REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2008

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 19, 2008"

Tracey Hensley
5 years ago
Views:

1 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE FEBRUARY 19, 2008 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:31 P.M. on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Vice-Chair Sandler Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioner Lesser Edward Schar, Building Commissioner Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 15, 2008 minutes: Com. Dunn made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 15, Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY None ABSTAIN Sandler Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. BUSINESS 409 GARDENIA LANE, DARREN AND DENISE WEHRENBERG ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION , TO BRING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE INTO CONFORMANCE AND TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY ADDITION THAT, IN TOTAL, WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF 10 INTO THE REQUIRED 30 REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Darren Wehrenberg and Mrs. Denise Wehrenberg, 409 Gardenia Lane, and Mr. Mark Linstrom, Windy City Construction, 4117 Prairie Avenue, Schiller Park, Illinois 60176, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on January 31, 2008 was read. Mrs. Wehrenberg explained that they would like to put a one-story addition onto the house for entertainment purposes. They were recently married and their families are growing. Instead of PAGE 1 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

2 moving, they would like to stay in Buffalo Grove and enlarge the house. The addition would include expanding the dining room, kitchen and family room. The total square footage of the addition would be three-hundred thirty (330) square feet. They have two teenage children. The proposed addition would match the existing house materials. A portion of the existing house already encroaches into the rear yard setback. The rear corner of the house is approximately twenty-two (22) feet from the rear property line and eight (8) feet into the setback. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer s memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated February 4, 2008 which states: There is an existing extreme grade at the southeast corner of the planned addition. Thai can be addressed with the final plan documents. The Petitioner has received this report. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner has spoken with their neighbor s. Mrs. Wehrenberg advised that she has spoken with the neighbor s to each side and a few down the street. She has not spoken with the neighbor to the rear. Com. Stein stated that the public hearing sign is no longer posted at the property. Mr. Wehrenberg stated that the sign was knocked over by a snow plow and is buried under the snow. Mr. Mark Lobl and Mrs. Laura Lobl, 410 Chateau Drive, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, were present and sworn in. Mr. Lobl explained that they were never spoken to by the Petitioner concerning the proposed addition. They object to the proposed addition. The existing house is only twenty-two (22) feet from the property line. The house is skewed on the lot because it is located on a cul-de-sac. Much more of the proposed addition would intrude into the setback and would only be twenty (20) feet away. This would not be in character with the rest of the subdivision. The proposed addition would devalue their property. It would also not be aesthetically in character with the neighborhood. Photographs were submitted by the objectors along with a written of their objection. These were marked as Exhibit F. Mrs. Lobl explained a photograph that was taken from their kitchen window that shows the close proximity of the existing house. There is a similar view from their family room as well. They spend a lot of time in the kitchen. They feel the house is already close. Ch. Entman asked Mr. and Mrs. Lobl about the distance of their house to the property line. Mr. Lobl advised that their house is thirty (30) feet from the property line. Com. Shapiro asked the Petitioner s about the railing shown on the proposed elevations. Mrs. Wehrenberg advised that there would not be a balcony or railing. Com. Shapiro asked if they were adding onto the part of the house that is two-stories. Mrs. Wehrenberg advised that they are not adding onto the second story portion of the house. Com. Sandler confirmed that the proposed addition would encroach another two (2) to three (3) feet on the east. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner s would add a patio. Mr. Wehrenberg advised that they would not add a patio at this time. Mr. Linstrom added that a three (3) foot by three (3) foot landing would be included as required by code. PAGE 2 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

3 Ch. Entman does not have an issue with bringing the existing house into conformance. He does have an issue with the proposed addition. He must balance the concerns of the neighbor to the rear with the Petitioner s needs. He cannot support the request as it has been submitted. Com. Stein confirmed that the proposed addition would span the entire length of the rear of the home. Com. Windecker asked the Petitioner why the kitchen and the dining room need to be expanded as well. Mrs. Wehrenberg explained that she cooks and entertains all the time. Com. Stein asked what the total square footage of the current house is. Mrs. Wehrenberg advised that the current square footage is less than 1700 square feet. Com. Stein asked about the size of the current kitchen. Mr. Linstrom advised that the kitchen is ten (10) feet by thirteen (13) feet. Com. Dunn commented that the house is close without the variance. The neighbor s would feel like they are looking into the Petitioner s windows. The proposed addition may affect landscaping of the surrounding neighbors. It may also have a significant impact on drainage. The Village Engineer has anticipated an issue that he would address if the variation is granted. Ch. Entman asked how far the addition would expand into the rear yard. Mr. Linstrom replied that the addition would start at three (3) feet and angles for eleven (11) feet, then the line becomes straight again across the kitchen and the dining room. The kitchen and dining room would extend approximately eight (8) feet out. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Com. Sandler made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Darren and Denise Wehrenberg, 409 Gardenia Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section , pertaining to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District, for the purpose of bringing the existing structure into conformance concerning a deficiency of 7.96 foot into the required thirty (30) foot rear yard setback. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Shapiro, Entman NAY None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Com. Sandler made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Darren and Denise Wehrenberg, 409 Gardenia Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section , pertaining to the R-9 Multiple-Family Dwelling District, for the purpose of constructing a one-story addition that, in total, would encroach ten (10) feet into the required thirty (30) foot rear yard setback. PAGE 3 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

4 Subject to the Village Engineer s memorandum dated February 4, Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Sandler, Shapiro NAY Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Entman Motion Denied by a vote of 2 to 4. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal the decision to the Village Board. ROGERS CENTRE FOR COMMERCE, ARTHUR J. ROGERS AND COMPANY REVIEW OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BARCLAY BOULEVARD AND APTAKISIC ROAD Mr. Norman Ross, Arthur J. Rogers and Company, 1601 Barclay Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, was present and sworn in. Mr. Ross explained that when they last appeared before the Zoning Board, they had a little more than 70,000 square feet vacant. In the last six (6) months, they have leased 7,000 square feet. They still currently have 63,000 square feet that is vacant. That represents sixteen percent (16%) of the property. The general real estate market has been relatively quite. They are looking for any help that they can get and the sign is certainly a help to them. We will do just about anything to finish a deal and sign a lease whether it is a better price. They do need the sign with the current economic conditions. Ch. Entman confirmed that phone calls have increased twenty-five percent (25%) after the overlay was placed on the sign. Mr. Ross advised that the calls have been continuing since the overlay was added. He added that they have 28,375 square feet that will be expiring in six (6) months. These are existing leases. They plan to renew a majority of those. Ch. Entman asked if they have heard from any of those tenants that they would not renew their lease. Mr. Ross stated that a couple of tenants have advised that they would not renew. Ch. Entman stated the Board would like to see temporary signs be temporary. They understand with the economies of the market it gets difficult. He would like to see this sign come back for review in six (6) months. Com. Sandler agrees with Ch. Entman concerning the temporary signs. He would be OK with reviewing the sign in one (1) year. Com. Dunn agrees with the other Commissioners concerning the temporary signs becoming permanent. There will always be vacancies. The temporary signs are here all the time. Maybe there needs to be some change to the ordinance concerning these types of signs. Mr. Ross advised that they previously had a permanent backlit sign that they took down. The temporary sign does a better job than the permanent backlit sign. Com. Dunn stated that the temporary sign does better because of the bright color that was allowed to be added a couple years ago. PAGE 4 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

5 Ch. Entman wants to keep a close tab on these types of signs because the market changes so quickly. He would like to review this again around July to see how the leasing went in the spring. Discussion took place among the Commissioners concerning the use and time limitations of temporary signs. Com. Shapiro asked Mr. Ross about the vacancy rate at other Arthur J. Rogers properties. Mr. Ross replied that the property in Vernon Hills is similar to the property in Buffalo Grove. The current vacancy rate is about fifteen percent (15%) across the board. This had started about a year or two ago. They were running around ninety-six percent (96%) to ninety-seven percent (97%) occupied. They have hit some bumps in the last two (2) years. They also have a lot of small units. There are over one-hundred (100) small 2,000 to 5,000 square foot units. They had a tenant with 22,000 square feet of space that left. Currently there are proposals out the split the space up. Com. Stein asked how long a temporary sign has been for this business park. Mr. Ross advised that the current sign has been up for about two (2) years. Prior to that, they have had a sign, in some cases two (2) signs, for about six (6) or seven (7) years. Com. Stein does not have any issues with allowing this sign to remain. Com. Windecker stated that the occupied rate will never be at one-hundred percent (100%). Ch. Entman would prefer to review this sign in six (6) months. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Com. Stein made the following motion: Com. Stein 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 August 19, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for status. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Shapiro, Entman NAY None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the August 19, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for status review RADCLIFFE ROAD, LORD S LOVE COMMUNITY CHURCH SIGN CODE, SECTION , TO INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND, IN TOTAL, WOULD EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR ALL SIGNS BY 18 SQUARE FEET Reverend Jeom Kim, Lord s Love Community Church, 1250 Radcliffe Road, and Ms. Jo Yu, Cosmos Signs, 3630 Wolf Road, Franklin Park, Illinois 60131, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on January 28, 2008 was read. PAGE 5 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

6 Ms. Yu explained that after the December 18, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting it was discovered that the sign could not be made in individual channel letters to be illuminated in that size. They had to change to from the channel letters to a light box. It is the same size. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Petitioner has withdrawn the previous Sign Code variation request approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, Com. Dunn made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Lord s Love Community Church, 1250 Radcliffe Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section , pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing an additional identification wall sign on the west elevation of the building and, in total, would exceed the allowable square footage for all signs by eighteen (18) square feet. Subject to the sign being installed pursuant to Exhibit E. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section , Subsection B. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Sandler, Shapiro, Entman NAY None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the March 17, 2008 Village Board agenda. 900 DEERFIELD PARKWAY, BRIGHT LIGHT SIGN COMPANY ON BEHALF OF CROSSCOM NATIONAL SIGN CODE, SECTIONS AND , TO INSTALL A GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD BE LOCATED LESS THAN 250 FROM AN EXISTING PERMANENT GROUND SIGN ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET Mr. William Holly, Bright Light Sign Company, 310 Telser Road, Lake Zurich, Illinois and Ms. Lauren Mazier, CrossCom National, 900 Deerfield Parkway, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on January 31, 2008 was read. Mr. Holly explained that they are proposing to install a new ground sign at 900 Deerfield Parkway. The proposed location is appropriate for the sign. The sign will be one-hundred-ten (110) feet from an existing ground sign. The proposed location is alongside the entrance of the property. The adjacent property and 900 Deerfield Parkway share the same driveway entrance. The neighboring sign was installed near the driveway on the Siemen s side. They would like to install this sign toward the driveway on the CrossCom property. To try and locate the sign at two-hundred-fifty (250) feet from the existing Siemen s sign would put this sign in the middle of the property as opposed to near the entrance. They feel that would be a problem as far as identifying the entrance to the building. The entrance could be missed and then people would need to turn around. Another problem with locating the sign outside of the two-hundred-fifty (250) feet is a sharp berm with established landscaping that could obstruct the sign. The proposed location is a very flat area and is wide open and visible from both directions. A revised photograph was distributed to the Commissioners that show the exact PAGE 6 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

7 location of the proposed sign. The photograph shown on Exhibit E shows the sign at the twohundred-fifty (250) foot location. The Siemen s ground sign can be seen in the revised photograph. The Siemen s sign is not very high. He does not believe that the proposed sign would cause any obstructions to the existing Siemen s sign. Ms. Mazier added that there is a unique situation if traveling east to west along Deerfield Parkway. Siemen s has a few locations along Deerfield Parkway and you can see the Siemen s signs. If the proposed sign is located on the high berm past the driveway, you would miss the driveway. It would be creating a traffic situation. Siemen s name is well established along that stretch of Deerfield Parkway and she does not believe that the proposed sign would detract from that. Ch. Entman asked what type of business is CrossCom National. Ms. Mazier stated that CrossCom National is a full life cycle retail asset management from staging configuration asset tagging to maintenance, repair and restore and reporting. Ch. Entman asked if is retail real estate properties. Ms. Mazier replied that they sell to the public all the electronic equipment that is in that store, credit card swipers, monitors, cash registers, etc. They do not actually sell them the products, customers advise which products to buy and they stage them out. They also monitor the equipment so if there is ever a problem, this facility has a large call center for any problems. They would immediately get a technician out there to repair it. They also do some storing of equipment. Ch. Entman asked if customers would be coming in and out of the property and would there be deliveries. Ms. Mazier advised that there are some deliveries and they do have customers coming to this location. This location is their showroom to showcase how all five (5) aspects of their service are integrated in one (1) center and how it functions. It is a high-tech kind of place. Potential customers would fly into O Hare to come and see the operation. Ch. Entman does not have an issue with allowing a sign at the proposed location. He asked about the distance of the proposed sign to the driveway. Mr. Holly stated that the distance to the driveway is approximately twenty-five (25) feet, perhaps a little further. Ch. Entman stated he does have an issue with the height of the proposed sign. He does not see the need for that high of a sign. He would be amenable to a sign about half the proposed height. He asked about the height of the Siemen s sign. Mr. Holly replied that the Siemen s has three (3) or four (4) signs along that stretch of Deerfield Parkway and those signs are smaller ground signs. He believes that those signs are appropriate for that verbage that is on those signs. In this case, being CrossCom with logo, they need a sign that is a little larger. The Siemen s signs are not very tall, but they are very long. That type of a sign would not work with CrossCom s logo. Ch. Entman stated that he is speaking about most of the signs in that area, not just Siemen s. They are not large signs. All the necessary information has been fit into about half the sign, which is about five (5) feet in height. Ms. Mazier added that Rexam, the building after theirs, has a sign that is about the same height as they are proposing. Mr. Holly advised that the height does fit within the Sign Code of the Village as far as overall square footage. The sign is actually eight (80) square feet, including the column cover itself. That is the maximum allowed for signage in that area. They tried to maximize the allowable square footage for the sign. Less than half of the sign is ID portion and the rest is aluminum column cover. There is a lot of landscaping along Deerfield Parkway with a curve in the road. If there is two (2) feet of snow in the parkway, as there has been this year, it makes the sign look a lot smaller. The overall height of the sign is only ten (10) feet so it is not tall as far as signs go. Ms. Mazier added that Siemen s sign are a lighter color and since they have to have their logo against a lighter color the black base lets the sign stand out as a different company. Ch. Entman understands all that and believes they have done a nice job, but he would like the sign to be shorter. PAGE 7 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

8 Mr. Holly added that the proposed location of the sign is the lowest part of the property. The berm is about two (2) feet above what the grade would be at the sign location. Com. Sandler agrees with Ch. Entman concerning the height of the proposed sign. He understands why they want the sign closer to the driveway. Customers will not be looking for the address; they will be looking for the company name. Once they see the sign and the logo, they will know they are in the right place. He would like to see the height reduced. Ms. Mazier explained that this sign will not be on a berm whereas the Siemen s sign is on a berm. Their sign would be lower. Mr. Holly added that it is very difficult from the photographs to see the property. The Plat of Survey would give you a better idea as to the location of the sign. Com. Sandler responded that the Plat does not show berm height. Com. Dunn agrees with the other Commissioners concerning the height of the sign. Com. Stein also agrees that ten (10) feet is too high. He suggested a six (6) foot sign height. After a lengthy discussion concerning the height of the sign, the Petitioner has amended their petition to request a ground that would not exceed seven (7) feet in height. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Bright Light Sign Company, 310 Telser Road, Lake Zurich, Illinois on behalf of CrossCom National, 900 Deerfield Parkway, for variance of Sign Code, Section , pertaining to Industrial Districts; and Section , pertaining to Ground Signs, for the purpose of installing a ground sign that would be located less than the required two hundred fifty (250) feet from an existing ground sign on the same side of the street. Subject to the sign being installed pursuant to the Exhibit submitted with the application with the overall height of the sign not to exceed seven (7) feet. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section , Sub-section B. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Sandler, Shapiro NAY Dunn, Entman Motion Passed 4 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the March 17, 2008 Village Board agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS PAGE 8 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

9 Ch. Entman and Com. Stein advised that they are planning to attend the February 25, 2008 Village Board meeting concerning the appeal made by Jean Deal, 2 Crestview Terrace. Discussion took place concerning temporary signs and how to regulate the length of time these types of signs are allowed to remain. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Sandler and seconded by Com. Dunn. Voice Vote AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:18 P.M. Submitted by, Julie Kamka Recording Secretary PAGE 9 of 9 FEBRUARY 19, 2008

Com. Windecker stated that the ART did not have any issues with the signs. The signs are the same; it is just a color change.

Com. Windecker stated that the ART did not have any issues with the signs. The signs are the same; it is just a color change. 180 HALF DAY ROAD, SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.16.010 AND 14.16.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE FACING THE EXISTING GROUND SIGNS AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER ORDINANCE 1998 18 WITH THE NEW