Loading...
2012-05-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes REGULAR MEETING As S`''P'in t rit 019 (ID- BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15,2012 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Shapiro Also Present: William Raysa, Village Attorney Lester Ottenheimer,Village Trustee Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 17, 2012 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday,April 17, 2012. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —Au Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS 1160 WINDBROOKE DRIVE, THE APARTMENTS AT WINDBROOKE CROSSING- SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.010 AND SECTION 14.20.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS TO EXCEED FIVE (5) FEET IN HEIGHT; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS EACH EXCEEDING THIRTY TWO (32) SQUARE Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 1 of 15 ll�iljjtqQ FEET IN AREA; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS TO BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK AREA; AND TO ALLOW THE GROUND SIGN ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER TO BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN PERMITTED There was no on present. Ch. Entman deferred this agenda item to 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 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE AND LAKE COOK ROAD AND MILWAUKEE AVENUE There was no on present. Ch. Entman deferred this agenda item to later in the meeting. 2000 WRIGHT BOULEVARD, SCOTT GOLDTSEIN—FENCE CODE,SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FOUR (4) FOOT OPEN STYLE FENCE BEGINNING ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION AT THE REAR OF THE GARAGE EXTENDING SOUTH A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY THIRTY (30) FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG OLIVE HILL DRIVE STOPPING ABOUT TWELVE (12) INCHES NORTH OF THE SIDEWALK; THEN TURNING WEST TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE MAINTAINING A TWELVE (12) INCH SEPARATION FROM THE SIDEWALK; THEN TURNING NORTH A DISTANCE OF `./ APPROXIMATELY EIGHTEEN (18) FEET Mr. Scott Goldstein, 2000 Wright Boulevard, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 25, 2012 was read. Mr. Goldstein explained that he is a new property owner. He and his wife bought this property last summer. He has young children and Olive Hill Drive that is just south of the property is busy with a lot of traffic. He would like install a fence to enclose the yard for the safety of his children. He read the Village Engineer's memorandum recommending that the fence be placed a minimum of two (2) feet north of the sidewalk. He explained that it would be difficult to locate the fence as recommended due to the existin g landscaping that runs along side the sidewalk. He brought a photograph that shows the existing mature landscaping along Olive Hill Drive. To place the fence in the location that the Village Engineer recommends would require him to remove the mature landscaping. If he were allowed to place the fence one (1) foot from the sidewalk he would just need to trim the landscaping. The photograph was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for review. Mr. Goldstein explained that the photograph shows the south side of the property along Olive Hill Drive. To place the fence where the Village Engineer recommends would destroy the trees. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 2 of 15 Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated April 26, 2012 which states: "We recommend that the fence be located a minimum of two (2') north of the sidewalk. There is no abutting driveway." Ch. Entman explained that the ZBA has to, at the very least, follow the recommendation of the Village Engineer. The ZBA would not grant anything beyond the recommendation. Mr. Goldstein asked why. Ch. Entman explained to Mr. Goldstein that if the ZBA grants anything beyond the Village Engineer's recommendation it would open the Village up to enormous liability potential. Mr. Goldstein stated that he was not aware of why the Village Engineer made this recommendation without any reason. Ch. Entman advised that sometimes people will contact the Village Engineer to discuss any issues raised by his recommendation. Corn. Cesario stated that the photograph submitted shows thick landscaping. He asked Mr. Goldstein if he had considered making the landscaping part of the fence such as starting the fence at the end of the landscaping. Mr. Goldstein replied that the landscaping is thick but he believes that the fence would need to be either on the inside or outside of the landscaping. If the fence is located inside the landscaping, it would defeat the purpose of the landscaping in his yard. He wants to enjoy the landscaping in his yard. Corn. Cesario asked Mr. Goldstein if he has considered starting the fence at the end of the landscaping; in other words having the landscaping being a portion of the �.s fence. Mr. Goldstein replied that the landscaping runs the length of the yard where the proposed fence has been located on the Plat. Corn. Cesario asked how the safety of the children is a factor in this case if there is thick landscaping. Mr. Goldstein stated that the children can get through the landscaping. His son is two (2) years old and his daughter is six (6) months old. She will be growing up fast. The landscaping runs on the portion of the yard where they want the fence. With the fence, they can enclose the yard. In the front of the house there is no fence. Without the fence enclosing the yard his children could run to the front and out to the street that way. Corn. Cesario stated that Mr. Goldstein is looking for a fence in the front to contain the children. On the side, he is trying to understand the value of the fence over the landscaping barrier. Mr. Goldstein stated that the landscaping is thick, but even he can walk through the landscaping. Com. Steingold asked Mr. Goldstein if he would be willing to Table his request until the next ZBA meeting in order to speak to the Village Engineer regarding his recommendation of the placement of the fence. Mr. Goldstein replied that he would be willing to do that. He added that there are corner lots like his in his neighborhood that have fences that are even closer than two (2) feet to the sidewalk, possibly one (1) foot or less. He is aware of at least two (2) properties with fences like that. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Goldstein how wide the landscaping is. Mr. Goldstein advised that the landscaping is approximately eight (8) to ten (10) feet wide. Corn. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 3 of 15 Windecker stated that the neighbor to the west has a fence that is eighteen (18) feet in `./ from the sidewalk. Mr. Goldstein stated that he is aware of that. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Goldstein if he would be willing match his fence with the neighbor's fence. Mr. Goldstein stated that he does not believe that would work for his yard because his neighbor's to the west do not have any landscaping in the back of their yard. The neighbor's have an open-style yard so it affects them less. As previously mentioned, there are at least two (2) homes that are on corner lots that have the fence either adjacent to or within one (1) foot of the sidewalk. There is another property shown in the pictures he submitted with the application depicting the fence style that he is requesting in which the fence is about two (2) to two and a half (2-1/2) feet from the sidewalk. He does not know why his neighbor's to the west had to have their fence so far away from the sidewalk. The neighbor's to the west would be the only corner lot in the neighborhood that was required to have their fence so far from the sidewalk. Mr. Goldstein asked why there is so much inconsistency when it comes to the placement of fences on corner lots. Ch. Entman advised that there are other issues involved such as the size of the backyard; whether there was a line-of-sight study done by the Village Engineer which may impact the location of a fence; or other issues regarding the location of the house on the property; etc. For instance, if there is a thirty (30) or forty (40) foot building setback line, that is quite a big distance and if the backyard is a nice size then the ZBA is hesitant to grant a fence all the way to the sidewalk. The Village Engineer has stated that the ZBA is not allowed to grant a fence closer. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Goldstein to think about placing the fence on the inside of the landscaping. That would keep the children from running through the trees and, based on the type of fence requested, would allow the landscaping to be visible through the fence. Mr. Goldstein asked what interest the ZBA has in not allowing him to erect the fence where he wants to put it. He also asked why the ZBA is against him having a fence on his property. It is not a large fence, it does not prevent anyone from seeing into the yard and it protects his children. He is a young homeowner who has recently moved to Buffalo Grove. If the ZBA is not allowing homeowners to install fences it will make young people less likely to move to Buffalo Grove and less likely to want to move to Buffalo Grove. Corn. Windecker stated that if Mr. Goldstein is concerned about his children running through the trees then he should be very happy to have a fence on the inside of the trees where he can still enjoy the trees. The branches on the existing trees are very close to the sidewalk. If the trees are trimmed they will not look the same. He believes that Mr. Goldstein should consider the suggestion of placing the fence on the inside of the trees. Com. Cesario stated that Mr. Goldstein raised the issue of consistency. The ZBA is trying to create some level of consistency for aesthetics and to give people an idea of what the rules of the Village are. He believes that Mr. Goldstein should speak to Mr. Sheehan to connect with the Village Engineer and work with the Engineer to find out the cause of ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 4 of 15 the two (2) foot concern and then evaluate if he would like the ZBA to readdress the L/ issue. Mr. Goldstein stated that he is willing to wait another month so he can speak with the Village Engineer. Mr. Sheehan advised Mr. Goldstein that he will try and coordinate a meeting with the Village Engineer, himself and Mr. Goldstein at the property. If Mr. Goldstein is not available during the day, then Mr. Sheehan can go with Mr. Kuenkler to the property and get specific information from Mr. Kuenkler as to why the fence can or cannot be moved. Then Mr. Goldstein can address any issues with Mr. Kuenkler directly. Ch. Entman stated that he does not want Mr. Goldstein leaving the meeting with the idea that he has a right to this fence and that the ZBA is somehow interfering with that right or not allowing him to use his property. That is not true. Mr. Goldstein bought the lot; it has a house on it. It has certain items that all lots have. It has easements, it might have encroachments, it might have covenants and it has building lines. This property has building line restrictions. The Petitioner has the right to build a fence within the prevue of the Ordinance on the building line or inside the building line. The ZBA is not telling the Petitioner that he cannot have a fence. The Petitioner can install a fence on the building line or inside it without being before the ZBA. The reason Mr. Goldstein is before the ZBA is because he is requesting to do something beyond what the law will allow him to do. The ZBA does look at each request, especially corner lots. The Petitioner is requesting a shorter fence and an open fence. Those are factors that may be in the Petitioner's favor as to where the fence may be allowed beyond the building line as opposed to someone that wants a six (6) foot stockade type fence. He also suggested contacting the Village Engineer concerning his recommendation. However,that does not necessarily mean that the ZBA will concede that if the Village Engineer works with the Petitioner that whatever the Village Engineer says will be approved by the ZBA. He would prefer that the fence is located inside the trees as suggested by other Commissioners. Mr. Goldstein requested to Table his petition until the next meeting so he can speak with the Village Engineer. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Scott Goldstein, 2000 Wright Boulevard, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of four (4) foot open style fence beginning on the south elevation at the rear of the garage extending south a distance of approximately thirty (30) feet beyond the building setback line along Olive Hill Drive stopping about twelve (12) inches north of the sidewalk; then turning west to the rear property line maintaining a twelve (12) inch separation from the sidewalk; then turning north a `i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 5 of 15 distance of approximately eighteen (18) feet to the June 19, 2012 Zoning Board of ✓ Appeals regular meeting. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the June 19, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGNS LOCATED AT 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE AND LAKE COOK ROAD AND MILWAUKEE AVENUE Mr. Jim Lang, Hamilton Partners, 300 Park Boulevard, Itasca, Illinois 60143, was present and sworn in. Mr. Lang reviewed his request to extend the existing leasing sign at 1098 Johnson Drive and at the intersection of Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. The building at 1098 Johnson Drive has two (2) vacant spaces equal to fifteen thousand eight hundred twenty four (15,824) square feet. They would like to continue to have the leasing sign at this location for another six (6) months. The other sign is located on a vacant parcel. They would like to continue to have this sign to market the property. Ch. Entman suggests granting a six (6) month extension. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Chevy Chase Business Park, Hamilton Partners, for the "For Rent,Sale or Lease" signs located at 1080- 1098 Johnson Drive and at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Petitioner to appear at the November 20, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Corn. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 6 of 15 Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the November 20, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 450 MCHENRY ROAD, CULVER'S OF BUFFALO GROVE - ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.44.060.E.6, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING AN OFF-PREMISES DIRECTIONAL GROUND SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 MCHENRY ROAD; AND TO ALLOW SAID OFF-PREMISES DIRECTIONAL GROUND SIGN TO EXCEED SIX (6) SQUARE FEET IN SIGN AREA Mr. Frank Lemke, American Sign Factory, 1225 Bowes Road, Elgin, Illinois 60123 and Mr. Kevin Weasler, Culver's of Buffalo Grove, 450 McHenry Road, were present and sworn in. Also present and sworn in was Mr. Joel Garson, Hillcrest Property Management, 55 West 22"d Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148 on behalf of Town Place. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 25, 2012 was read. Mr. Weasler explained that Culver's has been at this location for ten (10) years. He has owned this location for eight and one half (8-1/2) years. His business access is important. He feels that he does have good access but has known over the years that the back entrance drive to Culver's is fairly unknown to some Village residents but particularly to customers that are passing through, whether it be just north of his location or to other municipalities north of Buffalo Grove. For him it is a competitive issue. He would like to remain competitive with his competition. In the last five (5) or six (6) years a lot of restaurants have opened in Lincolnshire. Also a lot have opened in Wheeling. With more restaurants there is more competition. He obtained the permission of the property owner, Belmont Village, through their corporate office in Houston. During the Appearance Review Team (ART) meeting it was suggested to design the sign more in character with the surrounding area. They redesigned the sign to look more in character with the Belmont Village ground sign, but also with the approval of the Culver's corporate office. He understands that this request is not common in Buffalo Grove, but if you look at Wheeling in particular the McDonald's in the Sam's Club/Wal- Mart shopping center, there is a McDonald's directional sign located along Route 83 directing customers that they can enter there. That is what he is trying to achieve. He does not anticipate that the proposed sign will change his business in a huge way. But in his business, low margin and any incremental sales that can be generated, helps. His goal is to keep money in Buffalo Grove and not have customers travel north to the other municipalities which have added a lot of restaurants between 2005 and 2012. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated April 26, 2012 which states: "The proposed location is not acceptable as it is located in direct conflict with a storm sewer." ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 7 of 15 Ch. Entman read the subsequent Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian �./ Sheehan dated April 30, 2012 which states: "I have no comments on the revised proposal." Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated April 30, 2012 into the record. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Weasler if the proposed sign rendering labeled ZBA Exhibit "K" is the revised proposed sign. Mr. Lemke stated that the revised proposed sign is patterned after the Belmont Village ground sign. Com. Windecker asked if the proposed sign would be located ten (10) feet from the sidewalk and ten (10) feet from the curb. Mr. Sheehan stated that the proposed sign would be located ten (10) feet from both sidewalks. Mr. Lemke agreed that the revised location of the proposed sign would be ten (10)feet from the inside of both sidewalks as shown on the Revised Exhibit "A2". Corn. Cesario is trying to understand the unique elements of this property and this request. His concern is any entity in Town Center wanting a sign at Buffalo Grove Road and Checker Drive to direct customers into Town Center. He asked Mr. Weasler to explain the unique elements of this property and why this request is more important than a more visible sign on McHenry Road or some other more traditional way of advertising the property. Mr. Weasler stated that he views this entrance as a direct access to his property. If you turn onto Town Place Parkway from Buffalo Grove Road you will see Culver's versus the concept of putting a sign elsewhere in Town Center or near the Post Office. Town Place Parkway is a direct access road to Culver's albeit an unknown one which is the purpose of the request. The McDonald's sign on Route 83 in Wheeling is more of stretch because you have to weave your way around the parking lot to find the McDonald's whereas customers turning onto Town Place Parkway will see Culver's as soon as you turn. His challenge is to get people to know that you can access the Culver's property from Buffalo Grove Road. Corn. Cesario added that there is a McDonald's sign on Old Arlington Heights Road to direct you to the location on Dundee Road. Both of those are located in commercial areas whereas this proposed sign would be in a residential area. If this sign is approved, there will be a lot more requests for this type of sign from the businesses located in Town Center. He is trying to understand why it is so important to have the sign along Buffalo Grove Road versus along McHenry Road which is the frontage of the property. Mr. Weasler responded that Buffalo Grove Road is a major thoroughfare and major connector from Buffalo Grove to other places. He would like customers to have the knowledge of the access from Buffalo Grove Road. Once the knowledge is there customers will know how quickly they can access Culver's from Buffalo Grove Road. He has heard from many Buffalo Grove residents that they did not know that they could access his property from this road. They thought they had to enter and exit from McHenry Road. As for all the businesses in Town Center, if you were to turn on the service drive at the Post Office, you would not immediately be able to see the businesses. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 8 of 15 s..J Corn. Au stated that she lives on Buffalo Grove Road and she had no idea that she could access Culver's from Town Place Parkway. She is one of those people that drove all the way around to the McHenry Road entrance. Corn. Steingold asked for confirmation that the proposed sign would not create any negative consequences regarding traffic flow or pedestrian safety. Mr. Lemke stated that the proposed sign would not have any negative impact on the visual affect for the area and will not block the line of sight. The sign would be setback far enough and is small enough that there were would not be issues. The sign would not block the sight triangle in any way. Mr. Weasler stated that his desired effect is to make people aware that they can access his property. There may be some increased traffic but if it easier to access the property chances are the customers will come more often. If this proposed sign were a huge project and a huge expense he would not pursue it because he does not believe that the return on the investment would be there. He is not looking at a game changer of a sign, but looking at something that can incrementally help him as a business owner and help people know how to get somewhere quicker and easier. Corn. Steingold asked how many more cars would utilize this access road. Mr. Weasler stated that he hopes for an unlimited number but the reality is it would be hard for him to guess. He could not see the neighbor's noticing an increase in traffic. It would be noticeable only to him. Corn. Cesario asked if part of the request is to facilitate the safe northbound exit from the property so someone does not have to make a left onto McHenry Road. Mr. Weasler stated that is a point that he should have raised because it is a very good point. The speed limit is forty five (45) miles per hour on McHenry Road. Anyone who has ever taken a left onto McHenry Road knows it can be downright scary. Ch. Entman stated that Culver's is located on McHenry Road. The restaurant has been there a long time, people know it is there. What he understands is that there is a visibility problem for the restaurant. The solution that is being proposed is to put a sign along Buffalo Grove Road because of the bad visibility on McHenry Road. That is a pretty unique solution to a visibility issue. Mr. Weasler clarified that he would not classify it as a visibility problem; he would classify it as a knowledge of an access point issue. He does not know that if someone is traveling on McHenry Road there is a visibility problem. You can recover if you are on McHenry Road. You can get to the second access point. The knowledge just is not there for this third access point. He does not disagree totally that he has a visibility problem because that landscaping over ten (10) years has really grown. He would classify it more as a knowledge of access issue. Ch. Entman stated that he would agree with Mr. Weasler on that. He was trying to see if there was a discussion about the visibility of the sign on McHenry Road. The thing that he has a problem with is the Board venturing into an area of signage away from the location of a business to alert potential customers that there may be a business at this location that is not where the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 9 of 15 sign is. That could apply to just about every sign in the Village; to have more exposure �./ away from where the business is located. He has an issue with that. In his mind, that does not meet the need for a sign that would permit the ZBA to grant a variance. He could think of hundreds of businesses that would love to have a second sign off their premises to alert the public that there business is located there. He believes that it was correctly pointed out at the ART meeting that this is an off-premises ground sign and not a directional sign. He is not convinced that there is a need or that the criteria requirements have been met for a variance. This is just a situation of alerting people to the fact that a business is located and has a sign where the business is located, but wants people off the location to know of the existence of the business. He would not be in favor of this type of sign under these circumstances. He is not saying that it would not be a nice to have the sign. He is not saying that the proposed sign may or may not be tasteful or too egregious in size or shape. He is not addressing any of those issues. He believes there are issues with having signage off the premises, especially in this location. This is going through a residential area. He is opposed to this type of signage. He also does not believe that the criteria has been met to grant a variance. Corn. Windecker stated that at the ART meeting, he advised that he was concerned about this sign setting a precedent. He believes that this could be a real problem. He is concerned that the sign would create issues with people using this road as a shortcut to avoid Route 83. Ch. Entman added that based on what the Sign Code provides for, and what the ZBA is allowed to approve, he does not believe that there is a need for this sign, nor has the criteria been met to grant a variance. This is just another sign. It would be great if businesses could have this type of sign, but then there would be signs all over the Village identifying businesses that are not located where the signs are. Mr. Weasler stated that he understands the ZBA's concern with setting a precedent. Precedent is something that the ZBA has to be very careful with. However, he believes that sometimes a precedent needs to be set. Maybe the precedent is not necessarily a bad thing. If it opens up a can of worms he understands that can be challenging. But if the sign is tasteful, well located with the permission of the property owner, does not adversely impact the Planned Unit Development, improves a major safety issue with exiting north onto McHenry Road and has the potential to raise sales tax revenue and keep a local business healthy, he disagrees that setting a precedent is a bad idea. Ch. Entman replied that precedent setting is a concern when reviewing a request. But his comments are not based on setting a precedent. His comments have nothing to do with any other request that may come before the ZBA in the future. His comments are based on his belief of what the Sign Code provides for and what the criteria is to grant a variance. He does not believe that the proposed sign meets that criteria at all. In this case he is not concerned with setting a precedent. If there is enough outcry that ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 10 of 15 businesses want this type of sign, then the Village can look at amending the Sign Code. '`/ He does not believe that this is an issue of increasing sales tax revenue for the Village. It was mentioned that Mr. Weasler does not believe that traffic flow will be increased. He is limiting his comments to what he believes the Sign Code provides for and what the ZBA's authority is to grant a variance. Mr. Joel Garson, Hillcrest Property Management, stated that he is with the management company for the one hundred fifty two (152) units that are located on Town Place Parkway. For the past twenty two (22) years the Association has maintained this road with no help from the other tenants located on this road. There are two and a half (2- 1/2) entrances to get into the property; one (1) on Buffalo Grove Road and one and a half (1-1/2) on Route 83. It is a residential area and with the economic conditions of condominium sales he believes having commercial signage would create an additional burden on the values of the units in this day and age. In the future, maybe not; in the past, maybe not. But in today's market, condominiums and townhomes are the hardest to sell at the current time. The values of the units today compared to what they were three (3) to four (4) years ago, these owners are taking a bath. Once signage is erected for commercial usage, he thinks that values will hit another low. He agrees with Ch. Entman's comments that the sign is not on the property. He does not believe that a hazard exists exiting the property. Mr. Weasler asked Mr. Garson if he polled the residents and if he received feedback from a lot of the residents. Mr. Garson stated that he received telephone calls from a lot of residents. He should have distributed a petition to the residents and obtained signatures, which he could do if needed. He received telephone calls from every Board member of the five (5) Associations that were against the proposed sign. When Culver's wanted to stay open until 11:00 p.m. the residents approved that, they want to be good neighbors. But this request is a little out of hand. Mr. Dave Phillips, 451 Town Place Circle, was present and sworn in. He is a twenty one (21) year resident of the Village. He advised that Town Place Parkway is not a public road. It is a private road. It is not dedicated to the Village and has been the responsibility of the condominium and townhome owners to maintain. On Buffalo Grove Road from Checker Drive north to Aptakisic Road, there are only a few commercial businesses on that stretch; the Post Office, the BP Amoco station, the bank and the veterinarian. Then there is nothing until just south of Aptakisic Road. This is a residential area and he believes a sign, like the one being proposed, does not fit into a residential area. If you look at Town Center, there are four (4) towers. There is one (1) on Lake Cook Road; there are two (2) on McHenry Road and one (1) along Buffalo Grove Road. There is signage on three (3) of the towers. The signage is on the Lake Cook Road tower and the McHenry Road towers. The one (1) tower by the Post Office does not have any signage on it. If Culver's is allowed to install this sign, why wouldn't any other tenant in Town Center want to put signage on Buffalo Grove Road. He does not believe it is the proper ./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 11 of 15 thing to do. He also believes that the residents do not want any additional traffic `./ through their community. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Com. Cesario made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Culver's of Buffalo Grove, 450 McHenry Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.44.060.E.6, pertaining to Signs, for the purpose of allowing an off-premises directional ground sign to be installed on the property located at 500 McHenry Road; and to allow said off-premises directional ground sign to exceed six (6) square feet in sign area. The sign is to be installed pursuant to the sign rendering labeled as ZBA Exhibit "K" and located pursuant to Revised Exhibit "A2". Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated April 30, 2012. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated April 30, 2012. Com. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Au NAY—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Entman ABSTAIN —None Motion Denied 5 to 1. Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal the decision to Village Board. DISCUSSION REGARDING TOWN CENTER SHOPPING CENTER, MR.TIM DONAHUE Ch. Entman advised that no one was present. 1500 ABBOTT COURT, TWIN RINKS ICE PAVILION - TO AMEND ORDINANCE 2011-031 TO ALLOW AN LED DIGITAL DISPLAY WITH AN OVERALL DIMENSION OF 3 FEET 9 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND 11 FEET 11 INCHES IN LENGTH INSTEAD OF AN OVERALL DIMENSION OF 3 FEET 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND 12 FEET IN LENGTH AS DEPICTED ON EXHIBIT"E" OF ORDINANCE 2011-031 Mr. Gary Pivar, Twin Rinks Ice Pavilion, 1500 Abbott Court, and Mr. John Johnson, C. Johnson Sign Company, 9615 Waveland Avenue, Franklin Park, Illinois 60131, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 30, 2012 was read. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 12 of 15 Mr. Pivar explained that after many unanswered emails and phone calls to White Way Sign Company, he finally got White Way to commit to a date to install the sign in mid January. When that date came and went and the sign was still not installed, he gave up. His last email from Tom Wood, White Way, said that White Way is currently going through a refinancing and cash is tight right now. Mr. Pivar was trying to get his escrow deposit back. Mr. Wood also wrote that his last day with White Way would be the next day and then gave Mr. Pivar some contact information. He was running out of time to get the sign installed. C. Johnson Sign Company installed the original sign and is willing to do the installation of this sign. Unfortunately his sign is a little different in size from the originally approved sign. Mr. Johnson explained that the White Way sign uses a back ventilation system to cool the LED's. The Daktronics display uses a front cooling system. That is the reason for the five (5) inch cabinet change. The matrix of the display area is identical to the sign originally approved. Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes of April 30, 2012 into the record. Corn. Windecker asked if, except for the size, the remaining criteria will be met that was conditioned upon the original variance. Mr. Pivar stated that all the criteria will be the same. Nothing will change regarding the restrictions or requirements of the sign. Corn. Cesario asked Mr. Pivar to walk through the need for the sign again. Mr. Pivar stated that the sign would be used to communicate information to the public. The current sign is outdated and does not look very good. The new LED display will look better and will allow him to communicate more messages and will be easier to change the messages. The hardship will be when Weiland Road is redone. That will be a different story for a different time. Mr. Sheehan advised that this would be a recommendation to the Village Board to amend the existing Ordinance. All that will change is the size; the Ordinance will remain intact otherwise. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Au made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Twin Rinks Ice Pavilion, 1500 Abbott Court, to amend Ordinance 2011-031 to allow an LED digital display with an overall dimension of 3 feet 9 inches in height and 11 feet 11 inches in ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 13 of 15 length instead of an overall dimension of 3 feet 4 inches in height and 12 feet in length as depicted on Exhibit "E" of Ordinance 2011-031. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Windecker, Lesser, Au, Entman NAY—Steingold ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 1. Item to appear on the June 4, 2012 Village Board agenda. OLD BUSINESS 1160 WINDBROOKE DRIVE, THE APARTMENTS AT WINDBROOKE CROSSING -SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.010 AND SECTION 14.20.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS TO EXCEED FIVE (5) FEET IN HEIGHT; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS EACH EXCEEDING THIRTY TWO (32) SQUARE FEET IN AREA; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS TO BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK AREA; AND TO ALLOW THE GROUND SIGN ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER TO BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN PERMITTED There was still no one present. Ch. Entman stated that he does not have an issue with Tabling this request one (1)time. Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by The Apartments at Windbrooke Crossing, 1160 Windbrooke Drive, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.010, pertaining to Residential Districts; and Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs, for the purpose of allowing two (2) ground signs on the property; for the purpose of allowing the two (2) ground signs to exceed five (5) feet in height; for the purpose of allowing the two (2) ground signs each exceeding thirty two (32) square feet in area; for the purpose of allowing the two (2) ground signs to be located in the required building setback area; and to allow the ground sign on the northwest corner to be located closer to the property line than permitted to the June 19, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN —None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 14 of 15 Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the June 19, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan advised that the Sign Code revisions were approved by the Village Board and take effect on May 18, 2012. The next step will be to review the individual shopping center sign criteria's. A lot of the criteria's are outdated. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Lesser. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:52 P.M. Submitted by, A 0/4 J, lie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 15, 2012 PAGE 15 of 15