Loading...
2008-04-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ?Pie ri REGULAR MEETING (.O 117/a$" BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 15, 2008 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:48 P.M. on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Sandler Commissioner Stein Also Present: Edward Schar, Building Commissioner Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 18, 2008 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to Table the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, March 18, 2008. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN — None OLD BUSINESS 1501 BUSCH PARKWAY, HIGHLAND PARK HOSPITAL HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050 AND 14.40.145, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AN ADDITIONAL SIGN ONTO THE EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED AT 1525 BUSCH PARKWAY 1501 BUSCH PARKWAY, HIGHLAND PARK HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050; 14.20.070 AND 14.40.145, TO INSTALL AN OFF- PREMISES GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN 250' OF AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AT 1525 BUSCH PARKWAY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 13 —APRIL 15, 2008 A letter was submitted by Mariah DiGrino, DLA Piper US LLP, dated April 14, 2008 which requests that both public hearings for Highland Park Health and Fitness Center be Tabled until the next regular meeting, scheduled for May 20, 2008. Com. Dunn made a motion to Table the requests made by Highland Park Health acid Fitness Center, 1501 Busch Parkway, to the May 20, 2008 regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—Dunn,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Items to appear on the May 20,2008 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. NEW BUSINESS 720 SHADY GROVE LANE, MAURY AND SUSAN RAGGIOLI — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO CONSTRUCT A SCREENED PORCH THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF 5' INTO THE REQUIRED 30' REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Maury Raggioli and Mrs. Susan Raggioli, 720 Shady Grove Lane, were present and sworn in.The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on March 27, 2008 was read. Mr. Raggioli explained that they would like to construct a screened porch in their back yard. They spend a lot of time outside. It has proven to be very hard to stay outside over the course of a long, hot summer. There is water that flows into their yard from their neighbors, whose property sits higher than theirs. The downspouts and sump pump lines add to the water problem. • Photographs that were submitted with the application and marked as Exhibits "Fl", "F2" and "F3"were described. The water pooling creates problems with mosquitoes and vats. They like to spend time outside but that has proved to be very difficult. They have spoken to their neighbors and there were no objections. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated April 1, 2008 which states: "This style of drainage on this property "horseshoes" from the rear yard around the sides of the principal structure to the front. Some care will be needed to maintain the lot grading. Other than the grading I have no comments." The Petitioners have seen this report. Ch. Entman confirmed that the screened porch with match the existing house in like kind and quality. Corn. Shapiro asked if the proposed screened porch would completely replace the existing deck. Mr. Raggioli advised that everything will be replaced with the proposed screened porch. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 Com. Lesser asked if the addition will have any heat or plumbing. Mr. Raggioli advised that the addition will only have electric. There were no additional 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 Maury and Susan Raggioli, 720 Shady Grove Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a screened porch that would encroach a distance of five(5)feet into the required thirty(30)foot rear yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated April 1, 2008. Pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village. Materials to match in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has exhibited hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed screened porch 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, Lesser, Shapiro,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15)days—May 1, 2008. 411 INDIAN HILL DRIVE,TIMOTHY EGAN—FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040,TO CONSTRUCT A 5' FENCE TEAT WOULD EXTEND BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG WEIDNER ROAD Mr. Timothy Egan and Mrs. Alene Egan, 411 Indian Hill Drive, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on March 31, 2008 was read. Mr. Egan explained that the primary need for the fence is because they have recently become a full time caregiver to his wife's mother, Arlene Quag,liano, who was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Mrs. Quagliano frequently experiences Sundowners, which is often characterized by wandering and periods of confusion. They are concerned that Mrs. Quagliano could inadvertently get into the yard area that is adjacent to Weidner Road. Additionally, Mrs. Quagliano enjoys sitting outside and observing their children at play. Their yard is adjacent to Weidner Road and they are concerned that even with careful monitoring Mrs. Quagliano could get out on Weidner Road. The proposed fence would help to give peace of mind in this very difficult undertaking. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated April 1, 2008 which states: "We have reviewed the line of sight requirements at the subject location. We ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 recommend against any further restriction of the line of sight beyond that which is created by the principal structure. There is no abutting driveway, however, there some bushes overhanging the sidewalk on Weidner Road which need trimming." The Petitioner has seen this report. They plan on removing those bushes if they can install the fence. They are willing to start the fence at the back of the house and extend to the sidewalk. That would open up the line of sight. Ch. Entman asked about the type of fence being proposed. Mr. Egan stated that it would be a five (5)foot privacy fence. Ch. Entman believes that the goal can be accomplished with a fence at the setback line. He does not see the need to go beyond the setback for this purpose. Com. Windecker stated that the Board would not normally allow the fence to the sidewalk. He is not amenable to the request. Also, there is a shed in the front yard. Mr. Egan replied that it is a plastic tool shed. They can move that if it is a problem. Com. Windecker stated that the shed cannot be in the front yard. Com. Lesser agrees with the other Commissioners. He does not believe that there are unique or compelling circumstances in this case to cause a variance to be granted. A fence on the setback line will retain a significantly large yard and accomplish the goal of containing her mother. He is not supportive of the request. Mr. Egan asked what would be the proper distance from the sidewalk. Com. Lesser advised that setback line would be the proper distance. Mr. Egan confirmed that the Board would not recommend going beyond the setback line at all. Mrs. Egan added that the setback line runs right through the side of their yard. Mr. Egan stated that he submitted photographs with the application and marked as Exhibits "I1" and "I2" that show fences closer to the sidewalk that the setback line. Ch. Entman replied that he does not recall the circumstances in those cases. Mrs.Egan commented that by not granting the variance it would cut off the area that her children have to play in. Ch. Entman replied that currently there is not a fence and the children can roam around. Now there is the circumstance where there is someone that needs to be contained. That can be accomplished by keeping the fence on the setback line. There were no additional questions or comments by the Commissioners.There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Timothy Egan,411 Indian Hill Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a five (5) foot fence that would extend beyond the building setback line along Weidner Road described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of the house and extending east, parallel ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 to Indian Hill Drive, to a point approximately two (2) feet from the sidewalk then turning north, parallel t)Weidner Road to the rear yard, then turning west and extending across the rear yard. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated April 1, 2008. The Petitioner's have exhibit unique circumstances and hardship. The proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter that essential character of the neighborhood. Com.Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Dunn,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner's were advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 11 RIVER OAKS CIRCLE EAST, TIM TACK AND MICHELLE MCMULLEN-TACK— FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE THAT WOULD VARY IN HEIGHT FROM 10-1/2' TO 12'ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Mr. Tim Tack and Mrs. Michelle McMullen-Tack, 11 River Oaks Circle East, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on March 31, 2008 was read. Mrs. Tack advised that they are amending their petition to construct a fence that would not exceed ten and one half(10-1/2)feet in height. Mrs. Tack explained that their request is being made due to a variety of construction projects that have occurred near their property over the last three (3) years. There is currently a six (6) foot fence along a portion of the rear property line. There is an additional one hundred forty five (145)feet of property line that is not fenced. It was not their desire to fence in the property. Most recently, the bridge construction replacement project occurred at Indian Creek. As a result, the bridge went from a two (2)lane bridge to a five (5)lane wide accommodating bridge. It also was elevated significantly. The roadway immediately behind their house was elevated as well. You can now see the wheel wells as well as the exhaust pipes of the passing traffic on Buffalo Grove Road. They have to also endure the views and sounds of traffic from almost every room in the house, including the front door. They can no longer have the windows open. Even with the windows closed you can hear passing vehicles. Headlights shine directly into the rear of their home.There were two(2)other improvements done to this roadway.The first was in the summer of 2005 when Prairie Road and Port Clinton Road were converted to the Buffalo Grove Road extension. That project included significant elevation and widening of the road. It went from a quiet, T-ending blacktop to a thoroughfare of concrete in which vehicles can now travel at greater speeds. The second project was the fairway drive extension which was done in 2006- 2007. This extension runs from the north end of Buffalo Grove Road up to Route 60. As a result of that extension, traffic volume has increased significantly at all times of the day and night. They also have to endure commercial truck traffic using the roadway. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 Ch. Entrnan read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar and dated April 1, 2008 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." The Petitioners have seen this report. Com. Windecker asked what the Petitioner's see when traffic is traveling northbound on the roadway. Mrs. Tack stated that they can see the bottoms of cars all the way to the tires. It is the southbound traffic that creates the concern of the headlights. Com. Windecker asked what the Petitioner's see when traffic is traveling southbound. Mrs. Tack stated that, depending on what room of the house you are in, you will have headlights coming down the hill and directly into rear of the home. Once the headlights hit a certain point then you only see the parallel sides of the vehicles. Com. Windecker commented that when he looks out the windows of his house, he sees wheels and lights also. He is not convinced that the issue is different from many homes adjacent to a major roadway. Com. Windecker asked what road extends to Route 60. Mrs. Tack replied that Fairway Drive was put in and abuts the very end of Buffalo Grove Road at Route 45, which used to be Prairie Road and now runs all the way to Route 60. Also, the roadway had a major realignment. It used to be straight and because of the construction project, the angle in the road was deviated. Corn. Windecker asked if the Petitioner's had advised the County. Mrs. Tack stated they have absolutely brought this to the attention of the County. She has been dealing with the County off and on for the last year and a half. There are documents that indicate that a fence barrier needs to be installed to properties in the north part of the Village. However, traffic has to reach a certain volume before that will happen. The County would like to look at each one of the projects in a vacuum and not consider the impact of all three (3) projects as a whole on all the residents in this part of the Village. The County is opting not to perform a traffic study that has been mandated by IDOT guidelines at this time. Because they are expecting their first child in three and one half(3-1/2) months, she would like to regain the use of their back yard while they own the property, not five (5) years down the road. Com. Windecker asked if they have discussed the proposed fence with their neighbors. Mrs. Tack stated that she has spoken to her neighbors and she has several neighbors that are aware of the situation. Their immediate neighbor at 9 River Oaks Circle East, will most likely also be requesting a fence height variance. They are the neighbor immediately adjacent to them and impacted by the elevation of road as well. All of the neighbors that she has spoken to are in support of the request because it creates a traffic barrier for their properties as well. They are the home closest to the bridge and to the elevation. They are the only property that can create a buffer for the entire neighborhood against the impact. Also, the reason there was not an issue in the past is because there were hundreds of trees in this area. The County had cut over two hundred (200) trees down in the wetland when they widened the road, including twelve(12)mature trees that were adjacent to their property. Corn. Shapiro stated that the County has said that they will replace and put additional foliage along the property line. He stated that would alleviate some of the headlight concern and noise. Mrs. Tack replied that the County is only planning to put trees along the immediate west side of the property, which is only forty-five (45) feet long. That would not alleviate the headlight problem. The road used to be straight. Now you can see the road angles at the north. There used to be a bunch of trees between the old bridge and their home. The County is not planning to put any trees on the northwest edge of their property that is one hundred forty five (145) feet long. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 They currently have several twelve (12) foot pines there already. Those are not enough to mitigate the headlight issue at this time. They will need about ten(10) years of growth. Corn. Lesser asked the Petitioner what their plans are for the northwest edge of their property.A fence will not solve the noise issue. The landscaping will ultimately absorb the sound. Mr. Tack stated that they have spent over thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) building a berm and landscaping that area. Corn.Dunn stated that the Board received an email from a neighbor who is objecting to the fence request. The fence would not be an eyesore to those traveling on the road, but may look like a wall to the residents in the subdivision. Mrs. Tack responded that when inside the subdivision, the entire wall is inside their property. It is all landscaped with pines that vary from six (6)feet in height to twelve (12) feet in height. If you look at the overall Plat of Survey, they are on the corner of the neighborhood. You will not be looking at a wall; you would be looking at a fully landscaped yard against a fence. From the rear side, the wetland behind them is not a developable area. Com. Dunn commented that the fence would not provide additional screening from the existing landscaping. Mrs. Tack replied that the trees are not fully adjacent to each other at this time. They have planted twelve (12) foot pines that are staggered. This was done three (3) years ago mostly for aesthetic reasons, not to mitigate a traffic issue. The issue is the recent bridge replacement. The bridge has been elevated in such a way that traffic is passing at a height that is five (5) to six (6) feet above the grade of their home. The trees will not be tall enough to block the traffic for several years. The trees are not a solid hedge, they are Colorado pines. It does not block all of the headlights on the road. Corn. Shapiro asked about the distance of the Petitioner's home to the rear property line. Mrs. Tack advised that it varies. One corner is closer than the rest of house. It varies forty (40) to eighty (80) feet. Com. Shapiro stated that there is a solid guardrail that runs along the roadway. The Petitioner is not up against the road and guardrails typically block most of the headlights. The house is running almost parallel to the road. Mrs. Tack replied that the house sits at an angle and is not perfectly parallel to the roadway. Their concern is the southbound traffic from curve that is coming down the hill. Mr. Tack added that they are not looking to put up a fence that would completely encompass the yard, just on the boundary areas. Com. Shapiro asked if an eight(8)foot fence would block the light. Mr. Tack replied that it would not and that is why they need a ten(10)foot fence. Com. Windecker asked how many feet higher is the bridge than what it previously was. Mr. Tack stated that it varies in elevation depending on the station, but is it generally about two (2) feet higher. Corn. Windecker asked what makes the Petitioners believe that a ten (10) foot fence would solve the problems on the second floor of the house. Mr. Tack stated that they are not as concerned with the second floor as they are with the yard and the first floor area. Mrs. Tack added that the back side of the second floor is all closet and bathroom. The issues are with the dining room, family room and kitchen of the first floor. A ten (10) foot fence would block the headlights. Corn. Lesser stated that he would like to find a way to help the Petitioners. He is not sure how to do that. He is not supportive of a ten(10) foot fence. Mr. Tack stated that variances are made for ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 special circumstances. This construction certainly was not done when they moved into the house. It is decreasing their property value and goodwill and use of the property. An eight(8)foot fence would be cheaper for them to put in. They have no control over who raises the road and what they do surrounding their property. Their house was recently appraised and the property value was dropped because of the busy road. It went from a quiet road to a thoroughfare that goes to Route 60. Mr. Raysa stated that there were two (2) emails included in the Commissioner's packets that necd to be made part of the record. Ch. Entman advised that there is an email from a neighbor, Mr. Heape and an email from the Village Manager,William Brimm. Mrs. Tack advised that they have not seen either of the emails and added that the Village Manager had been out to their property with Greg Boysen, Director of Public Works in October, 2007 to look at the impact. Ch. Entman stated that the email from the Village Manager dated April 9, 2008 reflects the visit to the property. The Village also received an email from Mr. Rob Heape dated April 9, 2008 objecting to the request.A copy of this email was given to the Petitioner to review. Mrs. Tack commented on the Village Manager's email in that he agrees that they have a unique situation based upon factors outside of their control. The Village Manager does not have any negative comments regarding the variance request. Mrs. Tack commented that in Mr. Heape's email, he is concerned with passing bicyclists. She can understand a concern, but there is rarely a bicycle on these sidewalks. The bigger issue is that as property owners, you have the right to quiet enjoyment of your property. When the government comes in and does something that negatively impacts that property, you have a right to remuneration. They are not asking for money damages. They are not asking for the Village to pay for a fence. They are asking for the Board to grant them the right to mitigate the impact of all of the roadway construction on their property so they can once again enjoy the outdoor use as well as the indoor use. Based on the recent appraisal, they do have measurable damages caused by the impact of the roadway construction. Ch. Entman stated that there is no question that there was road construction that reconfigured the road. Lake County constructed what they thought they needed. He is not sure that the Village of Buffalo Grove is responsible for the Petitioner's situation. Mrs. Tack replied that they are not suggesting that the Village is responsible, though she believes that the Village contributed five percent (5%) of the bridge project. They are trying to exercise their rights under the law to protect their property. They are getting ready to have their first child and they would like their child to be able to play in the yard without having exhaust fumes from cars coming into the yard. Ch. Entman understands what the Petitioner is saying. Homeowners have certain rights subject to the rights of homeowners surrounding them. Those rights are also subject to certain restrictions imposed upon by our government, Federal, State or local level. The use of the property has changed and is now different. We have all had that in some fashion happen to our property. He understands the desire to restore the use of the property. He does not believe that this is the remedy. Maybe there are more natural remedies out there such as more planting, or something ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 that Lake County can do. He does not believe that the remedy is a variance of the Fence Code. He is not in support of the request. Mrs. Tack asked what the Board believes would be a remedy since the fence request is not supported. Ch. Entman believes a more natural remedy of planting may be a solution. Mrs. Tack has been pursuing a remedy on this issue since July, 2007 with the County. The County has said that in order to install a fence prior to any of their scheduling they would have to file a lawsuit. They have been gig en non-responsive answers from the County when they have sent letters. They had documents buried and hidden from them when requested. It could take years to solve the Lake County remedy. They have already installed many twelve (12) foot tall trees. They cannot plant anything in the wetlands. That property is owned by the Village. Ch. Entman cannot see any type of compromise concerning the fence request that would satisfy his obligation to the Village to enforce the Fence Code. Corn. Shapiro stated that Mr. Devila of the County had indicated that they have flexibility and would put in additional landscaping. He asked if the Petitioner has had any further contact with the County since September, 2007. Mrs. Tack advised that Mr. Devila is the only person at the County that has been responsive. He has indicated that on the parallel area where there is not a headlight issue, just a view issue, that the County would put in trees as previously scheduled. They are not planning to plant them until later this year. There was some further discussion concerning the planting of trees and the height of the existing trees. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the amended request made by Tim Tack and Michelle McMullen-Tack, 11 River Oaks Circle East, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a fence that would vary in height from ten (10) feet to ten and one half(10-1/2)feet along the rear property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated April 1, 2008. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn.Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—None NAY—Dunn,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner was notified of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 466 HALF DAY ROAD, DAIRY QUEEN — DEVIATION TO THE WOODLAND COMMONS SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW A WALL SIGN THAT IS NOT CONSTRUCTED OF INDIVIDUAL LETTERS AND WILL INCLUDE MORE THAN THE COLOR RED Mr. Bill Feldgreber,Dairy Queen,466 Half Day Road,was present and sworn in. Mr. Feldgreber explained that he is proposing two (2) box signs; one (1) sign would say Dairy Queen that is one foot four inches (1'-4") by five feet four inches (5'4") and one (1) sign would have the DQ letters in white with a red background with a blue swirl on the bottom and an orange swirl on top that measures three feet (3') high by four foot (4') wide. They have shown the proposed sign to the owners of the shopping center, Inland Commercial Property Management.A letter from the landlord approving the proposed sign was included in the packet. Ch. Entman noted that the letter from Inland Commercial Property Management was included in the submittal. Com. Dunn asked why they should allow a deviation when they have not allowed a deviation at this shopping center for anyone else. Mr. Feldgreber advised that the proposed sign is a nationally recognized sign for Dairy Queen. The sign contractor is the national sign contractor for Dairy Queen,which is ISD International Sign&Design. This sign will be appearing in all the stores throughout the country. His store happens to be a new concept store, called a cornerstone. This would be a Dairy Queen with soft seating and couches in green and blue, red and orange on the inside with ceramic tile floors. It is a little different look, more of an upscale look. This is the sign that they are proposing for the center. He did drive through the center and found that there are five (5) or six (6) other signs that are not red. Dominick's has a blue and white Chase Bank sign and a black Pharmacy sign and a brown and beige Signature Café sign and a beige Starbucks sign. Fred Astaire has a red and white box sign as well as Huntington Learning Center. Coldwell Banker has a blue sign. Wendy's has blue, red and white both on the street and on the building. Fitness 19 has white and red. Corn. Dunn asked if he has given the sign criteria requirements to the sign company to see if they can come up a sign in either all red or red and white. Mr. Feldgreber believes that they can, but he is learning that as a franchisee he does not have a lot of choices. Most things are dictated. He can go back to them and ask but believes that they are very strong in initiating the new color and introducing Orange Julius into the cornerstone concept stores. Com. Lesser does not have an issue with the DQ logo sign. It is a national logo. He does have an issue with the Dairy Queen box sign. These companies deal with these issues nationally. There are communities that do not permit them to go with the corporate colors in the standard format. He has dealt with this in his own business capacity. Mr. Feldgreber responded that the Coldwell Banker sign is all blue and white. What makes that sign different than a Dairy Queen sign being in blue and white? Com. Lesser does not recall the circumstances for Coldwell Banker. Corn. Windecker confirmed that the proposed sign is a box sign. He believes that the Petitioner could get a sign approved by Dairy Queen in individual channels letters. Other applicants have ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 13—APRIL 15, 2008 believed that they were limited to the sign they were told to have, then found out that many other `./ signs are available as well. He believes that if the Petitioner asks corporate, they would be willing to work with him. Mr. Feldgreber added that his space has the smallest soffit in the shopping center. The color would help customers see the store from Route 22. Out of the thirty-eight (38) locations in the shopping center, most range from fourteen (14) and nineteen (19) feet. Some go up to twenty- nine (29) feet. He is running at eight feet nine-inches (8'9"). That makes it very difficult to see the sign from the street and the color is helpful. Com. Dunn stated that she could see the sign in the window while driving by on Route 22. That is not illuminated and does not have all the colors being requested. Ch. Entman believes that more effort should be made to comply with the Sign Criteria. He does not know why others are different. Dominick's was a unique situation. He also agrees that there may be other signs to choose from.He does not believe that a sign will determine how successful a business will be. Everyone understands who Dairy Queen is. If it says Dairy Queen on the wall above the store,the logo is not necessary. He is not in favor of the proposal. Corn. Shapiro agrees with Com. Lesser. He is amenable to the logo but the name should be in compliance with the criteria. Dairy Queen is more known for their logo. Mr. Feldgreber amended his request to change the background on the Dairy Queen sign to red with the letters in white. Consensus of the Board is to have the Dairy Queen in red individual channel letters. Mr. Feldgreber amended his request to allow the DQ logo to remain and to construct Dairy Queen in individual channel letters in red. There were no additional 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 amended request made by Dairy Queen, 466 Half Day Road, for deviation to the Woodland Commons Sign Criteria to allow the DQ logo as shown on the Exhibit submitted with the request. The Dairy Queen sign to be constructed in individual channel letters in the color red and to be constructed pursuant to the Sign Code. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—Dunn,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 13—APRIL 15, 2008 100 MCHENRY ROAD, BUFFALO WINGS AND RINGS — DEVIATION TO THE TOWN CENTER SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW 3 WALL SIGNS THAT ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED OF INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETTERS AND WOULD EXCEED THE HEIGh T ALLOWED Mr. Aby Jacob, 100 McHenry Road and Mr. Ron Cummings, 100 McHenry Road, were present and sworn in. Mr. Cummings explained that they are opening a new franchise at 100 McHenry Road. This would be the second store in Illinois. There will be a store opening in Bridgeport, on the south side of Chicago in May sometime. There are approximately thirty(30) stores across the country. There are another fifty(50)franchisees constructing stores.They are rapidly trying to expand the brand and the name. They are also requesting three (3) signs. They are on an end unit. By code, they can have two (2) signs. They want to get as much visibility to their site as possible. There is not a lot of visibility along Lake Cook Road or along Route 83 to this area. Any extra visibility they can get is appreciated.The ground sign for the center is completely full. Com. Lesser is supportive of the logo. He is not supportive of the lettering on the yellow background. The sign package for the center is similar to the previous request in requiring red lettering. That is what he would like to see. He understands the need to communicate their presence to the public. Corn. Dunn agrees with the Com. Lesser's comments. She is not supportive of a third sign on the south elevation of the building. It faces an access road. It would not be very visible from Lake Cook Road and customers would not see it until they are right there. Com. Shapiro agrees with Com. Lesser's comments. He would like to see the buffalo head as the logo and the name in the standard red channel letters. He is also not supportive of the request for a third sign on the south elevation of the building. Mr. Cummings advised that the branding is for the whole sign coloring. He clarified that a variation would be requested for the east elevation wall sign. Ch. Entman agrees with the Commissioners concerning the logo and individual channel letters. He also agrees with the comments regarding the south elevation wall sign. He would like to see how the logo will look with the individual letters.He asked when the Petitioner is anticipating on opening. Mr. Cummings stated that they would like to open before July 19, 2008 so they can be open during the Art Festival. Com. Windecker would be supportive of the buffalo logo with a red ribbon on a white background and the individual channel letters. He is not supportive of the yellow. Mr. Cummings stated that the corporation has changed marketing firms and they have changed the branding to this style about six (6)months ago. The Commissioners would like to see alternatives. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 of 13—APRIL 15,2008 Mr. Cummings requested to Table this request until the next regular meeting in order to provide alternatives. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Dunn made a motion to Table the request made by Buffalo Wings and Rings, 100 McHenry Road, to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—Dunn,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the next regular agenda of the Zoning Board of Appeals, scheduled for May 20, 2008. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Windecker and seconded by Corn. Dunn. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 P.M. Submitted by, Otic Aaiiik Jul p Kamka Recording Secretary Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 of 13—APRIL 15,2008