Loading...
2010-05-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes AN 0 REGULAR MEETING SL&e11 oIa)I ,c BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 18, 2010 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES April, 20, 2010 minutes: The April 20, 2010 minutes were deferred until the end of the meeting. 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 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 9 — MAY 18, 2010 u Mr. Bob Kuhlman, 55 W. Dundee Road, was present and sworn in. Mr. Kuhlman withdrew his petition for this request. 1101-1165 WEILAND ROAD, EMBASSY, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.070, TO ALLOW A GROUND SIGN THAT 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, was present and sworn in. Mr. Weppler reviewed the revised sign. They removed six (6) tenant panels from the sign, reduced the height of the sign to twelve (12) feet, incorporated the brick base as requested, the tenant panel colors were changed from red to green and the actual sign area was reduced to one hundred fifty two point five (152.5) square feet. It is important to his client that his tenants have the ability to have some sort of street signage. They are asking that since they have reduced the number of tenant panels that some of the business be allowed to have tenant panels on both sides of the sign and some only on one (1) side of the sign so that each tenant would have the ability to be on the sign. Ch. Entman reviewed the previously noted Village Engineer's memorandum dated February 1, 2010 and the ART minutes dated February 3, 2010 and April 5, 2010. Corn. Dunn asked if the smaller tenant panels are to be green in color while the larger tenant panels are in their corporate colors. Mr. Weppler stated that the larger tenants are insisting on having their corporate colors to identify their businesses. She stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals can recommend that those tenant panels also be green in color. Even though the height has been reduced she believes that the width of the sign is too large; it is almost like a wall at the corner. That is a lot of signage for a local strip mall. Mr. Weppler replied that they had reduced the number of tenant panels as requested and they reduced the height of the sign as requested. The size of the font was designed to meet the speed limit for that four (4) lane highway. Their sign company told them that if they want people to see the sign driving by at that speed limit that was size font needed. Com. Windecker asked about the size of the tenant panels. Mr. Weppler stated that the tenant panels are eighteen (18) inches high by approximately five (5) feet wide. Com. Windecker confirmed that they are proposing six (6) smaller tenant panels and the three (3) larger ones. Ch. Entman stated that the previous suggestions were taken to heart. He still has a problem with the sign. He has been consistent from the beginning with his objection to the size of the sign. The initially requested height would never have been approved. At the reduced height the sign is a better alternative but he believes that it is too wide. The existing sign is at one hundred twenty (120) square feet. The proposed sign after being revised is at approximately one hundred fifty ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 9 — MAY 18, 2010 two (152) square feet. That is a thirty (30) percent increase over the existing sign and what the Ordinance allows. If you include the base structure of the sign, the sign is at one hundred eight five(185) square feet, which is almost fifty(50)percent larger than the existing sign. He believes that the sign is too big. He is not a fan of multi-tenant identification signs. Most of the existing multi-tenant signs predate the Zoning Board of Appeals initiative. He is not in favor of the revised proposed sign. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Weppler asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to vote on the revised sign as submitted. Corn. Dunn made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Embassy, LLC, 1101- 1165 Weiland Road, for variance of Sign Code, Sections 14.20.030 and 14.20.070, to allow a ground sign that would exceed the maximum allowed area of one hundred twenty (120) square feet by thirty two point five (32.5) square feet and would be located ten (10) feet six (6) inches from the property line for the Creekside Commons Shopping Center pursuant to Exhibits "D3", "E3"dated May 3, 2010, and"G". Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated February 1, 2010 and the ART minutes dated February 3, 2010 and April 5, 2010. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010 Subsection B. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Au NAY—Dunn, Windecker,Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied by a vote of 3 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. 1000 WEILAND ROAD, FUJI THAI — DEVIATION TO THE HIGHLAND OAKS SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW WHITE LETTERS WITH RED TRIM AROUND THE LETTERS AND RETURNS Mr. Sornarong Chanprung, Fuji Thai, 1000 Weiland Road,was present and sworn in. Ch. Entman confirmed that the name is changing from Sushi Thai to Fuji Thai. He also confirmed that the Roman Numeral"II"will be removed from the sign. Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated April 5, 2010. Mr. Chanprung confirmed that the Roman Numeral"II"will be removed from the sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 9—MAY 18, 2010 There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made a motion to grant the request made by Fuji Thai, 1000 Weiland Road, for deviation to the Highland Oaks Shopping Center Sign Criteria to allow white letters with red trim around the letters and the returns. Subject to the Roman Numeral "II" being removed. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. NEW BUSINESS 965 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE, WEI CHENG — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO INSTALL A FIVE (5) FOOT WOOD FENCE BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING THREE (3) FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE THEN TURNING WEST AND RUNNING ALONG KNOLLWOOD DRIVE TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE Mr. Wei Cheng and Ms. Chunhua Yao, 965 Knollwood Drive, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 29, 2010 was read. Mr. Cheng explained that they have children and would like to allow them to play in the backyard. They also would like to have some privacy. They are asking to match the fence up with the neighbor's fence to the rear. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 4, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal and note that there is no abutting driveway." Ch. Entman confirmed that the fence will be the same type of fence as the neighbor's. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Wei Cheng, 965 Knollwood Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a five (5) foot wood fence beginning at the northwest corner of the house and extending three (3) feet beyond the building setback line then turning west and running along Knollwood Drive to the rear property line. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 9—MAY 18, 2010 Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 4, 2010. The Petitioner has Li demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days—June 4, 2010. 740 DUNHILL DRIVE, IRVING AND JILL FELDMAN — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO INSTALL A SIX (6) FOOT PRIVACY FENCE TO ENCLOSE THE REAR YARD Ch. Entman read a letter dated May 3, 2010 submitted by Jill Feldman withdrawing their petition. 2871 DUNSTAN LANE, ROBERT AND RANDI SOBEL - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A FOUR(4) FOOT WOOD FENCE TO ACT AS A DOG RUN THAT WOULD EXTEND SOUTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE, THEN TURNING NORTHEAST A DISTANCE OF SIXTEEN (16) FEET THAT WOULD EXTEND APPROXIMATELY FOUR (4) FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG BUFFALO GROVE ROAD,THEN TURNING NORTHWEST A DISTANCE OF THIRTEEN (13) FEET AND RETURNING TO THE HOUSE Mr. Robert Sobel and Mrs. Randi Sobel, 2871 Dunstan Lane, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 29, 2010 was read. Mr. Sobel explained that they have a large dog that weights about seventy five (75) pounds and they want to put in a dog run. They also have three(3) small children. Their children cannot play in the backyard because of the dog. It is hard to clean up after the dog on a daily basis. The kids would like to play in the backyard but they are afraid to. The dog is also burning out the grass in the backyard.They just want a dog run. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 5, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Corn. Windecker asked about the type of fence proposed for the dog run. Mr. Sobel stated that the fence will be the same type of fence that was previously allowed by variance, except this fence will be four(4) feet in height. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 9—MAY 18, 2010 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Robert and Randi Sobel, 2871 Dunstan Lane, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing a four (4) foot wood fence to act as a dog run that would extend south from the south east elevation of the house, then turning northeast a distance of sixteen (16) feet that would extend four(4) feet beyond the building setback line along Buffalo Grove Road, then turning northwest a distance of thirteen(13) feet and returning to the house. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 5, 2010. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen(15) days—June 4, 2010. 55 W. DUNDEE ROAD, QUALITY CAR CENTER-CAR WASH — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070; AND 14.40.025, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFACING THE EXISTING GROUND SIGN THAT IS LOCATED THREE (3) FEET FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET FROM AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET. THE NEW FACE WILL INCLUDE A CHANGEABLE COPY LED SIGN Mr. Bob Kuhlman, Quality Car Center-Car Wash, 55 W. Dundee Road, and Mr. Phillip Brockman, Affiliated Resources, 3839 N. Western Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on April 29, 2010 was read. Mr. Kuhlman explained that he worked with the Village to come up with a sign package for the existing property. He took everything down that was there except for two (2) signs that will be changed with the approval of this sign. He changed the logo and changed the look of the existing sign. His building is setback between Charter One and Citibank. Visibility from the street is difficult, especially in the spring with trees. He would like to bring in extra business. Since he purchased the business they are down about twenty five(25)percent. They are looking at ways to make the business more viable. A suggestion from the ART team was to identify the landscaping for the proposed sign. The existing sign is already landscaped. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 9—MAY 18, 2010 Mr. Kuhlman provided a photograph of the landscaping that exists. This was submitted and marked as Exhibit "H". He also submitted a rendering detailing new proposed entrance and exit signs. These were submitted and marked as Exhibits "I" and "J". These new signs will comply with the Sign Code. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 3, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on this proposal." Corn. Dunn believes that the existing sign is too large and she is not in favor of changeable copy signs. The same thing can be accomplished without LED lights. The Zoning Board of Appeals allowed that at Royal Touch Car Wash at Aptakisic and Weiland Roads. That sign states that price of the car wash and that sign is not LED. Mr. Kuhlman replied that they are not changing the size of the sign; it is the exact same size as the existing sign. Com. Dunn stated that maybe she does not like the existing sign. Corn. Windecker suggested in lieu of an LED sign, use a yellow panel that slides in and out for the price. Ch. Entman agrees with the comments. The sign is large as it exists. He is not in favor of the LED signs at all. The Petitioner could have a sign that identifies the product. At Royal Touch Car Wash, they had to get a variance to change the price. The Petitioner's objective can be accomplished without an LED sign. He would like to see the sign smaller. The sign is visible,the property is visible. Mr. Kuhlman requested to Table his petition until the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for more Commissioners to be present. Mr. Kuhlman added that as far as the size of the sign, that sign was previously varied. They did everything that the Appearance Review Team and the Village asked them to do. They cannot change the size of the sign. He brought in the entrance and exit signs as a courtesy. Ch. Entman replied that the sole purpose of the Appearance Review Team is to try and take care of appearance items in advance of appearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. They have no authority and have no recommending power as to the signage that is approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They have no obligation to discuss whether a sign is too large or too small. He is sure that the ART did not give the Petitioner any indication that the proposed sign would be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Bruckman stated that he appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals about four (4) years ago with the JCYS LED sign. Ch. Entman stated that sign is not relevant to the proposed sign. He did not say that there were no LED signs in the Village. He stated that he is not in favor of them. He did not vote in favor of that sign. Mr. Bruckman added that since the sign went up, every Labor Day weekend, the Village calls upon them to display information about Buffalo Grove Days. Ch. Entman advised that JCYS has not been in full compliance concerning the sign. There was an occasion where graphics were displayed on the sign and they were told to take it Li off. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 9—MAY 18, 2010 Ch. Entman reiterated that he is not in favor of an LED sign for the purposes pursuant to this petition. Mr. Bruckman stated that the business is down twenty five (25) percent. To not allow the Petitioner to let people know by advertising one of the benefits he offers at his location is hurting him. He agrees that the rest of the Zoning Board of Appeals should be present before a vote is taken. Ch. Entman asked if Mr. Bruckman is an owner in the business. Mr. Bruckman replied that he is not. Ch. Entman confirmed that Mr. Bruckman would be the one installing the sign. He asked Mr. Bruckman if he had personal information concerning the twenty five (25)percent drop in the Petitioner's business. Mr. Bruckman stated that the Petitioner told him that. Ch. Entman asked if Mr. Bruckman had personal knowledge that the Petitioner's loss is attributed to the condition of the signage on the property. Mr. Bruckman stated that in his business signage is very important. When they offer a sign to a client they tell them the sign will increase their business fifteen (15) to twenty (20) percent. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Bruckman if he was convinced that the drop in business as noted by Mr. Kuhlman is directly attributable to how many and what types of signs are on the property. Mr. Bruckman replied that the type of sign would be correct. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Bruckman if the Petitioner purchases his product and puts an LED sign up he will increase his business. Mr. Bruckman replied yes. Ch. Entman stated that he did not hear anyone on the Zoning Board of Appeals ever say that they would never approve a sign and that they want all signage down. They are not saying that the Petitioner cannot have signs, he has signage. The Zoning Board of Appeals is not saying that the Petitioner has to remove the sign. There were a couple of comments that the sign could be smaller, but the sign does identify the property as a car center, car wash, automotive repair, auto body repair and towing services for foreign and domestic cars. The Petitioner has identification. So it is not a question of not allowing the Petitioner to identify his business and what it does. The Zoning Board of Appeals is here to review the type of signage and whether or not Mr. Bruckman will sell the Petitioner the product which is an LED sign. Ch. Entman asked if it is just the LED portion of the sign or is it just the fact that he needs the sign. Mr. Bruckman replied that the Petitioner needs an LED sign. Ch. Entman asked if a regular sign would do the job. Mr. Bruckman does not believe that a regular sign would do the job. He has been told by customers that whatever item is being advertised on the sign is the product that sells. Ch. Entman questioned the statement that an LED sign makes a product more desirable to purchase as opposed to seeing a regular sign. Mr. Bruckman stated that if an LED sign is installed the business will increase. If a regular type sign is used the business will stay the same or get worse. Ch. Entman confirmed with Mr. Bruckman that he is in the business of selling LED signs. Com. Au commented that the Petitioner is making a lot of assumptions: telling the Zoning Board of Appeals that business will increase by fifteen(15)to twenty(20)percent and that business has suffered because of lack of signage. In order for the Zoning Board of Appeals to put value on those statements they will need to see proof of those numbers. Show where business has increased due to an LED sign being installed or show the loss of business over a period of time. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 9—MAY 18, 2010 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Au made a motion to Table the request made by Quality Car Center-Car Wash, 55 W. Dundee Road, to the June 15, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item to appear on the June 15, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan announced that the PNC Bank signs were approved at the May 17, 2010 Village Board meeting. He worked with the bank regarding the lighting issue at 1177 Lake Cook Road. The lights closest to the residents have been shielded on three (3) sides and the light on the rear of the building will be replaced or shielded within the next two (2)weeks. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Dunn and seconded by Corn. Windecker. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:27 P.M. Submitted by, Juli amka Rec rding Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 9—MAY 18, 2010