Loading...
2009-07-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes PPAIIVEf A' 5(4)to � TC REGULAR MEETING S1181a 7 BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 21, 2009 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meetingto order at 7:32 P.M. on in Tuesday, July 21 , 2009 the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 16, 2009 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the ZoningBoard of Appeals ppeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, June 16, 2009. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Dunn, Windecker, Shapiro, Au NAY — None ABSTAIN — Stein, Lesser, Entman Motion Passed 4 to 0, 3 Abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. BUSINESS 10 ARLYD ROAD, RAVI P. SEERALAN — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FOOT FENCE BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CO RNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING WEST 29 FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING SE TBACK LINE, THEN TURNING NORTH AND EXTENDING TO THE NORTH PRO PERTY LINE, THEN TURNING EAST AND RETURNING TO THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 15 — July 21 , 2009 Mr. Ravi P. Seeralan, 10 Arlyd Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 25, 2009 was read. Mr. Seeralan explained that he has two (2) children and he would like the children to be able to play in the yard. He is requesting a six (6) foot fence because Prairie Road is almost two (2) feet higher than his lot. He would like as much privacy as possible. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 6, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Corn. Windecker asked the Petitioner why he would want to put up a fence with the beautiful trees on the property. Mr. Seeralan replied that he put in all of the trees. He would like to maximize the use of his property. Prairie Road is very busy and he does not want his children getting hurt. Com. Windecker stated that the letter submitted with the application indicates that the fences along Prairie Road are six (6) foot fences. There are not, they are five (5) feet in height. Mr. Seeralan thought that the fences on Prairie Road were six (6) feet because when he walks past them they are above his head. Com. Windecker confirmed that the fences along Prairie Road are five (5) feet in height. Corn. Windecker stated that with the trees and the reason for the fence to keep his children safe, a five (5) foot fence would suffice. Mr. Seeralan added that his lot is almost two (2) feet lower than Prairie Road and a five (5) foot fence would make it seem like a three (3) to three and one half(3-1/2) foot fence. He wants to increase the height to the highest possible. Corn. Windecker stated that the neighbor's fence is five (5) feet in height and that the dip in the yard is at the rear of the yard,not the side. Corn. Dunn stated that if the main purpose of the fence is to keep his children safe in the yard then a five (5) foot fence should do the same thing. Com. Stein stated that the proposed fence will be almost at the sidewalk along Prairie Road. Normally, the Zoning Board of Appeals does not approve of fences that close to the sidewalk. He asked about the need to have the fence at that distance beyond the building line and not at the building line. Mr. Seeralan stated that the fence would be setback three and one half(3-1/2) feet from the sidewalk as indicated on the drawing. Corn. Stein asked for the reason. Mr. Seeralan stated he wanted to maximize the use of his yard. He stated that his back yard is small and he wanted to include the side yard which is his property to have more space. Corn. Stein stated that if the fence was placed at the building setback line he would still have approximately twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet of space. Mr. Seeralan stated that everyone else on Prairie Road has their fences up to the property line. Ch. Entman responded that those other houses on Prairie are rear yards, which would be permitted. Ch. Entman agrees with the other Commissioners concerning the height of the fence and the location of the fence. He does not believe that the fence should get even close to the sidewalk. Everyone wants to maximize the side yard on corner lots. Unfortunately every corner lot has the double setbacks at the front and the side. Absent any variance, the Petitioner has approximately ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 15—July 21, 2009 almost three thousand (3,000) square feet of backyard space. It is not a small yard either. He has not heard any testimony to persuade him to allow the fence beyond the building setback line. Mr. Seeralan agreed to reduce the height of the proposed fence to five (5) feet. The back of the house is pretty small. If you look at the berm and all the vegetation he has to try and maximize the privacy, it is pretty small. Ch. Entman stated that he has not heard anything pertaining to safety that would require the fence to be beyond the building line or to allow a height of more than five (5) feet. He did not dictate the size of the house on the lot that resulted in the size of the remaining lot. Mr. Seeralan does not believe that the fence would block any views or affect any safety if placed as proposed. Mr. Seeralan amended his Petition to request a five (5) foot high fence beyond the building setback line as shown on the Plat submitted with the application. 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 request made by Ravi P. Seeralan, 10 Arlyd Road, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a five (5) foot fence beginning at the southwest corner of the house and extending west twenty- nine (29) feet beyond the building setback line, then turning north and extending to the north property line, then turning east and returning to the building setback line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 6, 2009. 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. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — None NAY — Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman ABSTAIN — None Motion Denied 0 to 7. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal the decision to the Village Board. 300 RAUPP BOULEVARD, VLADLENA KUZMIS — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.32.020 — TO CONSTRUCT A ROOFED-OVER PORCH THAT, IN COMBINATION WITH THE REMAINING DECK, DETACHED GARAGE AND SWIMMING POOL, WOULD EXCEED THE 20% REAR YARD COVERAGE LIMITATION BY 537.04 SQUARE FEET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 15 — July 21, 2009 Ms. Vladlena Kuzmis, 300 Raupp Boulevard and Mr. Annis Kuzmis, 300 Raupp Boulevard, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 25, 2009 was read. Ms. Kuzmis explained that their back yard gets a lot of sun and gets very hot for three (3) to four (4) months of the summer. They do not have any trees in the rear yard. They have a swimming pool. It is not healthy for her to be in the hot sun due to a medical condition. She is also expecting a baby. It would not be good for the baby to be outside during the day at all in the hot sun. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 6, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman asked Ms. Kuzmis about her medical condition. She stated that she had cancer a couple years ago. Com. Windecker confirmed that the request is to extend twelve (12) feet out over the deck. Ms. Kuzmis stated that they have purchased a tent every year and every year the tent breaks. She does not want to waste money every year. Corn. Windecker stated that he understands that a permanent structure over the deck would protect from the sun. There are no trees or anything to shade the yard. Corn. Stein confirmed that the work was started and stopped for the purpose of obtaining a permit. Ms. Kuzmis confirmed that the work was started a couple of weeks prior to the stop work order. Corn. Stein asked if the porch will be enclosed. Mr. Kuzmis stated that the porch will not be enclosed. It will remain open on the sides. Corn. Stein asked if there will be any electricity installed. Mr. Kuzmis advised there will be no electricity installed. Ms. Kuzmis stated that she spoke a couple of years ago to a Village Inspector who told her that they could not building anything in the yard but that they could build on top of the deck. She does not know if that was true. Com. Windecker asked about the construction of the structure that is already built. The drawings do not appear to meet code. Mr. Sheehan advised that a plan review has not yet been completed on the drawings submitted. They were not sure if the request would be approved. The Village Plan Reviewer has conducted a preliminary review and has some questions that will need to be answered if the request is approved. If it is approved, they will have to bring it into compliance. Corn. Stein stated that if the variance is approved it would be subject to the structure meeting the building codes. Ch. Entman stated that he reviewed the documents from the previous variance granted for the coverage. Ch. Entman read a portion of the memorandum addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Brian Sheehan dated July 21, 2009 that pertains to this request: "You will notice a discrepancy in the square footage of the rear yard coverage between what was previously detailed in Mr. Schar's ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 15 —July 21, 2009 memo of July 15, 1997 and the Worksheet dated June 15, 2009. This is due to the fact that the roofed over porch, if allowed, becomes by definition a part of the principal building and changes the size of the rear yard." 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: I move we grant the request made by Vladlena Kuzmis, 300 Raupp Boulevard, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.32.020, pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, for the purpose of constructing a roofed over porch onto the existing deck that, in combination with the remaining deck, detached garage and swimming pool, would exceed the twenty(20)percent rear yard coverage limitation by 537.04 square feet. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 6, 2009. Subject to the construction documents being submitted to and approved by the Village for code compliance. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed roofed over porch will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—Au ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — August 6, 2009. 1650 LEIDER LANE, PEERLESS BRIDGE, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050 AND 14.20.080, TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT DOES NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY 1701 LEIDER LANE, PEERLESS BRIDGE, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050; 14.20.070; 14.40.025; AND 14.40.145, TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED ON THE PARCEL; TO ALLOW THE BUILDING IDENTIFICATION GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF THE EXISTING LEIDER GREENHOUSE GROUND SIGN LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET; TO ALLOW THE LEIDER GREENHOUSE SIGN, WHICH IS AN EXISTING OFF-PREMISES GROUND SIGN WITH CHANGEABLE COPY, TO BE RELOCATED ON THE SAME PROPERTY WITH THE PROPOSED LOCATION TO BE WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF THE BUILDING IDENTIFICATION GROUND SIGN. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 15—July 21, 2009 Mr. Mark Christensen, Peerless Bridge, LLC, 700 Commerce Drive, Suite 160, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notices published in the Daily Herald on June 25, 2009 were read. Mr. Christensen explained that these variances were previously granted. The variances expired as the permits were not secured. At 1650 Leider Lane, known as the Primesource building, they would like to place the wall mounted signs on the east and north facades of that building. At 1701 Leider Lane, the previous variance requested involved placing two (2) signs within two hundred fifty (250) feet of each other. One of the signs is the existing Leider Greenhouse sign. The sign is now in the Lake County right-of-way that has been dedicated to Lake County. They are on the verge of conducting the major roadwork after Corn Ed and AT&T relocate their lines. They have to relocate the sign out of the right-of-way. They have given Leider Greenhouse easement rights to install their sign on the Peerless Bridge property located at 1701 Leider Lane. In addition to that sign, they need a tenant identification ground sign for the building. They have designated the sign locations on the exhibits submitted. They are not requesting any other sign requests at this time. They have a tenant occupying both buildings, all of one building and part of another building. Ch. Entman stated that there is no Village Engineer's report on 1650 Leider Lane. He read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 6, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman asked if the proposed signs are identical to what was previously granted. Mr. Christensen stated that the signs are identical. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner is aware that some of the signs are upalready. Mr. installed y Christensen replied that the Primesource sign was installed and when they found out that the sign was not permitted properly, they were advised that they needed to go through the variation process again. The sign at 1701 Leider Lane is not installed and the Leider Greenhouse sign is existing. Ch. Entman asked who put the Primesource sign up. Mr. Christensen stated that their sign contractor installed the sign on behalf of and at the direction of Primesource. He was not involved in the project at that time. Ch. Entman asked who the sign contractor was. Mr. Christensen does not recall. Ch. Entman asked for the Petitioner to relay to the sign contractor that the Zoning Board does not like when signs are installed without permits. Ch. Entman stated that the variances were approved once and he does not have any issues with the request. Corn. Windecker stated that he is glad to see that the leasing sign has been moved out of the public right-of-way. He advised not to move the sign back. Ch. Entman read a portion of the memorandum addressed to the Zoning Appeals of A eals from Brian Sheehan dated July 21, 2009 that pertains to this request: "These variations were previously approved, but permits were not secured in time and the variations expired. The Prime Source wall sign has already been installed without permit." ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 15 — July 21, 2009 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 recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Peerless Bridge,LLC, 700 Commerce Drive,Suite 160,Oak Brook,Illinois 60523,for variance of Sign Code,Section 14.20.050,pertaining to Industrial Districts;and Section 14.20.080,pertaining to Wall Signs,for the building located at 1650 Leider Lane,for the purpose of allowing an additional wall sign on the north elevation of the building that does not face the public right-of-way. Pursuant to Sign Code,Section 14.44.010,Sub-section B. Corn.Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—Stein,Dunn,Windecker,Lesser,Shapiro,Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 7 to 0.Item to appear on the August 17,2009 Village Board agenda. Com.Lesser made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Peerless Bridge,LLC, 700 Commerce Drive,Suite 160,Oak Brook,Illinois 60523,for variance of Sign Code,Section \J 14.20.050(allowable number of signs)for the purpose of allowing more than one(1)ground sign to be located on the parcel;and Section 14.20.070(distance between ground signs)to allow the building identification ground sign to be located within two hundred fifty(250)feet of the existing Leider Greenhouse ground sign located on the same side of the street for the property located at 1701 Leider Lane. Request is also being made by Peerless Bridge, LLC, 700 Commerce Drive, Suite 160, Oak Brook,Illinois 60523,for variance of Sign Code,Section 14.20.050(allowable number of signs); Section 14.40.025, (Changeable Copy Signs); Section 14.40.145 (Off-Premises Signs) and Section 14.20.070(distance between ground signs) for the property located at 1701 Leider Lane, for the purpose of allowing the Leider Greenhouse sign,which is an existing off-premises ground sign with changeable copy,to be re-located on the same property which it currently exists.The proposed location will be within two hundred fifty(250)feet of the building identification sign for 1701 Leider Lane. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 6,2009.This request is identical to the previously approved variations. Pursuant to Sign Code,Section 14.44.010,Sub-section B. Com.Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—Stein,Dunn,Windecker,Lesser,Shapiro,Au,Entman NAY—None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 15—July 21,2009 ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item to appear on the August 17, 2009 Village Board agenda. 301 MILWAUKEE AVENUE, ADAM'S RIB & ALE HOUSE — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070; AND 14.40.025, TO RE-FACE THE EXISTING CHANGEABLE COPY GROUND SIGN TO READ "ADAM'S SPORTS BAR & OTB". THE SIZE AND CHANGEABLE COPY PORTION OF THE SIGN WILL NOT CHANGE Mr. Cy Koorosh Sadeghi, 301 Milwaukee Avenue, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 30, 2009 was read. Corn. Stein asked a procedural question to Village Attorney, Mr. Raysa, concerning the publication. He wanted to know if the public hearing notice as published encompassed what was being reviewed. The sign itself, as approved in the Annexation Agreement in 2003, was supposed to be one (1) foot shorter than what was actually built. The Zoning Board is not only reviewing the face change, but needs to bring the sign into conformance. Did that need to be included in the public hearing notice? Mr. Raysa stated that the public hearing notice that was published in the newspaper did follow the Village of Buffalo Grove ordinance requirements. The correct sections of the Sign Code were published. Mr. Sadeghi explained that since the application has been submitted, the name of the business has changed to Adam's Roadhouse Sports Bar & Grill. The originally proposed sign was not as good looking as it was supposed to be and did not match the streetscape. He tried to match other signs along Milwaukee Avenue. The proposed sign is a better looking sign. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brain Sheehan dated July 8, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman explained that Exhibit "E" shows the actual dimensions of the sign while Exhibit "F" shows the actual copy size and color. Both Exhibits were included in the packet. Corn. Lesser asked about the purpose of the changeable copy portion of the sign. He has no objection to the sign color or to the new name. He is not in favor of the changeable copy portion of the sign. He does not see the need for it. Mr. Sadeghi stated that the changeable copy portion of the sign already exists. The purpose is to advertise food specials. Corn. Stein stated that he researched the history on this sign going back to Cy's Crab House. As part of the Annexation Agreement for Cy's Crab House to voluntarily annex into the Village it was agreed upon by the Village to allow them to have that changeable copy portion of the sign. The Village formed a citizen's ad-hoc committee whose purpose is to deal with issues as they arise and they apply to the community. He happens to be the Chairman of that committee. They did meet with Village Manager, Bill Brimm, and they did review the proposed sign. From the citizen's committee 100% of those present favored this sign. They were aware of the originally proposed sign, which was not included in the packet. This proposed sign is far superior than the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 15 — July 21, 2009 previously proposed sign. The citizen's committee would hope that the sign is approved as submitted. Corn. Dunn asked if the changeable copy portion of the sign is removed, would they remove that part of the sign. Mr. Sadeghi stated that they would remove the white portion and make the green background bigger. The sign size would remain the same; the non-changeable copy portion of the sign would increase to fill the void. Corn. Dunn asked what the sign would be constructed of. Mr. Sadeghi stated that the sign would be a green plastic. Corn. Dunn asked if the sign is internally illuminated. Mr. Sadeghi stated that the sign is internally illuminated. Corn. Dunn asked if there are any lights on the ground around it. Mr. Sadeghi stated that there will be landscaping around the base of the sign to match the background of the sign. There are no lights on the ground. Corn. Stein stated that he has photographs of the signs that were taken before the Annexation that depict the signs that previously existed on the property. Corn. Stein stated he would prefer the changeable copy on the sign as opposed to increasing the copy of the sign. Corn. Au does not mind the changeable copy portion of the sign so long as the Petitioner maintains it better. The lettering is off center. Mr. Sadeghi stated that he would prefer to keep the changeable copy to promote the restaurant and the specials. He will not advertise drink specials, only food specials. He wants to improve his relations will the Village. He will center the copy and make it look good. He is hurting financially at this time. Lots of restaurants are hurting right now. He can bring more people into the restaurant by advertising. Corn. Shapiro stated that he is OK with the changeable copy portion of the sign as long as it is only used to advertise food specials. He confirmed that the sign will not contain advertising for other businesses. Com. Stein added that prior to the changeable copy being allowed, Cy's would advertise specials on A-frame signs out at the street. It would be better to leave the changeable copy on the sign. If there are issues, the citizen's ad hoc committee would address them. Mr. Sadeghi added that he is working with the Village to try and improve his relations with the neighbors. Com. Windecker confirmed that underneath the sign will be landscaped with evergreens or something similar. If you put some low shrubbery around the sign, it would dress the sign up. Ch. Entman asked why the sign was not originally installed in accordance with the Annexation Agreement. Mr. Sadeghi stated that he knows the sign is the same size since it was installed. When the name changed to Adam's Rib & Ale House, the sign was inspected and approved. Ch. Entman is not happy that a sign was installed in violation of the Annexation Agreement. Mr. Sadeghi advised that the Village approved the sign. He is not sure about the miscommunication concerning the size of the sign. They did not put the sign in themselves. They had a sign contractor install the sign. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan about the history of the sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that he did some research to try and locate an inspection report that would go along with the sign but could not. Due to the age it could be for any number of reasons. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 15 —July 21, 2009 Ch. Entman is confused because the information contained in the packet does not seem to correspond. For instance, the publication notice says the sign would read "Adam's Sports Bar & OTB". The sign rendering depicts the name to be "OTB" "Adam's Roadhouse Sports Bar & Grill". Mr. Sadeghi replied that the concept of the name was changed based on customer feedback. Ch. Entman stated that the survey submitted as Exhibit "A" depicts the location of the sign to be six (6) inches from the property line. Exhibit "E" shows the outer edge of the sign to be two (2) feet from the sidewalk. How far from the sidewalk is the sign. Mr. Sadeghi advised that he does not have an answer for that. Ch. Entman stated that the Annexation Agreement provides for a certain size sign. The sign that was installed does not comply. Exhibit "E" also notes that the primary colors of the copy to be white and yellow. There are too many inconsistencies. Ch. Entman stated that he recognizes the need for the business to succeed. If the sign is an element of that success, he will not be the one to stand in the way. He is not always in favor of the sign being the answer to everyone's problems in business. The business needs to be identified. There has been a change in the business and the name. Ch. Entman agrees with Com. Windecker that the base of the sign should be well landscaped. In this instance, he would not have an issue with the changeable copy as long as it is limited to the advertisement of food specials. Mr. Sheehan advised that the sign is located two (2) feet from the sidewalk. The property line is one and a half(1-1/2) feet from the sidewalk. That would give the six (6) inches as shown on the Plat of Survey. Ch. Entman read a portion of the memorandum addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Brian Sheehan dated July 21, 2009 that pertains to this request: "The existing sign that was previously installed did not match the sign that was approved at the time of annexation. The business name has also been changed since the original submittal/publication." 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 request made by Adam's Rib & Ale House, 301 Milwaukee Avenue, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.40.025, pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs, for the purpose of re-facing the existing changeable copy ground sign to read "Adam's Roadhouse Sports Bar & Grill" with the OTB logo. The size and changeable copy portion of the sign will not change. The approval is contingent to the following conditions: 1. The sign needs to conform to the dimension details as shown on Exhibit"E". 2. The color and copy shall closely match the color and copy as depicted on Exhibit"F". ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 15 —July 21,2009 3. The changeable copy portion of the sign will be limited to the promotion or advertising of food specials at the restaurant. 4. The base of the sign is required to be landscaped. The landscaping provided shall be of the type of materials designed to cover the legs of the sign on a year round basis. Final approval of the landscaping materials is at the sole discretion of the Village. 5. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 8, 2009. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub-section B. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Shapiro, Au NAY — Lesser, Entman ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 5 to 2. Item to appear on the August 17, 2009 Village Board agenda. CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGNS AT MILWAUKEE AVENUE AND LAKE COOK ROAD; 1001 JOHNSON DRIVE; AND 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE Mr. Jim Lang, Hamilton Partners, 300 Park Boulevard, Itasca, Illinois 60143, was present and sworn in. Mr. Lang stated that he wished he had better news. At 1080 Johnson Drive, they have one (1) new tenant, Jimin . Health Alliance declared d bankruptcy two (2) years ago. They only have twelve thousand (12,000) out of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of that building occupied. Mr. Lang reviewed the current tenant situations in the other buildings. Ch. Entman does not have any questions or issues with the request. He believes a review should be conducted in six (6) months. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Chevy Chase Business Park, Hamilton Partners, for the "For Rent, sale or Lease" signs located at 1001 Johnson Drive, 1080- 1098 Johnson Drive and at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Petitioner to appear at the January 19, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item to appear on the January 19, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 15 — July 21, 2009 1000 WEILAND ROAD, SUSHI THAI — DEVIATION TO THE HIGHLAND OAKS SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW WHITE LETTERS WITH RED TRIM AROUND THE LETTERS AND THE RETURNS AND TO ALLOW THE ROMAN NUMERAL TWO (II) Mr. Sam Kang, Kang Architects, 38730 North Deep Lake Road, Lake Villa, Illinois 60046, and Mr. Sornarong Chanprung, Owner, Sushi Thai, 1000 Weiland Road,were present and sworn in. Ch. Entman reviewed the minutes of the July 17, 2009 ART meeting concerning the request that were included in the packet. The signage that was previously approved had to be revised to include the Roman Numeral Two (II). That is the only change. Com. Au asked why the Roman Numeral Two (II) is so small. Mr. Kang stated that the owner did not want to emphasize the Two (II). Sushi Thai is the main name. It kind of looks like chop sticks as well. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Dunn made a motion to approve the request for Deviation to the Highland Oaks Shopping Center Sign Criteria to allow white letters with red trim around the letters and the returns and to allow the Roman Numeral Two (II). Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE— Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 7 to 0. PLAZA VERDE EAST, DOYLE SIGNS ON BEHALF OF AETNA DEVELOPMENT — REVISION TO THE PLAZA VERDE EAST SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA Mr. John Streets, Doyle Signs, 232 Interstate Road, Addison, Illinois, 60101, was present and sworn in. Mr. Streets reviewed the proposed revised sign criteria dated July 13, 2009. They modified the sign criteria so it matched the Village Sign Code and to accommodate the new technology and trends, such as LED technology and corporate colors. Overall, the modifications will allow new tenants to use illumination besides just neon, they will be able to use a font other than Helvetica, and they will also be able to incorporate a second line of copy which is consistent with previous Deviation approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals. All of the changes will modernize the Sign Criteria and bring in new tenants. Mr. Streets reviewed the major changes to the Criteria. Instead of signs being restricted to seventy (70) percent of the width of the store front, they revised that to eighty (80) percent. The minimum of the two (2) foot margin on the left and right is still the same. That was not changed. For minor tenants, they have added a note asking for the letters to be on a raceway. This will not ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 of 15 —July 21, 2009 only provide for fewer penetrations but will be easier to clean up the store front afterward. For minor tenants, the vertical placement wording was removed giving leeway to where the sign is installed up and down on the store front. The restriction for the single line of copy was removed. The area was revised to match the Village Sign Code. That code is three (3) square feet per lineal foot of frontage. The specifications for the letters themselves were revised to allow face lit or back lit letters. That gives the option of using either LED or fluorescent lighting or the neon. The minimum letter depth was changed the three (3) inches. Ch. Entman read a portion of the memorandum addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Brian Sheehan dated July 21, 2009 that pertains to this request: "The major changes from the previously approved sign criteria are: 1. For Minor Tenants: eliminating the limitation on the lines of copy, eliminate the requirement for centering the sign and expanding the coverage to all ow up to 80% of store frontage from 70%. 2. For Major Tenants: eliminating the limitation on the lines of copy, expanding the coverage to allow up to 80% of the store frontage from 70% and increasing the maximum area of coverage from two and one-half square feet of copy per lineal foot of frontage to 3 square feet of copy per lineal foot of frontage. 3. The limitation on font styles and specific colors was removed." Corn. Windecker did not believe that neon signs were allowed. Mr. Sheehan advised that exposed neon signs are not allowed. Neon lighting within a sign is allowed. Com. Windecker asked if there were any signs in this Center with exposed neon. Mr. Sheehan did not believe so. Mr. Streets stated that he believed the Melting Pot Restaurant had an exposed neon sign. Corn. Windecker believed that the Zoning Board of Appeals had control over the number of lines of copy. Ch. Entman advised that they do. The revision would remove that control. Ch. Entman stated that a number of the revisions to the Sign Criteria would take away certain amounts of control by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed revisions are pretty significant. Color, size and copy. Com. Stein would like more time to review the proposed revisions. Corn. Dunn asked what an illuminated individual raceway was. Mr. Streets explained that instead of individual channel letters mounted on the store frontage a raceway that houses all of the wiring and transformers for the sign is installed. The raceway is typically painted to match the color of the building so it blends in. The main reason for the raceway is to limit the penetrations into the building and to make it easier to patch later. Com. Dunn asked how that differs from the current Sign Criteria. Mr. Streets stated that the current Sign Criteria allows for individual channel letters for the minor tenants, which creates more penetrations. Corn. Dunn stated that the Board is concerned about the consistency of the font styles and control over the colors. This proposal takes that away from the Board. Corn. Lesser agrees with the comments of the Commissioners. He would recommend that the request be Tabled so that the Board has time to evaluate the proposed changes. He would also like the existing Sign Criteria and the proposed Revised Sign Criteria be delivered in a Word Document and a compare document to see the specific changes to the Sign Criteria. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 of 15 — July 21, 2009 Corn. Windecker asked if there is a specific tenant that the Sign Company has a question about. Mr. Streets stated that there are two (2) tenants that encouraged this request to revise the Si gn Criteria. One is Mattress Bargains and the other is Encore Wear. Corn. Windecker agrees with the other Commissioners concerning the short notice to review the request. Corn. Shapiro agrees with the other Commissioners as well and added that the Board wants to have consistency with signage across the Village. Most national branded tenants have several different sign packages. He would not like to give up that control. He understands the need to update the Criteria for technology. The Board looks at every request on a case by case basis. He would not want to put a blanket over all of that without some kind of oversight. He agrees that the request should have been presented with enough time to review it. Corn. Au asked about submitting examples of what a Major Tenant sign would be under the current Criteria and under the proposed Criteria and the same for Minor Tenants. Mr. Streets asked that the request be Tabled until the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in August, 2009. Mr. Raysa requested information concerning designed Portions A & B. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Building Department will provide that information. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein made a motion to Table the request made by Doyle Signs on behalf of Aetna Development to revise the Plaza Verde East Shopping Center Sign Criteria. The Petitioner is to provide the following information prior to the August 18, 2009 meeting: 1. Provide the information to the Village of Buffalo Grove in a Word document so that a comparison between the existing document and the new document can be run and provided to the ZBA. 2. Provide a visual exhibit showing how the coverage change will appear on the building facade. The exhibit will need to include a sign at 70% store front coverage and the same sign at 80% coverage and also include a sign at 2-1/2 square feet of copy per lineal foot of store frontage and the same at 3 square feet of copy per lineal foot of store frontage. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Cal Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Windecker Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item to appear on the August 18, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 of 15 — July 21, 2009 Com. Stein asked if the Board has the ability to set policy concerning the number of days in , advance of a meeting the Board will accept materials to review.Ch.Entman explained that there are policies in place. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn.Lesser and seconded by Corn.Dunn.Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch.Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:35 P.M. Submitted by, J ie Kamka cording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 of 15—July 21,2009