Loading...
2018-03-07 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes03/7/2018 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2018 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. Consider an Amendment to Ordinance 2008-007 and Variation for an Electronic Message Sign at 1701 Leider Lane (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. James Cruz, Leider Greenhouses, 1625 Leider Lane, was present and sworn in. Mr. Cruz reviewed the request. They are asking permission to upgrade their current sign on the corner of Leider Lane and Aptakisic Road from a manual changeable copy sign to an electronic message board. Their current sign is out of style, time-consuming and labor-intensive to update, unreliable (the individual letters often fall off), and lacking the curb appeal it once offered. The sign is also set far away from their building so they have limited visibility from the street. The current sign is about 20 years old. As part of their obligation to maintain the sign it is necessary to update the style and brighten the lights. This update would not change the location of the sign or alter its outer structure in any way. They hope that an updated sign will attract new customers and make it easier for existing ones to find their business. Com. Goldspiel asked about the background colors of the electronic message board that will be used. Mr. Cruz advised that they will use solid colors and there would not be anything flashing on the sign. Com. Goldspiel asked about the colors that would be used. Mr. Sheehan advised that examples are provided in the packet. Com. Moodhe asked if only primary colors will be used on the background of the electronic portion of the sign. There are 256 other colors. He also asked if the lettering will be black. Mr. Cruz responded yes. Com. Moodhe noted that sometimes wind can affect the look of the look and asked about the plan for maintenance of the sign. Mr. Cruz noted that they will provide the maintenance for the sign and that the sign will be the same on both sides. Com. Weinstein asked if there will be any other changes in the size of the sign. Mr. Cruz responded no, just the lower portion of the sign will be replaced, the overall size will remain the same. Com. Weinstein confirmed with Mr. Cruz that the sign will remain as an off-premise ground sign and the existing landscaping will be maintained around the sign. Com. Au asked if there will be any animation on the electronic message board. Mr. Cruz advised that there will be no animation or motion of the images on the sign. The sign will just display the text and colored background. There will not be any images on the sign. 03/7/2018 Ch. Cesario stated that the proposed electronic message board will not change the overall size of the sign and actually the bottom portion will be a little bit smaller. Com. Moodhe asked if the sign will be utilized during the winter months when the greenhouses are closed. Mr. Cruz responded that the sign may actually be turned off during the off season. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated March 7, 2018 as Exhibit 1. Mr. Cruz added that they are just looking to upgrade their current. Mr. Raysa asked staff about the overall dimensions of the existing sign. The public hearing was closed at 7:42 PM. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to recommend to the Village Board to approve the amendment to Ordinance 2008-007 and a variation to allow an electronic message sign subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed sign shall substantially conform to the plans attached as part of the petition. 2. With the exception to Section 14.20.070 D.1.c. for background colors only, the sign shall be operated in conformance with all other standards set forth in Section 14.20.070 D of the Village of Buffalo Grove Sign Code. 3. With the exception to the changes proposed to the sign as part of this petition, the sign shall conform to the conditions established in Ordinance 2008-007. Com. Moodhe stated that because this will be LED message board sign, the Village will need to watch how the sign is utilized. However, he does not see a problem with the request. Ch. Cesario stated that the dimensions of the message will be smaller than the existing manual changeable copy portion of the sign. He is supportive of the request. 03/7/2018 RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] Next: 3/19/2018 7:30 PM MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein, Au ABSENT: Scott Lesser 2. Consider a Variation for a Fence in the Corner Side Yard at 2299 Avalon Drive (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. Santosh Singh, 2299 Avalon Drive, was present and sworn in. Mr. Singh explained that he purchased the home in December 2017 and he is requesting to install a five (5) foot high white PVC fence that is a very high quality. He is very cognoscente of the safety of the community. He has support for the fence from his neighbors on the south and on the east. The proposal is for his fence to meet the fence of his immediate neighbor on the north side, which would be setback two (2) feet from the sidewalk. In considering the safety of the community he has chosen to install light caps on the posts of the fence so the sidewalk would be illuminated. The proposed fence is to provide safety for his family. There is a deck in the backyard which is open and accessible from the north side of the property. There is a four (4) foot wide sidewalk and then the parkway and street. No neighbors will be impacted. The public hearing notice was sent out and he does not believe that there were any objections. He is seeking approval of the variation. Com. Khan noted the four (4) previously granted corner lot fence variations that are listed in the staff report and also noted that those fences were an open style. He asked the Petitioner if he would be willing to work with the Village with a different style of fence. Mr. Singh responded that one of the reasons why he is asking for the proposed fence is due to the topography of his lot. The property slopes down toward the sidewalk at approximately forty (40) to forty five (45) degrees. So if a five (5) foot high fence was to be installed by the sidewalk, the fence would appear to be three and a half (3-1/2) feet to four (4) feet high from the deck and inside the home. A lower fence would not allow for privacy. The difference between a solid fence and an open picket fence comes down to cost. He has already placed the order for the solid fence and he would have to cancel that order to install a picket fence, which would cost him about $1,000.00. Com. Khan stated that if the Petitioner proposes to install the solid fence, staff’s recommendation is not in the Petitioner’s favor. In addition, the PZC has to decide what they want to allow. Ch. Cesario stated that the Petitioner’s January 30, 2018 letter indicates that one of the reasons for proposing the fence is to line up with, and match, the neighboring fence. Mr. Singh responded that the neighbor’s fence is a picket fence made of wood. The fence height along the neighbor’s north property line is four (4) feet with a two (2) foot setback from the sidewalk. He understands that if he has to adhere to the staff recommendation, he would still request for the fence to be located two (2) feet off the sidewalk, but he would be willing to go with a four (4) high solid PVC fence. Ch. Cesario confirmed that the proposed fence, with a different height and style, would line up with the neighboring fence. He read the email received March 7, 2018 at 5:47 PM, into the record. Mr. Singh stated that his neighbor, John, was supposed to be at the meeting but had another engagement to attend. However, his neighbor wants the proposed fence to line up with his existing fence. His neighbor is also aware of the topography of his backyard and agrees that five (5) feet would be the appropriate height for the fence. 03/7/2018 Com. Moodhe advised that he took a look at the area and the neighboring fence appears to be four (4) feet in height at the house and then slopes down towards the street to about three (3) to three and a half (3-1/2) feet in height. Even lined up, the proposed fence would look out of sync since the proposed fence would be almost two (2) feet above the neighboring fence. He asked the Petitioner if he intended to install the fence along the rear property line. Mr. Singh responded that he intends to use his neighbor’s fence along the rear property line. His fence would be located east to west and join up with the neighbor’s fence post. Com. Moodhe asked about where the fence would come off the house and if the Petitioner would consider setting the fence back further. Mr. Singh advised that he wants to shield his air conditioning unit, which is located on the corner side of the house. Com. Moodhe asked the Petitioner if he considered a shorter fence, more like his neighbor. Mr. Singh stated that if he had to reconsider, he would possibly go with a four (4) foot high fence. Com. Moodhe stated that he is not oppo sed to the setback, but the difference in height and style and what the PZC has historically allowed is concerning. Com. Cohn asked if it would be acceptable to the Petitioner to install the same height and style fence as his neighbor. Mr. Singh stated that he would have to order to new fence because that is a picket fence but he could have his fence cut down to four (4) feet along that line. Com. Cohn asked if the Petitioner would consider a picket fence as opposed to a solid fence. Mr. Singh stated that he could but he would have to reorder a new picket fence similar to his neighbor’s. Com. Cohn would like to see the fence mirror the neighbor’s fence where it tapers higher at the house. Mr. Singh would still like a solid fence at the front of the house but he could make that work. Com. Weinstein believes that lining the proposed fence up with the existing neighbor’s fence closer to the sidewalk would look better aesthetically than if it were placed at the building line. He does not have an objection to the proposed fence whether it is a solid or picket fence. Com. Au asked staff about the neighbor’s fence. Mr. Sheehan advised that the neighbor’s fence was installed prior to the change in the Fence Code that allowed a three (3) fence in the corner side yard without a variation. Com. Au agrees with Com. Weinstein. A five (5) solid fence would look better. She has no objection to the proposed fence. Com. Goldspiel is concerned about the proposed fence. It creates a tunnel effect and affects the entire street. He would prefer a lower height or not solid or both. Com. Weinstein asked staff about any objections received. Mr. Sheehan advised that staff received one phone call objecting to the proposed fence and they wanted to remain anonymous. Com. Au asked if neighbors lived across street. Mr. Singh responded yes and he has heard from the neighbors that this is the time of year the coyotes are out and he is concerned about his pet. He is also concerned that he would lose useable land and that people will trespass on his property. Ch. Cesario stated that the PZC is sensitive to residents on a corner lot and on a busy street. He agrees with Com. Weinstein. These are two different styles with emphasis more on preference than hardship. He would prefer the fence match more closely with 03/7/2018 the neighbor at the same setback or adjust accordingly a more reasonable setback for a higher solid fence. He is concerned and would prefer the Petitioner go one way or the other. Mr. Singh stated he would like to line up with his neighbor’s fence. He amended his request to a four (4) foot fence and he might match the style of a picket fence on the north property line to look uniform with his neighbor’s fence. Ch. Cesario advised that a definitive decision must be given in order for the PZC to consider a variation. Com. Moodhe asked if the fence is available with a scalloped top and at a four (4) foot height. Ms. Katie Bashm, Fence Solutions, 545 Depot Place, Buffalo Grove, Illinois was present and sworn in. Ms. Bashm advised that the fence is available in an arch or a scallop top. It is possible for them to modify the fence purchased to be four (4) foot high at the posts and scallop down to three and a half (3-1/2) feet in the center. The neighbor’s fence is a white picket made of wood, which wood fences tend to deteriorate over time. A PVC fence has no maintenance and a limited lifetime warranty. PVC fences are becoming more common because of their low maintenance. There will be a lot more PVC fences installed in the future. Com. Moodhe would be much more amenable to a four (4) scalloped fence on the north side of the property. Com. Goldspiel asked if the PVC fence can be less shiny or reflective. Ms. Bashm stated that PVC fences are shiny when they are new and become less shiny with age. They could add a laminate to reduce the shine as well. Com. Goldspiel stated that it is not unusual to have corner fences set back further than what is being requested. Ch. Cesario asked if staff has any comments on the proposed PVC fence material. Mr. Sheehan responded no. Ch. Cesario asked if the Petitioner is proposing to amend his request to have the entire fence around the home be scalloped at a four (4) foot with a maximum height and still be a solid privacy in the same proposed location as sho wn on the Plat of Survey submitted with the application. That would provide continuity. Com. Khan stated that the four (4) previous corner side yard fence variances that were granted were not solid privacy fences, they were open fences. Com. Moodhe believes that a scalloped fence will not have a solid wall look to it. He asked if the change to the fence already purchased by the Petitioner will have a significant cost. Ms. Bashm stated no. Com. Moodhe asked how staff felt about the amended request. Mr. Stilling confirmed that the fence would be a white solid scalloped with a maximum height of four (4) feet to line up with the neighbor’s fence and would be consistent with all fencing on the Petitioner’s property. The only amendment is the type of fence. Staff is still concerned because it would be a solid fence. Staff would prefer the solid fence to be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the sidewalk. Com. Khan agrees with Mr. Stilling regarding the solid fence. If the PZC allows a solid fence, then the setback should be increased from two (2) feet to a minimum of five (5) feet from the sidewalk. 03/7/2018 Com. Goldspiel also agrees with Mr. Stilling and Com. Khan. A solid fence is still an issue. Ch. Cesario would prefer for the fence to be setback further off t he sidewalk. However, with the fence to line up with the existing fence and at a lower height, it does not create the tunnel affect and he would be okay with the current amendment. Mr. Singh responded that a five (5) setback would make the fence not line up with his neighbor’s fence. He has already reduced the height and style to a four (4) scalloped fence. He would like to maintain the aesthetics by lining up with his neighbor’s fence. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners . There were no questions or comments from the audience. Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated March 7, 2018 as Exhibit 1 and the email dated March 7, 2018 from Mr. Singh as Exhibit 2. The public hearing was closed at 8:27 PM. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Khan, to approve the amended request for a four (4) foot solid scalloped PVC fence to be located as depicted on the Plat of Survey submitted with the application. Mr. Stilling advised the Petitioner of the fifteen (15) day appeal period following any decision by the PZC. Com. Moodhe understands staff’s concern about the setback. There are only two (2) houses on that side of the street, which changes the wall effect that was discussed. Ch. Cesario stated that he would not have been supportive of a five (5) foot solid fence as originally proposed. The fence would have to have been moved back, or gotten smaller, or be an open style fence. In this case the fence got smaller and added a decorative element and is more consist with the neighbor’s fence. He agrees with Com. Moodhe and is supportive. RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1] MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Zill Khan, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Cohn, Khan, Weinstein, Au NAYS: Stephen Goldspiel ABSENT: Scott Lesser Regular Meeting Other Matters for Discussion 03/7/2018 None. Approval of Minutes 1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Feb 7, 2018 7:30 PM Moved by Com. Khan, seconded by Com. Weinstein, to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting. Com. Cohn noted a correction on page 32 of the packet, 14th line. Replace "people get sick of it" with "people get cynical". RESULT: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [5 TO 0] MOVER: Zill Khan, Commissioner SECONDER: Mitchell Weinstein, Comm issioner AYES: Cesario, Cohn, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein ABSTAIN: Adam Moodhe ABSENT: Scott Lesser, Amy Au Chairman's Report Ch. Cesario reviewed the liaison schedule. Com. Goldspiel is scheduled to attend the next Village Board meeting. Ch. Cesario reviewed the Planning & Zoning Commission items that were recommended for approval to the Village Board on February 26, 2018. Committee and Liaison Reports None. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule Mr. Stilling reviewed the items for the next agenda. There was some discussion regarding the small cell antennas. Mrs. Woods provided an update on the Lake Cook Corridor project. Public Comments and Questions None. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 PM Chris Stilling Director of Community Development 03/7/2018 APPROVED BY ME THIS 7th DAY OF March , 2018