The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-02-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes NEDR REGULAR MEETING As co2 > -311 �/ /0 BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 in 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 Steve Trilling, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 15, 2009 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, December 15, 2009. Com. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — Dunn, Lesser, Au Motion Passed 4 to 0, 3 abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. January 19, 2010 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 19, 2010. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Windecker, Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — Stein Motion Passed 6 to 0, 1 abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 27 — FEBRUARY 16, 2010 1 , • • OLD BUSINESS 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. Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, 491 Laurel Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois, and Mr. Phil Samuels and Mrs. Judy Samuels, 1220 Lockwood Drive, were present and sworn in. The public hearing is continued from the January 19, 2010 meeting. Com. Stein advised that he knows the Petitioners but this will not affect his decision. Mr. Bernstein explained that the Petitioners appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals back in 2006 with a request for a variation to allow a garage addition to encroach into the front yard setback. The variation was granted. The Samuels' decided not to go forward with that project and found an alternative. That project was never built so therefore the variation expired. Currently they are requesting two (2) variations. There is an existing driveway that was constructed on the property. There was an oversight and as a result the existing driveway and concrete extension exceeds the forty (40) percent front yard coverage limitation by two (2) square feet. They are asking for a variation to bring that into compliance. The Samuels' are also requesting to allow a brick paver extension to exceed the forty (40) percent front yard coverage limitation by approximately eighty-eight (88) square feet. Mr. Samuels explained that the reason they are asking for the variance is because of their son. He is in a wheelchair. They would like to make their son's life a little bit easier by helping him to get in and out of his wheelchair accessible van and also be able to go around the front of the home when the van is parked in the driveway. In inclement weather, they utilize the garage to park the accessible van due to health reasons as well as mechanical functionality. He enters and exits through the garage using a wheelchair lift. However, when the weather is good, they park the accessible van on the driveway. During this past summer, without the brick pavers, they needed to park the van in the middle of the driveway, or back the van into the driveway, in order to have enough clearance for the lift for their son to enter and exit the wheelchair accessible van and go around it when needed., This also entailed moving multiple cars around multiple times a day in order to make room for the van on the driveway. This creates problems for neighbors when they park on the street as well as parking across the sidewalk under normal weather conditions. They have three (3) vehicles in their family. The wheelchair accessible van was purchased as a regular van and then converted to an accessible van to accommodate the three-hundred (300) plus pound power wheelchair. They try not to use the van unless they need to transport their son. They also have two (2) vehicles which are regularly used to preserve the use of the accessible van. In addition, they have a nurse that comes in her own car. With the brick paver extension they are able to pull the van in forward and park on one side of the driveway. This allows the lift to come ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 27 — FEBRUARY 16, 2010 down to allow their son to get in and out of the accessible van as well as go around the accessible van. Mr. Bernstein stated that the circumstances that are driving this variation are unique and reviewed the criteria as set forth in Ordinance. The circumstance is unique with regard to the van and the clearance that is necessary for the lift and the van to work considering the cars that are on the driveway. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The nature of the request, the brick pavers, has no bulk. They are not a structure that is going in the front yard. They are not visible from anywhere in the entire neighborhood. There are no sight lines or anything that would change the neighborhood in any manner. The brick pavers can be easily removed in the future. They are not a permanent addition. They can be removed sometime the future if it is unnecessary for the Samuels' to have access to the van and also allowing the clearance needed to navigate the driveway. The garage can only park one(1) car as a result of the lift that is installed in the garage. The only alternative is to park the cars on the driveway or park them on the street. Parking the cars on the street would have a more detrimental affect, a more negative impact and may alter the character of the neighborhood rather than parking the cars on the driveway. He understands that an objector is present. They will allow the objector to testify to her objections and will respond accordingly. Mrs. Darcy Rubin, 1218 Lockwood Drive,was present and sworn in. She lives directly next door to the Petitioners. They live in a very modest neighborhood. The Samuels' are doing this for their handicap son. There is no detriment to the neighborhood. It would be a good thing if they were allowed to proceed. Mr. Brian Wenk, 423 Lemont Terrace, was present and sworn in. He lives diagonally across the street from the Petitioners. He and his wife have no objections. They look out at the Samuels' house every day and you cannot see the pavers, which is about seventy (70) feet away. If it makes life a little bit easier for them they are fine with it. Mr. Marvin Rubin, 1218 Lockwood Drive, was present and sworn in. The have no objection. It sounds like the pavers are a removable item. It will make their life easier. Mr. Rick Kahen, 504 Ronnie Drive,was present and sworn in. He has been a resident since 1986. He has been on the Commission for Residents with Disabilities since 1994 and the Chairman since 2001. Mrs. Samuels has been a Commissioner for a few years. He knows the family from Mrs. Samuels' involvement with the Commission. For people with a disability everyday is a struggle. He has been disabled for thirty-seven (37) years and he struggles everyday. Some days are better and some days are worse. The Samuels' son struggles everyday. Judy and Phil struggle everyday. He knows that this is a zoning hearing and not an ADA issue. He believes that there is a moral and ethical way to think about the issue. Because they are disabled and need accommodations, they are accommodated through the ADA a lot. There are times when they need as much help as possible, small things that make their life easier. In this case it is making the Samuels' son's life easier and his parent's life easier. He believes that it is owed to them to look at it that way. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Ms. Michelle Weiner, 1216 Lockwood Drive, was present and sworn in. She lives two (2) doors away. She agrees with everyone who has spoken so far. A few years ago she was told that the Samuels' son was living in the front room of the house his whole life because they did not have an elevator and he could not go upstairs. She was excited when they told her that they were going to invest in their neighborhood and make their home accessible for their son to have his own bedroom. They came against a lot of obstacles but they kept fighting and they built a beautiful home. It has only enhanced the neighborhood. It also created a shorter driveway for them. Like they have explained, she has watched them maneuver cars everyday. They do what they can to try and stay out of everyone's way. They always have the best attitude. They really deserve to finish the project that they started. The pavers are actually beautiful. They have done everything to enhance it. If you saw the pavers, you would say it totally goes with the landscape. Their neighbor on the north has lots of forestry and things that actually draw more attention to that house than their house. She has no objection and would hope that the Board considers all the things involved. Ms. Monica Grobler, 1222 Lockwood Drive,was present and sworn in. She is the neighbor to the north. She echoes everyone's sentiments in terms of the Samuels' son and what he has gone through and what the Petitioner's have gone through in terms of trying to make their lives easier. She fully supports all that. Her partner is a special education teacher in North Chicago. They have been exposed to many situations and have had to help different people and they are very sensitive to those types of issues. She can't say more about that issue. Unfortunately her property is directly next to the Petitioner's and is directly impacted. Mr. Samuels has said to her that in terms of placing snow on her property, he can do what he wants because it is Village property. Hopefully, through this process, he has been educated to know that the easement isn't Village property. Mr. Sheehan has been out to the property and has seen that even though they have been asked not to put snow on her property they still continue to do so even in this very watchful time when everyone is trying to be on their best behavior and trying to minimize the impact to her property. She fully supports anything that they are trying to do to make their son's life easier. She hopes that they can look at other situations. The moving of the cars is something that they all struggle with given the small driveways that they have and the number of cars that people typically have. Many people in the neighborhood have people that come into the home to help, nurses or day care providers. She has provided a lot of documentation and hopes that everyone has had a chance to look at it. She is present to answer any questions. She knows that there is no requirement to not go into the easement. But they don't live in Florida and snow removal is a concern. If you can put a driveway that far over the reasonable expectation is that a vehicle will be placed in on it and snow will have to be removed. Mr. Andrew Olbur, 167 Fox Hill Drive, was present and sworn in. Mr. Olbur has a business in the community called Weiner Take All. He has had the business for twenty-three (23) years. He thinks his community service having to do with persons with disabilities speaks for itself. He has known the Samuels' for thirty-nine (39) years. To get him away from his business is pretty hard. He wants to say that the Petitioner's are wonderful people. He came tonight because he is impassioned about the love that they have for their son, as much as everyone has for their children. Mr. Samuels has never looked at their son and their family as anything but a blessing. The Samuels' son is a fabulous kid, a cub scout, a fabulous student, and has never complained about a thing. He is requesting that the variance, a minor thing, be granted. In his opinion snow ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 will melt. He would be happy if the snow is over four (4) to five (5) feet to go and shovel it himself. Mr. Henry Samuels, 1200 Westchester Court, was present and sworn in. Mr. Samuels is Phil's brother. He thanked the Board for their attention in reviewing all the materials related to the request. In response to the objector, the only issue he heard was an issue about snow removal. We all live in the Chicago area and snow removal is a temporary thing. They are here to make Phil, Judy and their son's life a little bit easier. He is not going to show a video, a day in the life of the Samuels' son, or anything like that. When we don't have a special needs child or family member, we take for granted what it takes to get going in the morning. When his children do get up, they can get themselves dressed, they can wash their hands and faces, brush their teeth, get down stairs, make themselves something to eat and they can go on their way to school. Phil and Judy don't have that luxury. When they tell their son to get up, they have to get him up, they have to get.him dressed, they have to get him ready for school, they have to brush his teeth,make him food, get him ready to go, get him in the car, get his coat on and off, moving the cars back and forth. This simple little variance of twenty-two (22) inches would make their lives just a little bit easier so they can get up in the morning and get their son where he needs to go so they can go to work. They would not have to play parking lot attendant. People have nannies and a multitude of cars. But in addition to taking care of your handicap child, if you could have one thing in life that is made easier for you, you would welcome that opportunity. He is appalled that anyone would have the audacity to object to this minimal variance request. He requests that based upon the submissions in this case and the testimony heard that the variance be granted. He would also like to submit a signed Petition by approximately two (2) dozen neighbors who have indicated their names and addresses who are in support of the request. Ch. Entman accepted the signed Petition of the neighbors and marked it as Exhibit"I". Ms. Grobler responded that she hoped that the materials she submitted had outlined that the issue is not just snow. It is the fact that there is salt accumulation and to her that is considered a toxic substance. She is from Canada and Canada has different rules. There has been a lot of debate throughout her life about the impact of salt and accumulation on vegetation. It is a concern to her as well as the treatment the Petitioner's have had towards her and her son and her family for the last few years, since the last variation request. She is concerned that there is no recourse for her in the event that the Petitioner's do put snow on her property. Neighboring municipalities have rules against placing snow on neighboring properties. Unfortunately Buffalo Grove does not. That just leaves her in a hardship because she does not have any recourse at all as a resident if something does happen. In her mind this is not a minimal request. Com. Au confirmed that the Petitioner testified that during the winter months their son enters and exits the van in the garage. She asked why they do not use the garage during the spring or summers months. Mr. Phil Samuels responded that their son is in a wheelchair and has a respiratory issue. So when there is cold or bitter cold weather it runs havoc on individuals with respiratory issues. So in the winter or in very cold weather, the van will be parked in the garage. In warm weather, the van can be parked on the driveway. To get their son into the driveway, they have been backing into the driveway. His ramp is on the passenger side of the van. Mud and grass do not work well with wheelchairs. The brick pavers have given them an extension where Li ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 they do not have to worry about backing into the driveway, they can pull straight into the driveway and let the ramp down and their son can come straight out of the van onto the pavers or by them and his wheelchair is not impacted by any grass or mud. Mr. Bernstein added that the Samuels' home has a ramp on the outside of the house. So during the summer months it is an alternative so they do not have to jockey cars so they can access the garage to use the ramp that is in the garage. They like the option of just parking the van on the driveway and accessing the house from the cement ramp that has been installed in the front of the house. He cannot use that ramp in the winter because of his condition. It is easier and better for him to use the ramp/lift that is in the garage. The pavers will make it easier to access that ramp if they are able to park the van on the driveway allowing their son to navigate himself without getting into the grass or mud. Com. Au asked if there is a different car parking the garage during the summer time. Mr. Bernstein replied that there may be. Generally the van is only used to transport their son. It is not used on a daily basis. They have two (2) other vehicles that they use for everyday. So there could be one of those cars in the garage. Com. Shapiro stated that he is not sure how long the pavers have been there. Over time pavers can settle. Is there a safety issue with the wheelchair coming out onto the pavers even in good weather? At the end of the driveway there is a swale for water runoff. Is this the safest way to get him in and out of the vehicle and out onto the driveway? Mr. Bernstein responded that there is a statement from the landscape architect that detailed that is was his advice to use the brick pavers for this function. If in the future the pavers need to be maintained, then they will be maintained in order that settling will not disturb the wheelchair going in and out of the van. They thought it would be better to make this a non-permanent type of addition to the driveway so anytime in the future those brick pavers could be removed and then there would be no overage of coverage. Com. Shapiro confirmed that the pavers were preferred over a concrete driveway addition. Com. Dunn referenced Attached#5 submitted by the objector. She asked if it was the Petitioner's intention to use the pavers to park a vehicle. Mr. Bernstein stated that the pavers are only two (2) feet wide. Having the two (2) feet on the north side of the property will not make an impact on whether a car can be parked there. Their driveway is wide enough now where they can park three (3) cars. The sole purpose of the pavers is to allow easier access to the third parking space so the wheelchair can then maneuver around the van to be able to access the house by the ramp in the front of the house. Com. Stein asked Mr. Sheehan if the variance request is for two (2) variances. Mr. Sheehan confirmed that one (1) variance is to bring the existing concrete extension that was done under a permit at an earlier date into conformance regarding the front yard coverage being over by two (2) square feet. The second variation would be to allow the existing driveway with extension and the addition of the brick pavers to exceed the front yard coverage by approximately eighty-eight (88) square feet. Ch. Entman explained that the last portion of the request as identified in the public hearing notice is not part of the request. The request is not to allow the driveway width to be greater than the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 apron width at the sidewalk. Mr. Sheehan added that this was discussed with the Petitioners. If � the request to allow the driveway width to be greater than the apron width were to go forward it would have to be heard at a different Commission, the Plan Commission, because that is part of the Development Ordinance. The Petitioner has decided to taper the driveway to twenty-four(24) feet at the sidewalk and then the apron would be widened to twenty-four(24) feet at the sidewalk as required by the Development Ordinance. Com. Stein confirmed with Mr. Sheehan that the eighty-eight (88) square feet is the portion that extends to the north towards 1222 Lockwood Drive. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan if a permit was issued for the driveway extension. Mr. Sheehan stated that a permit was not issued. Com. Windecker asked why. Mr. Sheehan stated that once the Petitioner was advised that a permit was required they came in for the permit and after review they were advised that the Village could not issue a permit without a variation. Corn. Windecker asked if the driveway is tapered properly to the sidewalk now. Mr. Sheehan stated that it is not at this time. Corn. Windecker confirmed that two (2) violations exist currently. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Raysa if the Board can restrict pavers to the current ownership so a new owner could not utilize the pavers. Mr. Raysa replied that the variance can be restricted to the current owner. Com. Windecker stated that the Petitioner has a three-car driveway and a two-car garage. They have three (3) cars including the van. He can appreciate being in the medical field that the health issues are a problem in the winter. The Petitioner chose not to utilize the variation granted in 2006. The Petitioner is apparently backing in the van in the winter to get the lift in the garage to put the wheelchair into the van. In the summer, there is the ramp on the left side of the driveway. The door is on the right side of the van. Com. Windecker asked if the petitioner backed the van in for the summer. Mr. Samuels stated that without the brick pavers they had to do that. They were backing into the driveway. Now with the brick pavers they can pull straight into the driveway, let the ramp go down, and their son would come around the van and either onto the ramp in the front or go into the garage that has a lift. So he has access from both ways. For them they now have the ability to pull straight into the driveway rather than constantly backing into the driveway. Corn. Windecker asked to confirm that the Petitioner has no problem with their son going out into the cold and getting into the van on the right side when the van is pulled straight in. Mr. Samuels replied that he never said anything about the cold and the van. Com. Windecker reiterated that the testimony was that the Petitioner uses the garage in the winter because of the health reasons. Mr. Samuels replied that because of the lift the garage is a one (1) car garage now. When their son comes out he comes out into the enclosed heated garage and down the lift. The ramp is open in the garage and he goes right into the van. When they leave,they open the garage door and they leave. Com. Windecker reiterated that the van is backed into the garage. Mr. Samuels confirmed that the van is backed into the garage. Corn. Windecker stated that if their son goes into the van from the ramp in the front of the house, even in the summer, the van is backed in unless they pull the van over and he has to go around it. The pavers are on the right side of the driveway and the ramp is on the left side of the driveway. Mr. Samuels stated that the pavers give him the ability to pull straight in to the driveway. Mr. Bernstein added that there is enough area to park three (3) cars on the driveway. When they are parked on that third space all the way to the north part of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 driveway, their son can leave the vehicle by access of the brick pavers and be able to access the house without the Samuels' having to back the van into the driveway. Then he can access the ramp on the outside of the house. This just makes their life easier when they pull in like any normal person does and pull into the driveway with the hood of the van in the front rather than having to worry about backing in all the time. Com. Windecker stated that originally, the Petitioner had a driveway width for two (2) cars. Then they added a third portion of concrete. Mr. Bernstein stated that there are usually four (4) cars parked on the driveway. Corn. Windecker stated that the Petitioners only have three (3) cars. Mr. Bernstein confirmed that the Petitioner's only have three (3) cars, but there is the nurse that is there constantly. Corn. Windecker stated that the nurse can park on the street. Mr. Bernstein stated that the nurse can park on the street except for the winter time. Com. Windecker asked why the nurse can't park on the street in the winter. Mr. Bernstein stated that Village Ordinance does not allow parking on the street if there is a certain amount of snow on the ground. Corn. Windecker asked if the nurse comes from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Mr. Samuels explained that every year they apply for a Village permit through the Police Department to allow the night nurse who comes at 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. and is there until 7:00 a.m. In bold writing on the permit it states that just because they approved them last year doesn't mean that they will approve them for the overnight parking this year. You have to show reasons. It also stipulates that if there is more than two (2) inches of snow, permit or no permit, you have to park on the driveway. By having the additional pavers he does not have that third vehicle parked into the public walkway. Com. Windecker stated that a lot of people have that third portion of the driveway for a third car. Now the Petitioner is adding an additional twenty-two (22) inches to the right of that third portion of concrete. Com. Windecker questioned what happens when the grass grows through the bricks like other people who have installed driveways haphazardly. The pavers need to be maintained. He suggested that if a variance is granted that there be a condition to maintain the pavers. Mr. Bernstein stated that it is in the best interest of the Petitioners to maintain the pavers. If grass is growing between the pavers it would make it difficult for their son to maneuver the wheelchair. Then the pavers are not serving their purpose. Com. Windecker went past the house and noticed that the snow was not along the bushes or fence of the neighbor. The snow was placed in the parkway like normal. He asked if someone cleans out the driveway in the winter. Mr. Samuels stated that he cleans the driveway with a shovel and very old snow blower that sometimes works for a few minutes then stops. He had a friend who helped clean the driveway not this past snow but the one before with a plow. Com. Windecker stated that in the future, the Petitioners can defer the snow from being piled along the shrubbery. Mr. Bernstein stated that they read the objection submitted and they will use their best efforts to do what they canto not negatively impact the neighbor's property. Com. Au stated that she is trying to understand the need for the extra pavers. She understands that they have a three (3) car wide driveway. What prevents the Petitioner from parking all the way to the left? Mr. Bernstein stated that the lift needs room to open up. So when you park the van all the way to the right and the lift comes down there is enough room for the lift to come down and their son to navigate on the pavers to go around the van to access the house through the outside ramp. Corn. Stein verified that the extension is on the north side of the property and during the summer or warmer weather they would pull up on the concrete extension, not on the brick pavers, and the lift would come down and their son would exit onto the pavers and go around and in. One of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 objections was the bushes.He drove past the house four(4)times in the last week and a half and two(2)days after the big snow he saw that the bushes were not covered in snow. If asked to, would the Petitioner be willing to put up some sort of barrier to protect the bushes.Mr.Samuels responded that he would not want to touch someone else's property.Those bushes belong to the neighbor to the north.He is not a landscaper so he cannot say what can and cannot be done to mitigate any type of interference.He did notice when he drove past the house that the bushes on the north side of the objector's property were covered with snow and the bushes along the property line to the north were not.He does not even know what kind of bushes they are.He does not know if there is any impact on them.They will use all reasonable methods to ensure that they will not intentionally put snow on those bushes. Com.Shapiro stated that since the Petitioner has been through this process before with receiving a variance how could the Petitioner miss something as straightforward as getting a permit for work to be done on the driveway.Mr.Bernstein stated that his understanding of the law for the purpose of these proceedings is that the Board is supposed to ignore that the work has been done. That the Board should basically be looking at it,that if no work has been done would a variance be granted.Whether a permit was granted or not,he does not know what the relevance is to these proceedings. There is nothing in the Ordinance that states doing work without a permit would prohibit someone from getting a variance.The law says that the Board is supposed to ignore that the work has been done.Com.Shapiro replied that the reason why there are permits is so that the Board does not get people coming in after work has been done.The Petitioners have been here before in another contested situation and he believes that they should have covered something as basic as a permit.Mr.Bernstein responded that they were relying on professionals who put the driveway in to provide them with what permits would be required. The Petitioners are not familiar with the building code even though they have been through the zoning process and variation process before.They are here because of what happened and are requesting the variance based on the standards to grant a variance in the Ordinance. Ch.Entman stated to Mr.Bernstein that there is no argument that his assertion of the law is fairly accurate. He believes that Mr. Bernstein is overlooking that the Board is entitled to ask any question they want.The question that Corn.Shapiro asked is relevant because if an examination of whether or not a permit was obtained or the method and manner in which someone went ahead and proceeded to do work without either getting a permit or some prior approval may be relevant when it comes time for the Board to assess the criteria,specifically as to whether or not there were unique circumstances, but the absence of the criteria in regards to whether or not the condition that a variance is being requested for was in fact imposed upon a Petitioner by themselves.Mr.Bernstein stated that they relied upon professionals.The Petitioners do not know the building code. Ch. Entman again stated that the question was relevant. The excuse that a professional was hired to do it is not an excuse either.Mr.Bernstein stated that he reviewed the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the criteria for a variance and the self-imposed hardship was not in the Ordinance.Ch.Entman stated that a self-imposed hardship is not a criteria but the Board can look at whether or not the condition they are seeking a variance for was in fact self-induced or self-imposed.Mr.Bernstein stated then it is a question of how unique circumstance is defined. Obviously it is vague in the Ordinance.They would define it differently.They would define it as the situation that has them here to request the variation.The brick pavers were put in with the condition that they would be removed if the variation was not granted. The existing two (2) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 27—FEBRUARY 16,2010 square feet on the existing driveway is a very small amount. The bigger issue is the eighty-eight (88) square feet that includes the brick pavers. The work was begun and was stopped by the Village and in response, because of weather, the Village decided to allow them to finish the installation of the pavers if the applicant would agree to remove them if the variation was not granted. Ch. Entman again stated that it is relevant to the proceedings if work was done without a permit. Com. Au asked about the parking situation with the night nurse. It was stated that the pavers are necessary so that the night nurse can park on the driveway. But it was also stated that the pavers are not for parking a car. Corn. Au asked how does this benefit the night nurse situation. Mr. Samuels replied that the night nurse has a permit to park on the street for this year. However, the permit does not allow parking on the street if there is a snow fall of two (2) inches or more. There will be a vehicle parked on the far right-hand side where the pavers are and in the middle. They do not ever want to block their son's ramp that leads to the house. But now, if there is snow, because of the pavers the nurse can now legally park the car within the driveway. Before the pavers, the two (2) cars were parked legally and the nurse's car was crossing the sidewalk. Com. Au asked the Petitioner to explain the difference. Mr. Bernstein stated that if not for the fact that three (3) cars park on the driveway, they would not be requesting a variance. The pavers are beautiful and nice and they would not have gone through with it if they did not feel that it was necessary. The night nurse is there, but there could be other situations where there are three (3) cars on the driveway and when the van is parked all the way to the right the pavers are utilized for the van. If the pavers are not there, then the van cannot go into that third parking space because their son cannot maneuver without those pavers. Corn. Au understands that portion but does not understand how when the night nurse comes, the pavers become a parking space. Mr. Bernstein stated that when the night nurse comes either one or two things happen. They park on the street or they park in the driveway and block the sidewalk due to the configuration of the driveway. The van will be parked all the way to the right during the warmer months. This was all done in the last three (3) to five (5) months. They have not yet gone through a summer season with the pavers. They still believe that this is the way it has to work. Otherwise the three (3) vehicles across just doesn't work. Corn. Shapiro stated that the Petitioner has three (3) cars and a three (3) car wide driveway and a garage. Why doesn't the Petitioner pull one of the cars into the garage? Way does it have to be a hardship to be able to park on the left hand side of the driveway? Mr. Bernstein stated that the van cannot be parked on the left side because then a car could not be parked in the middle. There are nurses there during the day as well as at night. Corn. Shapiro asked if there is ever a car in the garage. Mr. Bernstein stated that there are cars in the garage. They are trying to get cars off the street if possible for public safety purposes. There is a lot going on in the garage. There is a lift and storage in the garage. Com. Shapiro added that a car can be parked in the garage. Mr. Bernstein stated that if a car is parked in the garage, then a total of four (4) cars can be parked on site. Corn. Shapiro stated that if there are three (3) cars with a three (3) car wide driveway and a garage he does not understand why the van always has to be backed in. Mr. Bernstein replied that even though they are a three (3) car family most times they are a four (4) car family because of the nurse who is constantly there. Corn. Shapiro asked if that would be the same as having a visitor to the house. Mr. Bernstein replied no because a visitor would not be a unique circumstance. Corn. Shapiro stated that if someone visits an elderly person and stays with them ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 27 — FEBRUARY 16, 2010 during the day and they park on the street who would ever know any different. Mr. Bernstein stated that if the car was parked there everyday you would know that someone was there. Corn. Shapiro stated that the goal is to let the Samuels' son out of the van by pulling the van in straight then the accommodation would be to pull one(1) of the cars into the garage. Mr. Bernstein stated that if one (1) car is in the garage and the van pulls up with the Samuels' son in it and the nurse is there then they would have to move two(2) cars out of the driveway and the car out of the garage so they can back the van into the garage to access the ramp in the garage. If they did not want to use the ramp in the garage and they just wanted to unload on the driveway then they would have to move two (2) cars from the driveway. This would just make life a little easier so they do not have to maneuver cars around. The two (2) foot addition of the pavers was the bare minimum that the Petitioners felt they needed. Corn. Stein clarified what area of pavers would need to be removed if the variation was not granted. He also stated that if a car is parked on the left the exterior ramp would be blocked. If a car is parked in the middle facing either direction it would make either space adjacent to it unusable. The Police would rather have someone park on the street with permission during a snow fall than block a sidewalk. He understands the request. Corn. Au asked why not park the van all the way to the left, park a car inside the garage leaving the middle space open and then park a car on the far right. There is no need for the pavers at all and no one would need to move any cars in order to get out of the driveway. She sees the need of the pavers to use the garage for storage purposes but does not see the need in moving the Samuels' son to and from the car. Mrs. Samuels stated that the need is to allow for more flexibility. The Attachment#5 photograph was taken when there was more than two (2) inches of snow on the ground. They were not allowed to be parked in street at that time. If you move the van to the left as close to the ramp as possible you still need the ability to get into the driver's side of the van. You need space for the lift to come down. Corn. Au stated that if the van is parked to the left, the middle of the driveway could be used for the lift when one (1)of the cars is parked in the garage. Mr. Bernstein responded that the van is only used to transport their son. It is not used on an everyday basis. If the van is parked on the left then the van would have to be moved anytime they want to take a car out of the garage. Com. Au stated that it is a two (2) car garage. Mr. Bernstein advised that it is only a one (1) car garage due to the lift installed in the garage. Corn. Au asked what side the lift was on in the garage. Mr. Bernstein stated the left. Corn. Au responded to leave that space open in the middle. Mr. Bernstein stated that to put the van on the right would put it out of the way. Com. Au proposed a solution to use the middle space for the car in the garage and back the car through the other vehicles in the driveway to get out. Mr. Bernstein replied that the Petitioner would have to back up perfectly straight out of the garage in between the other vehicles to get to the street. If you vary at all they would hit one of the cars. That would make it more difficult for them to use that garage. Ch. Entman stated there were three Engineer's memorandums on this issue. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated January 4, 2010 which states: "It appears that there may be a shifting of the drainage swale within the easement area due to the latest widening which I do not recommend. It is, however, impossible to fully evaluate at this time due to weather conditions." ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated January 12, 2010 which states: "Brian, I wish to clarify my previous report in that I am not able to make a thorough review of the proposal due to present conditions. It was my intention to indicate that a review a the proposal in the area of the drainage easement needs to be done to determine what effect, if any, would result form the driveway extension proposal." Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated February 5, 2010 which states: "I had a chance to review the driveway widening proposal at the above location and find that the widened driveway does not affect the existing drainage swale. The petitioner was present at the time of the inspection and I described some of the requirements (taper to 24 feet at the sidewalk and apron addition) should the driveway variation be approved." Ch. Entman stated that he is familiar with the Petitioner's brother, Henry Samuels, but this will not affect his decision. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner and the objector ever sat down and tried to come up with something that would be mutually accepted to both parties with the Petitioner's knowing what the objector's concerns are. The objector's concerns are well documented in her written materials. She has a concern with the snow being pushed or plowed onto her property and the salt damage to her property and landscaping. The request does not appear to be a frivolous request to expand the driveway. Also nothing he has seen from the neighbor's material and testimony has exhibited that she is being unreasonable. He asked if the Petitioner can alleviate the neighbor's concerns. For example not plowing or putting snow on her property. He believes that is a very easy request. He also agrees with Com. Au's suggestion as an alternative even though it may not be the most convenient. Ch. Entman asked Mrs. Grobler if the Petitioner's did not put snow onto her property and somehow had the plantings protected would that satisfy her concerns. Mrs. Grobler stated that it would to an extent. She is not sure if there is a way to prohibit the use of salt on the driveway. She does not use salt. That is why there was an observation of snow on her bushes. Salt is commonly used in Illinois. Ch. Entman asked Mrs. Grobler if there was a way to keep the snow from being put onto her property. If the snow is melting and naturally runs onto her property, that is something that cannot be controlled. But if the Petitioner does not put the snow onto her property so any salt in there would not be on her property would that alleviate her concerns. Mrs. Grobler stated that it would move towards that. She is confused about the tapering of the driveway. Would it taper away from her property? Ch. Entman stated that the requirement is that the driveway cannot be wider than twenty-four(24) feet at the sidewalk. Mr. Sheehan confirmed that the driveway in its current configuration is twenty-five (25) feet and several inches wide at the sidewalk. That will need to be shortened to twenty-four (24) feet at the sidewalk and would taper at a forty-five (45) degree angle from that point out. Mrs. Grobler asked if this requirement would be for the brick pavers or the cement. Mr. Sheehan replied that it applies to the pavers. Mrs. Grobler would like a better understanding of what that means. Mr. Bernstein explained to Mrs. Grobler what the taper would look like by referring to the Plat of Survey. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Mr. Bernstein stated that they would be amenable to any type of condition such as not intentionallyputtinganysnow onto the neighbor's 'property. Drifting snow may end up on it as that is something they have no control over. They will use their best efforts when the driveway is shoveled. Since the last snow storm they listened and did not deposit snow on the neighboring property. Mrs. Grobler would also like the pavers to be temporary and not allow someone else to utilize the pavers. Ch. Entman suggested a time limitation such as if they no longer reside in the house or sell the house or no longer need the pavers that the pavers are removed. He likes that the materials are brick pavers and not concrete. Mrs. Grobler would like a review done to ensure that the pavers meet the code requirements. Mrs. Grobler advised that her last concern is that the Petitioner's have been confrontational in terms of her maintaining her fence and they have called the Village a number of times. She has not seen a willingness to accommodate. Ch. Entman stated that he hoped that after discussing the issue in a public forum that the Petitioner's and Mrs. Grobler could move on. Mrs. Grobler would also appreciate a temporary snow barrier to protect her landscaping. Trustee Trilling stated that he heard testimony as to the reason for the brick pavers. The reason, as he understands it, is so that the wheelchair lift can have an area to come down and the wheelchair can travel on the pavers to get to the home when it is parked outside and that the van is generallyparked inside the garage duringthe winter. He suggested a condition, so as to not g g gg encroach so closely to the neighbor's yard, would be to not allow any vehicles to park on the brick pavers. This would allow for the paver area to be used as a snow storage area in the winter months when the van was being used within the garage. Mr. Bernstein stated that the first two conditions are amenable to the Petitioner's. The way the driveway is currently configured with the concrete it is difficult to maneuver that spot to the apron without using the brick pavers. Can they still be able to ingress and egress over the pavers? Ch. Entman explained that the condition would pertain to parking on the pavers. Ingress and egress is different. Mr. Raysa reviewed the Exhibits with the Petition: • Mr. Sheehan's December 15, 2009 Memorandum and all the attachments thereto, including materials submitted after the January 19, 2010 meeting; • Village Engineer's memorandum dated February 5, 2010 • Petition signed by neighbor's marked as Exhibit"I"; • Email from Robert Straszewski dated January 19, 2010 marked as Exhibit"J". There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Phil and Judy Samuels, 1220 Lockwood Drive, for variance of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.36.030.F, pertaining to Additional Regulations - Parking, for the purpose of allowing the existing driveway to exceed the forty(40)percent front yard coverage limitation by two (2) square feet. Subject to the following conditions: a. The driveway must meet the taper requirements of the Village Ordinance; and, b. The petitioner, in the course of removing snow from the driveway, will not deposit, or cause to be deposited, snow on the property of the neighbor to the north. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The existing driveway will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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 March 8, 2010 Village Board agenda. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Phil and Judy Samuels, 1220 Lockwood Drive, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.36.030.F, pertaining to Additional Regulations — Parking, to allow the proposed driveway extension in addition to the existing driveway to exceed the forty (40) percent front yard coverage limitation by approximately eighty-eight (88) square feet. Subject to the following conditions: a. The driveway must meet the taper requirements of the Village Ordinance; b. The petitioner, in the course of removing snow from the driveway,will not deposit, or cause to be deposited, snow on the property of the neighbor to the north; c. The driveway will be tapered so as not to exceed 24 feet in width where it joins the sidewalk. The driveway apron will be expanded as required in the Development Ordinance; d. The petitioner will not allow vehicles to be parked on the area covered by the pavers; e. The brick pavers will be maintained so that vegetation does not grow through or among the pavers; and, f. In the event that the purpose of the variance no longer exists, or the petitioners no longer reside in the property, or the variance is no longer needed, the pavers shall be removed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 of 27 —FEBRUARY 16, 2010 The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The existing driveway 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—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 7 to 0. Item to appear on the March 8, 2010 Village Board agenda. 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) 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. Ch. Entman read an email submitted by Bob and Ryan Kuhlman addressed to Brian Sheehan dated January 28, 2010 which states: "As per our discussion please move my appointment with the zoning board from the February meeting agenda forward to the March meeting. We are in the process of putting together a sign package and request for a variance which I will share with you as soon as possible." Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Quality Car Center-Car Wash, 55 W. Dundee Road, to the March 16, 2010 regular meeting. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE— Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Fassed 7 to 0. Item to appear on the March 16, 2010 regular 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. Mr. Jim Lang, Hamilton Partners, 300 Park Boulevard, Suite 500, Itasca, Illinois, was present and sworn in. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Mr. Lang explained that the occupancy sheet for the building known as Chevy Chase Business Park #7 shows eighty-six point five (86.5) percent occupied. That is not the case. The bank has moved out. Technology Staffing Resources moved out in the middle of the night quite some time ago. Alan Kracower will be vacating May 30, 2010. That building is less than fifty (50) percent occupied. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein 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 August 17, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. 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, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. NEW BUSINESS 1101-1165 WEILAND ROAD, EMBASSY, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.070, 0 0, TO ALLOW A GROUND SIGN WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED AREA OF 120 SQUARE FEET BY 114 SQUARE FEET; TO ALLOW A GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF 20 FEET BY 3 FEET 4 INCHES AND WOULD BE LOCATED 10 FEET 10 INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR CREEKSIDE COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER Mr. Terry Weppler, Attorney, 121 W. Church Street, Libertyville, Illinois; Mr. Art Solis, North Shore Sign Company, 1925 Industrial Drive, Libertyville, Illinois; Mr. Jay Blescent, ReMax Experts, 1125 Weiland Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois; and Mr. Andrew Olbur, Weiner Take All, 167 Fox Hill Drive, Buffalo Grove, Illinois,were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on January 29, 2010 was read. Mr. Weppler explained that Creekside Commons is located at the intersection of Deerfield Parkway and Weiland Road. The proposed sign is the same height as the existing sign at that location but would allow all the existing and potential tenants in the center to be on the sign. Currently there are only three (3) tenants listed on the existing ground sign. The existing sign sits in the parking lot between two (2) parking spaces along the Weiland Road side of the center. They propose to move the sign to a grassy area closer to the corner so that the sign is visible from both roadways. Moving the sign would eliminate one (1) of the existing variations which is the distance between two (2) ground signs. One (1) of the signs that was previously on the property was located at the entrance off of Deerfield Parkway. That sign was removed approximately a year ago. The center is located at the northeast corner of Deerfield Parkway and Weiland Road. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 The building is setback and angled on the property. This is a triangular lot which is an odd- shaped lot for a shopping center. Because of the lot and setback of the building it makes it difficult to see the existing wall signs from most directions. If you drive up either from the west or northbound you cannot see the signs located on the building until you get to the edge of the center. From those two (2) directions, you have to look backwards in order to see any of the wall signs. They would like to identify the other uses in the center. There are eight (8) mature Village trees in the parkway that block the view of the existing wall signs spring through fall. There are also seven (7) mature trees on the property along Weiland Road and an additional seven (7) trees along Deerfield Parkway. The current trend of national businesses, whether they are franchises or corporately owned, is to require the exposure on a free standing sign in front of the shopping center. A lot of businesses will only tend to lease where they are able to obtain good exposure and will not rent in shopping centers where it is difficult to identify them. Studies have shown what it takes to make a visible sign; color, letter size, roadway width, speed of the road, and height all figuring into play when it comes to determining whether or not a sign will be visible to motorists driving the area. If the sign is not visible it does not serve it's purpose and will not allow motorists to see the business in time to make a safe maneuver to get to the location. Weiland Road and Deerfield Parkway are both busy four (4) lane roadways. He drives a Honda CRV which is five and one half(5-1/2) feet high. If a driver is alongside him he cannot see the bottom of a shorter sign. It is not only the lower five and one half(5-1/2) feet that you cannot see; it is proportionate to the distance away you are. Since both roads are four (4) lanes the site blockage from other vehicles is increased. The speed on Weiland Road in the area of the shopping center is forty(40) mph. A vehicle traveling at forty(40) mph is moving fifty-nine (59) feet in one (1) second. For vehicles to make a safe maneuver the distance is three hundred fifty � (350) feet on one side and approximately four hundred (400) feet on the other. You need a sign that is visible and far enough away so the driver can make the turn into the center. Currently there are three (3) empty stores in the center. There is also one (1) temporary store. On the current sign, the center name and 7-Eleven portions of the sign take up eighty (80) square feet. They are asking to reduce that to forty-five(45) square feet. The Creekside Dental sign would go from sixteen (16) square feet to thirteen point thirty-three (13.33) square feet. The ReMax sign would be slightly enlarged from twenty-four (24) square feet to twenty-eight point thirty-three (28.33) square feet. They are trying to make it so that all the businesses can be visible from the property line. They believe they meet the variation requirements due to the unique lot and building location on the lot. The variation will not be detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity since they are in a commercial traffic area. They believe that the sign is in good taste and will be well landscaped on the lot. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated February 1, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated February 3, 2010 into the record. The ART does not recommend approval for the proposed ground sign and made the following recommendations: 1. Reduce the height of the sign to between ten(10) to fifteen(15) feet; 2. Reduce the number of tenant panels on the sign; 3. Incorporate brick into the sign to match the building; 4. Look at other possible locations for the sign to increase visibility; 5. Make the tenant panels one major color(not including logos). ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Corn. Dunn asked if the Petitioner had modified their request based on the ART recommendation. Mr. Weppler stated that the owner did not want to modify the request and wanted to present the current proposal. Com. Au asked how many vacant spaces are currently in the building. Mr. Weppler stated there are three (3) vacant spaces plus one(1)that is being used as a Haitian drop off location. Corn. Au asked why there are extra panels on the proposed ground sign. Mr. Weppler stated the there are fifteen(15) total panels being proposed. There are ten(10)businesses in the center with the three (3) empty stores and the one (1) temporary; that is a total of fourteen(14). If one (1) of the larger tenants were to leave it would be very easy to divide that space. Com. Windecker asked if Mr. Weppler was familiar with the variation granted December 20, 2005 for the sign. Mr. Weppler saw the sign company's file that showed the dental sign. Corn. Windecker stated that back then it was testified that the owner only wanted three (3) businesses based on size to be on the sign and that nothing would be changed or added thereafter. Mr. Weppler was not aware of that testimony. Corn. Windecker stated that he discussed that at the ART review. It was also stated at the ART review that it would in the best interest to adhere to the direction of the ART. Mr. Weppler stated that his client wanted him to get the opinion of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the proposed sign. Corn. Windecker stated that it is his opinion that the sign is too large with too many tenant panels. Com. Lesser would like to see the height of the sign reduced to ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet; reduce the number of tenant panels on the sign; incorporate brick into the sign to match the building; to look at other possible locations for the sign; and to make the tenant panels one (1) major color, not including logos. With those changes he would consider voting in favor of the sign. Corn. Stein recalled that at the previous public hearing in 2005 he asked the Petitioner what they would do if another tenant asked to be added to the sign. The answer was that they were not going to add any more. It would just be those three (3). He would have liked to have seen an alternative sign presented as recommended by the ART. He was at the ART review. He believes panels that are five (5) feet long and over a foot high are too large for that location. He does not object to a sign that has tenant panels on it. He does object to looking at the same proposal that was not recommended for approval at the ART. He suggested going back to the owner and advising that the Zoning Board of Appeals is looking for a smaller sign and to incorporate the recommendations of the ART. Corn. Shapiro advised that the ART is there to keep standards within the Village. He would be hesitant to vote against that review and to vote affirmative for the sign as presented. He agrees that the height is too large, it is probably too wide, too many colors, all the things that were discussed at the ART. He would not vote in favor of the sign as it is presented. Mr. Blescent stated that he came to provide support for the sign. He was not aware of the previous meeting. He applauds the landlord for wanting to put up a new sign. The sign that is there is pretty ancient. The view is very restricted due to the trees, especially in the summer time. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 You can hardly see the sign. He has not noticed if other signs are all the same color and same panels. They need the current sign out of the parking lot since they need the parking spaces. They also need a sign closer to the road and need to have some of the trees cut down so the wall signs can be seen from the road. Mr. Olbur agrees with Mr. Blescent. The economy has changed. Allowing people to see the sign as they are driving will not only help him,but everyone else in the center. Corn. Au agrees with the comments of the other Commissioners. Reducing the height to fifteen (15) feet may be too restrictive for the Petitioner's needs. If the sign could be reduced a little bit, possibly eliminate the bottom couple of panels. The proposed sign is a gigantic monument sign that would be located at a street corner. The proposed sign may alter the character of the neighborhood. She would like to see an alternative. Corn. Windecker suggested cutting some of the trees back to increase visibility. He also suggested reducing the height of the sign to a sensible size. Mr. Weppler asked to Table the request so he could go back to his client and request that he take all the comments into consideration. Mr. Solis stated that he was at the ART and wrote down all the comments given to them. He can see where the comments were coming from. The initial design was based upon what the customer requested. When he relayed the comments back to the owner, he wanted to stay with the initial design. He does not see a problem coming up with a new design. He confirmed that the ART is requesting that the height be reduced to between ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet. Mr. Solis will provide a few designs based on the suggestions to the owner for his review. Ch. Entman stated that the Zoning Board does not like big, tall onerous-looking signs with multiple tenant panels. The trend is smaller is better. He would like to see them come back with more than one(1) alternative. He would also like to see the number of tenant panels reduced. 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 Table the request made by Embassy, LLC, 1101-1165 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030 and 14.20.070 for Creekside Commons Shopping Center to the March 16, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 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 March 16, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. ROGERS CENTER FOR COMMERCE, ARTHUR J. ROGERS & COMPANY — REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING "FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN" ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BARCLAY BOULEVARD AND �.J APTAKISIC ROAD Mr. Norman Ross, Arthur J. Rogers and Company, 1601 Barclay Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089,was present and sworn in. Mr. Ross explained that they manage approximately four hundred thousand (400,000) square feet of industrial space. They are currently thirty-one (31) percent vacant. They are requesting a two (2) year extension of the sign. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Dunn made a motion to allow the existing For Rent, Sale, Lease Sign for Arthur J. Rogers & Company to remain at the southwest corner of Barclay Boulevard and Aptakisic Road for six months. This sign will be reviewed at the August 17, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for status. Com. Lesser 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, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda 1020 LAKE COOK ROAD, BANNER PLUMBING— SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050; 14 •.2 0.080; AND 14.40.025, TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE WALL SIGN ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING; AND TO ALLOW A CHANGEABLE COPY WALL SIGN ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING Ms. Michelle Henderson and Mr. Gene Hara, Banner Plumbing, 1020 Lake Cook Road; Mr. Andy Korn, Kornerstone Signs, 2244 Janet Drive, Glenview, Illinois; Mr. Josh Trecker and Mr. Kelly Kahnig, Dektronics, 600 Northgate Parkway, Wheeling, Illinois, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald January 29, 2010 was read. Ms. Henderson explained that they opened their showroom approximately two and one half(2- 1/2) years ago. They are located on Lake Cook Road at Hastings Drive. Most traditional kitchen and bath showrooms have a store-front window or are located in a strip mall where you can see what they do within their business. Because they are a giant building that looks very industrial people have no clue that they are a showroom. People drive back and forth past the building and complain they cannot find the building. They have a Lake Cook Road address but no entrance on Lake Cook Road. They also have no windows on Lake Cook Road. MapQuest takes you to the wrong location. Everyday they have customers come in say they have driven past the building for two (2) years and had no idea that they were open to the public. They tried advertising through cable ads, billboards, signage on company vehicles and still feel like they need to get the message out more as to what they do. They are looking for a big TV screen that would show images of their showroom. They do not want anything flashy or Las Vegas style, but something tastefully done with images showing their different suites, or possibly a video that pans the showroom, and maybe some text that stated they are open to the public and the hours they are ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 open. They hear everyday how people cannot find them. There is no other kitchen and bath showroom as large as they are. When they appeared for the ART, they talked about different nit levels and sizes of different signs. The ART asked them to look at other changeable copy signs; one being City Park, which has a different sign manufacturer so they could not get the exact data level of the nits on that sign but the change rate was five (5) seconds. The other sign they looked at was the Westin Hotel sign. When they went to look at that sign, they found that the Westin sign is twelve (12) feet in width by seven(7) feet in height and is set a lot closer to the street and is a lot more visible. Initially, by lack of poor judgment or lack of knowledge, they asked for a sign that was seven(7) feet high by eight (8) foot three (3) inches wide. Because of the buildings setback they realized that they would prefer a sign twelve (12) foot two (2) inches wide with the same height. They want the sign to look nice on the building. They are not looking for any type of animation. The sign would display high resolution photographs of their showroom. They are asking for six (6) second intervals. Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated February 3, 2010 into the record. The ART recommends approval of the proposed changeable copy wall sign subject to the following recommendations: 1. Provide additional information on the requested nit levels for daytime illumination. Both daytime and nighttime illumination need to be carefully studied and limited so as not to be a distraction for drivers; 2. Lengthen the time between screen changes; 3. Provide the need for pictures to be displayed in addition to text; 4. Limit the hours of illumination. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan if the Petitioner is changing the size of the sign was there a new public hearing notice published. Mr. Sheehan stated that he has not reviewed the new proposed sign since he was given the new rendering tonight. The new proposed sign would have to be reviewed against the Sign Code to determine if an additional variance would be required. In addition, the ART approval was based on the smaller sign so the ART approval cannot be taken forward on the new proposed sign. Ch. Entman confirmed that the original sign dimensions were seven(7) feet three (3) inches high by eight (8) feet three (3) inches wide. The new proposed sign dimensions are seven (7) feet three (3) inches high by twelve (12) feet two (2)inches wide. The new proposed sign would have to be reviewed. Ms. Henderson stated that when they looked at other changeable signs they noticed that the Westin sign was twelve (12) feet by seven (7) feet. That sign is a lot closer to the street. Their building is elevated and setback from the street. They felt it would not be a good investment to go with the smaller sign as it might not have the impact that they were looking for. Corn. Windecker stated that the sign at the Westin is in Wheeling, Illinois. Ms. Henderson stated that she is aware of that. There are no other similar signs in Buffalo Grove. Ch. Entman stated that based upon the need for the sign as testified to he does not see the need for anything more than a sign that identifies that the kitchen and bath showroom is open to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 public. He does not see the need for a large presentation sign that will have video content as opposed to just verbiage.Ms.Henderson stated that they have had verbiage up there for the past two and one half(2-1/2)years saying that they are a kitchen and bath showroom and people still don't realize that they are a kitchen and bath showroom.Ch.Entman has seen the building.He has been a customer because when he saw kitchen and bath showroom it told him that there was a kitchen and bath showroom.The need the Petitioner's are expressing for the request is based upon the fact that it appears that some people are confused or not aware that they do in fact have a showroom inside the building.He is suggesting signage stating they are open to the public.He cannot believe that the large video screen will embellish on that to make it more understandable. The Zoning Board has to look at the need. The need here is to make people aware that the showroom is open to the public. Ms.Henderson stated that they have a PowerPoint presentation for the Zoning Board.They could not get the big screen to work and made the presentation via their laptop computer. The presentation demonstrated the six (6) second delay between screen changes and the types of photographs they wanted to display on the sign. Mr.Hara stated that they have the showroom hours posted on the door and still people walk in and ask if they are open to the public or if they are in the right place for the showroom.They have spent many thousands of dollars over the last four(4)months on cable television across a wide area,not just locally in Buffalo Grove.He is very frustrated at how hard it has been for him to let the world know that they are open and they built this amazing showroom and he cannot figure out how to get people to come in. Everyday he hears his salesmen try to explain to customers where to turn to get to the building.They feel that the proposed sign would be the best solution for them. Ms. Henderson added that most kitchen and bath showrooms are much smaller in scale. Most people are looking for a small storefront.She believes it is confusing to the general public.They have discussed a lot of ideas,even building a window since they do not have storefront windows. People do think that they are wholesale only. Com.Stein asked about the hours of operation on Saturdays.Ms.Henderson stated that they are open from 10:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.on Saturday.They are closed on Sundays and Mondays and open Tuesdays,Wednesdays and Fridays 9:00 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.and on Thursdays 9:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. Com. Stein stated that maybe part of why there is a slower traffic pattern is due to limited hours. Ms. Henderson stated that her background is plumbing supply wholesale showroom and she has been in this industry for fifteen(15)years.The other showrooms that she worked at were closed on Sundays and Mondays. They are not a Home Depot. They do make appointments after hours for clients that need special accommodations. Com. Lesser stated that he has been a customer. He very easily found the location.He cannot speak to the difficulty the Petitioners have had trying to get people to the door.The existing wall sign leads with"Warehouse"in big letters.He would suggest altering the existing sign to lead with"Kitchen and Bath Showroom"at the top.He is not in favor of the message board signs.He believes that message board signs are very distracting and he does not believe that the proposed sign will accomplish what they are trying accomplish. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 of 27—FEBRUARY 16,2010 Corn. Au does not see how pictures of bathrooms will help because they do not say that is what they have in their warehouse. If she saw that sign on the building with pictures of bathrooms she would not think that they have a showroom. She would think that is where contractors get their supplies. She does not believe the proposed sign would accomplish their goal. Buffalo Grove is a modest Village and the Zoning Board likes to keep things simple and less obtrusive. Com. Shapiro likes the look of the sign. He believes that there is a contradiction. The name is Banner Plumbing Supply. When he first saw the City Park sign, he did not think that sign was necessary and thought it was a little over the top. He believes that based on the location and the location of the entrance that the proposed sign could help. He believes that unique circumstances exist based on the location of the signage compared to the location of the front door. They do not have a traditional store and they are trying to highlight a portion of their business. It is hard to say if the sign is too big based on the rendering. It does not look out of place next to the large "Banner" sign. It is bigger that what was previously proposed. He does not believe with the size of the building and the size of that wall that the proposed sign is out of proportion with the rest of the building. He would agree with the comments of the ART although the ART has not seen this proposed sign. Mr. Korn added that in a 2001 study the Federal Highway Administration found no evidence that digital displays pose a hazard to drivers. Also in 2007 the Foundation for Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Center for Automotive Safety Research issued two (2) studies revealing that no relationship exists between digital billboards and automobile accidents. This conclusion also can be applied to on-premises digital signage as well. Corn. Windecker suggested to get rid of the "Warehouse" sign, move up the "Kitchen and Bath Showroom" sign and add an open for business to the public sign and include the hours. That would get as much exposure as traffic traveling at forty-five (45) mph past something that changes every six (6) seconds. At that intersection, even at night when traffic merges from three (3) lanes to two (2) lanes,people are not looking at signs on a building. Mr. Hara stated that the word "Warehouse" is first because for sixty(60) years they have been in business primarily as a wholesale plumbing supplier. The showroom is a new venture for them. They had to balance promoting and advertising. Fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of the building is dedicated to the showroom. The rest of the building, one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet or so is dedicated to the wholesale contractor business. On a daily basis he has to make decisions and try not to offend his core contractor base so it does not appear that this building and business is solely focused on the showroom. They moved from another location within the business park. They took on the moving and build out expense for the extra exposure. He used to see plumbing contractor trucks drive up and down Lake Cook Road to go to other suppliers. They decided they were happy in Buffalo Grove and wanted to stay. He was hopeful that the existing sign would have been adequate. He would like to agree that the existing signage is adequate, but it is not. He knows the amount of business that he is not getting and is very frustrated. He fights with his own employees who ask him why the sign does not say open to the public. He wishes he could. He would have balloons out and spotlights if he could. He is very proud of the establishment and his goal is to get as many people in the door as possible. As far as ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 23 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 the words that would go on the sign, or a different sign, he would like to do whatever he could to make it clear that it is a retail showroom. Ch. Entman understands that business is tough. He understands what it is like to get customers. The Zoning Board certainly wants them to stay in the Village for as long as possible. The Petitioner's do have a beautiful facility. The Zoning Board would like to help. He believes that the Petitioner's goal can be accomplished with something that the Zoning Board is suggesting. Maybe take the "Warehouse" sign and leave it on the right hand side of the building and take "Kitchen and Bath Showroom" to the left of the "Banner" sign and add open to the public. He even suggested an arrow on the side of the building pointing to the west side of the building. He cannot believe that wouldn't be enough and that anything more would be required. He does not like the large video signs but he can see where they might need them. The Westin and City Parks signs are perpendicular to the right-of-way. When driving those signs are either in front of you one way or in front of you the other way. This sign can almost only be on your side. He can see the difference. He is not in a position at this time to approve the proposed sign based on what has been presented. Ms. Henderson noted that the sign would be flat to the building but it has a one hundred sixty (160) degree range of view. Also, they do things tastefully and would never have anything flashy. That is not how they do business. Ch. Entman does not feel that this sign is anything less than top notch. He just does not feel that the sign is appropriate for what the Petitioner's are trying to accomplish. He advised the Petitioner's of their options. Mr. Hara asked if it would help if they considered removing the entire sign that is currently there in exchange for the changeable copy sign. Ch. Entman stated that normally he would jump on a suggestion like that. But here it is such a difference. Corn. Dunn stated that she would not be in favor of a jumbotron whether it is the only sign or one (1) of six (6) signs. She feels that the current sign is big and if people miss that people are driving with their eyes closed. Corn. Stein questioned whether customers would be able to find them at all if they were to remove the existing wall signs. He realizes that the terrain by that building is awkward. He suggested possibly a directional ground sign that would let people know where to turn. He believes that someone looking for the building will find it. He does not know if the video sign will be any additional help. Mr. Hara advised that one of the original ideas was to have a jumbotron on a ground sign facing both directions on Lake Cook Road as opposed to flat on the building. Mr. Kahnig stated that he believes that the objection mainly is the tradition use of electronic displays. This is a business that is trying to survive in this economy. They have a lot of things to say and they cannot do it with the amount of square footage of signage that they currently have. Because they don't look like a traditional showroom they are trying to attract people to a different portion of their business. Maybe a different type of sign would work there, maybe a two-sided sign that you can see as you are driving rather than being parallel to the road. The way ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 of 27 — FEBRUARY 16, 2010 the electronic displays are used vary from business to business. Electronic displays look different during the day than they do at night. The brightness automatically dims at night to less than five (5)percent of the daytime brightness. The intent is that they are attractive and not distractive. Ch. Entman asked the Petitioner to take all the comments into consideration. Come back with a clearer explanation of what is being proposed or look at an alternative such as a text only sign. Mr. Hara asked to Table their request to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. He asked if it would help to have a demo sign brought somewhere the Commissioners could look at it. Ch. Entman advised that whatever way the Petitioner's feel that they can convey what they want or what the sign can do would be beneficial. 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 Table the request made by Banner Plumbing, 1020 Lake Cook Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.050; 14.20.080 and 14.40.025, to the March 16, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Corn. Stein 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 March 16, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 702 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, DAIRY QUEEN — DEVIATION TO THE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW THE SIGN TO NOT BE CENTERED OVER THE LEASE SPACE; AND TO ALLOW THE SIGN TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED OF TWENTY FOUR (24) INCHES AND LOCATED TWELVE (12) INCHES BELOW THE TOP OF THE SIGN BAND Mr. Michael Scherer, Dairy Queen, 702 Buffalo Grove Road, and Mr. Mark Kipnis, Sign A Rama, 889 S. Randall Road, Elgin, Illinois were present and sworn in. Mr. Scherer explained that he bought the business about one and a half(1-1/2) years ago. He is turning this into a reinvestment project. That store has not been changed in many years. Plus Dairy Queen is going through a modernization program which includes facility improvements inside and new signage on the outside. That Dairy Queen has been there for a very long time. He is pretty sure the current sign has been there since day one (1) when that store opened. Currently that sign is in disrepair and cannot be fixed. Only half of the sign lights up. They have had pressure from the landlord and pressure from Dairy Queen to get the sign fixed. He called Mr. Kipnis from Sign A Rama to come out and take photographs and come up with a design for the sign. He came back with a sign that looked very pleasing to him and the landlord. There are several other locations within the center that appear to have a sign that is larger than the twenty- four (24) inches. They are only asking for the logo to be deviated for the thirty-six (36) inches that will be off-center for the remainder of this year. This winter he will be converting to a Dairy Queen Orange Julius store. He would like to get the sign fixed for the spring to help increase the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 traffic and make customers aware that this is under new ownership. He is cleaning up the store and looking to bring everything up to date at this location. Ch. Entman read the ART recommendation of the ART minutes of February 3, 2010 into the record. Ch. Entman asked if the deal with Orange Julius is conditional or a done deal. Mr. Scherer stated that currently they will have the logo. When he remodels the store there will be a new contract that he will sign that will provide for him to sell Orange Julius. Should that not go through, in place of the Orange Julius, there will just be Dairy Queen lettering that will be within the twenty- four(24)inches. One way or another there will be text following the logo. Com. Dunn asked if he didn't get the Orange Julius would the off-center DQ logo be what he wants. Mr. Scherer stated that the DQ logo would be there and would be followed by the text of Dairy Queen. Either way they would request the off-center logo. Com. Windecker asked about the size of the existing logo. Mr. Kipnis stated that it is slightly less than twenty-four (24) inches. Com. Windecker confirmed that they are proposing the logo to be thirty-six (36) inches by four and one half (4-1/2/) feet. He asked what the next lower size available is. Mr. Kipnis stated that he can design any size. He looked at the space and designed something that he thought would be visible and aesthetically pleasing that just happened to turn out to be thirty-six (36) inches. Com. Windecker asked if he could make a thirty (30) inch sign. Mr. Kipnis stated that he could. Com. Windecker believes that the thirty-six (36) inch high logo is too large. Ch. Entman agrees that the proposed logo is too large. He would like to see the logo at thirty(30) inches high. He would also like to make sure that in the future either Orange Julius or Dairy Queen text will follow the logo. He suggested appearing back before the Zoning Board for a status update in the winter. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Dunn made a motion to grant the request made by Dairy Queen, 702 Buffalo Grove Road, for Deviation to The Plaza Shopping Center Sign Criteria to allow the sign (logo) not be centered over the lease; and to allow the sign (logo) to exceed that maximum height of twenty-four (24) inches and located twelve (12) inches below the top of the sign band subject to the sign (logo) not to exceed thirty (30) inches in height and width to be proportionate. The Petitioner shall return before the Zoning Board of Appeals at the December 21, 2010 meeting to provide a status update of the second sign. A variation will be required for the second sign. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 26 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Motion Passed 7 to 0. Petitioner to appear on the December 21, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for a status update. ANNOUNCEMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Lesser and seconded by Com. Windecker. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 11:25 P.M. Submitted by, 4-I°L J e Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 27 of 27—FEBRUARY 16, 2010