Loading...
2010-10-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes AFTBWER R5 Sat)rncrTE t11ico` ib REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 19, 2010 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Lesser Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney Ghida Neukirch, Deputy Village Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES • September 21 , 2010 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, September 21 , 2010. Com. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — Stein Motion Passed 4 to 0, 1 abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS 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 Mr. Norman Ross, Arthur J. Rogers & Company, 1601 Barclay Boulevard, was present and sworn in. Mr. Ross explained that Arthur J. Rogers manages a thirty eight (38) acre property at Barclay and Aptakisic Road. There are eight (8) buildings and one hundred eight (108) units that total a little more than four hundred thousand (400,000) square feet. They are currently approximately ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 17 - OCTOBER 19, 2010 �` J seventy (70) percent leased. They have one hundred twenty six thousand (126,000) square feet of vacant space. They have had some activity but the real estate market is burdened with renegotiating current leases instead of signing three (3) year leases like they normally do. They are signing more one (1) year leases. The sign is helping and they are asking for a continuation of allowing the sign. Ch. Entman does not have any issues but would like to keep the review time to six (6) months. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker 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 April 19, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for status. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the April 19, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda NEW BUSINESS 611 SILVER ROCK LANE, NEAL AND JAMIE HORWITCH — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO REMAIN AS INSTALLED AT SIX (6) FEET TWO (2) INCHES IN HEIGHT ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE BEGINNING AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND EXTENDING EAST A DISTANCE OF SIXTY ONE (61) FEET Mr. Jeff Horwitch and Mrs. Jamie Horwitch, 611 Silver Rock Lane, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on September 30, 2010 was read. Mr. Horwitch explained that they have a fence that is existing now that they obtained a permit for. They like the fence the way it is and they would like to keep it that way. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brain Sheehan dated October 5, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman stated that the Petitioner applied for a permit for a five (5) foot wood fence but installed the fence in excess of six (6) feet. He asked what happened. Mr. Horwitch related a conversation that he claims to have had with Village Inspector Arizzi. Mr. Horwitch stated that he spoke with Inspector Arizzi regarding an issue with his neighbor. The neighbor has a fence with posts that are six (6) feet in height. He asked Inspector Arizzi if the fence could have posts that are higher than the fence and was told that the higher posts were not a problem. He then stated that he asked Inspector Arizzi if he could leave his posts at six (6) feet and put a piece of lattice on top. According to his testimony, Mr. Horwich stated that ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 17 — OCTOBER 19, 2010 Inspector Arizzi told him that he could do that, as that is not part of the fence. He pointed out to Inspector Arizzi another neighbor down the block that also had a lattice top on their fence. They had the contractor install the fence at five (5) feet and leave the posts at six (6) feet and then he added the lattice to the top. Ch. Entman confirmed that the Petitioner added the lattice top after the fence contractor installed the fence. He asked if the conversation with Inspector Arizzi took place before or after the Petitioner applied for the permit. Mr. Horwitch stated that he had the conversation before he applied for the permit. Ch. Entman asked the Petitioner if he was aware that Inspector Arizzi has provided an email in response to Mr. Horwich's letter, stated that the conversation as it is being related never took place. Mr. Horwitch stated that he was not aware of that. Corn. Stein stated that part of the reason the Petitioner is asking for the height is due to the conditions of the neighbor's yard. He asked if the Petitioner has been in contact with the Village regarding the conditions. Mr. Horwitch stated that he has contacted the Village many times. Corn. Stein asked if anything has been done to address it. Mr. Horwitch stated that the first time they spoke with Inspector Arizzi was regarding a complaint that his neighbor discharges his sump pump in the backyard. The neighbor also has pool in the backyard that is a mosquito trap. They made the complaint to the Village and wanted to remain anonymous. Inspector Arizzi approached the neighbor regarding the complaint then walked right up to them and stated that he spoke to the neighbor and it will not be a problem and that he would come by once in a while a throw a bleach tablet into the pool. Corn. Stein stated that the fence was put up not because of the water but because of other conditions in the backyard. Mrs. Horwitch stated that the neighbor has a lot of growth in the yard. Corn. Stein asked Mr. Sheehan if Building & Zoning would be the department to come out and inspect if there is a complaint about conditions in a yard. Mr. Sheehan responded that if a property maintenance complaint was made the Property Maintenance inspector, Joe Arizzi, would be the one to go out and inspect. Corn. Stein asked if Mr. Sheehan has records of complaints made about the neighbor's yard. Mr. Sheehan stated that if the Village received complaints there would be copies in the data base, but unfortunately he does not have access to the records at this moment. Corn. Stein stated that he would have liked to have seen the Petitioner address the issue through the Village. He understands that it may take several follow ups, warning, and possibly tickets to get a property up to Code if there is a condition. He would not have approved the six (6) foot fence if requested prior to installing it. He is torn, it is not a solid fence at the top but it is in excess of what was permitted. Mr. Horwitch stated that the fence is only on one (1) side of the property. Corn. Windecker stated that if it is a drainage issue that would be reviewed by the Engineering Department. Upon questioning Mr. Sheehan confirmed that if there is a drainage issue with a property,then the Engineering Department would look at the grading. If there is a problem with a sump pump discharge, the Building Department generally will handle that for the Engineering Department. Mrs. Horwitch stated that at this point the issue has more to do with what the neighbor's property looks like on his side of the property with the overgrowth that is not ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 maintained. They are trying to improve the quality of their property and they are incapable of doing that because of all the growth. Corn. Windecker stated that he understands their issue but that they are before the Zoning Board for a fence. The neighbor's yard would be a separate issue and should be taken up with Building Department directly. To address the fence, the Petitioner added a foot or more to the top of the fence. That is not permitted by Ordinance. He does not know what the inspector might have told them, or how it was interpreted, but the fence cannot exceed five (5) feet in height. A six (6) foot fence would be allowed around a patio but only immediately adjacent to it. Mr. Horwitch stated that they just had some concrete work done and extended their patio. Now when you stand on the patio you can look right into the neighbor's yard. Corn. Windecker stated that the Fence Ordinance calls for five (5) feet and the permit issued was for five (5) feet. Anything above that would require a variance before the fence is installed. There are too many people that disregard what they get a permit for and believe that the Village will look the other way. The Zoning Board cannot keep granting permission to people who violate the Ordinance. Mr. Horwitch submitted a photograph of the fence that was marked as Exhibit "F". Mrs. Horwitch explained that the neighbor has existing posts that are six (6) feet high. If they put a five (5) foot high fence up it does nothing to beautify their property. They will forever see the posts with nothing attached to them. Com. Windecker responded that the Petitioner's should have requested the variance before installing the fence. They could have also brought it to the attention of the Building Department the posts that are extended are distracting from the beauty of their property. Mrs. Horwitch asked if they can do this after the fact. Com. Windecker is not sure. � . Com. Shapiro asked if the posts were installed for a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Horwitch stated that his posts are six (6) feet in height. Corn. Shapiro asked if the Petitioner knew that he was going to install the lattice top when he had the contractor install the fence. Mr. Horwitch stated that he had the contractor install the posts at six (6) feet. That is when he spoke with Mr. Arizzi regarding his neighbor's fence being that way. He asked if he could leave his posts at six (6) foot in height and was told he could. Ch. Entman stated that if the Petitioner had initially come before the Zoning Board requesting a six (6) foot fence, he probably would not have supported it then. A six (6) foot fence on an interior lot line six is very rarely granted. The issue seems to be with the way the neighbor maintains his property, which is a valid issue, but he does not believe that a fence is the answer. If it is the answer it may be a premature answer or the last resort. He believes that something else could be done. If the neighbor moves, then the Petitioner has a six (6) foot fence. He does not believe that the circumstances require a six (6) foot fence. The Zoning Board does have a statement in the packet from Inspector Arizzi that states that the conversation as told by the Petitioner did not take place, but that a conversation about screening on top of a fence around a patio did take place. There is the fact that a permit was issued for a five (5) foot fence that was signed by the Petitioner. Even the Plat of Survey submitted with the permit application shows a five (5) foot fence. Mr. Horwitch replied that Inspector Arizzi stated that the lattice is not considered part of the fence. Ch. Entman stated that there is conflicting information, the Petitioner says one thing happened and there is information that it did not happen. Even if the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 conversation took place, the fact that it has to do with the way the neighbor takes care of his or her property is not a sufficient reason for him to approve the variance. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Neal and Jamie Horwitch, 611 Silver Rock Lane, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the fence to remain as installed at six (6) feet two (2) inches in height along the south property line beginning at the rear property line and extending east a distance of sixty one (61) feet. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 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. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion DENIED 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal. 910 SAXON PLACE, CRAIG FREEMAN — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW A SIX (6) FOOT WHITE VINYL FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON THE NORTH BEGINNING AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND EXTENDING NORTHEAST TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE HOUSE, THEN TURNING SOUTHEAST TO THE HOUSE; AND ALONG THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE BEGINNING AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND EXTENDING EAST, THEN TURNING NORTHEAST FOLLOWING THE PROPERTY LINE TO A POINT PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE, THEN TURNING NORTHWEST TO THE HOUSE Mr. Craig Freeman, 910 Saxon Place, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on September 30, 2010 was read. Mr. Freeman explained that he has lived in his house since 1972. This is the third fence to be replaced which is why he is looking at vinyl, which is the type of fence that was proposed for Cambridge on the Lake. He obtained a quote from Tru-Link Fence. He asked if the objection was to a six (6) foot fence or a vinyl fence. There is an existing fence now. He submitted a binder with information regarding the existing fence and the proposed fence. The binder was accepted and marked as Exhibit "G". He will be putting the fence all the way around the property. He has ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 one hundred thirty (130) feet of exposure to Cambridge on the Lake. They are putting up a wooden fence. He asked if he could come back at a later date and add one hundred thirty (130) feet of vinyl fence to the rear of his property. He does not believe in wooden fences. They do not last. His house had wooden siding when he moved in. It now has aluminum siding that will last a lot longer then the wood siding. A vinyl fence will outlast a wooden fence. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated October 5,2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman advised the Petitioner that he has the ability to come in front of the Zoning Board any time to request a variance. Then they will address each and every request as they are heard. They cannot say what they would do now,but the Petitioner can seek a variance in the future. Corn. Windecker asked if the Petitioner had a variance for the existing six (6) foot fence. Mr. Freeman stated that the existing fence is six (6) feet and that Cambridge has a six (6) foot fence behind him. The existing fence has been there for fifteen (15) to twenty (20) years. He does not believe that permits were required that long ago. He did not put the fence up on the south side of his property. That fence was put up by his neighbor. Corn. Windecker asked if the Petitioner will put a fence on the south side of the property. Mr. Freeman responded that he is intending to. His neighbor has an eight (8) foot hedge along the south property line and that is another reason why he would like a fence there. It is a real uncontrolled hedge. Corn. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan if there was a variance granted for the existing six (6) foot fence. Mr. Sheehan stated that he did not find anything in the file regarding the fence,but it could predate the Fence Code, which was the same situation as the Cambridge on the Lake fence. Com. Shapiro asked if the proposed fence would go up to the Cambridge fence. Mr. Freeman stated the fence would. Com. Shapiro confirmed that Cambridge is installing a wood stockade fence. He asked about the statement of putting a vinyl fence along the back. Mr. Freeman stated that the fence would not look right with vinyl on one side. He would have liked Cambridge to put the vinyl fence in as they proposed. He believes that a minority of the adjacent property owners convinced Cambridge to put up the wood fence. He does not believe that all fifty (50) adjacent homeowners were represented in the group that objected to the vinyl fence. Corn. Shapiro asked why the Petitioner is not asking for a vinyl fence along the rear now. Mr. Freeman stated that he would but people were talking about the gap between the two (2) fences and all the trash and such. Corn. Stein stated that he could understand a six (6) foot fence at the rear even though it was discussed about maintenance between the two (2) fences. If the Petitioner wants to hide Cambridge's six (6) foot wood fence he would not have an issue. He does not understand the need for a six (6) foot fence along the sides. He explained that the Zoning Board is looking for a unique circumstance or hardship that would require a six (6) foot fence on the sides. Mr. Freeman replied that the fence contractor told the Zoning Board that he could not get a five (5) foot fence. Corn. Stein said he is looking for a reason other than the fact that the manufacturer only makes the fence in six (6) feet. The fence could be cut down to five (5) feet. Mr. Freeman stated that all the other fences are six (6) feet in height. Corn. Stein stated that the back of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 fence is six (6) feet. The fence could be tapered down from six (6) to five (5) feet. Mr. Freeman L./ stated that it would not look right. He is planning to approach Cambridge next spring to see if they would object to him painting his side of the fence white. He has looked at fences all over and there are other vinyl fences in other areas. They seem to last longer and are more attractive that the wood fences. Corn. Stein stated that in situations such as the Petitioner's the Zoning Board has put conditions that the fence be tapered down to five (5) feet and then maintain five (5) feet along the remaining fence line. Mr. Freeman believes that would look worse than what is there now. The fence he is proposing would be a five (5) foot white vinyl fence with a one (1) foot lattice top. Com. Windecker asked if the Petitioner considered a tan vinyl fence. Mr. Freeman stated that came up when Tru-Link was dealing with Cambridge and he said he couldn't get a tan colored vinyl. The fence does come in a number of colors. Com. Windecker stated that he saw a tan vinyl fence and it did not look bad for blending purposes. He also stated that during the Cambridge on the Lake appeal to the Village Board there were a number of people that asked for wood so the fence blended in with their wood fences along their side property lines. Ch. Entman stated that six (6) foot fences along the side yards are always an issue. He does not believe that there is a need to have more than a five (5) foot fence along the interior lot lines. If the Petitioner was asking for a six (6) foot fence along the rear property line he could understand. He is not in favor of granting a six (6) foot fence along the sides. He understands that the Petitioner wants to beautify his property and preferred a white vinyl fence, but he does not see the need. He recalls the discussion of both the Zoning Board and the Village Board regarding the Cambridge fence. Mr. Freeman asked about grandfather rights. Ch. Entman stated that a variance goes away when the fence has to be replaced. Mr. Freeman asked about the Zoning Board's objection to six (6) foot fences. Ch. Entman stated that the Ordinance provides for five (5) foot fence and when you are talking about a lot line between neighbors a six (6) foot fence gets a little onerous and can be like a wall. There have been circumstances where a variance was granted for a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Freeman stated that he spoke with his neighbors and they had no objection to a six (6) foot fence. His neighbors to the north would like to install the same fence if he gets approval. Corn. Windecker added that the Police Department has studied fence heights and believes that five (5) foot fences gives them better visibility when they are patrolling at night. It is a safety issue as well. 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 grant the request made by Craig Freeman, 910 Saxon Place, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing a six (6) foot white vinyl fence along the side property line on the north beginning at the rear property line and extending northeast to the midpoint of the house, then turning southeast to the house; and along the south and southeast side property line beginning at the rear property line and extending ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • PAGE 7 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 east, then turning northeast following the property line to a point parallel to the southeast corner of the house, then turning northwest to the house. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 5, 2010 and the Exhibits submitted with the application. 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—None NAY—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion DENIED 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal. 965 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE, WEI CHENG — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO ALLOW A SIX (6) FOOT WHITE VINYL FENCE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON THE NORTH BEGINNING AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND EXTENDING NORTHEAST TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE HOUSE, THEN TURNING SOUTHEAST TO THE HOUSE; AND ALONG THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE BEGINNING AT THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND EXTENDING EAST, THEN TURNING NORTHEAST FOLLOWING THE PROPERTY LINE TO A POINT PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE, THEN TURNING NORTHWEST TO THE HOUSE Mr. Wei Cheng, 965 Knollwood Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on September 30, 2010 was read. Mr. Cheng explained that earlier this year they were granted a variance to build a fence. They have a one (1) year old and he would like to play in the backyard. They noticed that the neighbor's behind them had a fence already that was outside the building line and they wanted to match their fence up to the neighbor's. They were granted a variance to match the neighbor's fence. When they built the fence they did match it to the neighbor's fence. When they finished, they noticed that the neighbor's fence and their building line do not match. When the fence was inspected, the inspector noticed that the fence was not in conformance with the previously submitted and approved dimensions. Mr. Cheng explained that when they finished the fence it did not match the dimensions previously approved. After discussing the issue with the Village, and due to the significant variance from the approved variation request, it was decided that reapplying for a variance to reflect the correct dimensions was the best recourse. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 6, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal. There is no abutting driveway." Corn. Windecker asked how much farther does the fence extend from the original dimensions. Mr. Cheng stated that it was an additional two (2) feet for a total of five (5) feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 Corn. Stein stated that according to the memorandum from Mr. Sheehan, it appears that the original dimensions were off basically in error, and it was not done intentionally. He has no objections to the staff recommendation that this fence be approved as built. Corn. Shapiro agrees. Mr. Cheng stated that when he took the original measurements the neighbor's fence was thirty two (32) feet away. He also stated that he is not an expert. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein 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 a point twenty four (24) inches east of the northwest corner of the home on the north wall and extending sixty one and one half(61.5) inches north, encroaching into the building setback, then turning west running parallel to Knollwood Drive for a distance of thirty two (32) feet three (3) inches to the rear property line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 6, 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 later the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings if Fact attached. The permit can be issued in fifteen (15) days — November 4, 2010. BUFFALO GROVE BUSINESS PAW HAMILTON PARTNERS - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGNS LOCATED AT 135 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD AND 1110 LAKE COOK ROAD Ms. Valerie Loughman, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 190, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089,was present and sworn in. Ms. Loughman explained that they are requesting to extend the leasing signs along Lake Cook Road and along Arlington Heights Road. The business park is comprised of seven (7) buildings. They feel that they still need the signs due to the economics. They are holding their own but need the signage. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 Ch. Entman stated that the occupancy rates look alright. Ms. Loughman stated that they lose some and gain a few. Ch. Entman stated that he is in favor of granting a six (6)month extension. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Shapiro made a motion to allow the two (2) existing temporary signs to remain located at 135 Arlington Heights Road and 1110 Lake Cook Road. Hamilton Partners shall appear at the April 19, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to review the status of the temporary signs. Com. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the April 19, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 301 NORTH RIVERWALK DRIVE, RIVERWALK PLACE APARTMENTS - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE THREE (3) EXISTING LEASING SIGNS FOR RIVERWALK PLACE APARTMENTS Mr. Tim Beechick, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 190, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Ch. Entman stated that he is a tenant in the Buffalo Grove Business Park, but this will not affect his decision. Mr. Beechick explained that they have been before the Zoning Board a few times to review the signage used for marketing of the apartment project at Riverwalk North. They have been fortunate to have a cooperative spirit over the years, especially with this project, because it is relatively unique. The zoning allowed for a mixed use of office, hotel, restaurant and residential apartments. The location of this building is at the far northeast corner of the development. Its proximity to good thoroughfares and access to good roadways is terrific. However the building is not on the beaten trail. Because of that, signage is that much more critical for them to be successful in continuing to market the apartment project. They are not condominiums where you sell them and are done. These are apartments and there is a continual change on an ongoing basis. Tenants come and go. Whenever they get leased into the nineties (90's), they drop back down, then they go up, then they go down. It is a roller coaster. They have been fortunate to work with the community. They have one (1) sign that was allowed to be installed on the ground sign for the Riverwalk office building along Lake Cook Road. That sign has helped direct traffic off Lake Cook Road and onto Milwaukee Avenue. The second sign that they feel is very critical from a traffic standpoint is the sign at Riverwalk Drive and Milwaukee Avenue at the light. The building is set back from Milwaukee Avenue and is set back from Lake Cook Road. Heavy traffic does L./ not really see the building head on. As a result there needs to be some type of flag to get people ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 off of Milwaukee Avenue and onto Riverwalk Drive. There is one (1) more sign on the private property at Riverwalk Drive and North Riverwalk Drive just to ensure that people turn onto the street. He believes it is helpful for them to let people know where to turn. They are requesting an extension for those signs. Com. Windecker asked how many apartments there are. Mr. Beechick responded that there are ninety (90) units. Com. Windecker stated that since April, the occupancy rate is in the nineties (90's). Mr. Beechick stated that is correct. Com. Windecker asked what ninety nine (99) percent occupancy represents. Mr. Beechick stated that it would be eighty eight (88) units. Com. Windecker asked about how many units represent one (1) percent. Mr. Beechick stated that he does not know. Com. Windecker stated that in the past ninety(90) percent rental was a good cut off for temporary signs. He also knows the problem with Milwaukee Avenue. Com. Stein agrees that they need signs to direct people to the building. He has no issues with extending the signs for another six (6) months but he would like to see some plans for permanent signs with permanent directions in six (6)months. Corn. Shapiro agrees that permanent signs would be better since the building will not move any closer to the road. He believes that they do a great job with maintaining the signs. They have always looked good and the landscaping around them has always been good. Ch. Entman stated that the letter submitted reflects that some tenants will not renew and so the occupancy rate is expecting to drop into the eighties (80's)percentile range. Ch. Entman would suggest renewing the signs for another six (6)months. Corn. Au made a motion to allow the three (3) existing "For Rent, Sale, Lease" signs to remain located at Riverwalk Place Apartments, 301 North Riverwalk Drive. Hamilton Partners shall appear at the April 19, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to review the status of the temporary signs. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item to appear on the April 19, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. Mr. Beechick added that they have started discussions with the property owner at the corner of Riverwalk Drive and Milwaukee Avenue for the installation of a permanent sign at that corner that would include the restaurant that is under development at this time. He has a draft of a sign that has been prepared. He did not submit the sign at this time. They may be back before the Zoning Board before the April 19, 2011 meeting. The restaurant owner would like to open as soon as possible. 1141 MCHENRY ROAD, SUITE 110, LLOYD MANDEL LEVAYAH FUNERALS - DEVIATION TO THE SPOERLEIN SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA, TO ALLOW A WALL SIGN HEIGHT OF THREE (3)FEET SIX(6) INCHES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 Ms. Susan Blade, Spoerlein Commons Shopping Center, 1141 McHenry Road, Suite 110, was present and sworn in. Ms. Blade explained that the suite does not directly face McHenry Road and is not seen at all by traffic going east and not seen as well as it could by traffic going west. They are hoping that by having the sign taller than what is allowed that it would be seen better from McHenry Road, at least in one direction. Ch. Entman noted the revised letter dated October 7, 2010 that reflects that sign will be forty two (42) inches in height and not thirty six (36) inches. Ms. Blade confirmed the corrected letter. Ch. Entman read the ART.minutes of October 6, 2010 into the record. 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 Lloyd Mandel Levayah Funerals, 1141 McHenry Road, Suite 110 for a Deviation to the Spoerlein Shopping Center Sign Criteria, to allow a wall sign height of three (3) feet six (6)inches. Com. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. 600 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, INDECK ENERGY SERVICES - SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.32.040,TO ALLOW THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN TO REMAIN BEYOND THE PERMITTED TIME PERIOD Ch. Entman explained that there was an issue with the publication of this item and therefore it will not be heard at this time. 201 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, DEERFIELDS BAKERY - ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.44.060.E.6 AND SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.40.025, TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE (1) GROUND SIGN ON THE PARCEL AND TO ALLOW A CHANGEABLE COPY MENU BOARD GROUND SIGN ON THE PROPERTY Mr. Timothy Schmitt, Deerfields Bakery, 201 Buffalo Grove, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 1, 2010 was read. Mr. Schmitt explained that the building was built in 1993 and was designed with a drive-thru in mind. For the last fifteen ears the drive-thru has been vacant and dormant. As a fifth (5th) (15) y generation owner and the new president he has been tasked with competing in this difficult ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 economic climate and he sees this as on opportunity to continue expanding their offering to their customers. He is proposing a request to add a changeable copy drive-thru menu board within the drive-thru lane. In addition, they would like to upgrade their existing signs as a total sign package. They have their existing ground sign in front of the building at the street. They are looking to reface that sign with their new brand identity which includes their current logo and added the drive-thru language. They would also like to reface the existing wall sign on the building with that new image. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated October 7, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the sign proposals." Ch. Entman also read the ART minutes of October 6, 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 Deerfields Bakery, 201 Buffalo Grove Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.44.060.E.6, pertaining to Signs; and Sign Code, Section 14.40.025, pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs, for the purpose of allowing more than one (1) ground sign on the parcel and to allow a changeable copy menu board ground sign on the property as depicted on Exhibits"E" and"F". Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 7, 2010 and the ART minutes dated October 6, 2010. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE— Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the next available Village Board agenda. 50 W. LAKE COOK ROAD, CIRCLE K- SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070; 14.20.080 AND 14.40.025, TO INSTALL RED SIGN BANDS ON THE FRONT AND SIDES OF THE BUILDING; AND TO REFACE THE EXISTING CHANGEABLE COPY GROUND SIGN 1200 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD, CIRCLE K- SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070; 14.20.080 AND 14.40.025, TO INSTALL TWO (2) ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING ONE (1) OF WHICH WILL BE A CHANGEABLE COPY WALL SIGN; TO INSTALL TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 WALL SIGNS ON THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING; INSTALLING TWO (2) WALL SIGNS ON THE CAR WASH BUILDING; AND TO REFACE THE THREE (3) EXISTING CHANGEABLE COPY GROUND SIGNS THAT ARE ALL WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF EACH OTHER AND ON THE SAME PARCEL Ms. Auna Foote, Corporate Identification Solutions, 5308 N. Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois 60630, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notices both published in the Daily Herald on October 4, 2010 were read. Ms. Foote explained that Circle K and Shell have merged. Circle K is responsible for the convenience and car wash portions of the business while Shell maintains the gas portions. Circle K will be adding their logos to the buildings and ground signs. They will be upgrading to changeable copy LED gas signs and then applying their standard sign package to the buildings. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum that addresses both locations addressed to Brian Sheehan dated October 7, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the sign proposals." Ch. Entman read the ART minutes of October 6, 2010 into the record. Ch. Entman recalled from the ART meeting the question regarding the two (2) Circle K wall signs on the building at 1200 Arlington Heights Road. He also recalled the eighteen (18) foot spanner board at the same location. Ms. Foote advised that the spanner board has been removed from the sign package. The existing Food Mart lettering will also be removed. Com. Stein is concerned about current red color of Shell and the red of the Circle K. He asked if the two (2) reds will match. Ms. Foote responded that they have not had any requests to replace the Shell faces at these locations. Corn. Shapiro stated that with the removal of the spanner board he believes that the proposed sign package looks fine. Corn. Stein stated that Zoning Board received an email from McDonalds. Ms. Foote stated that she spoke with the representative from McDonalds who advised her that McDonalds needs to approve the proposed sign package at the 1200 Arlington Heights Road location. Ms. Mary Meyer, McDonalds USA, 4320 Windfield Road, Warrenville, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Ms. Meyer advised that McDonalds has approval rights over the signage of Circle K and Shell at the 1200 Arlington Heights Road location. Circle K has yet to submit to McDonalds the proposed sign package officially. She objects at this time as they have not had the appropriate amount of time review the package. Per the lease, they have thirty (30) days to do so once they submit the package. She did provide that information to Ms. Foote as well as the Circle K representative that they work with. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 of 17—OCTOBER 19,2010 Com. Stein advised that McDonalds at 1200 Arlington Heights Road has donated ten (10) meals to his Cub Scout pack but this will not affect his decision. Corn. Stein recommended to Table the request for the 1200 Arlington Heights Road location until McDonalds has had the opportunity to review the proposed sign package. Ms. Meyer stated that the email referred to by Corn. Stein dated October 7, 2010 was submitted from the Franchisee representing the corporation who has the ultimate authority. She also stated that the Shell contract has not been appropriately assigned yet to Circle K either. She does not believe that the contract will be denied but they have not followed the proper legal procedures to obtain the approvals from the assignment nor the approvals for the signage. Ch. Entman stated that if in fact there are contractual relationships and now there are questions as to whether it has even been assigned to the Petitioner, who may not have the ability to do anything at this time, he believes it makes sense to Table the matter so that the legality of the parties can be worked out and that the information the Zoning Board needs to make a decision is available to them. Corn. Stein made a motion to Table the request made by Corporate Identification Solutions, 5308 N. Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois 60630 on behalf of RDK Ventures, LLC d/b/a Circle K, 1200 Arlington Heights Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Grounds Signs; Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs; and Section 14.40.025, pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs, for the purpose of installing two (2) additional wall signs on the north elevation of the building one (1) wall sign; to install two (2) additional wall si s on the east of which will be a changeable copy gn, signs elevation of the building; installing two (2) wall signs on the car wash building; and to reface the three (3) existing changeable copy ground signs that are all within two hundred fifty(250) feet of each other and on the same parcel to the November 16, 2010 meeting. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Item Tabled to the November 16, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Ch. Entman stated that he would like to see the documentation to show that there is in fact a legal assignment to the Petitioner to give them the right to petition. Mr. Raysa added that if there are any major changes to the proposed sign package for 1200 Arlington Heights Road, it may have to go back to the ART. Ms. Foote explained that at the 50 W. Lake Cook Road location, Circle K will be adding their logo to the ground sign and upgrading with LED gas prices. They will also be adding the red sign bands into the building. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 Corn. Au asked if the LED prices will be visible at this location. Ms. Foote responded that they have proposed the LED gas prices at other locations and there have not been any issues. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Raysa asked about the relationship of RDK Ventures, LLC and Circle K. Ms. Foote stated that they are the same. Mr. Raysa stated that the letter of authorization is from Circle K and the Title policy shows the title in RDK Ventures, LLC. Ms. Foote stated that they are the same identity and she believes that the letter of authorization was done before the change was made. Mr. Raysa suggested that any recommendation should be subject to them producing the documentation for the assumed name of Circle K. Corn. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Corporate Identification Solutions, 5308 N. Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois 60630 on behalf of RDK Ventures, LLC d/b/a Circle K, 50 W. Lake Cook Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs; Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Sign; and Section 14.40.025,pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs, for the purpose of installing red sign bands on the front and sides of the building; and to reface the existing changeable copy ground sign as depicted in Group Exhibit"E". Subject to the Vag En gineer's a En ineer's memorandum dated October 7 2010, the ART minutes dated October 6, 2010 and production of documentation authorizing the use of the assumed name Circle K. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE— Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the next available Village Board agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan advised that the appeal to the Village Board of the denial of the request made by Mr. Emmanuil Fremderman, 434 Thomdale Court, was remanded back to the Zoning Board and will be on the November 16, 2010 agenda. ADJOURNMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 of 17—OCTOBER 19, 2010 Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Windecker and seconded by Com. Stein. Voice Vote-AYE was unanimous. Ch.Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 P.M. Submitted by, /146L- "?(I J ie K a R cording Secretary • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 of 17-OCTOBER 19,2010