Loading...
1983-03-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , IL TUESDAY , MARCH 15 , 1983 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8:07 p.m. on Tuesday, March 15 , 1983 at the Village Hall . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: H. Hefler, J . Quick, D. Stolman , M. Perlman and R. Heinrich , Chairman . QUORUM PRESENT. Commissioners Absent: M. Kearns and F. Manzo. Building Department Liaison : Mr. Ray Henning , Housing and Zoning Inspector. Village Attorney: Mr. William Raysa III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Com. Stolman made a motion to approve the minutes of Feb. 15 , 1983. Com. Hefler seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : Aye - Stolman Hefler Quick Perlman Heinrich Feb. 15 , 1983 Minutes approved. Nay - None Chairman Heinrich reported that when Barry ' s B B Q appealed the ZBA denial of the pylon sign on Feb. 15, 1983, the Village Board upheld the decision . Mr. Allan Goldberg has requested a Special Meeting to consider a different sign. The name of the business has been changed to Barry' s BBQ & Brew, Inc. The design of the sign has been changed to a ground sign . Mr. John Munic, the purchaser of Poppin Fresh , must consummate the deal with Pillsbury Co. If the special meeting is scheduled for April 5 , 1983 : Commissioners Perlman , Stolman and Heinrich can make it, but not Commis- sioners Quick or Hefler. If the special meeting is scheduled for April 12 , 1983 : Commissioners Perlman and Quick cannot come. Ch. Heinrich gave instructions to call Commissioners Manzo and Kearns to see if they can attend a special meeting on April 5 , 1983. If so, that is the date to publish. Send all proper notifications , etc. IV. BUSINESS A. Mobil Oil Corporation - Municipal Code Section 14.20.070 Sign on Mc Henry Road (East of Arlington Heights Rd.) Mr. Ron Cothern, Mobil Oil Corp. was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read. Com. Hefler stated that his company is in negotiation with Mobil Oil on another matter, and will therefore abstain from voting. Mr. Raysa was asked for confirmation and he stated that it is Com. Hef- ler's prerogative to abstain. The B.G. Ordinance states that four affirmative votes are necessary for a motion to pass and current case law on the subject says that an abstention counts with the majority. Specifically, the conflict of interest provision says that if a person gains because of this petition, then he could not participate. Com. Hefler said the matter is unrelated, and that he will govern him- self by Mr. Raysa's statement and if he feels uncomfortable at any point, he will exercise his voting privilege. Mr. Cothern stated the reason a variation is necessary with regard to the Mobil Oil sign is because of a failure to read signage into the annexation agreement with the Village. The Village Board has seen all the plans which included the sign location. All plans that have been submitted to the Plan Commission, Appearance Commission, etc. have shown the sign, but the verbage was not added to the annexation agreement, per se. Therefore, the Staff recommended coming to the Zoning Board for a variation. The Appearance Commission has approved all the plans for the architecture, colors of materials, landscaping. The location of logos on the building have also been approved. Location for the pylon is requested for 35 feet: from the adjoining real estate sign as close to Arlington Heights Road as possible. Only one sign is proposed with the gas prices. There is no lettering on the building, or canopy, and none on the pump islands. The price of Diesel fuel will not be advertised, and will probably appear on a decal on the pump posts. Only two grades of gas will be advertised on the sign. A photograph was presented. Mr. Cothern noted that this is a totally new concept and has been used on 3 buildings in Bartlett and 2 out in Pennsylvania. All pumps will be self-serve and only gas will be sold. No other services. The Village has approved a future location for a car wash. There is space in the rear, and the land is zoned for a future service bay. There will be a road to Arlington Heights Road. At present, the station will be owned by Mobil Oil , but could be leased later. With reference to the location presenting a problem of sight from the West, Mr. Cothern said that they were aware of this. They use a method of counting cars from the tail-lights. They do not anticipate much business from the West. They do expect a lot of business from the sub-division to the North. Residents use Arlington Heights Road. The proposed drive- way will become a permanent road to the new sub-division on the Spoer- lein property. The East side is unsuitable for signage because it is a proposed water retention basin. Mr. Cothern emphasized that the sign must be located in the position indicated on the annexation agreement. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Mar. 15, 1983 - Page Two Com. Perlman asked about the height of the sign. It will be about 20 feet total and that is the limit of the B. G. Sign Code. The sign face is within the 120 sq. ft. requirement. The only variation needed is for distance. `•/ Ch. Heinrich asked for questions. There were none. No residents were present. Mr. Raysa noted that with regard to his previous statement, Sec. 14.44.020 states that an affirmative vote of a majority of those present at any meeting of shall be required for a zoning board of appeals variance. (A quorum of 4 of the 7 voting members must be present. ) Mr. Raysa asked if Mobil owns the land as described in the petition - 210' x 191 ' 254' x 219' and outlined on the site plan? Mr. Cothern said the land is under approved contract which has been exercised by both parties. Closing was tentatively scheduled for this date, but the Spoerleins had more work to be done, so closing will be delayed for a couple of weeks. Mr. Raysa had a question regarding the use of the access easement? Mr. Cothern said it will go to Coldwell Banker and any one who wants to use it. This is as per the agreement with The Village of Buffalo Grove. Mr. Raysa asked if this was an appropriate parcel for a Sign Package. Considering the total annexation of this parcel calls for some commercial to the East; and and residential further to the East and to the North. Mr. Cothern repeated that signage was included in the agreement with the Village Board. Ch. Heinrich asked if it would not have been necessary for any needed variations to come before the ZBA? Mr. Raysa said that in the past if a variation was needed, this was true. But when the Board grants a package that includes a variation it is included. Mr.. Henning recalled that when Chatham went to the Village Board, monuments were included in the annexation agreement. Mr. Raysa asked about the possibility of another variation request to the East beyond the water retention area? Ch. Heinrich said that because of the Coldwell Banker sign, any other signs would have to have a variation. Mr. Raysa's next question was relative to discussions with the Staff concerning whether or not variations of the Sign Code run with the land, or with the petition- er only. After discussing similiar situations with Mr. Hruby, Mr. Raysa said he has interpreted the Code's intent to be that as long as a use does not change, a variation is not needed when the property changes owners. He said he is not overly confident that the ZBA and the Village Board would agree. What is the opinion of the ZBA? Com. Hefler recalled that when the Sign Code was drafted, this was a major point of discussion. The conclusion was that when a business owner changes, but the name does not change, no variation is necessary. But when the sign changes, it would be necessary to have a new variation. If the sign construction changes, or the materials or the face, even if the owner does not change, a new variation would be required. Mr. Raysa said his reason for wanting a clarification written into the Code before the major changes are made, is to verify the intent. Also, with regard to the Mobil Oil petition, the ZBA action will reflect their interpretation. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 15, 1983 - Page Three Ch. Heinrich asked for a Straw Poll : 1 . Treat the Mobil Oil variation in the same way that Poppin Fresh was granted with the stipulation that should Mobil give up the property, the sign would be removed. 2. Place a time limit on the variation with the stipulation that as long as the property remains a service station facility, the variation stands. Mr. Raysa said he has a problem with the term "use." With gas stations, there is not a problem, but with other businesses and in the future, more specific information is needed. A gas station is a gas station, but with taverns or restaurants, the terminology is important. The Poll should reflect the opinions of the Commissioners of whether a change of sign means the variation is lost?? Ch. Heinrich described the possible situation that could occur with Mobil . At present Mobil owns the land and will operate the gas station; but as Mr. Cothern has indicated, Mobil could lease the station or in the future, sell the station to some other company who would change the face. If the property changes owners, but the new owner keeps the sign, would it need a variation? OR If the use changes to a restaurant, for instance, would it be appropriate to renew the variation? Therefore, if the variations are tied to the use, would that be the ZBA's agreed upon interpretation? Com. Hefler brought up the question of whether a variation is given to vary the section pertaining to location, or location and face? If the AC has approved the face, the sign is part of the variation. The intent of the Code is to direct the variation to a particular sign as presented. Ch. Heinrich cited Sec. 14.12.080 which states : "Wherever there is a change in the sign user, owner, or owner of the property on which the sign is located, the new sign use, owner, or new property owner shall forthwith notify the administrator of the change. No new sign permit is required, unless the sign is altered or reloca- ted." That would indicate that no variation is necessary unless the copy of the sign is changed. Mr.. Raysa cited Sec. 14.44.010 on Page 258-12, Article 1 could be interpreted that to require subsequent variations would cause undue and unnecessary hardship, because of unique or unusual condiations pertaining to the specific building or parcel or property in question. There could be a problem with that section. Ch. Heinrich repeated that he does not agree that the sign runs with the land if the use is going to change. If the sign is changed from Mobil , for instance to another service station, no variation would be necessary. Com. Hefler pointed out a problem. He noted that signage is for identification only and asked what would happen if Mobil decides to sell something else. The Code states "if the sign is altered" - the intent is clearly stated that the sign would have to come back, per Sec. 14.12.080. If a new permit is required, a new variation would also be required. Ch. Heinrich asked that the Poll indicate whether the variation would run with the use? He noted that Poppin Fresh was an unusual case, because the variation had the stipulation that should the business close, the sign had to come down. Commissioners Quick and Hefler felt the Code is clear. No condition should be put upon Mobil . A variation does not run with the land. When the usage is changed, the reason for the variances is changed. Mr. Raysa, using St. Paul Federal (formerly Manning Savings) as an example, said that if changes of face would require a new variation, then the Village will be inundated with requests. Staff has not been doing it. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 15, 1983 - Page Four Com. Quick made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Mobil Oil Corp. (Rt. 83) for a variation of Sec. 14.20.070, for the purpose of erecting a ground sign closer than 500 feet to the next existing sign, as per Section 14.44.010 - B, as presented. Com. Stolman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Stolman Hefler Quick Perlman Heinrich Nay - None Motion Passed 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Relative to the time an ojection can be filed to Sec. 14.44.010 - B Mr. Raysa commented that the fifteen day period should be changed to thirty days; and the same time limit should be included in Sub-section A. 146 W. Dundee Road - Dr. Alan G. Lauter Municipal Code Section 14.20.070 - Distance between signs. Dr. Alan G. Lauter was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read. Dr. Lauter presented the proposed sign and described its construction. He explained that in May of 1982 the two existing signs in front of his property were damaged by wind. He has been working with the Village to repair or replace the signage with a suitable design. After hearing the previous discussion (Mobil Oil ) Dr. Lauter asked Mr. Raysa if his under- standing is correct that he can repair the existing signs without a variation? Ch. Heinrich said that the signage is now non-conforming and that if the sign is altered, it would lose its non-conforming status, per Sec. 14.28.030-A. Dr. Lauter presented a sample of the proposed sign. It will be Black with Silver letters. He plans to remove the two bad-looking signs and replace them with one 10'x12' sign, with spaces for identification of possibly eight tenants. The top of the sign identifies the building "Dundee Building" and has the address - 146-150 W. Dundee. Even when people are given direc- tions, they miss the building. When a tenant leaves, the copy will be changed. The IBA discussed whether the Appearance Commission would review the sign copy, if the variation is granted? Ch. Heinrich said copy must be considered by the ZBA and then it will also be reviewed by the AC. Dr. Lauter said he usually has from 4 to 6 tenants, and he noted that part of the building floods so he does not plan to rent that portion. Ch. Heinrich noted that it will be expensive to change the tenant portions of the sign and Dr. Lauter said, he understood that, but he wants a good looking sign. Tenants do not change often. Com. Hefler said he has a problem with the size of the proposed maximum use of the 120 square feet total allowed for a free-standing sign. He recalled the intent of the writers when sub-section B of Sec. 14.44.030 was worded, was to put the sign under review by the ZBA. He does not see the necessity of using the maximum size for this sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 15 , 1983 - Page Five Dr. Lauter said he has wanted to change the looks of his sign for some time to improve the appearance of the property for himself as well as for the Vil- lage. The one sign could be repaired by reconstructing one of the supports. He no longer wants the taller one and wants to identify his tenants properly. None of his tenants needs a sign as large as the single high sign, but they do need to be identified. Com. Quick has some question about the need of each individual tenant to be identified, because he could imagine other office buildings such as Executive Environs and the new TrammellCrow building on Lake Cook asking for similiar signage. He agrees that the proposed signage is much better than what is there now. Ch. Heinrich said that the purpose of writing Sec. 14.28.030 was to get rid of non-conforming signs. Com. Quick referred to Sec. 14.28.040 which states that non-conforming signs can be repainted, cleaned, and repaired without losing its status. Dr. Lauter repeated his desire for good looking signage, and he noted that he has already spent $1 ,500 on deposit with the sign company. He would prefer to change the sign, but he will repair the sign if he is denied a variation. The building has been a great financial loss and he needs identification. Mr. Raysa said if the ZBA wishes to enforce the Sign Code strictly, then the intent of the ZBA and the Village, tends to insure that signs cannot be made less non-conforming. That was the reasoning behind the denial of Irving's request. In the previous discussion, it was concluded that a change in copy or a change of the sign would require coming back to the ZBA for a variation. The next question Mr. Raysa raised was suppose Dr. Lauter's or any other sign is 9/10 damaged, burnt, etc. , can he put it back up? Because it would not be less in compliance. Because these questions come up continually, a clear in- terpretation is needed. Com. Hefler said he felt there is a difference between painting and reconstruc- tion of an entire sign. He personally feels that this compromise being offered is in direct conflict with the intent of the Code. Office buildings are differ- ent from shopping centers with a sign package. An office building is better identified with an address, not tenant listing on a sign. Dr. Lauter expressed frustration, because he felt he was doing what the Village wanted. When he was told he had to repair his sign, he got estimates and was told that for about $3,000 (repair would cost $1 ,500) he could replace the sign. He wants the new sign. He was told that he needed a new variation and he felt the compromise satisfied all requirements. It is a good-looking sign. Ch. Heinrich agreed that the new sign is much better because it now identifies the building with the address. The old sign did not give the building name. Since, in this case, there is no hardship, Sub-section B must be used and the design is specifically included in the variation. Another question arose concerning the change of owner ship of the building. Would the sign have to be granted a new variation? And/or would every change of tenant require a new variation? Com. Hefler said that Staff and ZBA are in conflict with interpretation. Based on what is being discussed today, when a tenant changes,the sign would have to be taken down. A changeable copy sign allows for changes. The intent of the code was that when signage is changed it must come down. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 15, 1983 - Page Six Com. Quick said that since Dr. Lauter has indicated that without the variation, he will repair the existing sign, he would suggest that because this is a much better sign, the ZBA approve it with the provision that should Dr. Lauter no longer own the building, the new owner would have to come back for a variation. Ch. Heinrich added that if the tenant portion of the sign is interpreted to be a changeable copy sign, then new tenants can be added without variations. Dr. Lauter objected to the specific reference to a new owner, because it is conceivable that he could turn the building over to his son, or his son could inherit the building. He suggested that if the building goes, then new zoning would be necessary and any new structure would be placed in an entirely new location. An entirely new PUD would be necessary and signage would be included. Mr. Raysa suggested that a variation could be granted with the following provisions: 1 . If the top 1/3 of the sign is changed, the sign would lose the variation. 2. The lower 2/3 of the sign would be considered a changeable copy sign, but only up to 8 units. 3. If the existing structure is changed except for interior remodeling, the sign would lose this variation. 4. The owner or his successor in interest will be responsible for removing the sign. 5. The existing two double-faced signs will be removed. Com. Quick made the following motion: I move we grant the variation of Sec. 14.20.070-B as requested by Dr. Alan G. Lauter with the 5 stipulations listed above, with reference to erection of a pylon sign. Com. Stolman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Stolman Hefler Quick Perlman Heinrich Motion Passed 5 to 0. Nay - None Findings of Fact attached. Dr. Lauter was advised to contact Mr. Dominic Saviano to be placed on the Appearance Commission Agenda. He will probably be asked to put some -land- scaping around the base of the sign. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Com. Quick asked about the addition that has been added to the house at 1070 Shambliss Court in Heritage Place. It is built in the backyard on a deck and appears to be a 6 foot wall placed around an elevated deck. It looks like a fort. Does this structure have a permit? Mr. Henning said it is open at the top. A permit was issued about two years ago. It is a very questionable structure. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 15, 1983 - Page Seven Ch. Heinrich asked about the repair of the Plaza Verde Reader Board sign. He recalled that there was a stipulation when the variation was granted that it would be kept in operation. Mr. Henning said that Mr. Hymen was in recently and indicated that the sign would probably be removed, since it has always given them trouble. VI. ADJOURNMENT Com. Quick made a motion to adjourn. Com. Stolman seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley B es, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 15, 1983 - Page Eight