objection is that they do not have enough factual information yet to determine whether or not the proposed sign will really be a nuisance to those families. The units located directly north of the bank all have their family room or living room at the rear of their units, which would be most affected. Not knowing the brightness of the sign, especially at night, is something that is bothering them. He does not believe that during the day time people will really care. He has been a customer of the bank for nineteen (19) years and it is a wonderful bank. From an appearance standpoint he likes the look of the sign. If they could just have a few questions answered he would be very happy. Mr. Olson stated that he has information on the lumens and the nits of the proposed sign. The `./ information is very confusing. This LED display, in terms of size, if you consider the distance from the nearest residential unit of two hundred fifty (250) feet, the LED portion of this sign would be twenty (20) square feet. The TV screen in the Council Chambers is probably forty (40) square feet. The LED portion of the sign will be three (3)feet by six (6)foot four(4) inches. From two hundred fifty (250) feet with only the text lit, the sign will not be a bright beacon in the night. When he was driving in this evening, in comparing this sign to signs that are bright, the Outback Steakhouse and Winberies on Lake Cook Road are exposed neon,very bright. LED's are bright, but white LED is not as bright as red or orange. He can provide the lumen outputs. He could meet with the association members and talk about it but he does not know what he would say. If you look at the size of the LED sign, it is miniscule compared to a lot of overall digital displays. There is also the static use of the sign; no flashing, no scrolling, no different things, no running videos, or all the things you could do with the sign. The bank choses not to, it is not their approach. The technology does dim the sign down at night. The manufacturers do not want to the LED's brighter than they have to be to perform at a reasonable level. The reason is that they do not last as long. So when a sign is powered at a higher level to get more nits the sign does not last as long. With ambient light hitting the sign during the day you have to have the sign powered more. But at night, the sign automatically dims down. On a scale of one (1) to ten (10) the signs start out at eight (8) during the day and goes down to four (4) at night. Even he does not understand the technical language of nits and lumen output. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 24 of 28 Ch. Entman asked Mr. Groark and Mr. Wroblewski if there is anything other than what Mr. �./ Olson described that they would still like to know. Mr. Groark stated that he would still like additional information. He asked where Mr. Olson came up with the two hundred fifty (250) foot distance to the residential properties. Mr. Olson stated that he used Google Earth. It may not be exact but he believes it is fairly accurate. Mr. Groark stated to Mr. Olson that based on the April 2, 2013 ART minutes, Mr. Olson was advised by Mr. Sheehan to be prepared to testify as to the brightness of the proposed sign. He has not heard that. Ch. Entman stated that the Petitioner has stated in the materials submitted with the application that they have met certain criteria. Whether competitive advantage is one of the criteria the ZBA would consider, it can be. But there are other aspects that he has seen in the materials submitted regarding cost and efficiency. He also noted that the bank is taking down the existing ground sign, which by the Village's standards is way too tall, and they are reducing the sign to an extremely reasonable height. That is all he has ever tried to accomplish on the ZBA. To get rid of a big sign for a small sign is good. To get rid of the signage in the window that they have had is good. Those are two (2)things he is looking at in a positive fashion. Mr. Groark stated that the bank is telling the ZBA that they have these signs in various locations and they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on them. If the bank can advise as to where there is a similar sign, same size and so forth, he would be happy to go and look at the sign. He would take a look at an existing sign if he is told where he could go look at one at night. Then he could go back to the bank and he would not have to come back before the ZBA. Com. Lesser stated that the residents raised a valid concern and one of the ways to alleviate the concern is to conduct a sight line study from the perspective of the affected residents to the sign. The residents may in fact be screened by landscaping and/or fences around the rear yards. We are taking about an existing sign that is much higher which would be reduced in size substantially. The residents may not be able to see the sign. Granted, if they are in their second story bedroom looking out the window in that direction,they probably could. In the area on the first floor where the residents will often be, they may not be affected. If a sight line study is conducted it may eliminate all of the concerns. Mr. Groark stated that you can see the sign from 28 Woodstone Court and 30 Woodstone Court. He is not saying that the sign would be a nuisance or anything he just does not know enough about the sign. If the bank shows them another sign he would be happy to go and look it, as long as they can represent that it would be a very similar sign or same type of sign that is proposed. Com. Au asked Mr. Olson to provide the nits and lumens information to Mr. Groark and Mr. Wroblewski so that it is on the record. Mr. Olson explained that brightness for LED technology is measured in nits. LED's do not have a wattage measurement. A nit is defined as the number of candelas per square meter. This product has a maximum brightness of seven thousand five hundred (7,500) nits at full white, high brightness mode when viewed from one (1) meter. Therefore, all full white maximum brightness,the sign has a foot candle measure of seventy five (75) at one (1) meter. The brightness drops exponentially with each meter further back the sign ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 25 of 28 is viewed from. The seventy five hundred (7,500) nits was if you lit the whole LED display, the entire lamp bank of how ever many thousand, eighty (80) by one hundred sixty (160) matrix of pixels. If every pixel was lit, that is where you would get the seventy five hundred (7,500). Maybe thirty (30) percent of the entire LED bank is lit when a static message is displayed. When you factor that with the type of message, at every meter you move back from the sign, the brightness drops. The drop off in brightness as you move further away occurs at approximately ten (10) percent per meter up to forty (40) meters. At that point the sign is less pronounced. LED signs are usually set at level six (6) for during the day; that would be six thousand (6,000) nits. And that would be if the entire lamp bank were lit. The sign automatically drops down to a four (4) which is three thousand (3,000) nits at night. He asked the ZBA to consider that they have provided a lot of information. He understands the neighbor's concerns but he does not know what other information they could offer. Corn. Windecker asked about the nit level at night. Mr. Olson stated that the factory setting would be three thousand (3,000). Corn. Windecker stated that the limits the ZBA had put on the last LED sign at Twin Rinks Ice Rink was five hundred (500) nits at night. If the sign could be turned down at night to five hundred (500) nits then there should not be any problem. He would not support a three thousand (3,000) nit level at night. Mr. Olson stated that the numbers he provided are a little misleading. That would be if the entire sign was lit. Com. Windecker understands what Mr. Olson is saying but he has to direct some answers to the ZBA as to what is going to be displayed at night. That is what other Petitioners have done. A window sign is a different story. That sign faced a shopping center. This sign will face a residential development. There has to be some information provided. If this is the only information that can be produced for the sign illumination it will not be sufficient. Com. Cesario stated that this is not a new issue. The solution at Twin Rinks was that the variance was subject to Village determination respectively. If the Village said the sign was too bright then the intensity would be reduced. He asked if the Petitioner would be willing to accept that condition. It is a way to deal with the intensity issue. If the sign is still bright at night and intrusive the Village would then subject the variance to further conditioning based on the intrusiveness. Mr. Olson stated that the bank would be happy to make that a condition of the variance. They had a branch in Riverside that had an interior display because they could not have a free standing ground sign. It was too bright and the bank dimmed the sign. Corn. Shapiro stated that one of the issues with Twin Rinks was that they had customers there up until midnight. These operating hours are much different. He asked if the Petitioner would be willing to turn the sign off earlier in the evening, before 11:00 p.m. and change the operating hours to perhaps 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. that may be more in line with the residential neighborhood. Obviously the bank would not be open at the time so he is not sure if there would be much benefit to the marketing at that time of night. That could be another possible alternative. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 26 of 28 Ch. Entman stated that the Petitioner has provided a lot of information. There have been some �-/ comments from the ZBA. The neighbors have some questions that they would to have answered. He asked if the Petitioner would like to Table the request to the next meeting, meet with the neighbors and see if there is anything else that can be provided that will answer their questions and then come back to the ZBA to resolve any remaining issues. Mr. Olson stated that it is important that they are thorough on their approach. He asked if they could use Corn. Cesario's suggestion that there be conditions and if the north face of the sign is an issue the bank would dim the sign down. Short of the neighbors looking at another sign, he does not know what other information can be provided. Mr. Groark stated that they are not against the bank, they are just trying to figure out what they are actually talking about. At the ART meeting it was stated that the bank has the ability to override the software and dim the north face of the sign even more. Ch. Entman stated that what the ZBA is saying is that the ZBA could put a condition on the variance that allows the Village to basically police the brightness of the sign. Mr. Groark stated that they are basically saying the same thing but there are other remedies other than dimming the sign. Ch. Entman advised that the ZBA could put a condition on the variance that would allow the Village to police the sign to allow for that. He asked if that would satisfy Mr. Groark's concern as to the brightness of the sign. Mr. Groark stated that he believes it would. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. `•/ Com. Cesario made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Grate Signs, 4044 West McDonough, Joliet, Illinois 60431 on behalf of First American Bank, 1 Bank Lane, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.16.030, pertaining to Business District; Section 14.16.060, pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.20.070.D, pertaining to Electronic Message Signs,for the purpose of allowing a ground sign, with an electronic message board integrated into it,that would be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of an existing ground sign located on the same side of the street; to allow the ground sign to face a single family zoned district; and to allow the sign to be composed of a material other than a natural masonry finish subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign is to be installed pursuant to Exhibit "E" with a brick base to match the building; 2. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated April 2, 2013; 3. The sign shall be in substantially the same location as the existing ground sign subject to the Village Engineer's approval; 4. The hours of operation for the sign are limited to 6:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.; 5. The existing changeable copy LED window sign is to be removed and the variance voided; ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 27 of 28 6. The assertions in the letter dated March 18, 2013 and marked as Exhibit D2 will `-/ be strictly adhered to. These assertions are as follows: a. The lighting will remain constant with no moving, blinking, strobing, flashing, fluttering, graphics or other similar effects. b. The sign message will change no more frequently that once every 15 minutes. c. Community messages may be displayed at the request of the Village. d. The lights intensity, brightness and color will not change within a message or between messages, except when the lights dim automatically at dusk, or as required by the Village pursuant to the Ordinance requirements. e. The signs brightness will be adjusted to minimize glare. 7. The Village may further limit the brightness on both side of the sign at the Village's sole discretion; and 8. Landscaping shall be maintained around the base of the sign. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.40.010, Subsection B. Corn. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Cesario, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the May 6, 2013 Village Board consent agenda. ANNOUCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Lesser and seconded by Corn. Windecker. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 10:22 P.M. Submitted by, Jude Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16, 2013 PAGE 28 of 28