North Cook News

Village of Buffalo Grove Village Board met Nov. 4.

Here is the minutes provided by the board:

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario

2. Open Meetings Act Compliance

Pursuant to orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Public Hearing is closed to in-person, public attendance. The hearing is being held via Zoom web conference meeting, which permits the public to fully participate in the virtual Public Hearing via Zoom on a computer, tablet or phone. Details on how to access and participate in this online virtual hearing are available below. More information pertaining to the meeting information and links to the virtual meeting can be found at:

You are invited to a Zoom webinar.

When: Nov 4, 2020 07:30 PM Central Time (US and Canada)

Topic: PZC

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

Or iPhone one-tap :

US: +13126266799,,84068673693# or +19294362866,,84068673693#

Or Telephone:

Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833

Webinar ID: 840 6867 3693

International numbers available:  

Public Hearings/Items For Consideration

1. Consider Variations from the Sign Code to Allow for Two Wall Signs at 960 S Buffalo Grove Rd. (Trustee Weidenfeld) (Staff Contact: Nicole Woods)

Ms. Boenzi, on behalf of Nino’s Pizzeria, discussed the petition for variations from the Sign Code for an east elevation wall sign which exceeds the length of the sign, and exceeds the maximum permissible area of the sign; and a north elevation wall sign which exceeds the number of wall signs permitted, exceeds the length of the sign, and exceeds the maximum permissible area of the sign.

Com. Goldspiel commented that he understands the need for two signs, because of the position of the building. However, he said, given the substantial size of each, it is just too much sign.

Ms. Boenzi discussed how Nino’s is in a strange spot and the other signs in Buffalo Grove. The building is so large, that any smaller you wouldn’t be able to see the sign. She noted that the sign is only taking up a third of the front elevation.

Chairperson Cesario asked the petitioner if the white space of the building was part of the calculous of as to the size of the black lettering.

Village Planner, Akash explained the consideration if you take the entire length of 80 feet then the sign would be permitted, however, the length for consideration is only 49 feet 6 inch requiring a variation.

Ms. Boenzi said they own the entire building. The side view elevation is 24 feet and the sign is 21 feet.

Chairperson Cesario reiterated the size of the sign and the black lettering. Noting that there is a lot of white space due to the spacing of the letters, but it is a little aggressive as it relates to the Village Sign Code. He asked the Commissioners if it looks good or should it be smaller, and if so how much smaller.

Com. Moodhe asked the petitioner what that physical sign will be.

Ms. Boenzi said they will be aluminum letters back lit at night.

Com Moodhe asked if they are individual or one piece.

Ms. Boenzi said they are individual letters.

Com. Moodhe asked if the oval around Nino’s was also going to be back lit as well. Ms. Boenzi said yes.

Com. Moodhe asked on the building itself, about the west portion of the building.

Ms. Boenzi said Nino’s owns the whole building and right now they use the rear portion as storage.

Com. Moodhe asked if they intend, in the near future, to lease that space.

Mr. Boenzi said she believes they do not intend to do that any time soon. They also own the properties to the left that they lease out.

Com. Moodhe asked if the curve of Buffalo Grove Rd, makes this a unique circumstance to see Nino’s and if this sign would help it get recognized.

Ms. Boenzi agreed with Com. Moodhe’s statement. She believe that having both signs also balances out the building.

Com. Moodhe commented that the sign is all individual pieces instead of one whole large sign.

Ms. Boenzi said every part of the sign is individual.

Com. Moodhe asked staff that if the letters were counted separate instead of as a whole, the sign would be in compliance.

Deputy Community Development Director Woods told the Commission that the way a sign is calculated is not by its individual pieces, but rather in its entirety.

Com. Moodhe said he understands that we, the Village, look at signs in their totality.

Com. Au asked staff if the area in the calculation was smaller because the roof doesn’t extend all the way across.

Village Planner, Akash said no. It is because Nino’s has a ground sign, thus putting additional restrictions to the additional signs. She noted that if there was no ground sign, they would not need a variation or different restriction.

Com. Au clarified that for the calculation it take into account the entire elevation.

Village Planner, Akash said yes. You take into account the entire height, width and length of the building for the calculations.

Chairperson Cesario asked if the petitioner could go through the responses to the standards on packet page six.

Ms. Boenzi went through the responses to the standards included on packet page six. Chairperson Cesario asked if there were any calls from the public.

Village Planner, Akash said there were a few phone calls, but no concerns we raised.

Com. Weinstein commented that the signs are substantially larger than the Village standards.

Ms. Boenzi asked about the square feet standards.

Village Planner Akash explained that the standards are different due to the ground sign. Had there not been a ground sign, the standards would be different.

Ms. Boenzi said aesthetically it does not look like she is asking for double the square feet, it just looks that way on paper because the standards have been reduced due to the ground sign.

Com. Weinstein noted that the sign extends from one end to the other.

Village Planner Akash offered a suggestion to remove the catering lettering and only have the Nino’s text on the north elevation.

Ms. Boenzi said it is not uniform and looks like two different businesses. This is what they proposed and prefer. She discussed how the additional text is necessary to catch traffic to Nino’s.

Com. Moodhe asked staff if these variations would be before the commissioners if there was not ground sign.

Village Planner Akash said it would be before them for two reasons. The fist reason is because it doesn’t meet the length. The east is over by 4’ 1” and on the north they are over 5’ 1”, and the number of signs.

Chairperson Cesario asked if packet page 20 could be shared. If the signs were reduced they would met code. He asked the petitioner if they would be willing to reduce the size by 25 percent.

Ms. Boenzi said she would be, but they smaller they go the harder it is to light them.

Chairperson Cesario entered the staff report as exhibit one.

Chairperson Cesario asked that he would like to see them smaller and asked what the petitioner would like them to vote on.

Ms. Boenzi said she wants to get it approved for them as is and doesn’t want to leave the building blank much longer.

Village Attorney Brankin, spoke to the petitioner that this Commission would not be approving anything as it is a recommending body.

Ms. Boenzi asked what came next after this meeting.

Village Attorney Brankin said the next step is the Village Board for final approval. He suggested that she have some back up plan in the event the Village Board wants to change the existing proposal.

Com. Moodhe asked staff if they stand by the recommendation in the packet.

Village Planner Akash said yes. They support it because Nino’s has been a big part of the community for a long time.

Com. Au noted that if the petitioner is willing to make adjustments to the sign, then the recommendation should be modified.

Ms. Boenzi said she is willing, however, she will have a hard time being able to put lighting behind it and believe that Nino’s wants the sign as it is presented.

Village Attorney Brankin suggested that the commission make a recommendation to the Village Board as presented in the packet. Noting that the petitioner’s ability to make modifications will be shown in the minutes.

Com. Weinstein made a motion for a positive recommendation to the Village Board granting approval of the variation for the size and length for the east elevation wall sign; and the number of signs, size and height of the north elevation wall sign subject to the following condition:

1. The proposed wall sign must be installed in accordance with the documents and plans submitted as part of this petition.

Com. Moodhe seconded the motion.

Chairperson Cesario said that the two signs makes sense. He admits that he wish the size of the sign was a little smaller, but does support the motion.

Com. Richards commented on the restaurant and its place in the community. He is in favor of the motion as it was presented.

Com. Weinstein commented that the signage does not meet or come close to the standards, but he believes the sign is in particularly good taste and particularly good design, and that he can be in favor for that purpose.

Com. Moodhe brought up the location of the building. He is okay with the two signs. He believes the design fits the building and is subtle enough with all the white space.

RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [6 TO 1]

Next: 12/7/2020 7:30 PM

AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Khan, Weinstein, Au, Richards

NAYS: Stephen Goldspiel

ABSENT: Marc Spunt, Neil Worlikar

2. Consider an Amendment to Ordinance 83-8 for a New Outbuilding, Special Use for a Drive-Through Facility, and a Preliminary Plan Approval with Variations to the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Code at Spoerlein Commons Shopping Development at 1131-1271 McHenry Road. (Trustee Johnson) (Staff Contact: Nicole Woods)

Mr. Burton, land and entitlement with Whitestone, discussed the history of the commercial area of Spoerlein Commons Development. He noted that back in 1983 the Village approved the development of Spoerlein Commons with a second phase allowing for additional 2,000 square feet of retail space. The second phase was never constructed, but is now seeking an amendment to the original ordinance to allow for the construction of 2,388 square foot outbuilding to accommodate the new location of Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robins with a drive-through establishment.

Mr. Kovacevic, owner of Spoerlein Commons Development, talked about the change in quick service and the importance of a drive-through to those types of businesses, claiming Dunkin Donuts receives 60% of its revenues from drive-through orders.

Mr. Leder, RGW Engineering, talked about the civil engineering aspect of the project referring to packet pages 29 through 32, showing the paved area and the basin with the proposed building and location of the pickup window.

Mr. Sjogren, Kimley Horn, discussed traffic as it pertains to the development. He discussed parking for the development on packet page 33, noting they would need a variation for parking. They looked at the existing parking utilization pre-COVID-19 and found that only 81 spaces (about 50 percent) of the available parking was being used. The proposed building would shrink the number of available parking spaces to 148 at full occupancy.

He also discussed traffic. This development would add about 25 cars to the existing roadways during the morning rush hour. Well over half of the traffic is already there with little impact to the Arlington Heights, McHenry Road intersection. Additional stop signs are recommended with other directional signs for the Dunkin Donuts.

Mr. Pomis, Warren Johnson Architect, discussed the construction of the building reference packet page 33 touching on the tower structure and the elevations of the building (packet page 39 through 42). He also talked briefly on the landscape plan on packet page 35.

Mr. Sravan, All Signs Corporate Signage Solutions’s discussed the signs for the development. He noted that the pictures in the packet are not the right ones.

Village Planner Akash noted that even if the signs are not the same, the measurements are.

Village Attorney Brankin clarified that the signs are one variation and the other is the east and south elevation signs measure 6’ 5” in height. Noting the pictures can change, the relief is the same; the notice, application, is okay to proceed with.

Mr. Stavan discussed that the sign change was to make the new sign cleaner looking.

Com. Goldspiel referred back to the original plans submitted and referenced traffic flow with Dundee Road on packet page 138.

Mr. Sjogren said this has been talked about amongst staff and at the team level regarding the traffic flow. They believe the location of the access where it is at is good, as it aligns nicely to the access across the street and maximizes the distance from the traffic signal. They also do not believe IDOT is willing to move it.

Com. Goldspiel asked if the Village requirements for water retention and detention have been met.

Mr. Burton replied yes.

Com. Goldspiel commented that the new signs are nicer than the old signs.

Com. Richards asked what the impact will be to the neighborhood behind Dunkin Donuts.

Mr. Sjogren agrees with Com. Richards that there will be increased traffic to Courtland Dr. because of its proximity to the drive through entrance, but believes it will be very little and most likely though coming off Arlington Heights. They are looking at an additional 5 to 10 vehicles on Courtland Dr.

Com. Richards asked for clarification on the removal of the grass currently in front of the development to shift the parking.

Mr. Burton confirmed with Com. Richards that he is reading the design correctly, however, that grass area is approved for two buildings.

Com. Goldspiel asked about the occupancy of the tower.

Mr. Pomis said it will not be occupied.

Com. Moodhe asked if there has been any thought to widening the entrance off of McHenry Road because it tends to be a bottle neck.

Mr. Leder said that the new parking layout would help with that bottle neck effect that currently happens.

Com. Moodhe asked about the inbound customers near that entrance.

Mr. Sjogren said the only increase in traffic would come off of Courtland D, which would be 10 to 15 at peak hour.

Com. Moodhe asked what the loss or gain of total parking spaces.

Mr. Burton said there is a net gain of two parking spaces.

Com. Moodhe asked if there is outdoor seating proposed.

Mr. Burton said there was a floor plan that shows the outdoor seating on packet page 38.

Mr. Pomis said there are 19 total inside, but there is a space available for outdoor seating.

Com. Moodhe noted with COVID-19, outdoor seating becomes a big deal so you are not using the parking lot.

Chairperson Cesario reiterated the changes in the variations from 2018 to 2020. He complemented the petitioners on the traffic analysis they had asked for, as well as the access to stay where it is. He noted that all other requirement are met as outlined in packet page 19.

Chairperson Cesario also noted the reason for the sign variations.

Com. Au ask about the proximity to the gas station, with concerns that people might think they can access the Dunkin Donuts from the Mobile.

Mr. Burton does not recall interconnected driveways, which would require cooperation with Bucky’s.

Com. Au asked if it would be an issue.

Mr. Burton said he doesn’t think it will be an issue.

Com. Au asked if they were going to do anything to mitigate people going through the lawn or about approaching Bucky’s to connect.

Mr. Burton said that there would be no easy way to access Dunkin Donuts from Bucky’s. He believes there is too much in the way for people to try and access Dunkin Donuts by cutting through.

Mr. Sjogren noted that anytime they are working on a development like this, they look at all ways for access or ease of access to help those who don’t know where they are going, touching briefly on their process.

Chairperson Cesario commented on how he would navigate from Bucky’s to Dunkin. Mr. Burton agreed.

Com. Au said she thinks people unfamiliar with the area may get confused.

Com. Moodhe ask if the directional signage includes signage on Courtland Dr and Ranch view.

Mr. Stavan noted there are no direction signs in his package.

Com. Moodhe asked if it is necessary they come back with lighted directional signs and asked if they would also require a variance.

Village Planner Akash noted that if it conforms to the size, it will not need a variation.

Village Civil Engineer Sianis commented on the entrance and exit at Bucky’s further noting that coming down Arlington Heights Road you would keep going north and not mistakenly go into the gas station.

Chairperson Cesario asked if there had been any comments or concerns from the Public.

Village Planner Akash said there were approximate 7 calls which were mostly for more information. One concern did come from Bucky’s as it pertains to the stormwater detention.

Richard, representing Bucky’s, asked a series of questions regarding the stormwater and detention basin which can be found on packet page 139, noting that their civil engineers looked at their plans and had some concerns.

Village Attorney Brankin said legal the petitioners can move forward with the proposal tonight to amend the 1983 Ordinance which does not hinder their ability to ask for relief.

Chairperson Cesario asked staff if they had reviewed the concerns for the stormwater brought up by Bucky’s.

Village Civil Engineer Sianis commented on the preliminary plans they have received from the development noting they have not yet been given the final plans for review. The petitioner will need a watershed permit and make some changes to a few calculations, however, what they are asking for and what is currently in the primary plans, at this time, allows them to move forward. Commenting that the Village will not approve anything that would be impactful to the Village. Mr. Sianis also said that freeboard is no longer in the Village Code as a requirement and on top of that, the development is not looking to change any of that.

Mr. Burton commented on the final engineering plans to come.

Chairperson Cesario entered the Village Staff Report as exhibit one and new sign elevations as exhibit two.

Heresh Patel, owner and operator of the Dunkin Donuts, thanked the petitioners for their time. He noted that he owns and operates 70 locations and enjoys being able to upgrading their locations and is looking forward to the improvements in Buffalo Grove.

Public Hearing closed at 10:03 PM.

Com. Weinstein made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board for an amendment to Ordinance 83-8 for a new Dunkin Donuts outbuilding in the Spoerlein Commons development which is in the B3 Planned Business District; special use for a drive-through facility in the B3 Planned Business District; preliminary plan approval with variations to the reduction in the number of parking spaces, and allowing for 2 extra wall signs on outbuilding and allowing for the east and south elevation wall signs to exceed the height of the sign by 10” provided:

1. The proposed development shall be developed in substantial conformance to the plans attached as part of the petition.

2. The final engineering plans shall be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Village.

3. The special use granted may be assignable to subsequent petitioners seeking assignment of this special use as follows:

i. Upon application of a petition seeking assignment of this special use, the Village of Buffalo Grove, in their sole discretion, may approve the assignment administratively, or may refer it to the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or the Village Board for a public hearing.

ii. Such assignment shall be valid only upon the written approval of the Village of Buffalo Grove granting said assignment, which may be granted or denied for any reason.

Com. Richard seconded the motion.

Com. Weinstein commented in favor of the motion.

Com. Moodhe commented in favor of the motion.

Chairperson Cesario thanked the petitioners for their work and spoke in favor of the motion.

RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]

Next: 12/7/2020 7:30 PM

AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au, Richards 

ABSENT: Marc Spunt, Neil Worlikar

Regular Meeting

Other Matters for Discussion

None.

Approval of Minutes

1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Oct 21, 2020 7:30 PM

RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]

AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au, Richards 

ABSENT: Marc Spunt, Neil Worlikar

Chairman's Report

None.

Committee and Liaison Reports

Com. Richards gave an overview of the last Village Board Meeting.

Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule

Village Planner Rati talked about the next meeting.

Public Comments and Questions

None

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM

http://buffalogrovevillageil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=1536&Inline=True