Loading...
2013-05-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes jj DLiw REGULAR MEETING its Cnz c c 1� �II81�3 BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 Acting Chairman Windecker called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, May 21, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Au Acting Chairman Windecker Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Also Present: Les Ottenheimer,Village Trustee William Raysa, Village Attorney Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner Chairman Entman arrived at 7:53 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 16, 2013 minutes: Corn. Cesario made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, April 16, 2013. Corn. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Au, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN —Steingold Motion Passed 3 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 MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 1 of 19 The Petitioner was not present. This item was deferred until later in the meeting. 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 The Petitioner was not present. This item was deferred until later in the meeting. NEW BUSINESS CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING "FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE" SIGNS LOCATED AT MILWAUKEE AVENUE AND LAKE COOK ROAD, 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE AND 1081-1087 JOHNSON DRIVE Mr. Jim Lang, Hamilton Partners, 300 Park Boulevard, Itasca, Illinois 60143 was present and sworn in. Mr. Lang explained that they have leased a couple of spaces so they have taken down a leasing sign at 1055 Johnson Drive. The two (2) leasing signs for 1098 Johnson Drive and 1081-1087 Johnson Drive they still need and they still have vacancies in both the buildings. The leased part of one (1) building but still have 47,000 feet available. They are making some progress. Act. Ch. Windecker has no objections to renewing the signs for another six (6) months until the November 19, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Au made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Chevy Chase Business Park, Hamilton Partners, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" signs located at 1098 Johnson Drive; 1081-1087 Johnson Drive and at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Petitioner to appear at the November 19, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Com. Steingold seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Cesario, Steingold, Au, Windecker NAY— None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item to appear on the November 19, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 2 of 19 1958 SHERIDAN ROAD, DAVID AND SARA WECHSLER - ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A ROOFED-OVER PATIO THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF THREE (3) FEET SIX (6) INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED FORTY (40) FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Zoran Mijatovic, Landmark Signature Homes, 1725 Elderberry Drive, Libertyville, Illinois 60048, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 2, 2013 was read. Mr. Mijatovic explained that the homeowner would like to construct a roofed over patio on the rear of the home. The patio will have a flat roof to maintain a low profile. The house itself, when originally constructed, was set back a little bit further than the surrounding homes which make it difficult to take advantage of the rear yard.They are asking for three (3) feet six (6) inches to extend into the rear yard setback to construct a decent size patio. Overall the patio will extend only twenty (20)feet off the home. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the covered patio will have electricity. Mr. Mijatovic stated that it will have electricity. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the there will be any plumbing. Mr. Mijatovic stated that there will not be any running water. He also advised that the patio will have a fireplace which will have a dedicated gas line. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the covered patio will be used as a three-season room or a four-season room. Mr. Mijatovic stated that the patio will be open and not be screened in. The homeowner will be able to use the patio for two (2) to three (3) seasons out of the year. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that he visited the property and saw that the setback was great than some of the other properties. Corn. Cesario stated that he understands there is an existing patio that extends out further than the proposed covered patio. He confirmed that the existing patio would be removed and replaced with the covered patio that would be less than the existing patio. Mr. Mijatovic stated that is correct and the current concrete patio extends twenty three (23)feet off the rear of the house. Corn. Cesario asked Mr. Sheehan if the Village has received any comments from the neighboring property owners. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Village has not received any comments. Acting Ch. Windecker read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 7, 2013 which states: "Brian, I have reviewed two of the ZBA variances you sent to us for review. Both 331 Terrace place and 1958 Sheridan Road are acceptable and I have no objection to these variations. I will have to inspect the other one in the field so I should have that to you today or tomorrow. Darren" There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 3 of 19 Corn. Cesario made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by David and Sara Wechsler, 1958 Sheridan Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a roofed-over patio that would encroach a distance of three (3) feet six(6) inches into the required forty(40)foot rear yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 7, 2013. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed roofed-over patio will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold,Au, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days—June 6, 2013. 331 TERRACE PLACE, ANDREY LIOKUMOVICH - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A FOUR (4) FOOT HIGH WOOD PRIVACY FENCE THAT WOULD BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTEND SOUTH A DISTANCE OF TWENTY ONE (21) FEET, TO A POINT FIVE (5) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE; THEN TURNING EAST, PARALLEL TO THE SIDEWALK ALONG BERNARD DRIVE,AND EXTENDING TO A POINT FIVE (5) FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE;THEN TURNING NORTH AND RETURNING TO THE BUILDING SETBACK BACK Mr. Andrey Liokumovich and Mrs. Masha Liokumovich, 331 Terrace Place, were present and sworn in.The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 2, 2013 was read. Mr. Liokumovich explained that they just moved into the neighborhood and they want to improve the property by allowing them to expand the yard further out. They have a child and a dog and another child on the way.They would like to utilize the space that is not being used. Mrs. Liokumovich added that being on the corner there is a lot of traffic and they want to make sure that their child does not run onto the street.They would like the fence to keep them in. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the Plat submitted with the application shows the proposed fence to be located five (5) feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Liokumovich stated that it correct. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) normally does not allow fencing to extend to that degree, if they allow an extension at all. Twenty one (21) feet from the building line is excessive. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 4 of 19 Corn. Au asked if there is a fence currently that surrounds the rear yard. Mr. Liokumovich stated that there is a fence the currently surrounds the yard. The fence is breaking down. They would like to replace all of the fencing and want it all to match. That is why they are requesting this variance. Com. Au confirmed that the fence that currently encloses the backyard will be replaced. Mr. Liokumovich stated that the entire fence will be replaced. Acting Ch. Windecker asked what the height of the existing fence is. Mr. Liokumovich stated that the existing fence is five (5) feet high, chain link. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the fence around the entire yard would be replaced with a five (5) foot high wood fence. Mr. Liokumovich stated that it would. Com. Cesario stated that he has seen the property and has seen the existing fence. He has also seen the amount of distance between the sidewalk and the house on the Bernard side. He asked how many feet the fence would be off the house. Mr. Liokumovich stated that the fence would be twenty one (21)feet from the house. Corn. Cesario asked if the distance really would be twenty one (21)feet because it seems like it is less. Mr. Liokumovich stated that it does seem like it is less.They calculated the distance by the Plat of Survey. Corn. Cesario stated that he is asking because when he looked at the property he did not believe that it is twenty one (21)feet. His eyeball does not replace a tape measure by any means, but it looks like it is less than twenty one (21) feet from the house. Understanding that the existing fence is to be replaced by just coming into the side yard a little makes sense to him rather than what the ZBA sees from time to time which is wanting to enclose the entire side yard. From what he could see and that fact that the Petitioner is getting rid of the existing fence and replacing it, he believes that it would look a lot like what is there only it would look nicer and would only take a little bit of the side yard. Mr. Liokumovich stated that they did talk to their neighbors just to make sure that it would be alright with them. They were all aboard. Mrs. Liokumovich added that no one has lived in the property for four(4) years.The neighbors were very excited about something being done with the property. Corn. Cesario asked if the Petitioners had any letters from the neighbors. Mrs. Liokumovich stated that they do not have any letters. Com. Cesario asked Mr. Sheehan if the Village had received any correspondence regarding this fence request. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Village has not received any communication. He also pointed out the proposed fence would be located five (5) feet from the property line, not the sidewalk. It is not five (5) feet from the sidewalk. The fence would be five (5) feet plus to the sidewalk.The property line is shown as the dark line on the Plat of Survey. Corn. Cesario asked how the house could be twenty five (25) feet from the property line. Mr. Sheehan advised that the dimension as shown on Plat of Survey shows the house to be 26.12 feet from the corner of the house to the property line. Com. Cesario stated that so long as the fence is five (5) plus feet from the sidewalk, that is what is being discussed. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that twenty one (21)feet from the house would be too great a distance to extend into the side yard. The fence would have to be brought back for him to vote in favor of the request. Ten (10) feet from the sidewalk would look more practical on that size lot. Mrs. Liokumovich asked if locating the fence five (5) from the sidewalk would not be acceptable. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that he would not vote in favor of the fence in that location. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 5 of 19 Corn. Steingold stated that the Plat shows the house to be located 26.12 feet from the property line and the property line is between the house and the sidewalk. He suggests locating the fence ten (10)feet from the house. Locate the distance of the fence from house outwards. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that he is not in favor of locating the fence twenty one (21) feet from the house. Mr. Liokumovich asked if the ZBA would be willing to approve the fence to be located fifteen (15)feet from the house. Acting Ch. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan if the fence should be measured from the sidewalk rather than the house. Mr. Sheehan stated that the house is specific to the property line. It is the minimal distance from the property line to the sidewalk that is unknown. If the Petitioner located the fence fifteen (15) feet south from the northwest corner of the house structure that would leave approximately ten (10) feet plus from the sidewalk. That would be at lease ten (10) feet from the sidewalk and fifteen (15)feet from the house. Acting Ch. Windecker asked the Petitioner if they would agree to amend their petition to locate the fence fifteen (15) feet from the house. Mr. Liokumovich stated that they would agree to amend their petition. Acting Ch. Windecker read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 7, 2013 which states: "Brian, I have reviewed two of the ZBA variances you sent to us for review. Both 331 Terrace place and 1958 Sheridan Road are acceptable and I have no objection to these variations. I will have to inspect the other one in the field so I should have that to you today or tomorrow. Darren" There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Cesario made the following motion: I move we grant the amended request made by Andrey Liokumovich, 331 Terrace Place, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a four (4) foot high wood privacy fence that would begin at the southwest corner of the house and extend south a distance of fifteen (15)feet from the house to a point no less than ten (10)feet from the property line; then turning east, parallel to the sidewalk along Bernard Drive, and extending to a point five (5) feet from the rear property line; then turning north and returning to the building setback back. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 7, 2013. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Steingold seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 6 of 19 AYE—Cesario, Steingold,Au, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN—Entman Motion Passed 4 to 0, 1 Abstention. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days—June 6, 2013. Acting Ch. Windecker relinquished the role of Chairman to Ch. Entman. 1291 W. DUNDEE ROAD, DAVITA DIALYSIS-SIGN CODE,SECTIONS 14.16.030 AND 14.16.070—FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A SECOND WALL SIGN. SAID WALL SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING Ms. Kelly Ladd, DaVita Dialysis, 1291 W. Dundee Road, was present and sworn in.The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 2, 2013 was read. Ms. Ladd explained that the facility is located in the northeast corner of the Plaza Verde Shopping Center. They have an existing east elevation all sign that faces Arlington Heights Road. The request is to install a wall sign on the north elevation of the building facing Dundee Road. It is very difficult to identify the location of the facility of you are traveling east either on Dundee Road or within the center. It would be much easier for patients if there was a sign on both elevations. Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes of May 9, 2013. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn.Au made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by DaVita Dialysis, 1291 W. Dundee Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.16.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.16.070, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign. Said wall sign to be installed on the north elevation of the building as depicted on Exhibit E. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated May 9, 2013. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.40.010,Subsection A. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Finding of Fact attached. Item to appear on the June 17, 2013 Village Board agenda. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 7 of 19 OLD BUSINESS 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 previously read into the record. Mr. Imreibe advised that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had made some suggestions at the previous meeting regarding possibly lowering the sign. Based on speaking to some sign contractors that he has met with, they believe that he would be better off replacing the sign. At this point he does not want to replace the sign. It would be very costly to do at this considering he still has vacancies in the center. It is a perfectly good sign and he is not adding signage, or square footage. It would be the use of the panels that would change. He understands that some Commissioners believe that there is too much signage at this center. He also stated that numerous centers in and around the Village have wall signs above the store fronts as well as ground signs to advertise the businesses in the center. He understands that this is a unique situation where the tenants have two (2) wall signs.The east elevation wall signs were to address the issue of customers not being able to find the tenant's storefront location once they entered the parking lot. The east elevation signs to not face the right-of-way, they face the railroad tracks. There was also a suggestion made to take down some of the wall signs on the west elevation of the building and then in turn put the tenant panel on the ground sign. He spoke to Dunkin Donuts and they will not remove their west elevation wall sign. Dunkin Donuts has always had two (2) wall signs and they do not want to take it down. It has been there for ten (10) years. That was another part of the reason they requested the second wall sign for each business in the center. The existing tenants and possible new tenants questioned why Dunkin Donuts was allowed two (2)wall signs and they were not. Ch. Entman confirmed with Mr. Imreibe that he is not submitting anything new. Mr. Imreibe stated that was correct. Ch. Entman stated that he believes this is too much signage and would be too awkward. Corn. Cesario confirmed with Mr. Imreibe that he is asking the ZBA to vote on the original request as submitted. Mr. Imreibe stated that is correct. He also clarified that the ground sign tenant panel change would be added to the Uniform Sign Package as well. Corn. Cesario stated that for the size of the tenant spaces, they each have two (2) signs. There have been a lot of challenges at this site. Because there have been challenges it is that much harder to say here is cart blanch and do whatever you want to do and say that three (3) signs per unit is good for these tenant spaces.There are choices in what the Petitioner can do and he wants the Petitioner to be successful. This is a lot of signage per tenant unit. Corn. Cesario asked Mr. Sheehan if the Village has received any response ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 8 of 19 from the community regarding the request. Mr. Sheehan responded that the Village has not received any response from the community. Corn. Windecker stated that if you go back to November 2011 when the Petitioner was requesting the panel change for Dunkin Donuts advised that he did not want to put any tenant panels on the ground sign and was only interested in the Dunkin Donuts panels since Dunkin Donuts was located on both ground signs. The existing ground sign blocks the wall signs for people to see and they travel along Weiland Road. Lower the ground sign and eliminate car wash panel since the sign is being changed and the car wash is not located on this property. The car wash has the large sign at the corner of Weiland and Aptakisic.There is only one (1) vacancy in the center. Now the petitioner is requesting tenant panels for the other tenants. Next an electronic sign will be requested. He says that too much signage is too much signage and if the Petitioner wants to reduce the height of the ground sign there must be a sign contractor that could do that. As it is stands now he is opposed to the request. Ch. Entman stated that he has the same comments that he had at the last meeting. He understands the need for signage. All the signage that is being requested and the manor in which it is being requested is unnecessary. He does not see the hardship. Mr. Imreibe asked Corn. Windecker if the height of the ground sign was reduced would he be in favor of the request. Corn. Windecker stated that if the car wash panel was removed it would reduce the height of the sign by about four (4) feet. Then the sign could have tenant panels for the tenants that are on the property. But the west elevation wall signs would still be visible. If the Petitioner is really dedicated to taking care of the tenant within the center and not just the car wash. Mr. Imreibe responded that the car wash sign has always been there. Corn. Windecker responded that the now the Petitioner is requesting a variance on a sign that is not properly assigned to this property because the car wash property is separate and the properties were purchased as separate lots. The signs went up as two (2) separate lots. Now the variance is being requested to be changed to put more tenant panels on the ground sign. The ZBA can no longer consider the car wash on that sign on that piece of property. The ZBA would not allow that to happen for any other business.You have a sign for what is located on the property. If a mistake was made regarding the west elevation wall signs because they cannot be read, it was the Petitioner that requested them. If Mr. Imreibe feels that the east side of the building does not mean anything anymore and the tenants only need a small sign he may have a different avenue to pursue. But now, the request is for the almost full size signs on the east elevation, the west elevation wall sign and now more tenant panels on the ground sign. If business does not pick up, what is next? Mr. Imreibe responded that some of the issues raised by Corn. Windecker, such as the Dunkin Donuts sign, they have a sign on the car wash property. He asked Corn. Windecker if he is suggesting that he remove the Dunkin Donuts tenant panel from the ground sign on the car wash and utilize the entire sign for the car wash. Corn. Windecker responded that the ZBA is not addressing that sign. Mr. Imreibe stated that he understands that but the problem is when he appeared before the ZBA in 2011 and asked for the Dunkin Donuts panel to be changed, due to a logo change, he had to go through the variance process again. He did, at that time, ask for a tenant panel which the ZBA stated they would not be in favor of. Based on that, he asked the ZBA to vote on the panel change for Dunkin Donuts. Having to come back before the ZBA time and time again for a variance every time there is change is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 9 of 19 a problem. If Dunkin Donuts decides to change their logo or change their colors, he will have to come in for a variance again; for two (2) signs. This applies to both signs on both properties. He understands that they are only talking about the ground sign on the retail building property, but as far as he is concerned it is one (1) property. It was one (1) property. The previous owner parceled it out. Corn. Windecker stated that Mr. Imreibe bought the properties as two (2) separate properties. He has an oath and he has to protect the laws. If there is a separate piece of property it does not disappear and become one (1) property. Mr. Imreibe stated that Corn. Windecker is correct on that point. Com. Windecker stated that if Mr. Imreibe lowers the ground sign you will be able to see the west elevation wall signs. Or maybe Mr. lmreibe's sign contractor can purchase his ground sign from him and use it at another location. Mr. Imreibe asked if Corn. Windecker would be in favor of the tenant panels if the ground sign is lowered. Com. Windecker stated that as long as the car wash is removed from the sign.That was advised at the last meeting. Com. Cesario stated that given the challenges of the property, has the Petitioner given thought to getting rid of the west elevation wall signs and focus on the ground sign and the east elevation wall signs. If there is a concern that the west elevation wall signs are not effective would the Petitioner consider removing them? Mr. Imreibe stated that he did consider that and went back to the tenants after the previous meeting. One of the tenants was present at that meeting and made a suggestion that she would remove her west elevation wall sign. The problem is Dunkin Donuts that has always had two (2) wall signs on both the east and west. That is what brought the request for two (2) wall signs for the other tenants. Dunkin Donuts does not want to remove either of their wall signs. That makes it trick because what do you do, take down three (3) out of the four (4) tenant wall signs on the west elevation and leave Dunkin Donuts' up. He does believe that would look right. Com. Cesario stated that if you run one of those businesses and you do not think that your west elevation wall sign is effective; maybe voluntarily give that sign up in lieu of the ground sign. He is looking for a solution rather than ripping some out.The Petitioner keeps going back to there has been variance upon variance upon variance in part because of how the property was purchased and in part because what was done that since. That combination makes it incrementally more difficult to do something new.The question is if the tenants would prefer the ground sign panel in lieu of the west elevation wall sign. That would impact the quantity of signage issue as well as give the tenants something that they may find more effective. Until the smoke clears, the Petitioner may want to think very seriously about any requests where every piece has to be passed for the entire request to be passed to include not returning for future variances. Corn. Au reminded Mr. Imreibe that the only reason he has to come back for variances is because he requested the variance to put the car wash panel on this ground sign. Without that car wash panel, a variance is not needed. The law allows you to have a ground sign on this property and the Petitioner can apply for tenant panels but not with the car wash panel on this sign. The car wash panel is what required the variance in the first place. Mr. Imreibe stated that prior to him purchasing the properties it was utilized as a car wash and there was car wash signage on both ground signs. He was told that he had to apply for a variance to change the sign faces from the previous car wash management to his. Every time he made any type of copy change a new variance was required because the signs were approved based on a variance originally. Corn. Au stated that is exactly right. The signs need variances any time there is a change because they were based on a variance. Without the original variance, the Petitioner will no longer need more variances. If the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 10 of 19 original variance is removed by removing the car wash panel a new variance will not be required unless it does not comply with the Sign Code. Mr. Imreibe replied that because the car wash sign panel is on the south ground sign, when Dunkin Donuts wanted to change the tenant panel without touching the car wash panel, he had to apply for a variance. Corn. Au stated that is correct because there is intercrossing signage on both signs. Dunkin Donuts does not belong on the ground sign on the car wash property and the car wash does not belong on the retail building property. Mr. Imreibe stated that he understands that. At one point the Village was not aware that the property was two (2) separate parcels.There was a point in time where that was not an issue. Com. Cesario clarified that once there is a variance any change requires a variance. If the initial cause of the variance is removed there is every reason to believe that the Petitioner could change the sign without variances subject to the Sign Code. Once you have the first variance you are in automatic variance territory for any change because variations are specific. Ch. Entman stated that hopefully there is clarification as to why all the variances have been required in the past; why the discussions have been about why the sign has to constantly be the subject of variance requests. He reiterated Com. Windecker's suggestion of removing the car wash panel and lowering the ground sign. Then the sign would not require a variance, subject to the other requirements of the Sign Code. Since the last meeting there is nothing new that has been submitted.The comments from last month and this meeting are noted in the record. Ch. Entman advised Mr. Imreibe of his options and asked him how he wants to proceed. Mr. Imreibe advised he would like to proceed with the request as submitted. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Cesario made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant 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. Pursuant to Exhibits "El" and "E2" and the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated April 2, 2013. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.40.010, Subsection B. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 11 of 19 AYE—None NAY—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Au, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 5 to 0. Petitioner was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 15-45 E. DUNDEE ROAD, 14 DUNDEE ROAD, LLC-ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.44.030.1, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET BY ELEVEN (11) FEET SIX(6) INCHES Mr. Nick Vittore, Svigos Asset Management, 580 N. Bank Lane, Suite 33, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045, was present and sworn in. Mr.Vittore explained that since the last meeting, the architect was very optimistic that he would be able to provide the shopping center owner and developer with a plan that would satisfy the Commissioners as well as the owner. Unfortunately the owners and the developer were not satisfied with any of the reconfigured appearances that he could present. They did not feel that the proportions worked.The owners would like to proceed with the original submittal with the building height proposed at fifty six and one half(56-1/2)feet. Com. Cesario asked Mr. Vittore if the building height issue is the only issue between the proposed tenant and final resolution of the lease. Mr. Vittore stated that the height issue is an important issue along with the signage. He believes that there is more wiggle room on the signage but not with the height and proportions of the building. Com. Cesario asked Mr. Vittore if there are any other issues or conditions that have to be met for the tenant to move into the building. Mr. Vittore stated that if the tenant is not able to get a sign package that is anywhere near where they need to be that will be problematic. That is speaking of a sign package that in his opinion is out of date and could use updating in an overall sense. Corn. Cesario again asked if the only two (2) issues are the building height and the signage. Mr. Vittore responded that for the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)yes. Com. Cesario again asked if these are the only two (2) contingencies remaining in order for the tenant to move in. Mr. Vittore advised that he understands the ZBA's fear that if something is granted and the tenant does not follow through.The Village would be better off with a much better looking building. Rogan's Shoes will be moving out of the building at the end of the month. That center will be dark. Those are the only two (2) items. Corn. Cesario stated that he just wants to know what is being discussed. If the issue is that the height has to be approved in order to fill the space, which is what is being proposed, he wants to understand if there are any other issues. Mr. Vittore stated that his hesitation for committing to that the height is the only issue and then address the sign package and cannot get anything passed through other than red; that would be a problem. The sign and building height are the issues. Com. Cesario asked if there is anything else. If not, tonight Mr. Vittore could be done. Mr. Vittore stated that tonight he could be done with this tenant. Com. Cesario stated that if both things go through exactly as Mr. Vittore would like the tenant would be done and would not be able to back out of the lease even if they wanted. There was no response from Mr. Vittore. Mr. Frank Sears, 50 Lake Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089 was present and sworn in. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 12 of 19 Ch. Entman read a letter submitted by Frank Sears dated May 15, 2013 addressed to Mr. Sheehan which states: "Per the request of Julie Kamka, enclosed is the letter she requested I direct to you. Please provide copies of the enclosed to Wm. Raysa, the Village lawyer, who she said requested it. And please, also, direct copies to Mr. Entman and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals." Ch. Entman read a letter submitted by Frank Sears and Sherwin Chapman dated May 15, 2013 addressed to Whom It May Concern which states: "Please be advised, Frank Sears, 50 Lake Blvd., Buffalo Grove, IL, resident of the Cambridge-On-The-Lake Condominium Assn., and President of the Bordeaux Building Condominium Assn., 50-100 lake Blvd., Buffalo Grove, Illinois may represent the Assns. in the matter of the proposed increase in the roof height applied for in the re-modeling of the Rogan's shoe store building and/or its subsequent occupant." Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sears if the intent of the letters are to show that he has the authority to speak on behalf of both the Cambridge on the Lake Condominium Association and Bordeaux Building Condominium Association. Mr. Sears stated that is correct. Cambridge on the Lake Condominium Association is a master Association comprised of six (6) individual condominium buildings. Each building contains anywhere from sixty (60) to eighty (80) residences. Each building makes its own rules about how many pets, and when you can do remodeling and improvements and so forth. They are subject to the master association when it comes to landscaping and maintenance and snow plowing and payments for management. He happens to be the President of one (1) of those six (6) buildings. But he appeared before the ZBA earlier not as a representative of just the Bordeaux building, but as a representative of the association at large.That is the reason for the letter from Mr. Chapman, who is the President of the association at large. Mr. Raysa advised that included in the ZBA packet is a letter from Cambridge on the Lake management office, dated April 30, 2013. He is having an issue correlating both that letter and the letter that Mr. Sears brought forward. Ch. Entman read a letter submitted by Marla Sundh, Property Manager dated April 30, 2013 addressed to the Village of Buffalo Grove Department of Building/Zoning which states: "Julie,This is to confirm our earlier conversation regarding Mr. Sears. Mr. Sears is the Board President of one of our buildings, (50/100 Lake Blvd.). If/when Mr. Sears addresses and Village meeting; it should be clear that he does not represent any of the associations or their members. He speaks only on his own behalf. If you need any further information, please let me know." Mr. Sears stated that he did not know until this evening that that letter was sent by Lieberman Management, the managers of their association. He never received a copy of that letter. He was never even advised that a letter to that extent had been sent. When Julie called him she did not mention that, she just said Mr. Raysa wants him to prove that he represents the association at large. That is when he went to Mr. Chapman, who is the President of the Cambridge on the Lake Condominium Association, and asked him to confirm that he was speaking on behalf of the total association. If the ZBA would like, next month he could bring Mr. Chapman in to testify to that fact, but there should be no confusion here. He is representing himself as a resident of the closest property to the subject site,the property that the petitioners don't give a damn about. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 13 of 19 Ch. Entman stated that there are two (2) conflicting items of evidence. There is one (1) letter from the management company saying that Mr. Sears does not represent any of the associations but yourself, but now there is a letter signed by Mr. Sears and the President of the master association saying that Mr. Sears represents all the associations. In order to clarify what authority Mr. Sears has, if any, and on behalf of whom, Mr. Sears needs to have the association who sent the letter dated April 30, 2013 either agree with the second letter and withdraw their letter or clarify it. Right now there are two (2) conflicting pieces of evidence. If he would have to rule on it, he would have to make a determination if in fact Mr. Sears has the authority and he can not make that based on these two (2) documents. Right now, he does not have the ability to say Mr. Sears does or does not represent anyone other than himself. Mr. Sears is certainly welcome to provide his comments. Whether or not they are the comments of him personally or will be deemed at some point in time the comments of any one or all of the associations.This will be determined at a later date. Mr. Sears stated that in this case he will speak for himself and as President of the Bordeaux Building Condominium Association, which is one (1) of the six (6) buildings in the master association and which contains eighty (80) residential units. Ch. Entman clarified that based on the April 30, 2013 letter submitted from Cambridge on the Lake, which specifically and clearly states that if and when Mr. Sears addresses the Village at any meeting it should be clear that Mr. Sears does not represent any of the associations or their members and speaks only on his own behalf. Mr. Sears responded that is the most outrageous thing he has ever heard. Ch. Entman advised that he cannot make the decision or determination that this should not be given and credence that the new letters presented are or that Mr. Sears' letters should not be given any credence. For the purpose of today's hearing, it is his opinion that he will determine that Mr. Sears is speaking on his own behalf. The comments will not change; nothing will change about his testimony. It is just the question of the legal interpretation of who on behalf of Mr. Sears is speaking. Mr. Sears again stated that he will speak on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Bordeaux Association. He will obtain a letter correct the letter submitted by the management company, which he had no knowledge until this evening. He objects to the petition and requests that the ZBA deny it.This petition is an example of a self-centered, totally inconsiderate rejection of the zoning laws of Buffalo Grove and its neighboring properties. It seems from what he heard tonight that the shoe store is moving out and the Village needs the money and they should do anything the Petitioner asks them to do to get the money and take it or leave it. The Petitioner wants fifty six and one half (56-1/2) feet whether they like it or not. In all the hearings that he has attended there has bee no explanation of a reason for this appeal, for the necessity of the appeal, no justification offered as to why the ZBA should abandon the Village's ordinances and laws and just rubber stamp the petition. No opinion ventured that the ordinance that controls the development of this property is unjust in any way. It is not unjust in any way. There has been no recitation that the remodeling of this building cannot not be done in any other way. Of course it could. No assertion that the ordinance is unreasonable in its intent or effect. It is not. No appeal that the ordinance imposes a hardship on the proposed development. Of course it does not. There is no reason why it should be approved. It should be rejected. In ignoring and seeking to avert the Village's zoning ordinances the petition ignores the vital consideration for these ordinances, codes and zoning laws; which is the concern and the protection of neighboring properties that would be affected by such serious revision to those laws, the very reason those ordinances are enacted. In proposing an increase of eleven and a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 14 of 19 half(11-1/2) feet to the allowed height of the roof,just about doubling the current buildings height, the affect on the neighboring residences would be ugly. It would unreasonably limit the skyline views and the light to the neighboring buildings. Consider the apartments in the neighboring buildings that exist at ten (10) feet above grade, roughly twenty (20) feet above grade, thirty (30) feet above grade, even forty (40) feet above grade, having to face an ugly roof form fifty seven (57) feet above grade. It would look like a gun tower, an appalling picture, and surely not a necessary one. The condominium owners bought and invested here knowing, and willing to live with, the existing zoning limits. He asks the ZBA to maintain those limits.To reject the terrible precedent that approving this petition would set. To respect the neighboring investments and quality of life and reject this petition that would undo them. Mr. Vittore responded that these are the same comments that Mr. Sears has made at the previous two (2) meetings. He does not believe that he has ever stood before the ZBA and said that this is what they want and that the ZBA has to take it. His previous comment was that a dark (empty) shopping center is bad for the property owner and is not good for the Village. With Rogan's moving out, which is an unfortunately thing for them, they did stay within the Village.The roof line that will be above the legal limit is approximately thirteen (13) to fourteen (14) percent of the entire center. It would not be the vast majority of the center. He has raised these points before. Corn. Cesario stated that he understands that this request is based on an aesthetic interest of the incoming tenant. He understands the origin. It is not unique to the structure. The question for the ZBA is rejuvenating an almost dark piece of property in the Village worth any number of exceptions to the Village codes. It has been difficult in this circumstance. The confidentiality issue is a big issue. What exception is the Village willing to make to its rules and regulations in order to spur economic activity? Mr. Vittore stated that the Dominick's located across the street; their zoning has no limit as to how much they can extend their building height. That is a different zoning classification than what their center is under.There are a lot of condominium buildings in the area that are much taller that what they are proposing. This is a commercial district, there are tall buildings in the area, and there are not low lying structures all over the place. He does not believe this is something that will change the character of this corner by any means. Corn. Windecker asked what the hardship is to increase the height to fifty seven (57) feet. Mr. Vittore stated that they have the opportunity to rejuvenate this center with a tenant that they have a confidentiality agreement with. It is not easy to come by tenants to fill 35,000 square feet. From the property owner point of view, the hardship would be losing the tenant. They want to accommodate the tenant. In addition the building will look drastically better than what it looks like today. There hardship would be losing a tenant and back to square one and maybe they get a new tenant and may be they don't.This is a good opportunity for the property owner and they hope that the Village would feel that it is a good opportunity to bring that shopping center into the 215t Century. Corn. Windecker stated that suppose the Petitioner does not get the big red apple that they think they are going to get, then what. Or does the ZBA make the contingency based on the fact that the Petitioner cannot build the roof extension until the Petitioner does have that apple. Mr. Vittore stated that he believes that at the previous meeting they told the ZBA that they have a tenant that is contingent on the appearance of the building; which is not something that isn't typical. Most tenants want to know what a building is going to look like when they move in. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 15 of 19 original plan submitted is how they negotiated with the tenant and to change the plan, to lower the roof height, will not be a good result for the center owner. Corn. Windecker asked if the tenant is a specific store. Mr. Vittore revised his statement to reflect that the tenant is a prospective grocer. Corn. Windecker stated that the ZBA does not know who the specific grocer is. Mr. Vittore stated that he is not at liberty to say. Ch. Entman stated that he has not changed his opinion. The building would be too big. The Petitioner's stated hardship of losing a major tenant if they cannot get the building height requested, he is not sure if that is a hardship as contemplated by the ordinance. If the tenant came in and asked for the building to be one hundred (100)feet high, the hardship would be the same. He cannot look at that as being a hardship. He does not see the criteria being met. Com. Steingold asked Mr. Vittore if a study has been done to see who would be affected by the structure and to what extent those individuals would be affected. Mr. Vittore stated that they have not hired anyone to conduct a study of the affects of the eleven (11)feet. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant 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, Li 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 at Cambridge Commons Shopping Center, 15-45 E. Dundee Road. Pursuant to Exhibit "E" submitted with the application. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated March 7, 2013. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed building height will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Au NAY—Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 4 to 1. The Petitioner has been advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 15-45 E. DUNDEE ROAD, 14 DUNDEE, LLC - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.16.030, 14.16.060 AND 14.20.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A NEW GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD INCLUDE A LED DIGITAL DISPLAY AT THE CAMBRIDGE COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER, 15-45 E. DUNDEE ROAD L ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 16 of 19 Mr. Nick Vittore, Svigos Asset Management, 580 N. Bank Lane, Suite 33, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 6, 2013 was read. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Vittore that in light of the denial of the zoning ordinance variation for the height of the building, would the Petitioner like to proceed with the Sign Code variation request. Mr. Vittore advised that based on the Village Engineer's review of the proposed sign they have not been able to agree on the actual location of the ground sign. He would be open to hear the comments of the Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)tonight. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 7, 2013 which states: "Brian, I am not able to approve the ZBA case for 14 Dundee, LLC. located at 15- 45 E Dundee Road for the proposed sign at the south east corner of Dundee Road and Buffalo Grove Road. Please see the attached plan. IDOT is currently in the phase 1 design process of improving the intersection and the proposed sign would be in the area that IDOT is proposing for right-of-way and it could block the line of site for the proposed right turn lane. I do not want to approve the new sign and have them be required to take it down or move it when IDOT comes in with their proposed intersection improvement. These plans are preliminary and from what I can see in Greg's files IDOT says the project is planned in their 2013-2018 budget cycle. I would suggest that the applicant propose a new location using the attached plan that is out of the proposed improvements and will not block the line of sight for the proposed right turn lane. Darren" Mr. Vittore stated that there are two (2) issues. One is an updated ground sign and the other is an overall updated Sign Criteria for the center.The last update to the Criteria was in 2006.They would be looking for a wider variety of colors and other changes. Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated May 9, 2013 regarding the proposed ground sign. Com. Cesario stated that he likes the look of the proposed ground sign. The physical appearance of it is attractive. The location issue has to be resolved by the experts. Obviously there is always a height issue. What height is reasonable? What height is too tall? Overall he believes the sign is attractive for a primary sign understanding that there are still significant outstanding issues. Ch. Entman read the memorandum addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 9, 2013 which states: "Dear Commissioners, Attached please find the approved sign rendering for the Fresh Farms location on Dundee Road, Wheeling, Illinois. Also, Noreen, Wheeling Community Development Department, did verbally confirm that the overall height of the Fresh Farms location on Dundee Road, Wheeling, Illinois, is fifty six (56) feet in height. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you." Attached to the memorandum is what was approved for the signage at the existing Fresh Farms location. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 17 of 19 Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated May 9, 2013 regarding the proposed Uniform Sign Package. He noted that when attended the ART meeting there was a lot of vague language in the Criteria that was incapable of conforming the conduct to and/or enforcing. Ch. Entman believes that the proposed ground sign is much too high. He already stated his comments concerning the revised Sign Criteria Package. If you look at the building as a fifty six (56) foot high building and compare that to a ground sign at thirty (30) feet, it probably conforms to the size of the structure. He is not in favor of approving a thirty (30) foot high sign. It is a nice looking sign and it may provide great information but he cannot approve the size of the sign. Com. Au stated that the sign at the Wheeling location is a distraction. She drives on Milwaukee a lot. About twenty five (25) percent of the time someone is honking at someone else because they are not paying attention at the light because they are looking at the sign. If the sign is very bright, big and animated, which is the way the Wheeling sign is, it could be a safety hazard. Based on that, she would not be in favor of the sign. Com. Windecker stated that the sign is too big and the electronics sign is too large. City Park in Lincolnshire had to reduce the size of their electronic sign because it affected the people across the street at Sedgebrook. This electronic message board is entirely too large. The overall sign is too large. This is a different type of intersection that the one at Milwaukee and Dundee where four (4) corners are all commercial. He would not be in favor of the sign as proposed. When the Petitioner sees how much land they may be losing due to the roadway project they may want to revise a lot of things on the property. Mr. Vittore asked if the request could be tabled and asked, in terms of the message board, if there any recommended size that the ZBA would be in favor of. Ch. Entman stated that the ZBA has reviewed and approved certain message board signs. His impression is that the ZBA has ever come to some kind of consensus as to size of the message board for a standard. It is on a case by case basis.The message board will be affected by the overall size of the ground sign. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made a motion to 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 Sign Code, Section 14.16.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.16.060, pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Electronic Message Signs, for the purpose of allowing a new ground sign that would include a LED digital display at the Cambridge Commons Shopping Center, 15-45 E. Dundee Road. Corn.Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold,Windecker,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to O. Item Tabled to the June 18,2013 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 18 of 19 ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan advised that he sent the Brunswick Sign Package out to the Commissioners. Please provide comments to Mr. Sheehan for compilation for the Plan Commission. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Au and seconded by Corn. Windecker. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Submitted by, CAb-k_ AOVKS Ju ie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 21, 2013 PAGE 19 of 19