Loading...
2011-02-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes but it is a restaurant. There is a huge sign on the east elevation. He is not sure if there is a need for anymore signage. He agrees with Corn. Windecker. The signs as proposed, two (2) signs on the north elevation are too many. Maybe the sign on the east elevation could have been made to promote both the restaurant and the banquets. To put another identical sign on the north elevation with an additional sign for the restaurant on the north elevation is overkill. He does not see the need. Mr. Field stated that the need did not come from them trying to spend more money. The need is from complaints that they get from customers. They have been in the Village for eight (8) years. Ch. Entman asked how long they have been open in Town Center. Mr. Field stated that they have been open in this location since November. Ch. Entman asked if they have people that do not show for banquets because they cannot find it. Mr. Field explained that the people do eventually find it, but they get calls that people on a road and how do they get to the facility. They say that they pass by Lake Cook and McHenry Road and can't find it. They did not come to spend more money on signs. Ch. Entman understands that the Petitioner does not want to spend money that they do not have to spend. He understands they want to maximize the business and the profit. Mr. Field is frustrated like on Sundays when they have older crowds for brunch they cater to an eastern European crowd. A lot of them are foreigners. They are trying to identify themselves just because of the setback. That setback is too far from McHenry Road to realize that the address is 100 McHenry Road. Ch. Entman stated that the restaurant is probably setback the least out of any of the stores in the Center. He understands the need based on the calls from the customers. He is saying that there is a solution to that problem that does not involve throwing up additional signage. That is an easy answer. The easiest may be the most expensive. He does not believe that throwing more signage up is the best solution. Mr. Field stated that they went beyond advertising. They are now publishing in a local newspaper. They have a website. The request arose from the complaints. They did not wait until they have the banquets booked. They have banquets booked all the through next year. They get constant calls on the night of the event. Most of the events start at 8:00 p.m. They need to be visible. That is way they will create the overkill and spend the money. They are advertising. They cannot put tenant panels on the towers. The only solution they saw was the wall signs. They have to capture their business and make sure that their transition from one (1) location to another is a smooth one. The new business for the Pavilion Restaurant will be driven by the advertising. It will be driven by people walking into Binny's. It will be driven by the customers of the movie theater. They are not looking to have the Pavilion sign all over. They need to address their existing business which is their main income. It needs to be visible. Com. Windecker stated that he listened very carefully to the testimony. The Petitioner stated that they opened in November. He asked how long the illuminated sign on the east elevation has been up. Mr. Field stated that it has been up for a couple of days. Com. Windecker asked if they received all the phone calls in a couple of days. He does sympathize but now there is the illuminated sign. Just tonight he saw how bright it is from all angles. The sign was applied for November 16, 2010 and the sign was just installed. If there were complaints it is because the only sign up was a temporary, non- illuminated banner. All the people should have called because there was no signage except a floating banner. Mr. Field replied that having a sign is better than having no ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 15, 2011 PAGE 8of13 sign. There is nothing that stops people once they approach the facility that says turn in here. He has to turn people around on McHenry Road. That is why he is asking for the north elevation wall sign. The south elevation sign will be visible five (5) to six (6) months of the year. Once people miss the last entrance into the Center, they have to go all the way to the Sam's Club center, turn around, get back into the left lane and turn into the Center. He would like his customers to have convenience. He does not want his customers having to make that turn around. In his opinion it is not overkill. He is just trying to capture their customers before the pass the Center. Corn. Windecker asked how many signs they had on Dundee Road. Mr. Field responded that they had one (1) sign. Corn. Windecker asked how many sign they have at their Northbrook location. Mr. Field stated that they have five (5) signs, but they have a big sign on the center sign at the entrance. At least there they have signs on the center ground signs, they are the biggest sign on those and they get seen. At this location they can not get any panels on the Center ground signs. Com. Windecker asked if the landlord would give them a spot on the tower. Mr. Field stated that the landlord cannot because there is no space available. Mr. Field asked if the signs could be motioned individually. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Raysa suggested changing Group Exhibit "E" to individually labeled Exhibits "El", "E2", "E3", "E4"and"E5". South Elevation "Versailles Banquets"Wall Sign Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Versailles, 100 McHenry Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.44.060.E.6, pertaining to Signs, for the purpose of allowing an additional wall sign on the south elevation of the building pursuant to Exhibits"El"and"E3". Subject to the ART minutes dated February 3,2011. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection A. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Steingold NAY—Windecker, Au, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 3 to 2. Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. North Elevation"Versailles Banquets"Wall Sign ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 15, 2011 PAGE 9 of 13 Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Versailles, 100 McHenry Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.44.060.E.6, pertaining to Signs, for the purpose of allowing an additional wall sign on the north elevation of the building pursuant to Exhibits"El" and"E2". Subject to the ART minutes dated February 3,2011. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection A. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker,Au, Entman NAY—Stein, Steingold ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 3 to 2. Item to appear on the March 7, 2011 Village Board agenda. North Elevation "Pavilion Restaurant&Bar"Wall Sign Corn. Stein made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Versailles, 100 McHenry Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.44.060.E.6, pertaining to Signs, for the purpose of allowing an additional wall sign on the north elevation of the building pursuant to Exhibits"E4"and"E5". Subject to the ART minutes dated February 3, 2011. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection A. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Au NAY—Steingold,Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 3 to 2. Item to appear on the March 7, 2011 Village Board agenda. Mr. Field asked the ZBA to reconsider their vote. He stated that if the ZBA was amenable to reconsidering the vote he would amend his petition to remove the north elevation "Versailles Banquets" wall sign. The owners feel that the south elevation wall sign is more important to the business than the north elevation wall sign. Corn. Windecker made a motion to reconsider the south elevation "Versailles Banquets" wall sign. Corn. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote—AYE—was unanimous. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 15,2011 PAGE 10 of 13 Corn. Au made a motion to reconsider the north elevation "Versailles Banquets" wall sign. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote—AYE—was unanimous. Corn. Stein made a motion to reconsider the north elevation "Pavilion Restaurant & Bar" wall sign. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote — AYE — was unanimous. Mr. Field stated that he is amending his petition to remove the request for the north elevation "Versailles Banquets" wall sign. The south elevation "Versailles Banquets" wall sign and the north elevation"Pavilion Restaurant & Bar"wall sign would remain as proposed. Corn. Stein stated that he would support the amended request. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Versailles, 100 McHenry Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.44.060.E.6, pertaining to Signs, for the purpose of allowing two (2) additional wall signs; one(1)wall sign on the north elevation of the building and one (1) wall sign on the south elevation of the building pursuant to Exhibits"El", "E3", "E4"and"E5". Subject to the ART minutes dated February 3,2011. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection A. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Steingold, Windecker,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the March 7, 2011 Village Board agenda. 100 MCHENRY ROUAD, VERSAILLES — DEVIATION TO THE TOWN CENTER SIGN CRITERIA, TO ALLOW THE "VERSAILLES BANQUETS" ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING TO BE FIFTY SIX (56) INCHES IN HEIGHT; TO ALLOW THE "PAVILION RESTAURANT & BAR" WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING TO BE FORTY (40) INCHES IN HEIGHT; AND TO ALLOW BOTH WALL SIGNS TO BE INSTALLED ON RACEWAYS Mr. Alex Field, Versailles, 100 McHenry Road,was present and sworn in. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 15, 2011 PAGE 11 of 13 The deviation request was amended to include the deviation requests only for the two (2) wall signs that were recommended for approval. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein made a motion to grant the request made by Versailles, 100 McHenry Road, for deviation to the Town Center Shopping Center Sign Criteria, to allow the "Versailles Banquets" additional wall sign on the south elevation of the building to be fifty six (56) inches in height; to allow the "Pavilion Restaurant & Bar" wall sign on the north elevation of the building to be forty(40) inches in height; and to allow both wall signs to be installed on raceways. Corn Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Steingold,Windecker, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. OLD BUSINESS FRONT YARD FENCING PERMITS Mr. Sheehan stated that based upon the direction at last months ZBA meeting he has prepared the suggested changes to the Vilalges fence code. He included language in Section 15.20.040 based on a suggestion that no fence, except an ornamental fence, shall be located nearer to the street than the front line of the building. He also expanded the language in Section 15.20.070 to be clear as to the definition of an ornamental fence. The allowable length of an ornamental fence was shortened to no more than eighteen(18) feet of continuous length and language added so that no section of ornamental fencing would be allowed to be placed closer than twenty(20) feet to any other section of fencing. If this is in concurrence with what the ZBA would like to do, he will move this forward to the Village Board for their consideration. Com. Stein asked about limiting the total amount of ornamental fencing on a property. After discussing limiting the total amount of ornamental fencing there was not support to include this additional language. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board the proposed amendments to Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts; and Section 15.20.070, pertaining to Ornamental Fences. Corn. Au seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 15, 2011 PAGE 12 of 13 Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Steingold, Windecker, Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the March 7, 2011 Village Board agenda. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan advised that the current fence height survey will conclude on Monday, February 21, 2011. The results will be forwarded to the Village Board. Corn. Stein advised of the results of the appeal made by Circle K, 1200 Arlington Heights Road at the February 7, 2011 Village Board meeting. Mr. Sheehan advised that there are two (2) appeals scheduled to appear before the Village Board on March 7, 2011, Twin Rinks appeal and the proposed fence for 795 Vernon Court South. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Com. Au. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:05 P.M. Submitted by, jroioiAceyvcteL__ Ju ie Kamka Recording Secretary Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 15, 2011 PAGE 13 of 13