Loading...
2011-10-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes NPROVL 4)5111 REGULAR MEETING Su6cYl ' BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney `./ Trustee Les Ottenheimer APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 20, 2011 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, September 20, 2011. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Cesario, Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro NAY - None ABSTAIN - Au, Entman Motion Passed 5 to 0, 2 Abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. NEW BUSINESS CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS - REVIEW OF EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGNS LOCATED AT 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE AND LAKE COOK ROAD AND MILWAUKEE AVENUE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 1 of 13 Ch. Entman read the letter submitted by Jim Lang, Hamilton Partners, 300 Park Ld Boulevard, Itasca, Illinois 60143 dated October 17, 2011 which states: "I will be unable at attend the October 18 meeting and request that our portion be postponed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions." Com. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Hamilton Partners, 300 Park Boulevard, Itasca, Illinois 60143, for review of status of the existing For Rent, Sale, Lease signs located at 1098 Johnson Drive and Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue, to the November 15, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE- Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY- None ABSTAIN- None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item Tabled to the November 15, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. ROGERS CENTRE FOR COMMERCE, ARTHUR J. ROGERS COMPANY - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF APTAKISIC ROAD AND BARCLAY BOULEVARD Mr. Norman Ross, Arthur J. Rogers & Company, 1601 Barclay Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089,was present and sworn in. ./ Mr. Ross explained that the thirty (30) acre property known as Rogers Centre for Commerce contains eight (8) buildings consisting of one hundred eight (108) units that is approximately four hundred eight thousand (408,000) square feet. Their current vacancy is one hundred twenty nine thousand (129,000) square feet, consisting of twenty four (24) units,which constitutes thirty two (32) percent of the property. They are requesting to extend the leasing sign for a period of two (2) years. Ch. Entman stated that he would prefer to review the sign in six (6) months. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn.Windecker made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Rogers Centre for Commerce, Arthur J. Rogers & Company, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" sign located at the southwest corner of Barclay Boulevard and Aptakisic Road. The Petitioner is to appear at the April 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the sign. Com. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE- Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY- None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 2 of 13 ABSTAIN- None '.. Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item is to appear on the April 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. BUFFALO GROVE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGNS LOCATED AT 1110 LAKE COOK ROAD AND 13 S ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD Ms. Martha Curnow, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 190, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089,was present and sworn in. Ms. Curnow explained that they have two (2) leasing signs; one (1) at 1110 Lake Cook Road and one (1) at 135 Arlington Heights Road. They would like to continue to keep the signs to continue to help lease the property at Buffalo Grove Business Park. Ch. Entman stated that he is a tenant in the Business Park, but this will not affect his decision. He would prefer to review the signs in six (6) months. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Buffalo Grove Business Park, Hamilton Partners, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" signs located at 1110 Lake Cook Road and 135 Arlington Heights Road. The Petitioner is to appear at the April 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE- Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Lesser,Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY- None ABSTAIN- None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item is to appear on the April 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 13 00. 13 98 BUSCH PARKWAY, VAN VLISSINGEN - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT,SALE,LEASE SIGN Ms. Vicki Burchard,Van Vlissingen, One Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069, was present and sworn in. Ms. Burchard explained that they have a leasing sign at this building. There are four (4) units vacant that represents approximately twelve thousand seven hundred (12,700) square feet. They are requesting to keep the sign for another six (6) months. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 3 of 13 There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Van Vlissingen, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" signs located at 1300-1398 Busch Parkway. The Petitioner is to appear at the April 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Com.Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY- None ABSTAIN - None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item is to appear on the April 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 14 05 . 11 95 BUSCH PARKWAY, VAN VLISSINGEN - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT,SALE, LEASE SIGN Ms.Vicki Burchard,Van Vlissingen, One Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069, was present and sworn in. Ms. Burchard explained that they have a leasing sign at this building. There is one (1) unit vacant that represents approximately twenty two thousand five hundred (22,500) square feet. They are requesting to keep the sign for another six (6) months. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Van Vlissingen, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" signs located at 1405-1495 Busch Parkway. The Petitioner is to appear at the April 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Com.Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE- Cesario,Steingold,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY- None ABSTAIN- None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item is to appear on the April 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 1 RED OAK COURT, BRANDON AND CHRISTINA CAPETILLO - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15 .20.01.0, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A FOUR (1 ) FOOT SCALLOPED PICKET WOOD FENCE TWENTY TWO (22) FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG RED OAK COURT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 4 of 13 Mr. Brandon Capetillo and Mrs. Christina Capetillo, 1 Red Oak Court, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on September 28, 2011 was read. Mrs. Capetillo explained that they are looking to build a fence. They live in a cul de sac. The rules state that the fence has to be twenty five (25) feet back from the sidewalk. They are looking to extend the fence. The yard is not really useable with the current regulations in place. They would like to place the fence closer to the sidewalk on the corner lot. The fence will improve the look of the cul de sac and the neighborhood. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated October 4, 2011 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal. There is no abutting driveway." Com. Lesser stated that he generally opposes this type of request. However, the property is unique in that it is located between Elmwood Drive and the cul de sac. He agrees that there is no useable backyard without constructing a fence in the side yard. He would support the request. Com. Shapiro asked if the fence would truly be located next to the sidewalk. Mr. Capetillo stated that the fence would be located three (3) feet away from the sidewalk. Com. Shapiro agrees with Com. Lesser concerning the uniqueness of the property. The fence will only be four (4) feet in height and scalloped and will not be intrusive. Com. Windecker stated that the fence would abut the property next to the Petitioner's and would be in the neighbor's front yard. He would not be supportive of allowing the fence to the sidewalk because it would intrude upon the neighboring property. He asked if the Petitioner's have spoken with the neighbor. Mr. Capetillo stated that he has spoken with the neighbor and the neighbor is in favor of the request. Com. Windecker asked if the fence would be a white picket fence. Mr. Capetillo stated that the fence will be a natural finish cedar wood fence. Corn. Windecker confirmed with the Petitioner that they are asking for the fence to be located three (3) feet from the sidewalk. Corn. Cesario asked Mr. Sheehan if the Village has received any response to the mailing. Mr. Sheehan stated the Village has not received any response from the neighboring property owners. Staff has no concerns as long as the fence is maintained a distance of three (3) from the sidewalk. Ch. Entman agrees with Com. Windecker. The southeast portion of the fence would be next to the neighboring front yard. He understands that based on the Petitioner's testimony, the neighbor does not have any objection. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has to think about the future and what may happen years for now. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 5 of 13 proposed location of the fence bothers him. He could be more supportive of a request that would extend the fence down to the southeast corner of the property then turn and follow the building line.As he sees it, the Petitioner's can use the yard as it exists. Having a fence does not mean that they cannot use the yard. He does not see any information that says that the Petitioner's have pets or children. Mrs. Capetillo stated that they have a dog and will have children in the future. Ch. Entman stated that as the circumstances exist now he is not sure that he would support what is being proposed. 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 request made by Brandon and Christina Capetillo, 1 Red Oak Court, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a four (4) foot scalloped picket wood fence twenty two (22) feet beyond the building setback line along Red Oak Court. Said fence shall be located no closer than three (3) feet to the sidewalk. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 4, 2011. 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.Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE-Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Shapiro,Au NAY-Windecker, Entman ABSTAIN-None Motion Passed 5 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days- November 3, 2011. 1205 . 1211 W. DUNDEE ROAD, AETNA DEVELOPMENT - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.03 0; 14.20.01 0 AND 14.20.080, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A SECOND WALL SIGN FOR EACH OUTLOT BUILDING TENANT AT 1205 . 1211 W. DUNDEE ROAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED UNIFORM SIGN PACKAGE; AND TO ALLOW TWO (2) ADDITIONAL GROUND SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY: ONE (1) GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED ALONG DUNDEE ROAD WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (25 0) FEET OF AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AND THE SECOND GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED ALONG ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (25 0) FEET OF THE GROUND SIGN ALONG DUNDEE ROAD FOR 1205 . 1211 W. DUNDEE ROAD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 6 of 13 Mr. David Mangurten, KMA & Associates, 1161 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on September 28, 2011 was read. Mr. Mangurten explained that he represents Aetna Development, owner of the Plaza Verde East Shopping Center. Aetna has been the owner for the last ten (10) to twelve (12) years. They are seeking multiple variations. The first variations are for anew ground sign, which takes the place of the large Plaza Verde ground sign along the Dundee Road Frontage. He clarified that he understands that they are asking for two (2) new ground signs, but they are also removing two (2) existing ground signs from the property. The first ground sign on Dundee Road requires a variation as it will be within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the existing Walgreens ground sign. The property is very narrow. The second variation is to allow second ground sign that would be located along Arlington Heights Road. This sign would replace the existing Melting Pot ground sign. This second sign is important because of the multiple tenants that will be in the outlot building that rely on corporate identity and visibility in order to win customers in a very competitive fast food market. The westerly and middle tenant would not have very good visibility to traffic on Arlington Heights Road and this sign would assist in ensuring this visibility. The second sign would require a variance as it would be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the first ground sign and would be the second ground sign on this parcel. The third variation is to allow each of the three (3) tenants the ability to have two (2) wall signs. The current Ordinance would allow only the east tenant two (2) wall signs. They are seeking a second wall sign for the middle and westerly tenants. Noodles & Company has signed a lease to occupy the western tenant space and Moe's Southwestern Grill has signed a lease to occupy the middle tenant space. As a part of this request the management company is also asking to update the Plaza Verde East Shopping Center Sign Criteria to accommodate the outlot building which is not currently included within the existing sign criteria. Section 2.1 was added to the sign criteria included in the packet. Ch. Entman read the Letter of Authorization from Aetna Development dated September 19, 2011 authorizing Mr. Mangurten to act as their agent. Ch. Entman also read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated October 4, 2011 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman read into the record the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated September 21, 2011 and October 11, 2011 with revised Exhibits. Mr. Raysa asked for clarification concerning the Exhibits to be presented. Ch. Entman clarified that the revised Exhibits being presented includes the Ground Sign Location Plan dated October 4, 2011; Proposed Wall Signs rendering labeled 3A with a revised date of October 4, 0211; Proposed Wall Signs renderings labeled 4A with a revised date of October 4, 2011; Proposed Ground Sign rendering labeled DRWG. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 7 of 13 NO. 12067a1t-1 Sheet 1 of 2 with a revised date of October 11, 2011; and Proposed Ground Sign rendering labeled DRWG. NO. 12067a1t-1 Sheet 2 of 2 with a revised date of October 11, 2011. Ch. Entman stated that there was extensive discussion at the ART meetings. He thanked staff for all their work. Corn. Shapiro stated that he believes that the necessity for the wall signs makes sense based on the traffic. He does however, have an issue with the two (2) proposed grounds signs. Neither proposed ground sign would be located near an entrance to the center. He is not sure what is to be gained when the ground signs are located next to the building with the wall signs. He could see if the signs were located at the entrances to the shopping center for people to catch before they miss the entrance. Neither of the proposed ground signs are in a location that he believes is advantageous to get people into the center. He is not sure why the ground signs are needed right next to a building that has large wall signs that identify the tenants. He is OK with removing signs; he just does think that additional ground signs are necessary. Ch. Entman asked the Mr. Mangurten if the giant Plaza Verde ground sign will remain or if it will be removed. Mr. Mangurten stated that he is not aware of the status of that ground sign. Ch. Entman agrees with the comments of Corn. Shapiro. The location of the proposed ground signs do not seem to be effective because based `./ and their proposed locations, customers can get the information from the building itself. He also has a major concern with the height of the proposed ground signs. Those signs are proposed to be eleven (11) feet in height; a three (3) foot base and eight (8) feet of tenant panel area. The signs that are being removed are not eleven (11) feet in height. He would not support eleven (11) foot high signs. The ground signs will only be utilized for the outlot building with the three (3) tenants and not the entire center.There is wall signage. He is not convinced that there is the need for ground signs that tall. If they are to be used,he believes that the ground signs should be located closer to the center entrances and reduced in size, more of a directional sign to get people to the proper place. Ch. Entman asked Corn. Windecker if the consensus of the ART concerning the proposed wall signs were acceptable. Corn. Windecker replied that the proposed wall signs were acceptable to the ART based on the current Exhibits. Ch. Entman stated that he would be supportive of the proposed wall signs but not supportive of the two (2) proposed ground signs. Corn. Lesser stated that he understands the need for the proposed wall signs. He confirmed that the Petitioner is requesting a variation for the two (2) proposed ground signs. Mr. Mangurten stated that they are entitled to one (1) ground sign. They are asking for a variation for the proposed ground sign along Dundee Road due to the fact that the sign would be within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 8 of 13 Walgreens ground signs. The second ground sign along Arlington Heights Road is ,.,/ truly the variation as a second ground sign. The idea behind the ground signs is that the property is wooded. There are trees located on the property. Putting a ground sign out there will assist people driving by for the first time to locate those tenants. He agrees that a person has to be at a certain vantage point to see the wall signs. The idea of having a sign perpendicular to Dundee Road and perpendicular to Arlington Heights Road is to catch the traffic that is running parallel to those streets. Com. Lesser understands that the ground sign along Dundee Road is to try and attract the attention of the east and west bound traffic along Dundee Road and likewise along Arlington Heights Road. However, the size and scale and the proposed ground signs, in addition to the wall signage, is objectionable to some of the other Commissioners and to himself. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Mangurten if his client has received any information regarding the possible third tenant for the outlot building. If the possible third tenant occupies that east tenant space, the sign along Arlington Heights Road could be moot. He could not support the proposed Arlington Heights Road ground sign until the third tenant has been established. Mr. Mangurten stated that at this point it is too premature to discuss a third tenant in the east tenant space. Corn. Windecker added that it is also premature to request that ground sign. Mr. Mangurten stated that the merits of that sign should stand whether there is a tenant in that space or not. Corn. Windecker replied that it depends on the tenant. Mr. Mangurten stated that if the ZBA wishes to grant the variation for the second ground sign, then they do. If they don't, then they don't. He believes that the merits of the second ground sign have to stand whether they come back or not. Corn. Cesario stated that if he standing on the corner of Arlington Heights Road and Dundee Road would be looking at both ground signs and the three (3) wall signs on the north elevation of the building as well as one (1) wall sign on the east elevation of the building. He believes that he would be able to see all of those signs. The obvious concern is the number of signs. Mr. Mangurten agrees that all the signs would be visible if a person was standing at the northeast corner of the property. If a person was standing at the southeast corner of the property it would be a different picture. The existing trees will obstruct some of the wall signs. They have not studied that. Corn. Cesario asked Mr. Sheehan if any response has been received by the Village concerning the request. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Village has not received any comments from the public. Ch. Entman stated that when he envisions the property he tries to envision what he can see from different directions. He looked at what is being proposed. If he is traveling south down Arlington Heights Road the north elevation will have a wall sign for each of the three (3) tenants. He can see those. If there is a ground along Arlington Heights Road as is being requested he would see that sign too. He might even be able to see the ground signs along Dundee Road as well. He is seeing a lot of signage when coming from the north. If he is traveling west on Dundee Road he will ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 9 of 13 see the one (1) tenant wall sign on the east elevation of the building and he will be able to see the ground sign along Dundee Road. Even if he does not see those, he will see the north elevation wall signs and he could still turn into the center. If he is traveling east along Dundee Road he would see the wall sign on the west elevation of the building. He will see the Dundee Road ground sign and he will see the north elevation wall signs. If he is traveling north on Arlington Heights Road he will the wall sign on the south elevation of the building. He will see a ground sign along Arlington Heights Road and he will see the east elevation wall sign. As suggested if the Arlington Heights Road ground sign was located closer to the center entrance, you could turn into the center before the intersection. But if worse came to worst,he could turn left at Dundee Road to enter the center. There is a lot of signage that will allow someone to see from every direction on the walls. The ground signs should therefore be closer to the center entrances and be smaller in size, if at all necessary because he would be able to see what is located in the outlot building from every direction. Fortunately for this property, even if someone does not see the signs until the north elevation he could still get into the center. He is not sure of the need for the ground signs in the locations as proposed and the size of them. He may not have any issue with a smaller sign located near the entrances. Mr. Mangurten replied that the idea of the proposed ground signs to be located on the outlot property or in close proximity is to announce those three (3) tenants. Ch. Entman stated that he understands. He is just explaining that from his perspective he gets all the information he needs to know as to what tenants are in that building from the wall signage. If he was convinced to go along with a ground sign it would have to be located near the entrance to the parking lot and in a smaller fashion as a heads up type of thing. As far as people wanting to know what is in the outlot building, he believes that the wall signage accomplishes that. He is not convinced otherwise. Com. Au asked why the Petitioner decided to propose two (2) ground signs instead of refacing the existing Melting Pot ground sign. Mr. Mangurten stated that the Melting Pot was a single tenant so it was a single tenant ground sign.The idea was to create a multi tenant ground sign and the outlot property has two (2) frontages and the ownership felt that they wanted both frontages to have ground signs. The Melting Pot sign is perpendicular to Arlington Heights Road. It would not do anything to capture traffic along Dundee Road. Ch. Entman stated that based on the comments of the Commissioners there does not appear to be any issues with the proposed wall signage. The comments are addressed to the proposed ground signs. Mr. Mangurten requested to move forward with the request for the revised Plaza Verde East Sign Criteria and the variation request for the wall signs. He requested to Table the proposed ground signs. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 10 of 13 REVISED PLAZA VERDE EAST SIGN CRITERIA: Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Aetna Development Corporation, 200 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606,to approve the revised Plaza Verde East Sign Criteria dated October 4, 2011. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE - Cesario,Steingold,Windecker, Lesser,Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY- None ABSTAIN-None Motion Passed 7 to 0. PROPOSED WALL SIGNS VARIATIONS: Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Aetna Development Corporation, 200 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606, 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 Outlot Building tenant at 1205-1211 W. Dundee Road in conjunction with the proposed Uniform Sign Package pursuant to Exhibits 3A and 4A with revision dates of October 4, 2011. Pursuant to Sign Code,Section 14.44.010,Subsection A. Com.Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE - Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Lesser,Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY-None ABSTAIN-None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the November 7, 2011 Village Board agenda. PROPOSED GROUND SIGNS VARIATIONS: Corn. Lesser made to the following motion: I move we Table the request made by Aetna Development Corporation, 200 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts and Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 11 of 13 for the purpose of allowing two (2) additional ground signs on the property: one (1) ground sign to be located along Dundee Road within two hundred fifty (250) feet of an existing ground sign located on the same side of the street and the second ground sign to be located along Arlington Heights Road that would be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the ground sign along Dundee Road for 1205-1211 W. Dundee Road. Corn.Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Cesario, Steingold,Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY- None ABSTAIN- None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item Tabled to the November 15, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan advised that the Sign Code variation request for BG Car Wash Management was passed by the Village Board. Mr. Sheehan stated that recommended changes to the Sign Code will be distributed to the ZBA with the next packet. Along with that will be Executive Summary of the major changes. Staff would like to have this before the ZBA at the next ZBA meeting after the public hearings are concluded. Mr. Sheehan stated that the December ZBA meeting appears to fall on Hanukah. There were no issues and the December meeting will remain as scheduled for December 20, 2011. Mr. Sheehan advised that the Village will be adding all the approved shopping center sign criteria's to the Village website. He asked if any Commissioners would still like a hard copy. Com.Windecker requested a hard copy. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Windecker and seconded by Corn. Au.Voice Vote-AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:43 P.M. Submitted by, CtAAA-6A J lie Kamka ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 12 of 13 Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 13 of 13