Loading...
2007-01-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes Afrued as Suinvini+l-ecl, 314/a'7 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 16, 2007 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Vice Chairman Sandler Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Stein Also Present: Edward Schar, Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney DeAnn Glover, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 21, 2006 minutes and December 19, 2006 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to Table the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meetings held on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 and Tuesday, December 19, 2006. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. OLD BUSINESS 2906 SCOTTISH PINE COURT, MEIENG YANG — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.32.020, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO REMAIN IN THE FRONT YARD Ch. Entman advised that a letter dated January 10, 2007 addressed to Ms. Yang from Edward Schar advised that, based on further information provided to the Village, a variation is not required. This item is removed from the agenda. NEW BUSINESS 409 INDIAN HILL DRIVE, DENNIS SLAN AND ELLEN BERNSTEIN SLAN — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY ADDITION D RAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 10 JANUARY 16, 2007 THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF 7' INTO THE REQUIRED 30' REAR YARD SETBACK Mrs. Ellen Bernstein Slan, 409 Indian Hill Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on December 1, 2006 was read. Mrs. Slan explained that they would like to add a twenty-four foot (24') by thirty foot (30') addition to their home. Another addition was added to the home previously, approximately in 1972. The addition would include a great room and a larger bedroom with a master bath. Both she and her husband have health issues that may cause problems as they get older. They purchased this home eighteen (18) years ago to be close to their children. They have a large extended family that visits the home frequently. They cannot afford a larger home. They have spoken with their neighbors and there were no objections. The rear yard has a lot of bushes that are approximately twenty feet (20') tall and pine trees that are approximately thirty feet(30') tall so there should not be any obstruction of view. The materials will match the existing house. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated December 29, 2006 which states: "I have no comments on the subject proposal." Clarification was given that the address listed on the Village Engineer's memorandum of 406 Indian Hill Drive was incorrect and that the subject property was in fact the property that was reviewed by the Village Engineer. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Dennis Slan and Ellen Bernstein Slan, 409 Indian Hill Drive, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a one-story addition that would encroach a distance of seven feet(7')into the required thirty foot(30') rear yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated December 29, 2006. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. 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. Windecker seconded the motion. Prior to the vote, Mr. Raysa requested clarification concerning the northeast corner of the proposed addition. Mrs. Slan confirmed that the addition would extend fully across the back and will not have an indent in the northeast corner as shown on the Exhibit "A" - Plat of Survey and Exhibit "E" — Proposed Elevation and Floor Plan submitted with the application. The Motion was modified to reflect this. DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 10—JANUARY 16, 2007 Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — February 1, 2007. 1409 MILL CREEK DRIVE, ROBERT AND SHARON RITZLER — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-SEASON SCREENED ROOM THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF 6', WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERHANG,INTO THE REQUIRED 30' REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Robert Ritzler and Mrs. Sharon Ritzler, 1409 Mill Creek Drive, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on December 27, 2006 was read. Mr. Ritzler explained that they would like to construct a three-season screened room on the back of their home to enjoy the outdoors without having to deal with the elements or insects. They have been residing at the address for twenty-seven (27) years. They have spoken with their neighbors next door and behind and there were no objections. The screened room will contain electrical but no plumbing, heating or air conditioning. The screened room would be placed over a portion of the existing patio. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated December 29, 2006 which states: "I have no comments on the subject proposal." There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Robert and Sharon Ritzler, 1409 Mill Creek Drive, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a three-season screened room that would encroach a distance of six feet (6' — which includes the roof overhang) into the required thirty foot(30')rear yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated December 29, 2006. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed three-season screened room will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None DR AFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 10 JANUARY 16, 2007 Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — �, February 1, 2007. 88 E. DUNDEE ROAD, PRESTIGE LEASING — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070; AND 14.40.125, TO INSTALL A GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD BE LOCATED LESS THAN 250' FROM AN EXISTING PERMANENT GROUND SIGN ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET; AND TO INSTALL 2 ROOF SIGNS, ONE ON THE EAST ELEVATION AND ONE ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE PROTRUDING ABOVE THE ROOF LINE AND BOTH SIGN WOULD NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Mr. Eric Dohman, Nu-Way Signs, 2320 Foster Avenue, Wheeling, Illinois 60090, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on December 29, 2006 was read. Mr. Dohman explained that they are proposing one twelve foot (12') by twenty-six inch (26") blade sign for the building. The sign was shown on the plans submitted for the building prior to the building being constructed. The wall was built specifically for these signs and this has been the intent from the beginning. The ground sign is a six foot (6')by ten foot (10') aluminum face sign with routed letters. They are going for a classy look such as BMW or Acura dealership. They are as far as they can get from the neighboring sign, approximately one hundred forty feet (140'). The Harris Bank sign is located in Wheeling. The Harris Bank has very similar signage to their proposal. They do not believe that the signs will be detrimental to the surrounding area. Mr. Dohman addressed the proposed roof signs and read definitions from the Sign Code. They have lowered these signs as low as they could go. Ch. Entman advised that the Village Engineer's memorandum dated December 29, 2006 had an issue with the location of the proposed ground sign. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated January 8, 2007 which states: "I met at the property today and verified that the proposed sign location is intended to be 11 feet from the current right of way. The submittal showing the location was drawn on an outdated survey." Ch. Entman confirmed that the proposed location of the ground sign is in line with the Village Engineer's memorandum. Ch. Entman advised that he does not have any issues with the need of the proposed ground sign or its' location,but does have an issue with the height of the proposed ground sign. There is a lot of space between the copy Prestige and Lease, Sales, and Service. The sign will be located along Dundee. Mr. Dohman replied that Prestige Leasing is trying to obtain that high-end dealership look. Ch. Entman advised that roof signs have been addressed by the Board previously and he does not see anything different from the previous submittal. He is not in favor of the proposed roof signs. Com. Windecker stated that he does not see the need for the ground sign to be as high as proposed. The name of the business is not a logo. There is a lot of space on the sign. He is not in DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 10—JANUARY 16 2007 favor of the sign at the proposed height. He asked about the hours of illumination. Mr. Dohman responded that he is not prepared to answer that. Mr. Dohman advised that they could space the copy to utilize more of the area. Com. Dunn stated that she is not in favor of an illuminated ground sign. They could use exterior lights to light the sign. She is also not in favor of the height of the ground sign. Corn. Sandler stated that he is also not in favor of the height of the ground sign. The comment to make the copy bigger is not the intent of the comments of the Commissioners. A shorter sign would be visible and would accomplish the goal. Com. Shapiro agrees with the comments concerning the height of the sign. Mr. Dohman asked if the Board would have an issue with an eight foot (8') tall ground sign. Ch. Entman advised that he would not have an issue with an eight foot (8') tall ground sign with everything else remaining the same. Com. Sandler asked about the hours of business. Mr. Leon Bilis, Prestige Leasing, 1160 Waukegan Road, Glenview, Illinois 60025, was present and sworn in. Mr. Bilis advised that the hours of operation would be Monday through Thursday 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. and Friday through Saturday 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Ch. Entman advised that he would not have any issues with the sign being illuminated until 10:00P.M. Corn. Lesser addressed the proposed roof signs in that he does not see a difference from the previous request that was denied. He is opposed to the roof signs. The business is not an impulse location. The ground sign would identify the business sufficiently. Corn. Windecker stated that the proposed roof signs still protrude off the side of the parapet. He is opposed to the proposed roof signs. Mr. Frank Sears, Cambridge on the Lake Association President, 50 Lake Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Mr. Sears represents 392 property owners within the complex. The request for the roof signs was denied a month and a half ago. They are opposed to a roof sign. There are no roof signs in the Village. He also agrees with the Board concerning the height of the ground sign. Mr. Dohman replied that the proposed signs have been shown on the plan since initially presented to the Village. He disagrees with the definition of a roof sign in the Sign Code. He believes this is a wall sign. Most businesses have a ground sign and wall sign. They have lowered the roof signs to accommodate previous comments. Com. Shapiro asked Mr. Sears if the illumination of the roof signs were a concern. Mr. Sears responded that the illumination was an issue. Also, there are no other roof signs in the Village. The argument that the signs were designed this way from the beginning is not true. The building RAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 10—JANUARY 16, 2007 approved by the Village Board has changed. The original building had a dome roof design. The architecture of the building was changed to accommodate a roof sign. Mr. Schar advised that signs are not part of an appearance review and are never reviewed by the Village Board in advance. Standard language is added to correspondence to reflect that signs require a separate review. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. The Petitioner amended their request for the ground sign not to exceed eight feet (8') in overall height. Com. Sandler made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Prestige Leasing, 88 E. Dundee Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs, for the purpose of installing a ground sign that would be located within two hundred fifty feet (250') of an existing permanent ground sign on the same side of the street. Said sign not to exceed eight feet (8') in height. Illumination of the ground sign to be turned off by 10:00 P.M. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010 Sub-section B. Com. Lessee seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker, Sandler, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—Dunn ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the February 5, 2007 Village Board agenda. Com. Sandler made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Prestige Leasing, 88 E. Dundee Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.40.125, pertaining to Roof Signs, for the purpose of installing two (2) roof signs; one on the east elevation and one on the west elevation of the portion of the structure protruding above the roof line and both signs do not face the public right-of-way. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010 Sub-section B. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 10 JANUARY 16, 2007 ABSTAIN — None \..1 Motion Denied 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 301 NORTH RIVERWALK PLACE, HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF THE TWO (2) EXISTING LEASING SIGNS LOCATED ALONG MILWAUKEE AVEUNE Mr. Kirk Hamilton, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 190, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Mr. Hamilton explained that when they came before the Board previously in July 2006, they were completing construction on the building. They asked for the variations for the two (2) signs for marketing purposes. They had a construction delay and opened the building in late September, which put them at the end of the annual apartment marketing cycle. They currently have nineteen (19) of the ninety (90) units leased and expect to be fully leased in September 2007. They have been tracking the number of perspective tenants generated by the signs. In December 2006, 50% of the traffic was generated by the signs. Currently 40% of the traffic is being generated by the signs. They are also requesting a copy change on the signs. They would like to add a ribbon across the corner of the sign and add a banner across the bottom stating that these are apartments for rent. The size of the signs would not be changed. They are requesting to allow these signs to remain for twelve (12) months. Ch. Entman advised that three (3) additional directional signs were approved for this property a couple months ago for a period of nine (9) months from the date of Village Board approval. He does not have an issue with the signs. He does want to keep a handle on all temporary signs. He asked if the pricing of the rentals are keeping tenants away. Mr. Hamilton replied that they have not had that experience yet. They are partnered with Ludwig & Company for this project. They checked with comparable properties in Glenview, Deerfield and Vernon Hills. There was not a lot of activity in this market in October and November. Activity should pick up again in February and should run through the summer. Mr. Hamilton described all the signs and the locations of all the signs for this project. He requested if the review of these two (2) signs could be coordinated with the review of the additional three (3) temporary signs in September 2007. Ch. Entman advised that he is a tenant in a Hamilton Partners building, but this will not affect his decision. Corn. Sandler stated that he does not have an issue with allowing the signs to remain. He does not want to see these temporary signs turn into permanent signs. Mr. Hamilton replied that apartment buildings are different from commercial buildings. Apartment buildings do not suffer the large ups and downs that commercial and industrial properties suffer. Corn. Windecker commented that the existing leasing signs are too dark in color to be read when driving on Milwaukee Avenue. With that location, a readable sign may assist in the leasing ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFTPAGE 7 of 10 — JANUARY 16, 2007 process. Mr. Hamilton explained that they were trying to match the marketing materials. He will take this comment into consideration. There were no additional 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 Hamilton Partners, 301 North Riverwalk Place, to allow the two (2) existing temporary leasing signs to remain along Milwaukee Avenue for 301 North Riverwalk Place with the amended copy. Said signs shall be reviewed concurrently with the three (3) additional temporary signs at the September 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. The signs will be reviewed at the September 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 1500 BUSCH PARWAY, ECD-1500, LLC — REVIEW OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGN LOCATED AT 1500 BUSCH PARKWAY There was no one present to represent ECD-1500, LLC. Ch. Entman recommended that the Board vote on the request. There were no 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 ECD-1500, LLC, 1500 Busch Parkway, to allow the existing leasing sign to remain along Milwaukee Avenue located at 1500 Busch Parkway. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 6 to 0. The request has been denied and ECD-1500, LLC will be advised that the sign will need to be removed immediately. Lid DRAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 10—JANUARY 16, 2007 ROGERS CENTRE FOR COMMERCE, ARTHUR J. ROGERS & COMPANY — REVIEW OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BARCLAY BOULEVARD AND APTAKISIC ROAD Mr. Norman Ross and Mr. William Schmitz, Arthur J. Rogers and Company, 1601 Barclay Boulevard,Buffalo Grove,Illinois 60089,were present and sworn in. Mr.Schmitz explained they are requesting to allow the existing leasing sign to remain.Updated occupancy information was submitted to the Board for review.The tenant, ITW,after lengthy negotiations,has decided to move to a company-owned facility in Elgin. They now have over 22,000 square feet of empty space in addition to the existing vacant space in the complex.They are under economic strain to get the spaces leased.They have multi-tenant buildings with smaller users.Now they will have to break up the ITW space into smaller spaces.The current sign has generated 37,000 square feet in leases within one(1)year.They requested to allow the sign to remain for a period of two(2)years. Ch. Entman stated that he does not have a problem allowing the sign to remain. He is not in favor of the two(2)year request.He would prefer six(6)months. Com.Sandler stated that these types of temporary signs are not temporary.He understands that the business in constantly changing. Occupancy could change dramatically in a couple of months.He agrees with a six(6)month time limit for review. Corn. Lesser asked about the average unit size within the complex. Mr.Ross advised that the average size is roughly between 2,500-6,000 square feet.There are 108 units with 90 tenants.At one point, their occupancy was high and they removed the temporary sign and installed the permanent signs. The occupancy level dropped and the permanent signs did not generate the tenants because the permanent sign were difficult to see. Corn. Lesser would be in favor of allowing the sign to remain with a review in nine(9)months. Corn.Windecker stated that there was a better occupancy rate with the smaller,permanent signs. Mr. Schmitz replied that approximately 60%of their business comes from signage. It is very important to have the proper signage.He would take the signs down tomorrow if he had 90% occupancy.Com.Windecker stated that he will hold them to that statement. Com.Shapiro is not sure that this type of sign would be effective in attracting large tenants.He wanted to know what other types of marketing is being done.Mr.Schmitz advised that they send out flyers to users and brokers and they have bonus incentives for brokers. They spend $100,000.00 a year on marketing of the properties. Com.Sandler asked about the vacancy at other properties owned and managed by the requestor. Mr. Schmitz advised that the other properties fluctuate and have always been around 90% occupancy.This property,due to ITW and other tenants that have purchased their own buildings, this property has a lower occupancy. DRAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 10—JANUARY 16,2007 Corn. Dunn asked if other municipalities have required them to take down the signs. Mr. Schmitz advised that they have been required to remove signs. 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 Arthur J. Rogers & Company, 1601 Barclay Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089, to allow the existing leasing sign to remain at the southwest corner of Barclay Boulevard and Aptakisic Road. Said sign shall be reviewed in six (6) months at the July 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. The sign will be reviewed at the July 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no applications submitted for the February meeting. Therefore, the next regular meeting will be held March 20, 2007. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Sandler and seconded by Corn. Dunn. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Chairman Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:59 P.M. Submitted by, / /Yikkl& J e Kamka Recording Secretary DRAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 10 JANUARY 16, 2007