REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Transcription

1 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. on Tuesday, August 21, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro William Raysa, Village Attorney Steven Trilling, Village Trustee Lester Ottenheimer, Village Trustee Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner Robert Pfeil, Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 17, 2012 minutes: Com. Au made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, July 17, Com. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Cesario, Au, Entman NAY None ABSTAIN Windecker Motion Passed 3 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. NEW BUSINESS 28 CHESTNUT COURT WEST, JOHN AND KATHERINE FLAHERTY ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION , FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A SUNROOM ADDITION THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF EIGHT (8) FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FORTY (40) FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK PAGE 1 of 9

2 Mrs. Katherine Flaherty, 28 Chestnut Court West; Mr. Kevin Kazimer, Kioxin Architects, 18 Executive Court, South Barrington, IL and Mr. Brad Roosevelt, Four Seasons Sunrooms and Windows, 1051 East Main Street, Suite 101, East Dundee, IL 60118, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 2, 2012 was read. Mr. Kazimer explained there are two things that create hardship. The first is the geometric shape of the property. It is located on a cul de sac and is a typical pie shaped lot. The backyard is irregular. There are two dimensions that make up the rear lot line; one being feet and the other being feet. The longer portion of the rear lot line is the line that is closest to the forty (40) foot setback. The other hardship with the pie shaped lot is that the house is setback in the front yard more than any other home in the neighborhood. There is a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. Because of the width of the house, the house is pushed back to feet on one side and feet on the garage side. Given the shape of the house, the house had to be setback further in the front to meet the ten (10) foot side yard setback requirement. The property also backs up to a golf course so there was not much restricting the shape of the property that would be more conducive of a cul de sac or pie shaped lot. If the two (2) unique circumstances were not in place they would not be in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals asking for a variation. The proposed sunroom would not impact the golfers or anyone that may see the sunroom. There is a walking or golf cart path that is behind the property. The property is landscaped and the landscaping is mature. The homeowners have lived here for twenty four (24) years and the sunroom that exists now that they are looking to replace has been in place for fifteen (15) years. The existing sunroom was built on top of a deck. There is very little resistance to outdoor elements. There is the opportunity for wildlife to live under the deck. The proposed sunroom will be built on a foundation and would have insulation. The u factor of the glass would be much higher with today s standards, even more than what the energy code requires. The proposed sunroom would be much better than the one that exists. The appearance would be better than what exists. The proposed sunroom would also be a little bit smaller than what exists. Mrs. Flaherty explained that she has owned her home for twenty four (24) years. The present sunroom has been in place for about fifteen (15) years. The existing sunroom has not negatively impacted anyone to her knowledge. Their property faces away from either the third or fourth tee on the golf course. In the time they have lived there, they have only had three (3) golf balls in their yard. In order to hit their house with a golf ball, someone would have to be aiming away from the course. They are not concerned about the glass being any type of safety hazard. Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated August 9, 2012 into the record. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer s memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated August 13, 2012 which states: Brian, in follow up to your August 2 memo we have reviewed the 28 Chestnut Court West property and as a result of our review the standard discharge assembly PAGE 2 of 9

3 from the sump pump line appears to have been removed by previous construction and it appears that the sump pump discharge line was rerouted. An indoor observation by a Village inspector should be scheduled by the owner to confirm the relocated line is not improperly routed to the sanitary sewer system. As a condition of the remodeling a clear plan for the proper routing of this sump pump discharge must be provided for review. Unless you request otherwise, I will continue to hold the materials until the needed supplementary material is obtained. Ch. Entman also read the Village Engineer s memorandum addressed to Julie Kamka dated August 21, 2012 which states: Julie, There are no other Engineering concerns related to 28 Chestnut Court West. I would request that a diagram of the sump pump discharge piping and its interconnecting relationship to the Village's storm sewer system be provided to me as soon as possible and a photo of the external sump pump discharge air gap be provided to me as soon as construction is completed. Com. Cesario stated that the authorization letter for Four Seasons on Exhibit I2 is signed by both John and Katherine Flaherty and asked Mr. Raysa if it is an issue that the authorization letter as Exhibit I1 is only signed by Katherine Flaherty. Mr. Raysa advised that is not an issue. There were no other questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by John and Katherine Flaherty, 28 Chestnut Court West, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section , pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a sunroom addition that would encroach a distance of eight (8) feet into the required forty (40) foot rear yard setback. Pursuant to plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Subject to the Village Engineer s memorandum dated August 21, Subject to the ART minutes dated August 9, The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed sunroom will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Cesario, Windecker, Au, Entman NAY None ABSTAIN None PAGE 3 of 9

4 Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days September 6, MCHENRY ROAD, KNOCKOUT BUFFALO GROVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION E.6, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING 2 EMBELLISHMENTS: ONE LOCATED ON EACH SIDE OF THE WALL SIGN THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO NAME AND NATURE; AND TO ALLOW THE WALL SIGN TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 75 SQUARE FEET BY SQUARE FEET; AND DEVIATION TO THE TOWN CENTER SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING 2 EMBELLISHMENTS: ONE LOCATED ON EACH SIDE OF THE WALL SIGN THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO NAME AND NATURE; AND TO ALLOW THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE WALL SIGN TO EXCEED 30 FEET BY 4 FEET 10 INCHES Mr. Terry Diegel, Knockout Buffalo Grove, 190 McHenry Road and Kimberly Russell, Signs of Distinction, 165 Wheeling Road, Wheeling, Illinois 60090, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on August 2, 2012 was read. Ms. Russell explained that they are seeking a sign variation. They would like to include the Knockout logo, which are the two (2) boxing gloves, to the existing sign which right now stands as Title Boxing Club. The wall sign is currently at its maximum of thirty (30) feet in length and thirty (30) inches in height. The two (2) boxing gloves will increase the length by four (4) feet ten (10) inches. However, the boxing gloves will not increase the height of the sign at all. This organization franchise is new to the area. It is relatively new in the Chicagoland area. They have current locations in Schaumburg and Naperville. This is the first location in the northwest suburbs. Most people recognize the boxing gloves themselves. The boxing gloves are part their branding. All of their locations have included the boxing gloves. This is a rather large location and the setback is pretty far and there are a lot of things that are blocking the signage. There are trees and monument signs as well as the setback. If you are driving northbound on McHenry Road it is very difficult to see the sign. Adding the extra length to the sign will help to visually locate the business. Ch. Entman read the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated August 9, 2012 into the record. Com. Cesario stated that at the ART meeting the question was raised about if the boxing gloves were going to be added to the sign, was there consideration when designing the sign to make the sign with the logos thirty (30) feet in length as opposed to the thirty four (34) ten (10) inches that is being requested. Ms. Russell explained that it was discussed. The issue was that the sign copy would be much smaller and you would not really be able to see the sign very well from a distance. It was decided to go with the thirty (30) foot maximum for the actual copy and then seek the variance for the logos. Com. Cesario confirmed that there was consideration that twenty six (26) feet for the lettering would be difficult to see from the road. Ms. Russell stated yes. Her company, Signs of Distinction, is the local sign installer. She put together the information based on the sign code and shopping center criteria and gave Title Boxing Club s PAGE 4 of 9

5 sign vendor that information. Looking at the frontage size, one hundred two (102) feet, and taking the sign and bringing it down to thirty (30) feet with the logos, the copy was very small. It would not be very visible and it would be very difficult to read. It was decided to expand the copy to the full thirty (30) foot maximum. Com. Cesario stated that when driving by Town Center the north end of the center is particularly difficult to see from the road because it is so far back. Ch. Entman stated that under most circumstances he would insist that the logos be included in the maximum length of the sign. Especially in Town Center because the way that the Center is set up, all the stores are setback off McHenry Road. If fact, some even further than this location. He is also aware that the Petitioner has over one hundred (100) feet of store front and if those were individual stores, they would each be entitled to their own signage. He does not have an issue with a few extra feet in order to put up the logos. Com. Windecker agrees with Ch. Entman. When it comes to signs it should be taken into consideration the inclusion of logos. However, this is an extenuating circumstance and he knows that the proposed logos were reviewed quite extensively at the ART meeting. He does not object to the logos. He is glad that the Puppy Palace sign has been removed and asked if the Petitioner will be installing a tenant panel where the current Puppy Palace tenant panel is located on the ground sign along Lake Cook Road. Ms. Russell explained that they are in the process of working on that with landlord. Mr. Diegel stated that he has been trying to get a spot on the ground sign along McHenry Road but there is no space available on that ground sign. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Au made the following motion I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Knockout Buffalo Grove, 190 McHenry Road, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section E.6, pertaining to Signs, for the purpose of allowing 2 embellishments; one located on each side of the wall sign; and to allow the wall sign to exceed the maximum permitted square footage of 75 square feet by square feet; and Deviation to the Town Center Shopping Center Sign Criteria For the purpose of allowing 2 embellishments: one located on each side of the wall sign that do not pertain to name and nature; and to allow the total length of the wall sign to exceed 30 feet by 4 feet 10 inches. The sign is to be installed pursuant to Exhibit E submitted with the application. Subject to the Appearance Review Team (ART) minutes dated August 9, Pursuant to Sign Code, Section , Subsection A. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. PAGE 5 of 9

6 Mr. Raysa requested that the Petitioner provide proof from the State of Illinois of Knockout Buffalo Grove, LLC and provide a copy of the franchise agreement with Title Boxing Club. Com. Au amended the motion to include the requested documentation. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Cesario, Windecker, Au, Entman NAY None ABSTAIN None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item to appear on the September 10, 2012 Village Board agenda MCHENRY ROAD, BUCKY S EXPRESS REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SIGN PACKAGE FOR SIGN CODE VARIATIONS FOR COMMENTS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE PLAN COMMISSION AND THE VILLAGE BOARD Mr. Sheehan explained that the information provided is some of the background and history that has gone before the Plan Commission regarding the Bucky s sign package proposal and also included are the minutes from the July 18, 2012 Plan Commission meeting. This information is being provided to allow the ZBA to provide input regarding any concerns or questions that will be forwarded on to the Village Board when this matter is discussed. This sign package was reviewed at the Plan Commission as part of the change to the Sign Code. Ch. Entman stated that the Plan Commission would review signs as part of the Plan Commission review but the ZBA had requested that the Plan Commission advise the ZBA in advance to be included and provide comments. Ch. Entman asked if there is a specific Village Board meeting that the recommendation from the Plan Commission would be heard. Mr. Pfeil advised that it will most likely be the September 10, 2012 Village Board meeting. Com. Windecker asked what recommendations have been made so far by the Plan Commission through the appearance review and public hearing on the signs as far as color, size, shape, etc. other than to say that there is a lot of signage. He agrees that there is a lot of signage and the ZBA should be able to do something about that. Some of the testimony from Mr. Hainsfurther does not correspond to the actual Bucky s Express Mobil gas stations in the area. Mr. Hainsfurther states that they would like to have all the signs because they are part of corporate image. The ZBA hears that statement a lot and he knows that companies will always try and get as much signage as they can even though it may not look that presentable. His main concerns are that they asking for eighteen (18) inch electronic signs for the gas prices. Below that they go back to the twelve (12) inch height. He also noticed in the minutes that Mr. Hainsfurther also testified that eighteen (18) inches is the norm and yet at the Bucky s gas station on Lake Cook PAGE 6 of 9

7 Road and Weiland Road the electronic prices are twelve (12) inches in height. He has no objection if they would like eighteen inches (18) inches because the Shell gas station across the street has eighteen (18) inch high electronic prices. He also does not see any need for two (2) car wash signs. They are proposing a wall sign with Bucky s and then Rapid Wash underneath it. That is a huge sign on the twenty five (25) foot high wall. The Bucky s portion of the wall sign takes up seven (7) feet in height. Then there is a proposed fifteen (15) foot high ground sign on the street where they have Rapid Wash again and then they have the Regular Price with Wash sign where they mention the car wash again. They are mentioning the car wash three (3) times. If you look at some other locations in the area, some of them don t even have a car wash sign on the ground sign or on the building. They just have a small sign on the car wash itself. He has no objection if they have the car wash on one (1) or the other, but he would not suggest that they be allowed to have it in all the locations they are asking for. Having both the price sign with car wash and the Rapid Wash panel on the ground sign makes that sign very high at fifteen (15) feet, especially if they want to locate that sign two (2) feet in from the property line. He believes that the ground sign should be moved further inside the property. Two (2) feet is very tight and close to the roadway. Com. Cesario stated that the two (2) foot setback from the property line seems awfully close. There are a lot of variances being requested and some are quite significant. He also has sensitivity for the residential properties located behind the site as to whether this would be aggressive toward them. The taller the signs and the more aggressive the more concern he would have. Ch. Entman recalls when Mobil came before the ZBA previously. He would like to review all of the requested variations again and then he will provide comments prior to the Village Board meeting. His impression is that they want a zillion things, some of which they need and some of which they don t. Ch. Entman asked Mr. Sheehan or Com. Windecker if they recall how tall the Shell McDonald s ground sign is. Com. Windecker stated that the one ground sign is eight (8) feet in height and he believes the other sign on the poles is fourteen (14) feet in height. That sign is on the corner but it has bushes and landscaping around it and it is setback fifteen (15) feet. Ch. Entman stated that is what he thought. He added that historically the ZBA has not approved a ground sign over thirteen (13) feet in height in a long time. He does recall the Shell project. He would not approve the proposed ground sign that high and he would not approve the sign that close to the property line. The issue has already been addressed at the ART meeting regarding the number of signs being requested and the ones which are not necessarily useful. He wants to review the proposal again. They have multiple wall signs requiring variations; they want to have a ground sign two (2) feet from the property line; the electronic message portion of the ground sign would need a variance to exceed twelve (12) inch high numbers; there is the question whether the sign area would require a variation; there are variations being requested for the car wash; the east wall sign was an issue; the hours of the car wash, etc. He will provide his comments in the near future. Generally speaking he believes he will say what he always says, PAGE 7 of 9

8 which is the fewer, the smaller and as short as possible on the signage. He does recall with the Shell station that they were pretty reasonable when it came to their signs. Even at the station at McHenry Road and Lake Cook Road, whenever they would come to the ZBA with the new look, they were very reasonable about keeping their sign low. They did not want a lot of stuff on the sign. Just one (1) price is all they asked for. When they came in and wanted to redecorate they were reasonable about removing some signs. Com. Windecker added that this is the third attempt at this location. The old house is still up. They were supposed to have taken that down. Ch. Entman stated that he cannot believe how long it has been since the last time Mobil was in and even the first time they came before the ZBA. They were so hot to trot to get the project going. Com. Windecker added that another issue is that they have a Mobil sign with the Diesel fuel on it at the west end of the property and he is assuming that sign is coming down since he did not see it on the proposed sign package. Mr. Sheehan stated that sign is required to be removed as it is not part of their package and not on the site plan that has been presented for approval. That sign will be removed. Com. Windecker again raised the issue of the Bucky s wall sign with the Rapid Wash. He asked if the ZBA should suggest that the Rapid Wash portion be eliminated. They should reduce the ground sign so it looks appropriate for that area with the apartments across the street and the apartments behind the property. Fences are nice but some homes are higher than the proposed fence. He asked if this site will be a car wash or a gas station. Ch. Entman read the statement made by Mr. Hainsfurther that this would be a multi use business and they need to identify it. Com. Windecker added that there is another wall sign, B Fresh, being requested. You see other gas stations that have the name, like Bucky s or AMPM, but they do not have any other signs. The car wash is secondary like at Shell. They also have the name Mobil out there six (6) times when they are appealing to a one (1) block, almost dead end street. To make a left hand turn into the site is tough as well. Ch. Entman stated that they are in the business where all they have to do is show the Pegasus sign and people know it is a Mobil station. He took a look at the narrative dated July 25, 2012 and he saw eight (8) requests for variations related to signage. They want people to know that there is a car wash but there is a certain point when you know it is a car wash. To identify products and names, he is not in favor. Com. Windecker stated that if you go to Buffalo Grove Road and McHenry Road, the BP station, they have one (1) sign on the corner and a small round logo of BP on the canopy, no car wash on the ground sign and a small car wash sign on the car wash itself. They do not even have an exit sign on the car wash. This proposal is asking for a menu board for the car wash to tell you all the different washes and options. That proposed sign is pretty large as well. PAGE 8 of 9

9 Ch. Entman advised the Commissioners that if they have any additional comments to get them to Mr. Sheehan. Mr. Sheehan stated that he would like to assemble the minutes from tonight s meeting and any additional comments and get those out in the packet to the Village Board. He would like to have any comments no later than August 28, There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. ANNOUCEMENTS Com. Windecker advised that his Village ID is expired. He has been asked twice to show his Village ID and he showed his expired ID. The resident did not believe that he was an active ZBA member. Mr. Sheehan advised that he will request current ID s from the Human Resources Director. Com. Cesario advised that he and Com. Windecker attended the Village Board appeal for 787 Stonebridge. The Village Board overturned the ZBA s denial of the fence by a vote of 5 to 1. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Cesario and seconded by Com. Windecker. Voice Vote AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:23 P.M. Submitted by, Julie Kamka Recording Secretary PAGE 9 of 9