Loading...
2013-09-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes igH [riwEi REGULAR MEETING AS corre_thec to\t5\ �3 BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday,September 17, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Au Also Present: William Raysa, Village Attorney Lester Ottenheimer,Village Trustee Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 20, 2013 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday,August 20, 2013. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—Cesario Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. BUSINESS 251 MILWAUKEE AVENUE, BERKSON & SONS FOR ATRIUM REALTY I - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN Mr. Art Holland, Holland Design Group, 1090 Brown Street, Wauconda, Illinois 60084, was present and sworn in. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 1 of 14 '-771 11 -ii u L..9uu -1.1A Mr. Holland explained that Berkson & Sons would like to maintain the existing leasing. The current vacancy rate is thirty (30) percent. Ch. Entman stated that he does not have any issues allowing the leasing sign to remain. He would recommend a review in six (6) months. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Atrium Realty I, LLC, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" sign located at 251 Milwaukee Avenue. Petitioner to appear at the March 18, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the sign. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the March 18, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 589 CARRIAGEWAY DRIVE, TARYN DECICCO - ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.20.030, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING AN EIGHT (8) FOOT HIGH TRELLIS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE .1, TRELLIS WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF FIVE (5) FEET BY THREE (3) FEET Ms. Taryn DeCicco, 589 Carriageway Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 29, 2013 was read. Ms. DeCicco explained that she would like to construct a trellis to block a dog run from the street and to protect her neighbors from her dog barking. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated August 30, 2013 which states: "Brian, I do not have any issues with the height of the trellis at 589 Carriageway Drive for the ZBA. I would add the usual conditions of any new fence that it does not change drainage patterns." Corn. Windecker asked if the trellis will be added to the front of the fence. Ms. DeCicco stated that the trellis and the gate would be the front of the fence that would block the view of the dog run from the street. Com. Windecker asked Ms. DeCicco if there is a fence on the side now. Ms. DeCicco stated that there is a fence on the side now. Com. Windecker asked Ms. DeCicco if she is going to put the gate by the front of the house. Ms. DeCicco stated yes. Corn. Windecker asked Ms. DeCicco where she plans to put the trellis. Ms. DeCicco stated that the trellis and the gate are one unit. ` 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 2 of 14 Ch. Entman asked if the location of the proposed trellis is on the side of the house opposite the ‘./ garage side. Ms. DeCicco stated that is correct. Ch. Entman asked if trellis will act as an entranceway with a gate on it. Ms. DeCicco responded yes. Ch. Entman stated that he has an issue with the height of the proposed trellis. He is not sure why it is necessary to have the trellis so high. Ms. DeCicco stated that she chose the trellis based upon what was available in the width. She is purchasing the trellis, not constructing it. Ch. Entman believes that the proposed trellis is unnecessarily high for no reason. There are probably other products available that could accomplish the purpose without being so high. Corn. Cesario stated that it seems odd to him that the Code would restrict the height of a trellis to five (5)feet if a person is supposed to walk underneath it. Five (5)feet is pretty low. He is not clear on the purpose within the Code, not to say that eight (8) feet is the universal answer either. Ch. Entman stated that a trellis does not necessarily have to be an entranceway like the one being proposed. If it is just a trellis, like a section of a wall,then five (5) feet would be sufficient. It is by choice that the proposed trellis was selected and therefore has a large arch and he does not believe that it needs to be that tall. Corn. Lesser agrees with Com. Cesario regarding the Code restriction of five (5) feet when a six (6) foot fence is permitted under the current Code. He is not sure what the difference is from where the lattice ends to the peak of the arch. His guess is that is a couple a feet. It would appear that the lattice section is roughly six (6) feet in height and therefore he does not have any objections to the open arch area extending above the fence. Corn. Shapiro asked if the gate is an option with the trellis. Ms. DeCicco stated that the gate is an option available with this trellis. Corn. Shapiro asked how wide the gate opening would be. Ms. DeCicco stated that she believes that the gate is forty eight inches (48") wide. Corn. Shapiro asked if the trellis would be anchored in concrete. Ms. DeCicco responded yes. Corn. Shapiro asked if the other trellis models shown on the Exhibit are the same height. Ms. DeCicco responded yes. Corn. Windecker stated that he agrees with Ch. Entman that the trellis is tall for the area at the front of the house. Usually a trellis is located in the rear yard. The side yard is also very close to the neighbor. He believes that Ms. DeCicco could come up with an alternative. Ms. DeCicco stated that she is trying to keep her dog from being able to observe everything that is going on so he is not a nuisance. Corn. Windecker stated that the letter submitted with the application states that the dog does not like to respond to the Petitioner's commands. Ms. DeCicco stated that is the reason for having the dog run. Her dog is a Sheba and Sheba's like to be chased. Corn. Cesario asked Ms. DeCicco what her reasoning is for the trellis, other than for aesthetics. Ms. DeCicco stated that there is very little room in the side yard. There is only about six and a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 3 of 14 half (6-1/2) feet from the house to the side property line. Rather than configuring various �i./ things, this would be a simple solution to open up to the dog run. She will gate the other end to create a holding area for the dog. It was the simplest solution that she could come up with. Com. Cesario asked if the house is more than eight (8) feet in height because the trellis would be almost against the house. Ms. DeCicco responded yes. Mr. Noel Peltier, 584 Carriageway Drive, was present and sworn in. Mr. Peltier stated that he lives across the street from the Petitioner. He supports the request made by Ms. DeCicco. He has spoken with other neighbors in the neighborhood and everyone is in favor. From a neighborhood standpoint,there are no issues. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Taryn DeCicco, 589 Carriageway Drive, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.20.030, pertaining to Building height, bulk and lot coverage, for the purpose of allowing an eight (8) foot high trellis to be constructed. The trellis would exceed the maximum permitted height of five (5)feet by three (3)feet. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated August 30, 2013. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed trellis 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—Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Shapiro NAY—Windecker, Entman ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 4 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — October 3, 2013. 1412 OXFORD DRIVE, DANIEL AND CAROLYN DEZUTTER - ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A TWO-STORY ADDITION THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF 12.08 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Daniel DeZutter and Mrs. Carolyn DeZutter, 1412 Oxford Drive, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 29, 2013 was read. ./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 4 of 14 Mr. DeZutter explained they moved to the home about ten (10) years ago. They had their second child just as they moved in. A couple years later they found out that they were going to have triplets. They now have five (5) children. They have finally saved enough funds to put an addition on their home. They love their neighborhood. They love the schools. They love the Village and would really like to stay and put the addition on their home. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated August 30, 2013 which states: "Brian, I do not have any issues with the addition to the rear of 1412 Oxford Drive for the ZBA. I would add the usual condition of any new addition that it does not change drainage patterns and it does not appear that the addition would as it drains towards the park area." Ch. Entman read a letter submitted by Lori and Michael Lev, 1130 Knollwood Drive, dated September 9, 2013 which states: "We received notice that Daniel and Carolyn DeZutter, of 1412 Oxford Dr, are petitioning to construct an addition to their home that encroaches into the rear yard setback. We wish to state that we have no objection to this encroachment, and that further, we believe that their addition will add value to their property and as such value to the surrounding properties including ours.Therefore, we support their petition." Ch. Entman read the memorandum from Brian Sheehan addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) dated September 17, 2013 which states: "The petitioners are requesting a variance of 12.08 feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance only allows a variance to the setback requirement of up to 33% of the required rear yard setback; therefore the ZBA variance would be limited to the 10 foot maximum variance allowance. This matter would not be sent to the Village Board, as the Village Board is also restricted to the same limitation of 33% and cannot grant a variance for anything over that amount. There are several other properties within this neighborhood that applied for and were granted variances for the full 10 feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback. Please let me know if you have any questions." Mr. DeZutter stated that he was advised by Village at the time she submitted his application that his petition could be heard by the ZBA and then go to the Village Board for final approval. He was advised today that the Village Board is limited to the 33% as well. He would like to request to have the ZBA review the petition and, if possible, grant the request for an encroachment of 33% today and adjust to the plans for permit review after that approval. If not, it will delay their planning process significantly. They would like to start on the addition in the fall before the winter months arrive. Ch. Entman stated that he would have an issue approving something without seeing it. They certainly could say whatever it is they will decide to approve it subject to the review and approval by the Building Department. However, that does not give the ZBA the opportunity to see it. Mr. DeZutter stated that the elevations would essentially remain unchanged since they would be only reducing the encroachment by a few feet. He understands that concern of not ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 5 of 14 seeing a corrected plan. He would like to keep their process moving and in turn would agree to a ten (10) foot variance. Ch. Entman stated that the review of the petition has to be done at a public hearing. If there was not a legal restriction then the ZBA would hear the request and could decide if the Board would vote, or if the petition needed to be revised, or if the request would be tabled, the Board would then vote. In order to revise the request, it would have to be tabled and return before the ZBA next month. There is nothing the ZBA can do outside of the public hearing process. He does not want to speak for all the Commissioners, but he would be hesitant to approve something without seeing the final product. Corn. Windecker agrees that the Petitioner has to have an accurate plan to present to the ZBA so legally they can review and approve it at a public meeting. There is no short cut around it. Mrs. DeZutter stated that they are frustrated because they did ask about the encroachment limit at the time of submittal and she understands that mistakes get made but they were not notified until today. They would have made the revision and avoided all the issues before hand so they could have appeared before the ZBA prepared. They have scrambled and the project manager, Jeff, had even kind of revised things to take the two (2) feet off. They don't want to have to wait until November before they can get their permit and start work. Corn. Shapiro stated that looking at the left side elevation it appears that they would end up squeezing the addition the two (2) feet. Mr. DeZutter stated that is correct. Corn. Shapiro stated that if that is what the change would be he would not have an issue approving the variation L, subject to nothing changing except the depth of the addition. Ch. Entman stated that if they are limiting it to nothing more than taking what is proposed and reducing it by two (2)feet, then perhaps that is something the ZBA can consider. Mr. Jeff Ledster, Project Manager, Aspect Design, Inc., 3714 Fairview Avenue, Suite C, Johnsburg, IL 60051, was present and sworn in. Mr. Ledster stated that, if they can, they would like to walk thru the drawing with the revision to meet the setback requirement. It would be relatively simple. There is a sixteen (16) foot wide bump out of the addition. If they pull that back by 2.08 feet they would be in compliance with the 33% encroachment limitation into the thirty (30) foot rear yard setback. The area labeled family dining room, was proposed to project five (5)feet further than the rest of the addition.That would now be roughly three (3)feet.That section would be brought in. The proposed rear elevation would not change. The proposed front elevation would not change. The proposed left side (south) elevation would change. The might have to eliminate the windows because there would not be enough wall space. Also the proposed right side (north) elevation would change. The door and window would be removed. There are doors proposed off the great room. The rear elevation would stay the same with possibility of the triple windows may become a patio door element. By doing that, the addition would comply with the maximum encroachment restriction. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 6 of 14 Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Ledster if he is an architect. Mr. Ledster he is not an architect. Corn. Windecker stated that with the suggested changes, if they go back to the architect and the U architect has issues designing the addition due to the changes that may require other changes. He would not be comfortable approving the variance without having an accurate plan to review. Corn. Cesario stated that the ZBA is trying to define what would be granted. Variances are highly specific. Mr. Ledster stated that in the room labeled dining room,they would replace one (1) of the windows with a door on the back of the house. Corn. Cesario stated that they would replace one (1) of those windows. There are three (3) windows shown. Mr. Ledster stated that on the rear elevation, the window that would be replaced with a single swing door would be the window on the left. The other two windows would remain. Corn. Cesario asked about the windows on the second floor. Mr. Ledster stated those would remain unchanged. Com. Cesario confirmed that the only change on Exhibit "El" would be the triple set of windows on the first floor in the center section; the left window would become a single swing door. He also agrees with the other Commissioners in that he is uncomfortable with approving a variance for something that they cannot see. However, with the way that the plan has been adjusted and redefined makes as much sense as it possibly could to him. He is supportive of the approving the request. Mrs. Fay Rubin, 1413 Oxford Drive, was present and sworn in. Mrs. Rubin stated that she has known the Petitioner's since the day they moved in. She cannot think of anymore more law- abiding and wonderful neighbors. Everyone on the block is in support of them to have this addition put on. Their children need it and it will do the whole neighborhood a whole lot of good.They are wonderful people to have around. Mr. DeZutter amended the request to encroach a maximum of ten (10) feet into the required thirty (30)foot rear yard setback. 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 grant the amended request made by made by Daniel and Carolyn DeZutter, 1412 Oxford Drive, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a two-story addition that would encroach a maximum distance of ten (10) feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback. Subject to The Village Engineer's memorandum dated August 30, 2013. The left "new" window as depicted on the proposed west (rear) elevation in Exhibit "El" will be changed to a swing door. The first and second floor windows in the bump out as depicted on the proposed south ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 7 of 14 (left) elevation in Exhibit "El" will be eliminated. The first floor door and second floor window in the bump out as depicted on the proposed north (right) elevation in Exhibit "El" will be rnJ eliminated. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. 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. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—Windecker ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. The permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days— October 3, 2013. 201 MILWAUKEE AVENUE, INTEGRITY SIGN COMPANY ON BEHALF OF SPEEDWAY, LLC - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.16.030; 14.16.060; 14.20.070; AND 14.20.080, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT; TO ALLOW THE DIGITAL DISPLAY SIGN AREA TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIZE; TO ALLOW THE TOTAL SIGN AREA TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIZE; TO ALLOW THE LED PRICE DIGITS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT; TO ALLOW LED PRICE DIGITS OTHER THAN FOR FUEL PRODUCTS; TO ALLOW THE GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET;AND TO ALLOW A MANUAL CHANGEABLE COPY READER BOARD Mr. Ken Becvar, Integrity Sign Company, 18621 S. 81st Avenue, Tinley Park, IL 60487; Jim Dwenger, Region Manager, Speedway, 8200 185th Street, Suite E, Tinley Park, IL 60487; Michael Earegood, Maintenance Manager, Speedway, 8200 185th Street, Suite E, Tinley Park, IL 60487; and Garry Kortz, District Manager, Speedway, 8200 185th Street, Suite E, Tinley Park, IL 60487, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 29, 2013 was read. Mr. Becvar explained the Application for Variation is respectfully submitted for approval to install a new standard Speedway product price sign with an overall height of 22 feet 9 inches high by approximately 6 feet wide and containing two (2) LED gasoline price panels and one (1) LED product price panel. The proposed location of this sign is at the intersection of Milwaukee Avenue and Riverwalk Drive, setback approximately 23 feet from both property lines. The existing Speedway price sign is a "billboard" type sign approximately 30 feet wide with an overall height of approximately 35 feet and located on the northwest corner of the property along Milwaukee Avenue. This sign is approved by the Village to remain in place until December 2017. However, with approval of the variation for a new replacement sign, the owner agrees to remove the existing sign at the time of the installation of the new sign. The variation requested ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 8 of 14 is to allow installation of a sign that is in excess of 15 feet in height and which contains an LED product price panel in place of a third gasoline price panel. The request to allow the product price panel is to maintain consistency with the customary price panels on Speedway signs and is consistent with the type of price panels currently on the existing "billboard" sign. The additional height requested is to give motorists travelling south on Milwaukee Avenue awareness of a Speedway gas station in advance of their approach to Riverwalk Drive. That is also a cross read coming across traffic. So the additional height is needed to see that above any oncoming traffic. They are also looking for the height variation so when you are coming onto Milwaukee Avenue heading northbound, there is a billboard on the right and a Korean Barbeque on the right side as you are approaching Riverwalk Drive that would also interfere with visibility. Approval of the requested variation will allow for a sign that is significantly more pleasing aesthetically than the existing sign, would help modernize the locale and provide accurate and current pricing information to consumers. Thank you for this opportunity and your time to consider the variation. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated August 30, 2013 which states: "Brian, while in general I support the concept of the new sign and removal of the old sign at the location of 201 N Milwaukee, I would need to see a plat for the property to make sure the sign is not being placed over any easements located on that side of the property. If they can prove that it is not being placed in any easements I will agree to the location if it meets all setbacks etc. Looking through our older plats it appears on the "Emro Subdivision" plat which I believe is just south of the property, there may be an easement at this location on the property and several other older plats of the areas show sections taken for highway purposes so it would be best to review a current or recent plat." Ch. Entman read the subsequent Village Engineer's memorandum dated September 11, 2013 which states: "Brian, in reviewing the plat for the "Emro Subdivision," dated 8-6-93, it only shows a 20' sewer easement on the west side of the property and it appears the proposed sign location is not within any easements and the sign is therefore allowable to be built in that location from an engineering standpoint." Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated September 4, 2013 which states: "The ART has determined that the appearance of the ground sign as currently proposed does not meet the criteria set forth in the Village of Buffalo Grove Appearance Plan and is not in harmony with the buildings and is not compatible with the surrounding area. If suggested modification could be incorporated into the sign package and the requested information provided the ART could support this proposal." Corn. Shapiro stated that removing that billboard sign would be a great thing. He is not supportive of the height of the proposed sign. He does not believe that the height is necessarily needed at the proposed twenty two (22) feet. If the Petitioner would be willing to make modifications to the height, he would much rather see the proposed sign than the giant billboard sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 9 of 14 Corn. Cesario agrees with Corn. Shapiro. The proposed sign is more attractive, is more aesthetic and it looks like it could be a lot easier to see as you are traveling on Milwaukee Avenue. He also has a concern with the proposed height of the sign. Mr. Becvar responded that the proposed sign is definitely an improvement. Part of the height requirement is to get the gas price changer high enough, especially for the traffic traveling southbound to see over the northbound traffic. Also, when making the turn off of Lake Cook Road, you would be able to see the sign beyond the billboard sign and Korean Restaurant sign. Part of the proposed height is to get above the cross read of traffic. Com. Cesario asked about the height of the existing billboard sign. Mr. Becvar stated the height is approximately thirty five (35) feet. Corn. Cesario asked what the height of the proposed ground would be. Mr. Becvar stated the proposed ground sign would be twenty two (22) feet nine (9) inches. Corn. Cesario asked about the area from the bottom of the billboard sign to the ground. Mr. Becvar stated that is approximately twenty five (25) feet. Corn. Cesario asked about the area from the bottom of the proposed ground sign to the ground. Mr. Becvar stated it would be approximately two (2) feet. Ch. Entman asked if any alternative sign packages have been submitted subsequent to the ART meeting on September 4, 2013. Mr. Becvar stated that nothing has been submitted. They do have alternatives but they were waiting to hear the comments from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Corn. Lesser stated that he agrees with the other Commissioners. He believes the proposed sign is a significant improvement over the existing billboard sign. He is also concerned with the height of the proposed sign. The existing canopy at this location has "Speedway" signage on it facing Milwaukee Avenue. He asked what the height of the canopy is. Mr. Becvar stated that the height from the ground to the bottom of the canopy is seventeen (17) feet and the top is twenty one (21)feet. Com. Lesser would like to see the proposed sign reduced in height. Com. Windecker stated that the three (3) lower panels of the proposed sign should be eliminated.They could substitute another gas price panel for the product price panel and would then be consistent with other gas stations in the area. Mr. Becvar stated that they could put E- 85 price in the third price panel. Com. Windecker stated that the product price panel in unnecessary. Speedway is a gas station. The bottom of the sign for the Korean Restaurant is only fifteen (15) feet high. Mr. Becvar stated that the Restaurant sign is higher than fifteen (15) feet. It is approximately twenty (20) feet high. Corn. Windecker disagrees as the ZBA approved the variance when they refaced the sign. When cars come off of Lake Cook Road traveling northbound on Milwaukee Avenue,the restaurant sign is removed back enough to even see the Speedway sign on the canopy. Traveling southbound there will not be a conflict once the billboard sign is removed. Mr. Becvar stated that there is a conflict as you travel north due to the setback of the proposed ground sign at twenty three (23) feet from the property line. The proposed height is also for the cross read traffic traveling south on Milwaukee Avenue. Corn. Windecker stated that Speedway has another gas station located less than a mile north of this location. Mr. Becvar responded yes and that station has a twenty five (25) feet high sign. Corn. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 10 of 14 Windecker stated that property is not located within the Village, it is located in Deerfield. He does not support the proposed sign with the product price panel, the product advertising and the manual reader board. Mr. Becvar submitted an alternative proposed ground sign rendering and proposed location depiction to the ZBA. This alternative proposed ground sign rendering was accepted and marked as Exhibit "G" and the location depiction was accepted and marked as Exhibit "H". Com. Lesser stated that he would like to see the proposed signage superimposed on the Google Street View rendering so as to compare the new proposed sign to the existing sign. Mr. Becvar stated that the proposed location depiction is about the best they can do digitally. Mr. Becvar stated that they would reduce the height of the sign to twenty (20) feet, eliminate the manual changeable copy reader board and use the third price panel for their E-85 gas product. They are hoping that the ZBA would allow the variance at this proposed height as that would only leave seven (7) feet six (6) inches to the bottom of the sign which would make for a difficult cross read if you traveling south on Milwaukee Avenue. Ch. Entman believes that the new proposed ground is still too high. He can't think of another gas station sign that is remotely close to the height that this sign is being proposed at. Mr. Becvar stated that the Speedway down the street is twenty five (25) feet high and the Mobil station on Lake Cook, which he knows is in Wheeling, is also twenty four (24) feet high. Ch. Entman stated that those are not in Buffalo Grove so those are not relevant. The Shell station at Lake Cook and McHenry Road is a very small, modest monument sign and all they advertise is one (1) gasoline price. The other Shell station with the car wash also has a moderate sign, he believes at the thirteen (13) foot level. He does not see the need, especially in the proposed location. This sign will be seen from anywhere. It does not have to be as tall as it is being proposed. He does not see the need for a variance for any height outside of what is allowed under the Ordinance. He also agrees with the comments regarding the originally proposed ground sign. He does not see the need for the panels at the bottom of the sign. He believes the Speedway logo is unnecessary. He would never approve a sign at that height, no matter what it says. When the ART recommends alternatives to the proposed sign what they are asking the Petitioner to do is submit those alternatives in advance because the ZBA likes to see them in advance and have time to review them and not have then thrust at the ZBA during the public hearing. Com. Cesario stated that looking at the alternate proposed ground sign and considering the initial proposed sign did not have a third gas price would the Petitioner be amenable to having only two (2) gas price signs and removing the third price panel entirely. Mr. Dwenger responded that these are drawings from their signage provider and on a three (3) price sign the third panel would be the third gas price. On this rendering they incorrectly put Speedy Freeze. At this location they have unleaded fuel, they have plus and premium fuel and they have diesel fuel. Concerning Ch. Entman's comment about the Shell station, diesel fuel is always at a very ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 11 of 14 different price. It is assumed that there is a price spread; that is the same on plus and premium fuels. They do not list those prices. On the proposed sign they would look at putting E-85, a biofuel, as the third price sign. Speedy Freeze would not be on the ground sign at all. Corn. Cesario stated that his question is, since the E-85 price sign was not in the original sign proposal, could the third price panel be removed from the sign. Mr. Dwenger added that, as it pertains to the height, there is a Speedway sign already on the canopy. The canopy is roughly twenty one (21) feet in height. As they drop the ground sign down to twenty(20)feet, from a street view standpoint,that sign would not be any higher than the canopy. At a twenty (20) foot height all they are trying to do is get the price off the ground. They do not have a lot of property build up on that corner. They do no have a higher ground where that sign would be visible. Eight (8) feet would be about where that bottom price panel would be. That would be just visible above the car in front of you and the sign would still be lower than the canopy. Corn. Lesser stated that the height of the sign, relative to the height of the canopy, if this sign drops below the height of the canopy, then there would be no threat of the ground sign blocking the signage on the canopy. From the vantage point of a person in a vehicle driving along Milwaukee Avenue, this proposed ground sign would potentially screen the Speedway sign on the canopy. To him that would provide incentive to bring the height of the proposed ground sign down so the Petitioner is getting the benefit of both the signage on the canopy and the ground sign. Mr. Dwenger replied that it would all be dependent on the vantage point at which the person is at. You could argue that at any vantage point something would block something else. Corn. Cesario added that if a proposal was approved the existing billboard sign would be removed. Mr. Dwenger responded that is correct. Corn. Cesario stated that visually, the taller sign further back with the canopy behind it is different than the proposed sign closer to the road. He thinks about a twenty (20)foot sign replacing a thirty five (35)foot existing sign. Ch. Entman stated that there is an existing sign that is thirty five (35) feet high that is not the greatest looking sign and now there is a proposal for a twenty three (23) foot high sign that, aesthetically, might look a little better. So the ZBA has to decide if the Village lives with the existing sign for another four (4) years and not have to grant any variance and craft the kind of sign the Village wants or just go with something that is better than the sign now but still a really tall sign. Mr. Dwenger amended the Petition to request the proposed ground sign as depicted in the sign drawing labeled as Option 3 dated September 10, 2013 marked as Exhibit "G". Com. Shapiro stated that Option 3 shows the height from the bottom of the sign to the ground seven (7) feet six (6) inches. But in the original proposed ground sign the bottom of the sign to the ground was only six (6) feet 1/8 inch. He asked if the Petitioner would be willing to reduce ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 12 of 14 the height of the proposed sign depicted in Option 3 down to six (6) feet. That would give the same distance that the gas prices would have been off the ground on the original proposed sign. Mr. Becvar advised Mr. Dwenger that change would bring the overall sign height down to eighteen feet (18) six (6) inches. Corn. Shapiro added that would bring the gas prices to the same height based upon the original proposal. Mr. Becvar stated that they would be willing to reduce the overall height to eighteen (18) feet six (6) inches. Mr. Becvar amended the request to have an overall sign height not to exceed eighteen (18) feet six (6) inches by reducing the seven (7) foot six (6) inch open bottom section to six (6)feet. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioner. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Integrity Sign Company, 18621 S. 815t Avenue, Tinley Park, IL 60487 on behalf of Speedway, LLC, for variance of Sign Code, Sections 14.16.030; 14.16.060; and 14.20.070, for the purpose of constructing an electronic vehicle fuel station ground sign. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandums dated August 30, 2013 and September 11, 2013. Subject to the Appearance Review Team minutes dated September 4, 2013. The sign is to be installed pursuant to sign drawing Option 3 dated September 10, 2013 as depicted on Exhibit "G" with the overall height not to exceed eighteen feet six inches (18'6"). The bottom of the lowest panel to be six feet (6') above grade. The third price panel is to be used for fuel pricing only. Subject to approval of a landscaping plan by the Village. The existing billboard sign is to be removed within seventy two (72) hours of the new sign being installed and functional. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.40.010,Subsection B. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro NAY—Steingold, Entman ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 4 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the October 7, 2013 Village Board agenda. ANNOUCEMENTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 13 of 14 Mr. Sheehan advised that the Ordinance for BG Car Wash Management concerning the ground sign was passed by the Village Board unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Lesser and seconded by Com. Cesario. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 P.M. Submitted by, 1/€4& esego Julie Kamka Recording Secretary `./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 PAGE 14 of 14