Loading...
2010-03-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ODD owE 11 REGULAR MEETING As sLceMilTt-� BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF APPEALS MARCH 16, 2010 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Windecker Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner Jeff Stein, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 16, 2010 minutes: Com. Stein made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 16, 2010. The following corrections to the February 16, 2010 were made at the Petitioner's request regarding 1220 Lockwood Drive. The name of the Petitioner's son will be removed and replaced with the "Samuels' son" or "their son". Any reference to the specific medical conditions will be replaced with "who is in a wheelchair". Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — Lesser Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 abstention. Minutes approved as corrected. OLD BUSINESS 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 7 — MARCH 16, 2010 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 Kuhlman addressed to Brian Sheehan dated February 24, 2010 which states: "Brian, Can we again postpone the zoning meeting until April. I think by then I will have my ducks in a row. As soon as I get the rest of the sign bids I will give you a call and we can meet. Thanks." Com. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Quality Car Center-Car Wash, 55 W. Dundee Road, to the April 20, 2010 regular meeting. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the April 20, 2010 regular agenda. 1101-1165 WEILAND ROAD, EMBASSY, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.070, 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 Ch. Entman read a letter submitted by Terry Weppler, Attorney, addressed to Julie Kamka dated March 8, 2010 which states: "Dear Julie, I have reviewed the comments made by the Zoning Board of Appeals at their last meeting with my client and we are making revisions to the sign to address their comments. As a result, we will be unable to meet the deadline for the upcoming meeting and I am requesting that the Buffalo Grove ZBA defer this issue until the April meeting. I will supply you with the revised plans in the near future. Should you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. I look forward to hearing from you." Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Embassy, LLC, 1101 -1165 Weiland Road, to the April 20, 2010 regular meeting. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 7 — MARCH 16, 2010 Motion Passed 6 to 0.Item to appear on the April 20,2010 regular agenda. 1020 LAKE COOK ROAD,BANNER PLUMBING—SIGN CODE,SECTIONS 14.20.050; 14.20.080; 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 Mr.Gene Hara,Banner Plumbing,1020 Lake Cook Road,was present and sworn in. Mr. Hara read a prepared statement to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The statement was submitted and marked as Exhibit"F". Mr.Hara presented a DVD video to the Zoning Board of Appeals that shows a sample sign and the content that the proposed sign would have,including the timing of the screen changes.This DVD was submitted and marked as Exhibit"G". Com.Lesser asked if the size of the sign and the images that are portrayed on the sign in the video are roughly proportionate to what would be seen from the cars traveling on Lake Cook Road. Mr. Hara was not sure. The video was taken in South Dakota. The color rendering submitted with the application is proportionate to what would be seen from the road.The sign would be smaller than the flag logo.Com.Lesser confirmed that the proposed sign dimensions are eighty seven(87)inches by one hundred forty six(146)inches.Mr.Hara agreed. Com. Stein agrees with the Petitioner that the Zoning Board of Appeals should take into consideration the surrounding area.He realizes that Wheeling is across the street and they may have different rules.It is a commercial corridor.It's not residential.He questions whether or not the sign will really be that visible. He questioned what the sign will do to someone driving in traffic.At the last meeting it was testified that video monitors do not cause accidents.Since the Zoning Board of Appeals has not seen the study he believes that the study was referring to signs that are similar to the Westin where you see the sign as you approach it as opposed to a sign where you have to turn your head to see it.The Zoning Board of Appeals asked for the Petitioner to come back with alternatives that would be more visible.He knows where Banner is located and he still passes Hastings Drive and has to turn around. He was looking for some other alternatives besides the monitor. Mr. Hara stated that he understands that what Com. Stein is saying,that the only way that drivers can see without turning is a sign that is perpendicular to his building as opposed to flat on his building.Com.Stein explained that he is referring to study that states that video monitors do not cause accidents.He assumes that the study is referring to a sign that is perpendicular-type sign.Mr.Hara asked if Corn.Stein is talking about a video sign or not a video sign. He asked if Corn. Stein is disputing the way the sign will lay on the building or what the sign will be made up of,or both.Com.Stein clarified that what he is referring to is the sign laying flat on the building as proposed and that the sign is not going to be that visible for people driving by unless they actually turn to look at it.Mr.Hara replied that he does not have his sign company representative with him tonight but this sign is viewable from wide angles.The sign is very expensive,high technology,HD,crystal clear.The sign is visible not only when you are right in front of it but from other angles as well. If it were not,the sign would not be cost effective for him.People would have to look at the sign to notice it.That is the same problem he ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 7—MARCH 16,2010 has with the existing sign. People do tell him that they see the sign but that they do not register what it means. They do not register that it means retail and open to them. Corn. Stein stated that part of his question was about the viewing range of the sign. He would have liked to have seen some other sign options that would be closer to the road that tell people where to turn. Corn. Shapiro believes that based on the Petitioner's location coming off of an overpass on Lake Cook Road that this sign will not only be viewable, but will probably be effective based on the video telling them where to turn, at least if they are traveling west. He believes that based on the fact that this building is not near a residential location, it is on a busy street that has no direct access off Lake Cook Road into the parking lot, he does not have an issue with the sign. He thinks that the sign will be as effective as any other method of trying to get people into the building. At first he did not like the sign at City Park, but after a while that sign is no more noticeable than any other sign out there. It is not distracting. If the Petitioner is willing to make this kind of investment and feel they will get that type of return from the sign, then he would support the request. Corn. Au asked if the sign would be lit at the same level during the day and at night, or will the sign be dimmer at night. Mr. Hara stated that the technology is similar to a GPS in a car that knows when it is night and day and adjusts to it. He does not know the exact data but the sign has a photocell and will adjust appropriately so that is will be the same brightness whether it is day or night. Corn. Au asked if the Petitioner has an issue if they restrict the hours of illumination for the sign. Mr. Hara does not have an issue with that. Mr. Sheehan stated that the sign specifications do go into detail on the amount of output. It does say that the unit dims to approximately six (6) percent of the daytime nits, which is a measurement of light output. The information provided states that the sign goes from about nine thousand(9,000)nits down to about a five hundred(500) or six hundred(600)nit level at night. Ch. Entman stated that if the Zoning Board of Appeals had proposed hours of illumination they should state what they think they should be. Com. Lesser stated that historically he has been opposed to the idea of jumbotrons and reader boards, but he will contradict himself. He believes that there are few locations in the Village of Buffalo Grove where the idea of a sign like this will not necessarily be problematic. This is not a residential area and the building is not near an intersection. A sign of this type would be much more problematic if it were near an intersection. This is a commercial area relatively distant from intersections. He will not tell the Petitioner what is best for his business. If the Petitioner believes that this sign will make a significant improvement on customers locating the business, then he does not have an issue with the sign in this location if the hours of illumination are restricted. Corn. Dunn agrees that the building is in a unique location. The building is located below the busy road and there are no windows. The Petitioner is trying to bring in retail customers at the location within an industry park. But she is not in favor of a jumbotron. Lake Cook Road gets backed up. Cars stop and go. To look at this sign, one would have to look off the road to see it. You cannot keep your eye on the lanes in front of you when you are driving if you want to look at this sign. It will have moving content. A moving, video sign is contrary to all the other signs ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 7—MARCH 16, 2010 that the Zoning Board of Appeals has allowed in Buffalo Grove. They have allowed some signs with just words, but none of those signs can have video content. She understands the Petitioner's plight but she is not in favor of approving this type of sign for Buffalo Grove. Mr. Hara replied that he believes that they are a destination location. He can't tell you how many different suburbs customers come from. They come from the City. They have a billboard downtown on Ohio Street. People come from everywhere. These people come to Buffalo Grove because of his business. He does not know how many other retail businesses exist in Buffalo Grove that people come special for. They are unique and he believes that people spend money at other places because they come to see him. Com. Stein would have liked to have seen a similar sign situated as the Petitioner is proposing so he could have seen what type of angle the sign could be viewed at. Part of him is nervous about Lake Cook Road. He realizes that this sign will tell people where to turn. But how frequently will they get a chance to see that. You could drive by the sign he doesn't know how many times without ever seeing where to turn. He asked how close you have to be before you can see the sign. He does not know from the distance of Lake Cook Road how much of the sign will be seen. Com. Shapiro stated that concerning the City Park sign that if you are driving down Aptakisic Road you can still see the sign. He does not think that you have to be directly ahead of the sign to see it. He knows that the Zoning Board of Appeals are not big fans of these signs. The technology is there to make these signs available to businesses to give them more flexibility in the way that they either promote their business or give information about their business. He does not know what the alternative is if the Zoning Board of Appeals says to no every time something new comes out. The ability to put text on these signs came a few years ago. Now you take that for granted. If the sign is approved, in six (6) months from now, we probably won't even notice that the sign is there. He does not feel that the sign will be a distraction. The sign might help the Petitioner's business. Com. Au asked if the Petitioner would be amenable to have a review of the sign conducted in three (3) months to determine if there are issues with the lighting and the timing of the screen changes. Mr. Hara replied that this is huge upfront investment. He would not be willing to throw the sign away. Corn. Au clarified that she meant to review the details and modify the restrictions if needed. Mr. Hara stated that he would be open to that. Mr. Hara explained that this is very important to him. The fact that he is looking at probably the most expensive sign available is because it is such high quality and because he wants the sign viewable from wide angles and not only dead on. He could buy the same sign for probably half the cost but it would not look right. He does not know if it will be a safety hazard. He does not personally like the sign at the Westin. His sign is probably twice the cost of that sign. His sign would be the same size as theirs, but crystal clear. He does not believe in the moving text signs. Scrolling text that you have to stop and read is not what he wants. The demo showed the screen changes at eight (8) seconds. He is open to whatever the Zoning Board of Appeals feels is long enough not to be a distraction. The City Park sign has graphics that scroll in and out and animation. This sign is nothing like that. The sign would be a slide show with some hours and text advising they are open to the public. It may take someone twenty(20) times to pass by to see ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 7—MARCH 16, 2010 the specific sign that says turn on Hastings Drive. Another thing that the sign can be used for are community service or amber alert needs or anything like that. Corn. Stein asked how vulnerable the sign is to damage from vandalism. Mr. Hara stated that you can't reach the sign. It would be very high off the ground. Corn. Stein stated that he is referring to vandalism that has been done to the nearby lift station and to grounds to the east of there. He asked how protected the monitor itself is. Mr. Hara could not answer that question but he will look into that for his own sake. Corn. Lesser stated that he purposes that the hours of illumination are from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Dunn made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Banner Plumbing, 1020 Lake Cook Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.050, pertaining to Industrial Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs; and Section 14.40.025, pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs, for the purpose of allowing more than one (1) wall sign on the south elevation of the building; and to allow a changeable copy wall sign on the south elevation of the building pursuant to Zoning Board of Appeals of Appeals Exhibit "D2" and "E7". Subject to the hours of illumination being limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a staff review of the sign being conducted in three (3) months to determine if lighting, illumination, timing of screen changes, etc. need to be modified. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub-section B. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Lesser, Shapiro, Au NAY — Dunn, Entman ABSTAIN — Stein Motion Passed 3 to 2, 1 abstention. Item to appear on a future Village Board agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Lesser and seconded by Corn. Shapiro. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 7 — MARCH 16, 2010 Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M. Submitted by, alckAN Ju 'e Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 7—MARCH 16, 2010