Loading...
Minutes - 10/02/2007 - Zoning Board of AppealsMINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2007 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK. BROOK APPROVED AS WRITTEN ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Champ Davis in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:33 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairman Champ Davis, Members Jeffrey Bulin, Glenn Krietsch and Steven Young ABSENT: Members Richard Ascher and Baker Nimry IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Sanford, Trustee; Robert Kallien, Jr., Director of Community Development and Dale Durfey, Jr., Village Engineer 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTILS REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4 2007 Motion. by Member Krietsch, seconded by Member Bulin to approve the minutes of the September 4, 2007 Regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as written. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to discuss. 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. STARBUCK'S COFFEE c/o TJ DESIGN STRATEGIES — 2407 22nd sTARaUCIZ's COFFEE do Tr STREET — VARIATION TO SECTION 13- 11 -7A -5 OF THE SIGN DESIGN STRATEGIr -.S -- 2407 2V"' STREET- REGULATIONS VARIATION - SIGN REGULATIONS Chairman Davis swore in all parties that would testify. He stated for the record that he had worked with Mr. Johnson in the past when he was used as an expert VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 1 of 10 October 2, 2007 in a case that was resolved in 2003. He further stated that it would not affect his ability to render a fair and impartial vote in the matter. There were no objections from the members or the audience. Ted Johnson, President, TJ Design Strategies reviewed the variation request for a ground sign. Section 13- 11 -7A -5 allows one - ground sign on retail developments on lots containing more than 3 acres. The subject property is on the southeast corner of 22nd Street and Tower Drive. Starbucks demolished the previous building and constructed a new drive up facility, which opened in August. The site is just under one acre. They requested approval to construct an approximate SS square foot freestanding ground sign. The sign would be located on the far northeast portion of the site, approximately one foot south of the property line adjacent to 22nd Street and S feet west of the internal property line between Starbucks and the eastern office building. The sign has an overall height of 7'9" and a width of 10'6 ". The sign itself is approximately 25 square feet on a 30 square foot brick base. The base would be behind the landscaping proposed. It is a double -faced sign that would face the east and west. Mr. Johnson reviewed the Variation standards for the record as follows: 1. a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. RESPONSE: As initially approved by the Village, the nearest Starbucks identification sign is located on the north fagade of the building. The building sign is parallel to 22nd Street and is setback from the road right of way 69 feet. Due to the substantially reduced building setback of the adjoining western property and the mature landscaping on the eastern property, the existing building sign is not visible for patrons traveling on 22nd Street until they are at the property. 1. b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. RESPONSE: The unique circumstances that exist on the subject property include the limited lot size (33,600 square feet), a 120 -foot lot width, and a 69- foot setback from the roadway, thus blocking the customer's view due to the adjacent larger buildings and mature landscaping which are located closer to the roadway. 1. c. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. RESPONSE: If granted, it would be consistent with similar adjacent properties and not alter the character nor have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 2 of 10 October 2, 2007 There are similar freestanding signs on the properties located to the east and west of the subject property. Due to the property being less than 3 acres, the current ordinance does not allow the ground sign on this site. 2. a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved would bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. RESPONSE: The subject property is a conger lot located on the southeast corner of 22 "d Street and Tower Drive. Due to its limited size and the required front yard setback places a restriction on the property, which negatively impacts its sight line, along with the speed the vehicles are traveling on 22 "d Street. 2. b.The condition upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to the other property within the same zoning classification. RESPONSE: There are no other 33,600 square foot corner lots in the B -3 General Business District within the Village. 2. c. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. RESPONSE: The proposed variation was designed as to not have an adverse impact on other property or improvements in the adjacent area and in fact will allow consumers more time to approach the property at a higher level of safety. The will see the sign at a greater distance and know that there is a Starbucks located there before they are right in front of it. 2. d.The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The various elements of the proposed plan have been designed as to not have an adverse impact nor impair property values within the neighborhood. 2. e. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. RESPONSE: The purpose of the variation is to allow consumers ample time to locate the building at the level of speed allowed on 22 "d Street in order to approach the destination in a safer manner. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 of 10 October 2, 2007 laoh 2. f. That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. RESPONSE: The difficulty is based on the physical characteristics of the small corner lot and not created by any person. Member Young said that he tried to drive by the building and believes that signage would actually improve being able to locate the building. He also tried it during rush hour and from a safety standpoint, it would increase a bit. Chairman Davis questioned the location of the signs that were west of the property. He also questioned the size and whether the sign would be illuminated and the hours of illumination. Mr. Johnson responded that the signs were for the Room and Board and the Surgical Center. There is also a sign for the office building located to the east, which is parallel to 22'd Street. The face of the sign will be approximately 25 square feet and would be illuminated. Mr. Achim responded that the sign would be illuminated during the hours of operation using a combination of timers and photocell. It would typically come on when the store opens at 5 a.m. and would go off when they close at 11 P.M. It will go off at sunrise and turn on again at sunset in the evening and would go off when they close. William Lindeman, resident 11 Pembroke Lane said that on May 16, 2007 he filed an appeal with the Village He said that the Village Code and Building Code provides for appeals initiated by a builder and it provides a means of appeals for residents. It is not exclusively to remedy a request made by a builder or developer. Shortly after filing, an email was received from Jeff Moline (Acting Village Manager) stating that he would receive a response from the proper person shortly. A week or so later, he received a letter from the Acting Village Attorney indicating that he would receive a letter. Almost live months have passed and a month ago, he personally asked Mr. Kallien if he could provide a timetable of what he might anticipate as far as the status of his appeal. He did not receive an answer from Mr. Kallien. Chairman Davis asked what specific action the appeal was based upon. Mr. Lindeman responded that it was mainly on issues of signage. He said that there were many actions. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 of 10 October 2, 2007 Member Young asked if the appeal was based upon the current application being heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Lindeman responded that he believes there is a need for expert input on Village signage. He does not feel that the individual members of the boards have sufficient background that allows them to function in a manner that provides for aesthetic and effective signage. He thinks that there are random actions and that the codes are not being followed. The current request for the sign is allowed on 3 -acre properties and that this dinky little coffee shop does not belong there to begin with and does not deserve a sign that a 3 -acre property would have. Chairman Davis noted that the sign being sought is nowhere near the size of a sign that would be located on a 3 -acre property. Mr. Lindeman added that this is about ground signs. He said that it was a,nice looking sign. Their building has channel- mounted letters and most villages do not allow them. They chose to use some of their signage on the rear of the building and he cannot comprehend anyone getting off the tollway because there is a Starbucks sign there. The sign is over 7 feet tall and would impact the landscape that surrounds the building. If you go down 22nd Street there is old landscape with very mature trees. Those trees were all removed from this property during construction. By locating the sign perpendicular, it will reduce the amount of landscape that would eventually be placed. He said that he had two questions, what was the status of his appeal and why hasn't he heard anything? Director of Community Development Kallien responded that when they spoke a month ago, the matter was brought to the attention of the Village Manager and Village Attorney, Mark Sterk. He was under the assumption that they had gotten in touch with him, that something had been sent, and since it had not, he would speak with them tomorrow. Mr. Lindeman said that 5 months is a long time to wait. He asked if the money was received, that everything was in order on the filing, and that it was not waiting on technicalities. Gail Polanek responded that the Village had his check and that the filing was with the Village Attorney. Director of Community Development Kallien added that it was his understanding that the attorney would be providing information directly to him. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 5 of 10 October 2, 2007 Mr. Lindeman responded that he believed he had been more than patient, with the situation with the Village Manager and Village Attorneys. However, at the last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting signage was discussed for the banks, which use shoebox signs. Many sign ordinances do not allow them, which is a cheap sign, It does not add any luster to the village. Member Young asked him if he had looked at the details of the proposed signage and asked what he proposed. Mr. Lindeman responded that it is basically the standard Starbucks sign. There are 3 on the front of the Marriott building. They cannot get enough signs. He does not know what it is with banks and Starbucks, but they cannot get enough signs, It is a very small building and is overwhelmed with signage. The problem relates to the Village needs an expert on signage and how it affects the aesthetics of the village. Chairman Davis said that at a previous meeting, Mr. Lindeman discussed the issue of signage at the DoubleTree Hotel. The signage provisions in the Ordinance does not deal with aesthetics and some of the issues raised, relate to corporate logos and trademarks. If a corporation wants to put its trademark up and has a certain color or identity, he would not be sure if it would be fair to the corporation to ask that they change it. Mr. Lindeman said that there were other issues. He brought that up when the DoubleTree asked to raise the standards for that zoning district. Commerce Plaza buildings are in that zoning district and you cannot discriminate by the type of business as far as placement of the signs. No other village would allow a sign to be placed on the corner of an elegant building, which is just Mickey Mouse. If Commerce Plaza asked to place a sign at the height of the DoubleTree and it was pursued through the courts, you would-be forced to allow them to do it. Chairman Davis said that they would have to prove a unique situation. Mr. Lindeman said that it is time to get somebody that knows. Mr. Kallien does not know, the Chairman does not know or anyone else on the Zoning Board of Appeals, He said that the Village of Oak Brook is entering into the redevelopment of the commercial corridor and that it is now time to spend a little money. Forget the fireworks, forget the Autumn Fest, and get the priorities straight. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 6 of 10 October 2, 2007 Chainnan Davis responded that the Village is doing that and that the Revitalization Committee is near to the presentation of a plan. Trustee Sanford said that the plan has been submitted is being reviewed and edited and should be in its final form soon. Director of Community Development Kallien said that along with the Village Manager, they were able to see a copy and reviewed it on basic issues. The consultant had received all of the comments and it is being modified. The Revitalization Task Force will be asked to have a meeting later in the month. Chairman Davis said that the goal is to revitalize the commercial areas in Oak Brook and they are not going to be revitalized with signs that are not appropriate. Mr. Lindeman commented that the only way that would be insured is to get a sign consultant knowledgeable in the law and on aesthetics. When he goes down Roosevelt Road and sees the LED signs with changeable copy and he just goes crazy when he sees that. Thank God, this (sign) is not one of those. Chairman Davis commented that Mr. Lindeman was not objecting to the aesthetics of the sign proposed. Mr. Lindeman responded that it was okay, but could be better because it is a standard shoebox design. It could have individual letters on a neutral background, indirect lighting and be much more elegant, but it seems that the Village is not interested in elegance; not when you issue permits for channel mounted letters; like on Panera Bread and Starbucks. Chairman Davis said that Mr. Kallien would follow up on the status of the appeal and that the Revitalization project will address the issues. Mr. Lindeman said that the Revitalization does not deal with signage. Director of Community Development Kallien said that signage is going to be addressed with the Revitalization project. It may not snake specific recommendations on the type of sign, but it will make some statements on policy by which Oak Brook could take future action on updating the sign code. Mr. Lindeman responded that if this was known to have been coming forward, it should have been combined with landscaping requirements and a compromise on reducing the building signage; because the building signage is not effective. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 7 of 10 October 2, 2007 He said that he could foresee problems because of the hedges along the front and side property lines. Mr. Johnson responded that the hedges would not be removed, The plat materials referred to are on the adjoining property. They have an approved landscape plan which was part of the original proposal and have increased the landscaping around the base of the signs so there is more plant material with this plan that was is currently exists. As far as overall signage, including the ground sign proposed, they are still under the amount of signage permitted on this property, otherwise he would be seeking another variance to the amount of signage. Mr. Lindeman said that the building to the east is a very large office building and the sign is parallel to the street. The building owners have class, because there has never been a for rent sign in front of the building. It was managed by Trammell Crow and they fill the vacancies without cluttering the right of way. NAI Hiffman is doing the same thing and must be operating under the policies of the building owner. They should be commended for not taking other options to fill their vacancies, rather than posting a bigger, better and brighter sign. He noted that the intensity of illumination has not been addressed with the Starbucks request. Mr. Achim responded that it was neon on the inside of the sign. Chairman Davis noted that the Village does have code requirements regarding illumination. Mr. Lindeman responded that the Village does not know; and that they do not even have a meter to measure the intensity. They go by the photometrics. Member Young responded that he disagreed with Mr. Lindeman's statement. He noted that the Village does have a meter to use. He has one and is a trained engineer, so if the village needs one he can come out at any time. Mr. Lindeman asked Member Young whether he was aware of the two intensities on neon. Member Young said that he was well aware of that and could identify the bulbs. Member Bulin said that the plans show 1 and 5 -foot distance from the front and side property lines and that the code requires a 10 foot setback. The way the sign is located it does not meet the requirements. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOD Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 8 of 10 October 2, 2007 Mr. Johnson responded that the 10 -foot setback was contained within the section that they were seeking relief. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the variation was not advertised in that manner since the action requested on the application was only for relief to allow the ground sign from the minimum 3 -acre requirement. Member Bulin said that the relief being sought on the application was not to the 10 -foot requirement. Director of Community Development Kallien said that procedurally the request would need to be noticed. It was his impression that the request was for a ground sign. Member Krietsch noted that the Village Engineer should be review the setback issue for any traffic impacts. Mr. Johnson noted that the request was from Section 13- 11 -7A -5, which also indicates the required setbacks. The monument sign is set back one foot from the front property line and five foot from the east property line (side yard). Chairman Davis noted that was a fair argument however, subsection 5 has numerous requirements. Director of Community Development Kallien said that in the letter of explanation the applicant mentions what they are requesting. Staff needs to review the setback issue on how it may impact other things. The roadway is going to have an improvement plan in the coming years. Something located within one foot of the property line could be a concern in relationship to where the right of way line is going to be to ensure that additional conflicts are not created down the road. The application should be amended to include the request for relief to the setback requirements. An additional notice sent so that everyone is made aware of what is being sought, which would be the ground sign as well as its location. Mr. Johnson noted that the sign could not be located any further from where it is located on the plan. Chairman Davis noted that the comments contained in the case file really only relate to the ground sign request. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 9 of 10 October 2, 2007 0 7 Chairman Davis motioned, seconded by Member K.rietsch that the matter be continued to the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and that the petitioner amend the application to include the variation to the setback requirements. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried OTHER BUSINESS Nelly Naguib, resident asked to address Mr. Lindeman's comments regarding the Oak Brook Autumn Fest and the fireworks display She said that she would like to assure him that he could sleep better tonight because the Village of Oak Brook does not pay anything toward the Autumn Fest. She has been on the committee for several years and it is fund raised by donations from the Oak Brook residents and corporations. She wanted to make it clear that the Village of Oak Brook pays nothing towards the Autumn Festival. There was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Young, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert Kallien, Director f Co unity Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Page 10 of 10 October 2, 2007 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT