Loading...
2010-01-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes A ppHritg REGULAR MEETING �I, (0I 1 b BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 19, 2010 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Stein Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were not enough Commissioners present to approve the minutes of the December 15, 2009 regular meeting. The minutes were deferred to the February 16, 2010 regular meeting. BUSINESS 1701 JOHNSON DRIVE, THE GREEN AT CHEVY CHASE — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.010, TO INSTALL A GROUND SIGN THAT, WITH THE INCREASE OF THE GRADE BY 1 FOOT 2 INCHES ABOVE THE APPROVED ESTABLISHED GRADE, WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 5 FEET IN VERTICAL DISTANCE AS MEASURED FROM THE APPROVED GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE SIGN. Mr. Dick Kaku and Mr. Brian Paulsen, Penobscot Management, LLC, 1 West Remington Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60195 were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on December 28, 2009 was read. Mr. Kaku submitted a packet of information to the Zoning Board of Appeals which contained copies of previously submitted sheets. Mr. Kaku explained that the second page of the packet is a partial site plan that shows the proposed location of the sign and the existing location of the sign. The existing sign is adjacent to a pond. They would like to relocate the sign to a location between Johnson Drive and an adjacent parking lot. The third page is a survey of the property. The fourth ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 10 — JANUARY 19, 2010 page is a cross section of the site. The cross section shows that at the point where they want to place the sign the property is approximately one (1) foot and several inches below the adjacent property surface. it is above the street level. There is about a two (2) foot difference between the street level and the surface level of the property. They are asking to be allowed to build up that area adjacent to the parking lot. The fifth page of the packet is a color landscape plan. They plan to use a lot of planting plus some outcropping rocks. The seventh page of the packet shows the proposed grade increase to be level with the grade of the adjacent parking lot. The eighth page of the packet is a color rendering of the proposed sign. The sign would be five (5) feet from the surface of the new grade. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brain Sheehan dated January 6, 2010 which states: "It is not clear to me from the documents submitted how much additional cover will be placed over the Village watermain. A small amount of cover should not be a problem, however, any needed excavation of the area to access the watermain will cause additional disruption to the landscape bed and planted materials." Mr. Kaku advised that he has not seen this report but spoke with the Village Engineer to discuss the matter. They both agreed that they are putting a few inches of additional covering but will leave the opening and if the Village needs access to the watermain, they have agreed it will be at the Petitioner's cost to make sure that the Village has access to the main and they will make whatever repairs they need to. Ch. Entman stated that if the Zoning Board acts on the Petition, it would be subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum. Mr. Kaku stated that the Village Engineer verbally acknowledged that he did not see a problem. Ch. Entman read the minutes of the January 6, 2010 Appearance Review Team (ART) meeting. The minutes contain a request "The ART recommends approval of the sign subject to detailed dimensions of the elevation change being provided." Ch. Entman confirmed that page seven of the packet submitted contains the detailed dimensions. Ch. Entman asked why the landscaping can't be done in such a fashion that the sign can still be in conformance with the Ordinance, why does it have to be over a foot higher. Mr. Kaku replied that if they leave the landscaping at the current elevation, they would have much less visibility for the sign. They have tested various options and they feel that they would lose several hundred feet of visibility of the sign because the bottom of the sign would be below the level of the parking lot adjacent to the site. Ch. Entman understands the issue. He wants to know why the area can't be graded in such a fashion that the sign can still be in conformance. Mr. Kaku stated that the landscaping plan shows they would only be a foot over the landscaping. They are asking to be allowed to put in landscaping that would raise the elevation of the surface by one (1) foot two (2) inches. They are asking that the landscaping be allowed to be raised. Ch. Entman asked if they can landscape the site and still be in conformance. Mr. Kaku believes that theyare in conformance. They thought the landscaping was just that, landscaping and the sign would be five (5) feet above the landscaped area. Mr. Raysa referenced the Zoning Board of Appeals Exhibit "A2" and stated that it appears that the Village Engineer is concerned with the closeness to the watermain in the fifteen (15) foot utility easement. It seems that the Village Engineer is worried that because of the raised grade the additional soil will go over into the easement and therefore if the watermain needed to be ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 10—JANUARY 19,2010 accessed they would have to go down further in the ground. Mr. Kaku stated that the Village Engineer is worried that they would have to dig further into the ground. They have agreed that if would happen and any additional costs, any issues that would arise from that, would be paid for by the Petitioner. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by The Green at Chevy Chase, 1701 Johnson Drive, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.010, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a ground sign that, with the increase of the grade by one (1) foot two (2) inches above the approved established grade, would exceed the maximum height limitation of five (5) feet in vertical distance as measured from the approved grade to the highest point of the sign pursuant to the Exhibits submitted. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated January 6, 2010 and the ART minutes of January 6, 2010. The Petitioner agrees that any additional costs incurred to access the Village watermain would be paid by the Petitioner. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub-section B. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au NAY—Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 1. Item to appear on the February 22, 2010 Village Board agenda. 1220 LOCKWOOD DRIVE, PHIL AND JUDY SAMUELS — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.36.030.F, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO EXCEED THE 40% FRONT YARD COVERAGE LIMITATION BY 2 SQUARE FEET; TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY EXTENSIONS IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO EXCEED THE 40% FRONT YARD COVERAGE LIMITATION BY APPROXIMATELY 88 SQUARE FEET; AND TO ALLOW THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH TO BE GREATER THAN THE APRON WIDTH AT THE SIDEWALK. Ch. Entman called the next item, 1220 Lockwood Drive. No one appeared to be present. Ms. Kamka stated that "Judy" Mrs. Samuels was in the audience. Ch. Entman asked "Judy" to come up to the podium. He asked the Petitioner to identify herself and give her address for the record. Mrs. Samuels was sworn in and the public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on December 28, 2009 was read. Ch. Entman asked Ms. Samuels to tell them about the proposal: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 10—JANUARY 19, 2010 Ms. Samuels stated that her husband spoke with Mr. Sheehan regarding this evening's meeting. They respectfully ask for a continuance due to their lawyer not being able to attend this evening. She has a written letter from him explaining that he will be able to attend the next meeting,which is scheduled for February 16,2010. Ch. Entman asked if Ms. Samuels had the letter with her to make it part of the record. Ms. Samuels handed Ch. Entman the letter. Ch. Entman read the letter from Cal Bernstein dated January 18, 2010 into the record. Ch. Entman asked if there is anybody in the audience wishing to speak to the matter to raise their hands. He understands that objection materials were submitted. One (1) audience member raised their hand. Ch. Entman said the Petitioner is requesting that this matter be continued,to the next monthly meeting. The reason given is that the attorney representing them is not available until that meeting. He asked the rest of the Board of their feelings but his personal opinion is that,based on that request, he is amenable to postponing for one (1) month to the next meeting. He is not postponing it based on information that has been told to him that it is just a matter of delay or some other subterfuge to avoid proceeding at this meeting,he is apt to allow the postponement as the Board would for just about anybody else that he can remember over the last twenty some years who has asked for a postponement. He asked if there was any other discussion or comment or objection to that request. He apologized to the audience members that had to come but explained it is something that is routinely done as far as requests for postponement. He asked the objectors to please come back bring their materials. The Board has materials that have already been submitted so the Board is already aware of those and has had the opportunity to look at those. The Board will be ready to proceed at the next meeting. Ch. Entman stated that he would entertain a motion on the Petitioner's request that this matter be Tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting which would be February 16, 2010. Com. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Phil and Judy Samuels, 1220 Lockwood Drive, to the February 16, 2010 regular meeting. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 tb 0. Item to appear on the February 16, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. Ch. Entman then asked Mrs. Samuels to sign the copy of the email submitted as an Exhibit for the record. 55 W DUNDEE ROAD, QUALITY CAR CENTER-CAR WASH — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070; 14.20.130; 14.40.070; 14.40.080, TO ALLOW TWO (2) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 10—JANUARY 19, 2010 GROUND SIGNS TO BE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; TO ALLOW MULTIPLE GROUND SIGNS ON A SINGLE DEVELOPED LOT; TO ALLOW THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT PERMITTED; TO ALLOW THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS TO BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGNS; TO ALLOW THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY(250) FEET OF EXISTING GROUND SIGNS LOCATED ON THE SAME PARCEL AND SAME SIDE OF THE STREET; TO ALLOW TWO (2) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS TO BE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; TO ALLOW TWO (2) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF FOUR (4) FEET; AND TO ALLOW THE EXISTING BANNERS ON THE BUILDING TO REMAIN INDEFINITELY. Mr. Bob Kuhlman, Quality Car Center-Car Wash, 55 W. Dundee Road and Ms. Regina Melman, 55 W. Dundee Road, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on December 28, 2009 was read. Mr. Kuhlman explained that he and his son, Ryan Kuhlman, purchased the business in December, 2009. His son Ryan cannot attend the meeting. He is in the process of exiting the Air Force. They had no knowledge that the signs were in violation of the Village ordinances. In fact, what they had found out that the signs have been there for over ten (10) years, through three (3) different owners. He was behooved why the Village has not addressed this years earlier. They had received notice that the signs were not appropriate for the area. Their desire is to work very closely with the Village. To be honest, he thinks the signs are ugly, he hates the signs and they are not signs that he would prefer to have. The problem with not having the signs is that their building is setback from Citibank on one side and Charter One Bank on the other side. It is very difficult to see the, existing business from the street going in either direction. The sign helps to bring visibility to the business. He asked Mr. Sheehan to come out on Monday, January 18, 2010 to explain things to him. They spent about an hour or so outside. Mr. Sheehan had mentioned that there were four (4) signs/banners on the brick front. After Mr. Sheehan had left, all the banners were taken off the front of the building. Mr. Kuhlman submitted a photograph depicting the banners removed. With regards to the ground signs, he has no problem changing those signs to proper enter and exit signs. The issue is being a new business owner they have literally put everything into the business, his savings, his house, his cars, his son's house, etc. They have put every dime into the business. For him to change signs at this point,take those signs down and put new signs up, would be extremely expensive. They cannot do that at this time. He has staff to take care of and employees to take care of. All he is asking for is twelve (12) months to be able to get financing in order and make sure that the business is working well. Then he would gladly change the signs. Their main colors are going to be yellow, black and gray. The blue, red, orange on the existing signs is not what their color combination is. The other issue is that the sign posts are on light poles that happen to be on public property rather than private property. He owns the business, not the property. The property is owned by Ms. Melman. They do not have a problem with that issue. He is just asking for time to be able to afford to change signage. To take signs down and not be able to replace them would be detrimental to the business. Most people when they drive by now still do not realize that they are there or that they have a mechanic shop. He is just asking for an extension. He would also like to take the existing main ground sign on the west ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 10—JANUARY 19,2010 side of the property and put a similar sign on the east side of the property for visibility from both sides.The signs are not the issue,he hates them.He just needs time financially.He wants to be successful with the business. Ms.Melman stated that she is the owner of the property. She has operated the business on the same property for the last five(5)years.The signs have been there since 1975.No one had ever said anything that the signs needed to be removed. They sent out letters to people to see if anybody would not like the signs and if they need to be changed,she does not have a problem with the new owners changing the signs.She asked the Village if she could get an ordinance for the property to get a sign on the east side of the property with the same height as the permanent ground sign on the west. She drove around the neighborhood and saw other properties like the Grand Prix Car Wash.That is another car wash in the Village.They went through the variance process and were allowed to put two (2)big signs on each side of the property for visibility reasons. The property also needs to have entrance and exit signs. She has been operating the business herself,she has been there and seen it.The traffic is big in this area for her business- wise. So when a car enters from the east and they do not know where the entrance is to the car wash or the entrance to the mechanic shops.It is a huge liability on the property.Those two(2) signs need to be there. Also, the big signs need to be there for visibility from the east side because there are sixty thousand cars going west and sixty thousand cars going east and they just pass each other because there is no stop light right there.The business is located between the two (2)big buildings where there is no visibility.This business has been there since 1969 and people still don't know that they have a mechanic shop. The new owner,Ryan,just came back from Iraq, was shot five (5) times. He is really trying to make a living. Ms. Melman submitted photographs of other businesses with signage.Ch.Entman accepted the photographs and marked them as Exhibits. Corn.Au stated that she knows the Petitioner,Ms.Regina Melman,but that will not have any affect on her decision. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated December 29, 2009 which states: "The Village has an ordinance which specifically prohibits these kinds of encroachments within the right of way of Dundee Road and therefore the signs need to be removed.For that matter the light standards are also not permitted." Ch. Entman also referenced the Appearance Review Team(ART)minutes of January 6,2010 into the record.The appearance review was solely for the appearance and the number of signs. He indicated that there were several pages and a lot of comments contained in the ART minutes addressing a lot of the issues. Com.Lesser asked if there is a relationship between Mr.Kuhlman and Ms.Melman other than she owns the property and he owns the business. Mr. Kuhlman stated that there is no other relationship than that. Ch. Entman stated that this is a unique situation in which some of the issues have been in existence for quite some time;the light poles being in the right-of-way and the signage being on the light poles now,the number of signs,etc.The Petitioner has testified that he has removed the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 10—JANUARY 19,2010 banners and four (4) signs off the front wall. He understands the situation as it exists. He L.J understands they bought into the situation which has been there for a long time. He has lived in the Village for twenty-five years or so and the car wash has been there. The issue is that the law is that there are no light poles allowed in the public right-of-way, no signage should be on those light poles in the right-of-way. The business plan is probably not much different that the core of everyone's business plan. The customer's base, marketing, quality of service, quality of product, etc. The Petitioner has the benefit since the business has been in this location. Thankfully this is not a brand new business that just opened and that no one new existed. He wants to address the points raised. The Board has seen this in other circumstances not just this one. When the Petitioner decided to purchase the business/property, the Village is not a party to that. The fact that the situation that exists or the circumstances of any violations of the ordinances existed is not incumbent on the Village to do anything about it. The purchasers are obligated to do their own investigation and their own amount of due diligence to check these things out. To check the zoning to see if you operate a car wash, a garage, do auto repairs, etc. It is also typically to check out the requirements related to the business; signage requirements. The issue is when you purchase a business, this is the kind of due diligence any buyer should do. It is not the Village's responsibility. Mr: Kuhlman asked if the Board was telling him that the Village has no responsibility for allowing signs and light poles to be out of ordinance for over ten (10) years. It all falls on the business owner, even though it is the responsibility of the Village to maintain its ordinance and zoning laws. He is concerned that the Board is saying that the entire onus lies on him and the Village has no responsibility. He disagrees with this. Ch. Entman stated that the Petitioner is entitled to disagree. He is telling that him that as a buyer you cannot just say that you didn't know. The onus is on the buyer to check all these things out. Mr. Kuhlman asked where the onus of the Village is. Ch Entman stated that the Village is not a party to the purchase of the property. Mr. Kuhlman said he is talking about the Village's zoning laws. Ch. Entman asked what that has to do with the purchase of the business/property. Mr. Kuhlman said the business owner should be notified about anything that is out of ordinance. Ch. Entman stated that because something wasn't notified to the business owner, the business owner can't just rely on the fact that they did not investigate properly. Mr. Kuhlman reiterated that Ch. Entman is saying that the entire onus lies on the business owner. Ch. Entman stated that he does not want to get into a legal discussion because it is not pertinent. Every owner or buyer of a business has an obligation to investigate. The Board also has to make considerations on behalf of the Village too. They have to enforce ordinances, unless there is criteria that allow the Board to vary or alter or to°let someone do something contrary to the ordinance. The Board has to weigh what is being requested with the enforcement of the ordinance and how it affects the rest of the public in the Village. The Board is not here to make personal decisions. He is not here to make a decision whether the Petitioner did or didn't do something or whether or not someone else should have done something. The Appearance Review Team has made some really useful and potentially beneficial suggestions. He thinks the suggestions made sense. Signage is always a big issue. It always ends up that signage is the ultimate issue to a lot of people. They need the biggest and brightest sign. They need two (2) dozen signs as opposed to one (1) sign. They always believe that signage will affect the successfulness of the business. He does understand that businesses need signs. He understands the Petitioners' situation and that the Petitioners have put ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 10—JANUARY 19, 2010 money into the business. He also understands that the Petitioners do not have the money to do aw." things that they did not anticipate having to do. His suggestion would be to take some of the ART suggestions and discussing those further. He believes the ART was able to address some of the Petitioner's concerns such as a grand opening and temporary signage for a grand opening. Then in the meantime discuss with the Village what the Petitioner's may or may not be able to do. Ch. Entman suggests Tabling the request in order for the Petitioner to discuss options with Village staff and the ART so the Petitioner can accomplish what they want to without having a variance request for signage in the public right of way. The light poles and sign in the public right of way is a major issue. Mr. Kuhlman stated that his wife is a commercial designer. They have their plan set as far as what they need with regards to future signage, so that is not an issue. What they are looking for is time to be able to make those changes. He has no issues making the changes. He agrees with everyone that they do not like the signs. Changing the signs is not the issue, or the artwork or the color of the signs. He is just looking for time to make the changes that he cannot financially do right now. He asked if the Board can grant a variance now for another sign or if that would be done down the road. Ch. Entman stated that the request before the Board now is for eight (8) variances. None of them are for the sign they were thinking of along the east property line. Ch. Entman stated that the Board can not vote on anything other what was published for. Trustee Braiman stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is not allowed to give the Petitioner's the twelve (12) months they are asking for. The Board can only say yes or no to what was published for. He suggests that the Petitioner meets with staff, work out the sign package and the timing for it and continue this matter. Staff, along with the Village Board, may be empowered to grant the time period. The Petitioner is asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to do something that they cannot do and they would only be able to turn the request down and that would not benefit anybody. He believes that the Chairman's suggestions is a good one and the only one they can make. He believes that the Village Board and staff will accommodate the Petitioners as much as they can as far as a timeframe is concerned. Mr. Kuhlman does not have any issues with that. Ms. Melman confirmed that they cannot get the variances on these signs and that they would need to come back. Ch. Entman stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals can vote on what was proposed. Anything that was not included in the public hearing notice cannot be considered. The signs being in the public right of way are a big issue and the Zoning Board of Appeals does not have the authority to act on it. The ART minutes showed that the ART had some good suggestions that he knows that the Village can help the Petitioners with them. Mr. Kuhlman does not have any issue with Tabling the request and meeting with staff prior to the next meeting. Com. Au stated that if the Petitioner is proposing any future signs, color renderings are very helpful. The Board cannot visualize the sign without seeing it first. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 10 — JANUARY 19, 2010 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Kuhlman asked to Table the request to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Melman asked if they could apply for the ground sign along the east property line. Ch. Entman suggested that the Petitioner talk to the Building & Zoning Department as soon as possible. If there are other variances that the Petitioner would like to request a separate application and publication will need to be done. When the notice is published determine what agenda the request will be on. Com. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Quality Car Center-Car Wash, 55 W. Dundee Road to the February 16, 2010 agenda. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the February 16, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGNS AT MILWAUKEE AVENUE AND LAKE COOK ROAD; 1001 JOHNSON DRIVE; 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE. Ch. Entman read a letter submitted by Mr. Jim Lang, Hamilton Partners dated January 14, 2010 which states: "I will be unable to attend the January 19 meeting and request that our portion be postponed until February." There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made a motion to Table the review of the existing leasing sign for Chevy Chase Business Park, Hamilton Partners, to the February 16, 2010 meeting. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the February 16, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION 2009-050—CODE OF BEHAVIOR AND DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE 2009-084—STATE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES ETHICS ACT Mr. Raysa discussion both the Resolution 2009-050 and Ordinance 2009-084 with the Zoning Board of Appeals. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 10—JANUARY 19, 2010 ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Kamka asked the Commissioners to hand in their color renderings for the Chevy Chase Business Park request. These will be redistributed with the February packet. Mr. Sheehan advised that the Annual Volunteer Reception is coming up. Formal invitation will be sent. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Dunn and seconded by Corn. Lesser. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 P.M. Submitted by, J ie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 10—JANUARY 19,2010