Loading...
2010-09-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes App [AriwED As s►.kfstim 1 E� REGULAR MEETING to I Va do BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 18, 2010 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, May 18, 2010. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Windecker, Au, Entman NAY —None ABSTAIN — Stein, Lesser, Shapiro Motion Passed 3 to 0, 3 abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. July 20, 2010 minutes: Corn. Lesser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, July 20, 2010. Com. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY —None ABSTAIN — Windecker Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 15 — SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 Corn. Stein left the meeting at 7:37 p.m. 245 MCHENRY ROAD, WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030, 14.20.070 AND 14.40.025, TO REPLACE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS (MENU BOARDS) ON THE PROPERTY; TO ALLOW THE MENU BOARD GROUND SIGNS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF EXISTING GROUND SIGNS LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET; AND TO ALLOW THE TWO (2) MENU BOARD GROUND SIGNS TO BE CHANGEABLE COPY Mr. Joe Marcin, Q.T. Signs, Inc., 1391 Wright Boulevard, Schaumburg, Illinois 60193, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30, 2010 was read. Mr. Marcin explained that Wendy's has a new program that includes a breakfast menu. The backside of the menu board would turn to display the breakfast menu and then turn back for the lunch and dinner menu. There is no change in the square footage of the sign from what exists. Ch. Entman confirmed with Mr. Marcin that Wendy's is not adding signs only changing what exists. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 8, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Corn. Windecker asked about the pre-order menu board. Mr. Marcin stated that menu board is existing. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan if there was a permit issued for the pre-order menu board. Mr. Sheehan stated that a search of the address file and permit data base indicates that there was never an application for permit or permit issued for that sign. He is not sure when that sign was installed but the records indicate that there was never a permit applied for or issued for the sign. Com. Windecker confirmed that there is no permit on file for that sign to be there. Mr. Marcin stated that sign was installed when the property was built. They had no dealings at all regarding that sign. Com. Windecker would like to know when that sign was installed. It may be before Mr. Marcin was involved. Mr. Marcin stated that the breakfast program is new. When the Wendy's was built that sign was installed to the best of his knowledge. Com. Windecker believes that the Zoning Board should look into why there was no permit or approval of the pre-order menu board. Corn. Shapiro asked if the variance request includes the pre-order menu board to bring it into conformance. Mr. Sheehan advised that the pre-order menu board is considered changeable copy and is included in the variance request. Both signs require a variance. Corn. Lesser asked Mr. Sheehan if the Zoning Board should address the question of whether or not the sign was permitted before they grant a variance. Mr. Sheehan stated that at this point the sign is installed. If the Village chooses to allow the sign, we can retroactively issue the permit for something that has already been installed. The publication was for two (2) changeable copy ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 15 — SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 ground signs and that these were the two (2) changeable copy ground signs that were included in the notice. Com. Windecker confirmed that the main menu board will have the breakfast menu. He asked if the Zoning Board wants to allow all that changeable copy with the size of the main menu board. Ch. Entman confirmed that there was never a permit issued for the pre-order menu board that is twenty eight (28) inches wide and seventy two (72) inches high. That sign is there without any authority to be there. Then a few feet later you come up to the main menu board with the rotating panels that will have the breakfast menu on one (1) side and the other menu on the other side. It appears to be two (2) menu boards; one (1) in front of the other. He questioned why they need both menu boards. Mr. Marcin responded that is standard procedure for the branding program. Ch. Entman understands that is their program but questioned why they need two (2) menu boards. Wendy's has a sign up that they did not have the authority to put up. Now that it is up, they claim it is part of their normal plan even though they did not have permission to install it in the first place. Mr. Marcin stated that they should apply for a permit for that sign. Mr. Sheehan stated that a permit application would be required prior to issuing a permit. Ch. Entman stated that the Zoning Board has issues with anyone putting things up; fences, etc., and then coming before the Zoning Board with the attitude that, as long as it is up, they should be allowed to keep the sign. In this case they are asking to keep the sign and make some changes. He is not necessarily opposed to the changes, but what he is concerned with is the initial installation without following proper procedure and obtaining a permit. Ch. Entman polled the Zoning Board regarding whether the pre-order menu board should remain. He stated that the only thing that does not bother him is the location of the pre-order menu board. It is in a commercial setting in a driveway lane. There were no comments from the Commissioners. Com. Lesser confirmed that the pre-order menu board also rotates to change the menu. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by QT Signs, Inc., 1391 Wright Boulevard, Schaumburg, Illinois 60193 on behalf of Wendy's International, 245 McHenry Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.40.025, pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs, for the purpose of replacing two (2) ground signs (menu boards) on the property; to allow the menu board ground signs to be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of existing ground signs located on the same side of the street; and to allow the two (2) menu board ground signs to be changeable copy. The signs are to be installed pursuant to Exhibit "E" and Exhibit "I,, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21,2010 Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 8, 2010; and the ART minutes dated July 6, 2010 and August 2, 2010. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—Windecker ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 1. Item to appear on the October 18, 2010 Village Board agenda. 1347 GREEN KNOLLS DRIVE, ALAN RONSON— FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ENCLOSE THE REAR YARD WITH A SIX(6) FOOT PRIVACY FENCE Mr. Alan Ronson, 1347 Green Knolls Drive,was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30,2010 was read. Mr. Ronson explained that he lives on Green Knolls Drive which backs up to Green Lake Park. He has owned the home for about ten (10) years. There is an existing wood fence that is need of repair and starting to fall down. He has a wood deck that is built up in the back of the house. The deck is in line with the house but the yard slopes down toward the park. The deck is several feet higher than the park. There is a bike path also located behind the property. He has an above ground pool that is built into the deck. With the deck and the pool built up it raises the height. The existing fence had a variance for height and was installed in 1987 at five and one half(5-1/2) feet in height. In many places the fence is lower than that because of settling and some of the landscape has changed over the years. Currently, due to the height of the fence it feels like the deck and pool are on display to the park. He believes that the fence is too low based upon the existing terrain. The height of the fence is an issue of privacy as well as safety. He has noticed that children who are playing in the park are attracted to the pool when they are using it. He is concerned that if the fence is too low and that a child could jump over the fence to try and use the pool. He is requesting a variance to allow the fence to be constructed to a height of six (6) feet. He understands that there is a variance from years ago for the five and one half(5-1/2) foot fence that is currently in place. He is just asking for another six (6) inches all around to adequately enclose the yard with a similar fence to what he has now. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated August 4, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the subject proposals." Ch. Entman confirmed that the proposed fence would have a lattice top. Ch. Entman asked if any of the Petitioner's neighbors have a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Ronson stated that his neighbor has a new fence but it is not six (6) feet. He has been looking around the neighborhood and has seen a couple of six (6) foot fences,but not on either side of him. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 15—SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan if there was a permit for the previous fence. Mr. Sheehan stated that there was a variance granted for the five and one half(5-1/2) foot fence and a permit was issued for the current fence. Com. Shapiro asked if there is a gate at the back of the yard that faces the park. Mr. Ronson stated that there is a locked gate. Com. Shapiro asked if the gate is kept locked. Mr. Ronson confirmed he keeps the gate locked. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner has spoken with his neighbors. Mr. Ronson stated that he spoken to his neighbors on both sides and neither has an issue. Ch. Entman stated that the issue with the rear lot line fence can be addressed because of what is located behind the rear fence. There is a public park and a bike path. He has an issue with the proposed six (6) foot fence on the sides. There would not be any privacy issues on the side unless with the neighbors. Mr. Ronson replied that based on the proposed type of fence, his contractor would not be able to make the same configuration. Ch. Entman stated that there are a lot of things that contractors can do, they will tell you what they can't do. The Zoning Board has found from experience that when needed the contractor can accommodate. Corn. Lesser supports a six (6) foot fence along the rear property line only because of the park and bike path. He cannot support a six (6) foot fence along the interior property lines. Corn. Shapiro agrees with the other Commissioners. He also is bothered that on the south rni property line the fence goes all the way up to the front of the house. He asked why the Petitioner chose that for that side. Mr. Ronson stated that the fence existed that way when he bought the house. Corn. Windecker asked how high the fence is now along the south property line. Mr. Ronson stated that the fence is currently five and one half (5-1/2) feet. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan if the variance allowed the fence on the south property line to be five and one half(5- 1/2) feet. Mr. Sheehan stated that the variance was for both the rear property line and the south property line. Corn. Au agrees with the other Commissioners. The privacy issue with strangers is different than that of the neighbors. She agrees with the six (6) feet along the rear only. Mr. Ronson stated that as long as the contractor can work with it he would be amenable to the rear property line only. Mr. Ronson amended his Petition to request a six (6) foot fence along the rear property line only. 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: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 15—SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 I move we grant the amended request made by Alan Ronson, 1347 Green Knolls Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a six (6) foot lattice top privacy fence along the rear property line only. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated August 4, 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. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — October 7, 2010. 434 THORNDALE COURT,EMMANUIL FREMDERMAN- FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040,TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED THAT ENCLOSES THE REAR YARD AND RANGES FROM 5.33 FEET TO 6 FEET IN HEIGHT Mr. Emmanuil Fremderman,434 Thorndale Court,was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30, 2010 was read. Mr. Fremderman explained that the old fence was higher than it should have been. He did not think that it was a big issue. He bought the plastic fence and hired a contractor to install the fence. The main reason to keep the fence higher was because there is a soccer field behind the house. There is a lot of noise from the field all summer long. His wife also has a medical condition,migraines, and the noise starting from early morning until dark does not help so they decided to make the fence as high as possible. They also have soccer balls and garbage coming into the yard. They are trying to make their living area secure. The back yard slopes at the back. There is approximately a two (2) foot difference between the house and the back. He is asking to allow the fence higher than it should be. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated August 4, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the subject proposals." Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner hired a contractor. Mr. Fremderman stated that he hired a contractor to install the fence but he bought the fence at Menards. He was under the impression that if they sell fences that high that they would be allowed. Ch. Entman confirmed that the Petitioner bought a six (6) foot plastic fence and had a contractor install it. He asked if the contractor ever told him that he could not have a six (6) foot fence or that he needed a permit. Mr. Fremderman stated that the contractor came in the morning and when he got home from work there was some else there. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 15—SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 Mr. Sheehan stated that a permit was issued for a five(5) foot fence. Mr. Fremderman confirmed that the permit was issued for a five (5) foot fence. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan about the history. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Petitioner applied for a five (5) foot fence permit. That permit was approved with the stipulation that they relocate the fence onto the property line. The existing fence along the west property line is encroaching onto the west neighbors property a distance of 2.76 feet at the southwest corner of the existing fence to 0.75 feet at the northwest corner of the existing fence back onto the property. When the inspector went out to conduct the inspection he found the fence at various heights from 5.3 feet up to six (6) feet in height. Ch. Entman asked if the current fence is located correctly on the property line. Mr. Sheehan stated that it is. Ch. Entman asked if the permit was applied for by the contractor or the owner. Mr. Sheehan stated that permit was applied for by the Petitioner. He also stated that the contractor is listed as the owner on the application. He would like to know the name of the contractor who installed the fence. Mr. Fremderman stated his name is Adam Strogek. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner knows where the contractor is located. Mr. Fremderman stated that the contractor is in Chicago. Menards gave him his name. Mr. Sheehan will follow up with the contractor. Ch. Entman stated that the Petitioner did apply for and received a permit to install a five(5) foot fence and then went on to purchase a six (6) foot fence. Even if the Petitioner had requested a variance for the six (6) foot fence prior to the installation,he does not feel the petitioner has shown cause for a variance to allow a six (6) foot fence. Com. Windecker stated that the only circumstance is that the property borders Prairie View and the soccer field for Schwaben Center,which in his opinion is a real mess. He also lives close to the soccer fields and you can hear the noise two(2)blocks away. He does not believe that a six (6) foot fence will do anything about the noise but may keep some of the garbage out of the yard. That practice field goes from 7:00 a.m. until it gets dark at night. Other than the fact that the Petitioner did not come in first to get the variance,he can see why the Petitioner has a problem. Com. Lesser stated that he would have been amenable to a six (6) foot fence along the rear property line only which borders the Schwaben Center property. He does not see the need for a six (6) fence along the sides. Com. Shapiro asked if any of the neighbor's have six (6) foot fences. Mr. Fremderman stated that the neighbor's do not. He did speak with the neighbor's and they do not have an issue with the fence. The property is a duplex. Corn. Au asked if the contractor warranties their work so if the fence needs to be brought into compliance they would correct the fence at their own expense. It sounds like the Commissioners are amenable to the fence along the rear property line only and not the sides. The petitioner did not choose to amend his petition for a six (6) foot fence on the rear property line only. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Shapiro made the following motion: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 I move we grant the request made by Emmanuil Fremderman,434 Thorndale Court, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the fence to remain as constructed that encloses the rear yard and ranges from 5.33 feet to 6 feet in height. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated August 4, 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. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Lesser, Shapiro NAY—Windecker, Au, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 3 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner may appeal this decision to the Village Board within fifteen(15) days—October 6, 2010. 1300-1398 BUSCH PARKWAY,VAN VLISSINGEN & COMPANY—SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.32.040,TO ALLOW THE EXISTING FOR RENT,SALE,LEASE SIGN TO REMAIN BEYOND THE PERMITTED TIME PERIOD Ms. Vicki Burchard, Van Vlissingen&Company, One Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069 was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30, 2010 was read. Ms. Burchard explained that they are asking that the previously permitted existing leasing sign be allowed to remain beyond the permitted time period. They still have space available in the building. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated August 4, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the subject proposals."Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated August 2, 2010. Corn. Lesser asked about the maintenance issues of the sign. Ms. Burchard stated that they will have the sign company address the issue. The center part(face)of the sign will be replaced. Ch. Entman stated that he does not have any issues with the request. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Van Vlissingen& Company, One Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.32.040,pertaining to For Rent, Sale, Lease Signs, for the purpose of allowing the existing for ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21,2010 rent, sale, lease sign to remain beyond the permitted time period at 1300-1398 Busch Parkway. The sign is a four(4) foot by eight(8) foot sign mounted on two (2) foot tall poles. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated August 4, 2010 and the ART minutes dated August 2, 2010. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the October 18, 2010 Village Board agenda. The Ordinance for this temporary sign extension shall be prepared similar to the existing extensions so that if approved by the Village Board the Petitioner shall be required to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a review of status in six(6)months to determine the necessity of allowing the sign to remain based upon occupancy. 1405-1495 BUSCH PARKWAY,VAN VLISSINGEN& COMPANY—SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.32.040,TO ALLOW THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE,LEASE SIGN TO REMAIN BEYOND THE PERMITTED TIME PERIOD Ms.Vicki Burchard,Van Vlissingen&Company, One Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069 was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30,2010 was read. Ms. Burchard explained that this is the same as the 1300-1398 Busch Parkway property. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated August 4, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the subject proposals."Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated August 2, 2010. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Van Vlissingen& Company, One Overlook Point,Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.32.040,pertaining to For Rent, Sale, Lease Signs, for the purpose of allowing the existing for rent, sale, lease sign to remain beyond the permitted time period at 1405-1495 Busch Parkway. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated August 4, 2010 and the ART minutes dated August 2, 2010. f./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Corn. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the October 18, 2010 Village Board agenda. The Ordinance for this temporary sign extension shall be prepared similar to the existing extensions so that if approved by the Village Board the Petitioner shall be required to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a review of status in six (6)months to determine the necessity of allowing the sign to remain based upon occupancy. CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK,HAMILTON PARTNERS—REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGNS LOCATED AT MILWAUKEE &LAKE COOK ROAD; 1001 JOHNSON DRIVE AND 1098 JOHNSON DRIVE Mr. Jim Lang,Hamilton Partners, 300 Park Boulevard, Suite 500, Itasca, Illinois 60143,was present and sworn in. Mr. Lang explained that not much has changed. The property at 1080-1098 Johnson Drive remains vacant. 1001 Johnson Drive has multiple spaces vacant. The property at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue still remains vacant. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Chevy Chase Business Park, Hamilton Partners, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" signs located at 1001 Johnson Drive, 1080- 1098 Johnson Drive and at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Petitioner to appear at the March 15, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the March 15, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. ROGERS CENTRE FOR COMMERCE,ARTHUR J.ROGERS& COMPANY— REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BARCLAY BOULEVARD AND APTAKISIC ROAD Ch. Entman read the letter submitted by Kathi Rogers,Arthur J. Rogers &Company, dated September 20,2010 which requests the review to be postponed until the October 19, 2010 Zoning Bard of Appeals meeting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 Com. Windecker made a motion to Table the review of status of the existing leasing sign for Rogers Centre for Commerce, Arthur J. Rogers & Company,to the October 19,2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion passed 5 to 0. Item Tabled to the October 19, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 1309 W. DUNDEE ROAD,DISCOVERY CLOTHING—DEVIATION TO THE PLAZA VERDE SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA Mr. David Mangurten, KMA&Associates, 1141 Lake Cook Road, Suite F,Deerfield, Illinois 60015,was present and sworn in. Mr. Mangurten explained that he represents National Shopping Plazas,the owner's of Plaza Verde. Discovery Clothing is a current tenant in multiple centers owned by National Shopping Plazas. They occupied space in Streamwood, Crystal Lake and in Buffalo Grove. They have vacated Streamwood and Crystal Lake to go into other shopping centers. During the negotiations to keep them in Plaza Verde they have made several demands on his client. There is huge remodeling program in the works that includes new lights and interiors. As part of the negotiation they wanted to upgrade their signage. Staff had asked him to bring photographs of existing Discovery Clothing locations. These photographs are included in the packets. The request is to change the lettering from the Helvetica red to script,which is their corporate image. They are also asking to change the"0"in"Discovery"to a white heart. Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated August 11, 2010. Ch. Entman asked if they are going to replace the tenant panel on the ground sign. Mr. Mangurten stated that his client cannot change the ground sign. Ch. Entman believes that the comment during the ART meeting was directed to the center's ownership. Ch. Entman asked if the proposed wall sign will not be larger than what exists. Mr. Mangurten confirmed that the sign will not be larger than what exists. Com. Lesser asked if the letter sizing will be comparable to what exists. Mr.Mangurten believes that the proposed sign may actually be smaller than the existing sign. Com. Lesser would like to know the size of the letters for"Discovery"now as well as the letters for"Clothing Co."Mr. Mangurten stated that he does not have the dimensions of the existing sign. He can only compare them to the columns located on each end of the leasing space. Com. Lesser stated he is interested in the letter size. Mr. Mangurten stated that his recollection of the sign criteria for this shopping center has a restriction of five(5) foot tall lettering. The proposed sign is five(5) feet tall. He does not know what the sign lettering is now. Com. Lesser asked about the proposed exterior modifications. Mr. Mangurten stated that the tenant is requesting the exterior modification. That is not a negotiable item to them. Corn. Lesser asked if this is the only location in the center that this is proposing to be modified. Mr. Mangurten stated that he discussed this with the ART and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 his client stated that as the leases for the major tenants come up for renewal,his client will work with those tenants on similar modifications to their exteriors. Com. Shapiro asked if the proposed arch could be green to match the shopping center. Mr. Mangurten replied that the tenant is pushing for the red. When they made revisions to the proposal they introduced a more neutral color, gray. As he studied the other tenants he realized that he was getting into an area of design that the tenants would dictate what color they wanted, so he chose the neutral color. The ART minutes reflect that staff did not like the gray, they preferred the green. He went back to Discovery Clothing and they said no, they wanted either red or gray. Com. Shapiro asked if there was a reason that the tenant chose this shopping center to take a stance and not another center. Mr. Mangurten stated that he does not know that the tenant didn't take a stance elsewhere. Corn. Shapiro stated that his concern is that if the tenant does leave the center there will be one(1) façade that does not match the rest of the center. Mr. Mangurten stated that having any empty storefront under any circumstances would be bad. Mr. Sheehan stated that staff did talk to the shopping center owner and brought the issue up and advised them that if in fact the tenant left the center that the arch would be brought back to green. Corn. Au stated that the North Aurora store has the arch but the rest of the façade matches the rest of the center. She would be more amenable if it would blend in with the rest of the building as opposed to something that sticks out. She does not have any issue with the sign as proposed. Mr. Mangurten stated that the shopping center in North Aurora is a very long building. It faces Interstate 80. The photographs were not taken by his office but were obtaining from Discovery. He has been out to the shopping center in North Aurora. The center has several big boxes next to one another. He cannot remember the tenant to the side but you can see in the photograph that there is a little bit different architecture. He believes that the architect tried to do different things. He is not sure if that arch was something that Discovery did or if it was part of the original design of the center. Plaza Verde was probably built forty(40) years ago. When his client took it over they tried to dress the center up as best as they could. They put some pretty good size tenants in there. His client is trying to hold onto Discovery and keep them happy and they have thrown a curve ball at him. Ch. Entman stated that the ART minutes reflect that the ART team would prefer the arch at the top to be green or red as an alternative. He asked the Board if anyone would prefer red at the top, so that there is red at the top and red on the bottom for uniformity. He also agrees that a condition should be placed on the approval that if the tenant leaves that the red be returned to green to match the rest of the center. Com. Lesser asked Mr. Mangurten that if the Zoning Board approves the green arch would it be highly likely that the tenant would leave. Mr. Mangurten stated that he believes that is the case. He had suggested green from the beginning. Corn. Lesser stated that often times the landlord is in a difficult position to say no whereas a public body such as the Zoning Board may be in a position to say no. Com. Windecker asked if the tenant is allowed to have two (2) lines of copy. Mr. Sheehan stated that they are a major tenant and can have two (2) lines of copy based on the approved Shopping Center Sign Criteria. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21,2010 Ch. Entman would prefer to see the arch red on top to match the red on the lower portion. Mr. Mangurten amended his request to have the top arch red as depicted in the color rendering prepared by KMA&Associates dated July 13,2010. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by KMA&Associates, 1141 Lake Cook Road,Deerfield, Illinois 60015 on behalf of Discovery Clothing, 1309 W. Dundee Road, for a deviation of The Plaza Verde East Shopping Center Sign Criteria for Discovery Clothing, 1309 W. Dundee Road. The approval is to allow more than one(1)color; to allow the color white; to allow the letter"0" in"Discovery"to replaced with a white heart-shaped embellishment in place of the letter"0"; and to allow a font other than Helvetica Medium. This approval is contingent on the top arch being red for the exterior modifications as depicted on the color rendering dated July 13,2010 prepared by KMA&Associates marked as Exhibit "A". This approval is also subject to the arch being returned to green when Discovery Clothing vacates the space. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. 900 CROFTON LANE, LILIAN DREY—FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040,TO ALLOW A SIXTEEN (16) FOOT LONG,FOUR(4) FOOT HIGH FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD PAST BOTH THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE AS ESTABLISHED BY THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AT CROFTON LANE AS WELL AS THE CORNER SIDE,IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE OF TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET AT DUNDEE ROAD; AND TO ALLOW THE FOUR(4) FOOT HIGH FENCE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A FORTY FIVE (45) FOOT RADIUS OF AN INTERSECTION OF THE TWO CURBLINES OF CROFTON LANE AND DUNDEE ROAD Ms. Lilian Drey, 900 Crofton Lane,was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 30, 2010 was read. Ms. Drey explained that her request is for a small fence to prevent pedestrians from using the gap between the bushes as a shortcut. She has seen kids already using it as a cut through on their way to school. Photographs were submitted and marked as Exhibits"H"that depict the area with the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21,2010 prior fence and without the fence. The fence would protect her property. If any pedestrian uses that area and falls on her property she does not want to be liable. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated September 1, 2010 which states: "We recommend no encroachment into the regulated corner, which preserves sight distance at the intersection,be approved."Ms. Drey stated that she did receive a copy but asked for clarification. Ch. Entman advised that this is a line of sight issue. If there is a fence there it may interfere with traffic seeing around the corner. Ms. Drey stated that she does not believe that would be an issue at this particular corner. Ch. Entman stated that the Zoning Board cannot go against the Village Engineer's report. If the Village Engineer changes his opinion then they can consider it. Com. Au asked about the type of fence being proposed. Ms. Drey stated that it would be a wood fence to match the wood fence recently installed. Corn. Au stated that if the Village Engineer's review is an issue and the main concern is people trespassing on the property,possibly a chain link fence could solve the issue of visibility as well as privacy in terms of trespassing. Ms.Drey responded that she has seen other fences along the same side of Dundee Road. Com. Au stated that this issue is about the corner where people are turning onto the street. Because the property is on a corner people cannot see oncoming traffic if the fence is in the way. It is a visibility issue. Ms. Drey stated that she understands. She has photographs to show that would never happen. She does not see what the issue is. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Fence Code requires that a fence be located forty five(45) feet outside the curbline of the intersection. Whether the Petitioner agrees with it or not,that is a requirement of the Fence Code. Ch. Entman stated that the Fence Code is the law. The Village Engineer's review has a comment that the Zoning Board is bound to abide by where he says no encroachment into the regulated corner which preserves sight distance. The Zoning Board's hands are tied about putting anything within the restricted area. He advised the Petitioner that if there is something else that she would like to propose or if there is something else that can be placed that does not encroach into the forty five(45) feet she can discuss that with the Village. There are occasions where there is a restriction about something not being able to be placed somewhere and the Zoning Board is able to grant a variance because either the Village Engineer does not have any problem with what is being proposed or the Zoning Board could give some accommodation based on what the Village Engineer says. There is no leeway in what the Zoning Board is being told here by the Village Engineer. Corn. Shapiro stated that he is familiar with this corner. He believes that a low hedge could prevent pedestrians from cutting through the property. He would not disagree with the Village Engineer's report. Ch. Entman suggested that the Petitioner talk to the Village regarding alternatives such a landscaping that could stop the pedestrians from trespassing and cutting through the property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21,2010 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Lilian Drey, 900 Crofton Lane, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040,pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing a sixteen(16) foot long, four(4) foot high fence in the front yard past both the front building setback line as established by the front of the house at Crofton Lane as well as the corner side,in front of the building setback line of twenty five(25) feet at Dundee Road; and to allow the four(4) foot high fence to be located within a forty five(45) foot radius of an intersection of the two curblines of Crofton Lane and Dundee Road. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated September 1, 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. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion denied 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner may appeal this decision to the Village Board within fifteen(15) days—October 6,2010. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan announced that a request has been received from a resident requesting that the Village look at the practice of continuing to allow three (3) foot fences to be installed in front yards without a variance. He will be putting together a package with the pertinent Code sections and information. He was hoping to do this in October but it appears that meeting is filling up fast and this discussion may have to wait until the November meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Lesser and seconded by Corn. Windecker. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Submitted by, /1401.1111L- J e amka R cording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 of 15 —SEPTEMBER 21, 2010