Loading...
2013-07-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes thitV Lt As cor,„,€- glcj►3 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 16, 2013 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. on Tuesday,July 16, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Cesario Also Present: William Raysa, Village Attorney Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 18, 2013 minutes: Com. Lesser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday,June 18, 2013. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —Shapiro Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. NEW BUSINESS 833 BERNARD DRIVE, ELIZABETH AND ROBERT DOTSON - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A FIVE (5) FOOT ALUMINUM FENCE BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING SOUTHEAST TWENTY TWO (22) FEET(2) TWO INCHES; THEN TURNING SOUTHWEST PARALLEL TO WEIDNER ROAD TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, MAINTAINING A DISTANCE OF TEN (10) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J U LY 16, 2013 PAGE 1 of 11 4.11ji Mrs. Elizabeth Dotson, 833 Bernard Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 27, 2013 was read. Mrs. Dotson explained that she was sitting outside on her patio with her cat and a neighbor's dog came over and attacked her cat. During the attack she was also bit. She has had two (2) months of pain and she still has pain. She cannot move her finger. She was in the hospital and was on antibiotics for over a month. There was another incident last week where she had her cat on a leash and there was a loose dog across the street. There was also another incident where someone was cutting through her yard on a bike. Last night another neighbor came over with their dog and her cat was on the leash and she was hysterical, trying to get her cat away from the dog. She believes she needs the fence. She had had coyotes and foxes in her yard as well. She does not feel safe sitting in her yard. The proposed fence would be more aesthetically pleasing being located behind the bush line on the corner. If the fence is close to the house it will cut the yard in half. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 1, 2013 which states: "Brian, I do not have any objections to the fence at 833 Bernard Drive going to the ZBA public hearing on July 16, 2013." Com. Lesser asked if the proposed fence will be what is shown in Exhibit "E2". Mrs. Dotson stated that it is. Com. Windecker asked if the fence will be located on the outside of the bushes. Mrs. Dotson stated that fence will be located on the house side of the bushes. The fence will have two (2) gates with locks so nothing can get into the yard. She has had at least five (5) incidents where animals have come into the yard when she has been outside with her cat. Ch. Entman stated that he observed that the finials appear to be pointed. Mrs. Dotson stated that she does not know. Ch. Entman stated that he would have an issue if the finials were pointed. Mrs. Dotson stated that she would prefer to have them pointed so that children could not climb over the fence. Ch. Entman stated that it would be a danger. Mrs. Dotson stated that she could make them flat. Ch. Entman stated that the fence would only be a five (5) foot fence. He would put a requirement into the motion that the vertical railings on the fence be flat on the top,or something similar to that. Mr. Sheehan advised that the Village Code does not allow anything pointed on a fence. Include in the motion that fence would be Code compliant. He also advised that the motion should include that the fence would be encroaching fifteen (15) feet into the required twenty five (25) foot side yard setback. Ch. Entman stated that he did not see the designated side yard setback dimension on the survey. He asked if any of the Commissioners had any comments concerning the distance the fence would extend into the twenty five (25) foot side yard setback. That is a lot. He ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J U LY 16, 2013 PAGE 2 of 11 understands that the fence would be located inside the bushes. Typically the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) would go half the distance of the setback. Mrs. Dotson stated that her neighbor's fence is approximately five (5) feet from the property line. This fence would be ten (10) feet from the property line. Ch. Entman stated that each application is reviewed based on its own unique circumstances. Corn. Shapiro stated that typically he would not like the fence to be as close to the property line but there is a full ten (10)feet to the property line and it would be behind bushes. He would not have any issues with the fence. There were no further questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Elizabeth and Robert Dotson, 833 Bernard Drive, for variance of Fence Code,Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a five (5) foot aluminum fence that would encroach fifteen (15) feet into the twenty five (25) foot required side yard setback: beginning at the southeast corner of the house and extending southeast twenty two (22)feet (2)two inches; then turning southwest parallel to Weidner Road to the rear property line, maintaining a distance of ten (10) feet from the property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 1, 2013. The fence shall be located on the house side of the bushes and the fence shall be Code compliant. 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. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au NAY—Entman ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. The permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days— August 1, 2013. 1181 DEVONSHIRE ROAD, BRAD AND IVY FREEMAN - ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.050, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING THE EXISTING HOUSE INTO CONFORMANCE CONCERNING A 0.32 FOOT DEFICIENCY INTO THE REQUIRED SIX(6) FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK; AND Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 16, 2013 PAGE 3 of 11 VARIANCE OF ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.050, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF 0.32 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED SIX(6) FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK Mr. Brad Freeman, 1181 Devonshire Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 27, 2013 was read. Mr. Freeman explained that he is planning to construct a second story addition that would be built over the garage. The additional would consist of a fourth bedroom so that each of his children would have their own room. When they purchased the house they thought that three bedrooms would be sufficient. Their family has grown and they need more space. When they purchased the home they were not aware of the encroachment into the required six (6) foot side yard setback. They are seeking a variance for the original house and the second story addition. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 1, 2013 which states: "Brian, I do not have any objections to the second floor addition at 1181 Devonshire Road going to the ZBA public hearing on July 16, 2013." Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Freeman if the materials on the addition will match the existing construction of the house. Mr. Freeman stated that the siding and roof materials will be the same colors as the existing house. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Ch. Entman advised that the motion will be made as two (2) separate motions; one (1) to bring the existing home into conformance and one (1)for the addition request. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Brad and Ivy Freeman, 1181 Devonshire Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.050, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of bringing the existing house into conformance concerning a 0.32 foot deficiency into the required six (6)foot side yard setback. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J U LY 16, 2013 PAGE 4 of 11 Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Brad and Ivy Freeman, 1181 Devonshire Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.050, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a second story addition that would encroach a distance of 0.32 feet into the required six (6) foot side yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 1, 2013. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — August 1, 2013. 515 HARRIS COURT, VIPINKUMAR AND SHRUTI PARIKH - ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.050, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A ONE-STORY ADDITION ON THE REAR OF THE HOME THAT WOULD ENCROACH SEVEN (7) FEET THREE (3) INCHES AT THE FARTHEST POINT OF ENCROACHMENT, AVERAGING A DISTANCE OF 3.12 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED THIRTY(30) FOOT AVERAGE REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Rich Hagele, Lake in the Hills Construction Company, 1455 Saddlebrook Circle, Algonquin, Illinois 60102, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 27, 2013 was read. Mr. Hagele explained that due to the uniqueness of the property they need a variance to construct and addition onto the rear of the home. The Petitioner is handicapped and has a hard time maneuvering through the home. He is limited to the first floor. The addition will make it easier for him and provide more space on the first floor. The rear yard is pie-shaped and has two (2) rear setbacks lines. The location of the proposed addition is the only area that they can feasibly add onto the home. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brain Sheehan dated July 1, 2013 which states: "Brian, my only comment on the addition at 515 Harris Court going to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 16, 2013 PAGE 5of11 ZBA public hearing on July 16, 2013 is to make sure the proposed addition does not enter into the public utility and drainage easement shown on the plat. The application seems to say that it will not but the drawing shows it just barely going over the line and that is not allowed. If it is not entering the easement then I do not have any objections to the appeal." Corn. Lesser asked if the materials of the addition would match the existing construction of the house. Mr. Hagele advised that the materials will match the existing home. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan about how the seven foot three inch (7'3") average was determined. Mr. Sheehan explained that since the rear setback line does not run in a straight line, an average setback is established and is represented as a dashed line on Exhibit "A2". There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Lake in the Hills Construction Co., Inc., 1455 Saddlebrook Circle, Algonquin, Illinois 60102 on behalf of Vipinkumar and Shruti Parikh, 515 Harris Court, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.050, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a one-story addition on the rear of the home that would encroach seven (7) feet three (3) inches at the farthest point of encroachment, averaging a distance of 3.12 feet into the required thirty (30) foot average rear yard setback. Said addition is not to encroach into the easement. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 1, 2013. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — August 1, 2013. 850 S. BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, NEWPORT EQUITIES, LLC - SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.16.030; SECTION 14.16.060 AND SECTION 14.16.070; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FEET (250) OF AN EXISTING GROUND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 16, 2013 PAGE 6 of 11 SIGN LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING MULTIPLE WALL SIGNS IN ADDITION TO THE ONE ALLOWED CHASE WALL SIGN WITH A CHASE LOGO THAT WILL BE LOCATED ON THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING OVER THE ENTRANCE AND FACING THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS FOLLOWS: TO ALLOW A CHASE WALL SIGN WITH A CHASE LOGO AS WELL AS A SEPARATE CHASE LOGO ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT DO NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY;TO ALLOW A CHASE WALL SIGN WITH A CHASE LOGO ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT DOES NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND TO ALLOW A CHASE WALL SIGN WITH A CHASE LOGO AS WELL AS A SEPARATE CHASE LOGO ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT DO NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, FOR CHASE BANK, 850 S. BUFFALO GROVE ROAD Mr. John Streetz, Doyle Signs, 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, Illinois 60101 and Ms. Sara Glenn, Chase Bank, 10 S. Dearborn Street, Floor 15, Chicago, Illinois 60603, were present and sworn in.The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 27, 2013 was read. Mr. Streetz explained that the initial proposed sign package which was reviewed by the Appearance Review Team (ART) was proposing a monument ground sign; a wall sign on the front (east elevation) of the building; a wall sign on the rear (west elevation) of the building; and wall signs on both the north and south elevations of the building as well as separate Chase logos on both the north and south elevation towers. After the July 2, 2013 ART meeting they had removed both the separate logos from the north and south elevations and had reduced the size of the proposed wall sign on the north and south elevations in an effort to accommodate some of the comments received at the ART meeting. Mr. Streetz distributed revised proposed landscaping plan which was accepted and marked as Exhibit "K". A revised sign package dated July 8, 2013 was distributed. The new proposed ground sign was marked as Exhibit "M". The new proposed wall signs were marked as Exhibit "N". A separate revised Site Plan (Page 3) was also distributed as the Site Plan in the July 8, 2013 package reflected an incorrect proposed location of the ground sign which was accepted and marked as Exhibit "L". Photographs were distributed depicting views of the proposed building from traveling north and south on Buffalo Grove Road as well as photographs of the wall signage for Taco Bell, 50 W. Dundee Road and signage for the Bucky's at 10 W. Dundee Road. The Photographs were accepted and marked as Exhibit "J". Mr. Sheehan asked if the proposed ground sign location as depicted on Exhibit "L" is to be located in a parking stall. He will need to review the approved Site Plan as parking was a much discussed issue at the Plan Commission hearing. Ch. Entman stated there is a letter from Newport Equities, dated May 23, 2013, granting authorization to NW Sign Industries to sign as designated agent on behalf of Newport Equities for applications pertaining to the new Chase Bank outlot development. There is a letter from Doyle Signs dated June 14, 2013. There is no letter of authorization from either Newport Equities or NW Sign Industries granting authority to Doyle Signs. Mr. Streetz explained that Doyle Signs is working as an agent for NW Sign Industries. Ch. Entman advised that a letter will need to be provided granted authorization to Doyle Signs either from NW Sign Industries or Newport Equities. Mr. Streetz advised that he will obtain that authorization. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J U LY 16, 2013 PAGE 7 of 11 Mr. Streetz advised that signage is extremely important to Chase Bank. The property is unique in that it will have traffic running on all four (4) sides of it. The property will be visible from Dundee Road. Each elevation will have an ingress and egress that would act as a right-of-way. The proposed wall signs on the east and west elevations did not change. The proposed wall signs on the north and south elevations were reduced in size and the separate logos on the north and south tower elevations have been removed.The ground sign is code compliant in size and only requires a variation for location only. Chase Bank is entitled to a ground sign and the proposed ground sign is attractive on both sides. The ground sign would be visible to traffic moving both north and south on Buffalo Grove Road. There is a variation request for the west elevation wall sign. This proposed sign was reduced to be one foot six inches 1'6" in height Chase letters with a logo. This sign would face the access drive to the west and helps to identify Chase Bank and the drive-thru to traffic in the parking lot of the shopping center. They feel without this sign that people driving on the access drive or in the parking lot may not know that this building is a Chase Bank. The north elevation proposed wall sign and logo was reduced to two (2) feet in height and the proposed separate four (4) foot high logo was removed from the tower. This elevation also faces the parking lot and is visible to southbound traffic on Buffalo Grove Road. There are several trees along Buffalo Grove Road that may block the view of the building. The north elevation wall sign will not only offer visibility to the north parking lot but will offer visibility to southbound traffic. On the south elevation they are proposing the same wall sign and logo as the north elevation and also removed the proposed separate logo on the tower. This sign would face the Mobil station and would be their best chance for visibility from Dundee Road. There are vantage points from both east and west bound traffic that will allow traffic to notice that the building is a Chase Bank where they would not normally see the ground sign, the east or west elevation wall signs. This sign would allow the building to be identified from Dundee Road. The east elevation wall sign and logo does not require a variance as this elevation has frontage along Buffalo Grove Road. Each of the proposed signs has a purpose. If any of the proposed signs were to be removed he feels it will affect visibility to traffic moving around the site. He feels that the proposed signs are in harmony with the intent of the Code. He feels that each of the proposed signs are well sized and compliment the architecture of the building. If any of the signs are removed, it will create a hardship. There are many trees along Buffalo Grove Road and Dundee Road. This is a unique property; it has traffic moving around it on all four(4) sides as if they had right-of-way on all four(4) sides. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 1, 2013 which states: "Brian, I do not have any objections to the signs at 850 S. Buffalo Grove Road going to the ZBA public hearing on July 16, 2013." Ch. Entman also read the ART minutes dated July 2, 2013. Corn. Windecker stated that under the revised submittal the ground sign has been relocated. Mr. Streetz stated that is correct. Corn. Windecker asked if the Village Engineer has reviewed the new proposed ground sign location. Mr. Streetz stated the Village Engineer has not seen it. Corn. Windecker stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) could not vote on the proposed ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J U LY 16, 2013 PAGE 8 of 11 ground sign because the Village Engineer has not done a review on the location. He believes that the site faces Dundee Road from an interior lot and not a direct frontage. He asked if the property is an outlot that was acquired by Chase Bank. Mr. Streetz stated that the property is an outlot. Com. Windecker advised Mr. Streetz that the Taco Bell was granted two (2) canopy signs, not three (3) and the Village is looking into why they have more signs that what was approved. Chase is a large bank. People know when they are going to the bank. There is a proposed ground sign as well as four (4) proposed wall signs and four (4) logos; one (1) on each side of the building. He has an issue with that. When you look at the lot that the building will occupy, it will occupy approximately forty (40) percent of that side of the parking lot. He does not see where there is the need, when logos are on the sides of the building, for wall sign on all four (4) sides of the building. He can understand the signs facing Buffalo Grove Road and Dundee Road, but is not sure of the benefit of the south elevation sign because that faces the Mobil station. He understands the reason the photographs were submitted with views from north and southbound Buffalo Grove Road, but that there are two (2) seasons in Buffalo Grove and the trees will not be an issue in the winter. He understands that the two (2) signs were eliminated and some signs were reduced but the proposal is still too many signs.The new Chase Bank location in Orland Park only has two (2) signs. Mr. Streetz responded that the two (2) Chase logos on the north and south towers were removed. They also reduced the size of the proposed wall sign on the north and south elevations. Corn. Lesser stated that the proposed signs on the north and south elevations should be removed. He does not see any gain with signage on the north and south elevations. He understands the sign on the east elevation facing Buffalo Grove Road. He understands the need for a sign on the west elevation facing the access drive in the shopping center. He does not see any purpose for wall signs on the north and south elevations, especially since there is the request for the ground sign which would capture the traffic flow north and south on Buffalo Grove Road. If the north and south elevation wall signs are pursed he suggests eliminating the proposed ground sign. He also believes that the ground sign is too large and should be reduced in size. The signs are proposed is too much signage and he can not support the request. Mr. Streetz responded that proposed wall sign #4 on the south elevation of the building will be the best way to identify the building to traffic on Dundee Road. There is the Mobil station and the Taco Bell with frontage along Dundee Road but there are vantage points along Dundee Road in which you will be able to tell that this is a Chase Bank where you will not be able to see the ground sign or the sign on the west elevation. Between the north and south elevations, he believes the south elevation sign is more important. The proposed north elevation wall sign is the best way to identify the bank building to traffic in the parking lot of the center and the ground sign is the best way to identify the building to north and south traffic on Buffalo Grove Road. Corn. Lesser rebutted that retail locations do not need three hundred sixty (360) degrees of signage. Corn. Steingold agrees with Corn. Windecker and Corn. Lesser. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 16, 2013 PAGE 9of11 Corn. Au agrees that the proposed sign package is too much signage. Some signs will need to be eliminated from the sign package. Outlot buildings tend to have only one (1) or two (2) wall signs. If the ZBA allows wall sign on all four (4) sides of the building then other businesses located on outlot are going to want signs on all four (4) sides of their buildings as well. Then there will be signage everywhere you go. The ZBA has to look at what is best for the entire community. Com. Shapiro agrees with Com. Lesser and Com. Au on the necessity of proposed wall signs #3 and #4 as opposed to the ground sign. He does not see how anyone could drive past proposed sign #3 without seeing sign #'s 1, 2, 4 and 5. Coming from the north you will see the ground sign and the sign on the front of the building facing east. If you are coming from the west, you would see sign #5. If you are coming from the south you will see sign #4. He does not see the need for sign #3 at all. He does not believe that sign #4 will be very useful either being located behind the Mobil. By the time you can see that sign, you will be able to see the entire building. There is too much signage as proposed. Ch. Entman stated he also agrees that there is too much signage. He does not believe that the bank needs sign on every elevation of the building. The ground sign is too big in height and width. The Village Engineer will also need to review the new proposed ground sign location. He asked if the Chase bank located inside the Dominick's in the shopping center will be staying. Mr. Streetz stated that the bank will not be staying inside the Dominick's. Ch. Entman asked if the signage will be coming off the Dominick's building. Mr. Streetz stated that the sign would be removed. Ch. Entman stated that he has not, after twenty five (25) years, been provided evidence that more signs will get more business. A bank is not a retail location. Minimal signage would be sufficient. He does not see a major need for the signage as proposed. The bank will be constructed with the visibility issue. The bank created its own hardship. He cannot support the request as proposed. Ms. Glenn stated that she understands that this is a compromise process. There are different sign packages that are available that she would like to present to the ZBA. She believes that the west elevation wall sign is very important for visibility on the west. She asked to have the request Tabled to the next meeting in order to provide more sign options that are available to the ZBA. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Doyle Signs, 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, Illinois 60101 on behalf of Newport Equities, LLC, 830 S. Buffalo Grove Road, Suite 106, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.16.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.16.060, pertaining to Ground Signs; for the purpose of allowing a ground sign to be located within two hundred fifty feet (250) of an existing ground sign located on the same side of the street; and variance of Sign Code, Section 14.16.030, pertaining to ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J U LY 16, 2013 PAGE 10 of 11 Business Districts; and Section 14.16.070, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing multiple wall signs in addition to the one allowed Chase wall sign with a Chase logo that will be located on the east elevation of the building over the entrance and facing the public right of way as follows: to allow a Chase wall sign with a Chase logo as well as a separate Chase logo on the north elevation of the building that do not face the public right-of-way; to allow a Chase wall sign with a Chase logo on the west elevation of the building that does not face the public right-of-way; and to allow a Chase wall sign with a Chase logo as well as a separate Chase logo on the south elevation of the building that do not face the public right-of-way, for Chase Bank, 850 S. Buffalo Grove Road, to the August 20, 2013 regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the next regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 20, 2013. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan reviewed the outcome of the appeal made by 14 Dundee, LLC to the Village Board on July 15, 2013.The Village Board overturned the ZBA denial and the specifics of the electronic message sign were detailed. Mr. Sheehan also advised that the appeal for BG Car Wash Management was Tabled to the August 19, 2013 Village Board meeting since Mr. Imreibe was not available for the July 15, 2013 Village Board meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Lesser and seconded by Corn. Au. Voice Vote —AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:02 P.M. S bmitted by, J ie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS J U LY 16, 2013 PAGE 11 of 11