Loading...
2011-08-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes AP,p wEp REGULAR MEETING tits su�Mt �1 D:D1 BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Lesser Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney Trustee Les Ottenheimer Trustee Jeff Berman APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 19, 2011 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 . Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Minutes approved as submitted. BUSINESS 624 PATTON DRIVE, SHAWN AND MARIE FERBER — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO BRING THE EXISTING HOUSE INTO CONFORMANCE CONCERNING A DEFICIENCY OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THIS STRUCTURE. THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK IS DEFICIENT BY UP TO 0.13 FEET, THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK IS DEFICIENT FROM 0.32 TO 0.49 FEET AND THE COMBINED SIDE YARD STEBACK IS DEFICIENT FROM 2.33 TO 2.45 FEET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 PAGE 1 of 11 624 PATTON DRIVE, SHAWN AND MARIE FERBER — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT WOULD ENCORACH THE SAME DISTANCE INTO BOTH SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND THE COMBINED SIDE YARD SETBACK AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE Mr. Shawn Ferber and Mrs. Marie Ferber, 624 Patton Drive, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on July 28, 2011 was read. Mr. Ferber explained that they would like to expand the second story of their home and add another bedroom for their upcoming child. The proposed addition will not exceed any of the encroachments that already exist. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 29, 2011 which states: "I have no comments on either of the proposals." Ch. Entman also read the ART minutes dated August 3, 2011 . Com. Windecker confirmed with Mr. Ferber that the materials of the second story addition will match the existing construction in like kind and quality. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion concerning bringing the existing house into conformance: I move we grant the request made by Shawn and Marie Ferber, 624 Patton Drive, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of bringing the existing house into conformance concerning a deficiency of the side yard setbacks for this structure. R5A Zoning requires a minimum of 6 feet for both side yards, but not less than 14 feet combined. The north side yard setback is deficient by up to 0. 13 feet, the south side of the structure is deficient from 0.32 to 0.49 feet and the combined side yard setback is deficient from 2.33 to 2.45 feet. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Com. Windecker made the following motion concerning the proposed second story addition: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 PAGE 2of11 I move we grant the request made by Shawn and Marie Ferber, 624 Patton Drive, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a second story addition that would encroach the same distance into both side yard setbacks and the combined side yard setback as the existing structure. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 29, 2011 and the ART minutes dated August 3, 2011. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. Materials to match in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days —September 1, 2011. 1-12 OAK CREEK DRIVE, THE ARBORS CONDOMINIUMS - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.010 AND 14.20.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPLACING THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION SIGN THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AND WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK AREA Mr. Rick Wood, Independent Outdoor, 5009 Chase Street, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515, Mr. Adrian J. Zawadzki, President, Arbors Condominium Association, 7 Oak Creek Drive, and Mr. Michael Shifrin, Attorney, 750 W. Lake Cook Road, Suite 350, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, 60089, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on July 29, 2011 was read. Mr. Wood explained that the Arbors Condominiums had hired Mr. Wood to replace the existing Subdivision sign that was originally granted a variance. The current sign is made out of wood and has not lasted anywhere near the time that they were looking for. The proposed sign is essentially in the same location with the same setback as the existing sign. The proposed sign was be made out of masonry and aluminum. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 29, 2011 which states: "I have no comments on either proposal." Ch. Entman also read the ART minutes dated August 3, 2011. The recommendation by the ART was subject to landscaping plan being submitted to and approved by the Village. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 PAGE 3 of 11 A landscaping plan was submitted and approved by the Village Forester, Rick Kuhl. The landscaping plan has been marked as Exhibit"G". Ch. Entman asked if the proposed sign will be in the exact same location as the existing sign. Mr. Wood advised that the sign would be located adjacent to the present signs location. Corn. Windecker stated that the proposed sign would be an improvement over the existing sign. The proposed sign construction will add to the area. Corn. Shapiro agrees with Com. Windecker and asked if the sign would be backlit. Mr. Wood stated that the sign will not be illuminated. 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 recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by The Arbors Condominium Association, 6 Oak Creek 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 replacing the existing Subdivision sign that would be located within two hundred fifty(250) feet of an existing ground sign located on the same side of the street and would encroach into the required building setback area pursuant to Exhibits"A", "A2", "E", "F" and"G". Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 29, 2011 and the ART Minutes dated August 3, 2011. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE— Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings of fact attached. Item to appear on the September 12, 2011 Village Board agenda. 1691-1697 WEILAND ROAD, BG CAR WASH MANAGEMENT, LLC - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.080, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A SECOND WALL SIGN FOR EACH TENANT IN THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1691-1697 WEILAND ROAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 PAGE 4 of 11 the consumers to find the tenant space once they enter the parking lot. Corn. Windecker asked about the need for such a large sign to identify the four (4) tenant spaces on the east elevation. There is already a large sign for Dunkin Donuts on the east elevation that was some how put up without a variance. Mr. Imreibe stated that he did not put up that sign. Representatives from Dunkin Donuts are not present at the meeting. He is just the building owner. He is just asking if it is possible to get signage on both elevations so his future tenants do not have to go through the variance process. He would like to have approved a uniform sign package to eliminate future signage issues. Signs would only be allowed on the east and west elevations, that would be it. He would like exposure to both the east and west elevations of the building. Corn. Windecker stated that if the ZBA allowed every building that has four (4) stores in it to have signs on the front and back there would be a real problem. Mr. Imreibe stated that he understands what Corn. Windecker is saying, but this building is unique in the fact that the store fronts do not face the street. The actual back of the building faces the street. Corn. Windecker stated that the signs should be on the store fronts which are the back of the building and to place an identification sign just so people do not get lost going through the same door. It is not like each space has its own entrance. Mr. Imreibe stated that each space does have its own entrance. Corn. Windecker stated that four (4) signs would be on the east elevation when two (2) of the entrance doors are on different elevations, one (1) on the north and one (1) on the south. Mr. Imreibe stated that it would not make sense to put a sign on the north and south elevations for the two (2) end units. Corn. Windecker asked if Mr. Imreibe will allow Dunkin Donuts to put up a third sign on the north elevations over the entrance. Mr. Imreibe stated that he will not allow a sign on the north elevation. He has put together the � uniform sign package. Com. Windecker stated that there are things in the proposed uniform sign package that do not belong there. Com. Windecker stated that what is being proposed is that a sign will be placed over a window but the entrance is on another elevation. Mr. Imreibe stated that the purpose is to justify where the tenant space is in the building once they enter the center. Ch. Entman stated that he is familiar with the property. He is a customer of the car wash. He is confused a great deal with this request. Part of his confusion comes from having reviewed the ART minutes of August 3, 2011 . There were quite a few comments requesting either a change or additional information. He also has a concern for excessive signage in quantity and size. He does not believe that the request has been brought to a point that where it can be presented to the ZBA where everything has been resolved so that it is in more or less final form. It appears that there is a proposal, there was an ART meeting, there was apparently a lot of discussion at the ART meeting because the minutes are quite extensive and now it is to be hashed out at the ZBA. He is not willing to do that. He knows generally what is being requested. He understands there will be four (4) tenants in the building, one (1) of which is Dunkin Donuts. There is another tenant currently in the building, a proposed nail salon in the works and one (1) vacant space. He believes that it is clear from not only what he read in the ART minutes but also from what he has heard here that there is not much issue with signage on the west elevation of the building. There appears to be, not only from testimony here but also in the ART minutes, concurrent objection to any signage on the east elevation of the building. There appears to be a lot up in the air still such as other signs, signs on the ends of the building, the number of signs, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 PAGE 8 of 11 the size of signs, the location of each individual sign, etc. It is quite confusing. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan if the Petitioner had gotten back to the Village to address the open issues. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Petitioner has responded to some of the comments that were raised at the ART meeting, but not all of them. Village staff did meet again with the Petitioner and his architect late last week. Some of the questions were answered and there were several proposed changes which were indicated in the memorandum to the ZBA dated August 15, 2011 as well as the revised Uniform Sign Package that has been submitted for review. The proposed mono lift for Dunkin Donuts has been deferred at this point to limit the amount of confusion, so the questions pertaining to that issue have not been addressed. Staff can continue to work with the Petitioner if the ZBA would like to provide staff with direction. Ch. Entman stated that he is not in a position to approve or disapprove the proposed (revised) uniform sign package at this time because he needs to review it in more detail. He believes that when the proposed sign package comes before the ZBA for approval staff and the ZBA have more or less reached a consensus or have reached a point where the issues can be addressed at a hearing. He is not in a position to vote on the package at this time. Com. Windecker would like to see the proposed sign package similar to other sign packages that are existing for other centers within the Village. Corn. Au asked if Mr. Imreibe has considered putting a small sign above the actual entrance of each store front. She understands the request for signs facing Weiland Road for the advertising value, but then when they are in the parking lot, they are already there. Nobody will end up in the parking and not know where to go out of the four (4) stores. Mr. Imreibe stated that he was under the impression that developing two (2) signs of the same size would be more cost effective for the tenants. Also, he wants to have a uniform look to the building. Allowing each tenant to put up some type of identification signage wherever they wanted and not in a uniform sign package as he has proposed could potentially cause the building to look very ugly. Com. Au stated that the sign package does not need to include two (2) equal walls. The sign package could limit the east elevation signs to a much smaller size. She feels like there are different solutions to the issues. By approving the uniform sign package as proposed she feel as if it would be giving the Petitioner's tenants special permission that no other building would be allowed to have. She stated that it would be helpful to provide a sample sign superimposed on the building elevation. Currently the building elevations just show empty square boxes. Mr. Imreibe stated that he is not applying for a sign permit. He is not the tenant. Com. Au stated that the sample sign could be very generic,just a sample. It does not have to be a specific store. Mr. Imreibe stated that he would take that into consideration. He does not see where the proposed sign package would have any kind of adverse effect on anyone. The signs that are visible are only facing customers that are coming into the center. There is a railroad on the east elevation. There would not be anyone there to see the signs except the customers in the parking lot. It would make the tenants more comfortable to have signage on the east elevation. Corn. Au does not agree with that statement. If she were in the parking lot looking for unit 1697 she will see the sign and not see a door, then she will ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 PAGE 9 of 11 probably try to go into unit 1695 because that is the next door that she sees. In order to accomplish what the Petitioner is trying to accomplish, people will need to know the layout of the building. Com. Shapiro stated that he understands the unique location of the building. Another unique feature of the building is that there are windows on both sides. It is not like anyone will not know what they are walking into. He does not believe that anyone would mistake the nail salon for the Dunkin Donuts. If there is any part of the request that he could support on the east elevation it would be signs over the units that have doors. He does not see the purpose of signs over windows when there is not a door located there. His guess is that people will know where they are going. He does not see how this sign package would help any business in the Village by having a sign on both sides. If there were any compromise at all, he would say a sign over a door would make sense than a sign over a window. Ch. Entman has reviewed the ART minutes numerous times. He can identify approximately half a dozen major comments and requests and approximately half a dozen minor comments or requests that took place at the ART meeting. He notes that there was a follow up meeting on August 11, 2011 with staff and the Petitioner. He does not know at this time how many, if any, of the comments or requests have been taking care of, what took place at the subsequent meeting between only staff and the Petitioner, and he would like to see the uniform sign package proposed to the ZBA in such a fashion that comments, questions, requests, that took place at any meetings before the Petitioner comes before the ZBA be finalized to the extent that the ZBA has something that says this is where we stand so the ZBA knows what they have to deal with. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan if the uniform sign package was submitted by the Petitioner or was it prepared by staff on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Sheehan stated that there were discussions with the Petitioner initially and the Petitioner was supplied with several versions of existing sign packages. The Petitioner then put together their proposed sign package which was reviewed by the ART.. Ch. Entman advised that the following issues should be addressed prior to the ZBA reviewed the proposal. There seems to be opposition to the proposed wall signs for the east elevation. There has been concerned raised about if there is signage, on the east elevation, where would that signage be located. There are comments in the ART minutes concerning using small signs to identify tenant spaces. There are comments regarding putting a small sign over each entranceway as an alternative. These should be addressed before a recommendation is made. Ch. Entman asked the Petitioner if he would like the ZBA to vote on the request at this time. Mr. Imreibe stated that he would prefer to Table the request until the next regular meeting. Ch. Entman read into the record a facsimile received on August 16, 2011 addressed to the BG Zoning Board with a subject of Signage Public Hearing which states "To the protectors of our zoning and building codes: Your honor, I was distracted by the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 PAGE 10 of 11 SIGNAGE on Aptakisic and Weiland. SAFETY FIRST! Say NAY to MORE SIGNAGE! `.� In Weiland and Aptakisic. Public Hearing, Tuesday, August 16, 7:00pm. Residents of Aptakisic and Weiland." There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Au made a motion to Table the request made by BG Car Wash Management, LLC, 1701 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign for each tenant in the building located at 1691-1697 Weiland Road in conjunction with the Uniform Sign Package. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item Tabled to the September 20, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. ANNOUCEMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Corn. Shapiro. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:37 P.M. Submitted by, Jul' Kamka Re ording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 16, 2011 PAGE 11 of 11