Loading...
2018-12-19 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Minutes12/19/2018 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, DECEMBER 19, 2018 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:34 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. Consider Approval of a Variation for a Driveway to Exceed the Maximum Allowed Coverage for the Property at 964 Cooper Court (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Nita Goodman, 964 Cooper Court, was present and sworn in. Ms. Goodman explained that in May, 2018, she began the process to remove and replace her driveway. The process was very slow. She had contracted with Fortis to complete the work. Fortis was unable to secure the permit to replace the driveway as it existed. The driveway had two (2) extensions and was twenty -two (22) foot wide. The driveway needed repairs but she still did not have the permit. She call ed the Village and was advised that she needed to apply for a variation. As fall approached she decided she did not want to put off replacing the driveway. In September, she went out of town and was advised by Fortis that they were approved and secured the permit. She never saw the permit. On September 11, 2018 Fortis removed the driveway and framed the new driveway, sidewalk and patio. An inspection was conducted by the Village, passed and the work was completed. When the inspector came out for the final inspection, the inspection did not pass. When she asked Fortis why the inspection failed, they could not give her a definitive answer. She knew the new driveway could not exceed the forty (40) percent coverage limitation. Ch. Cesario advised that page 3 of the packet shows the Plat of Survey. He believes that if the Petitioner had a more traditional-shaped lot, the proposed driveway would probably have met the Code. Mr. Stilling confirmed that the Petitioner could have a larger driveway with a more traditional-shaped lot. Ch. Cesario noted that page 11 of the packet contains signatures from some of the surrounding property owners indicating they do not object. Ch. Ceasrio asked if staff had received any inquiries. Ms. Akash advised that staff received two (2) phone calls inquiring about the request, however they did not have any objections. Ch. Cesario appreciates that the Petitioner had spoken with her neighbors. Ms. Goodman advised that she was not able to speak with some of the neighbors. Ch. Cesario believes that the Petitioner tried to follow the rules but learned a lesson. Ms. Goodman added that the driveway itself is only seventeen (17) feet wide, which is restrictive. In addition, three (3) properties near hers also have similar driveways. Com. Khan asked the Petitioner if the previous driveway was installed at twenty-two (22) feet wide. Ms. Goodman responded that at some point two (2) brick paver side strips were added that increased the width to twenty-two (22) feet. The driveway itself is within Code, it’s the front yard coverage limitation. To replace the driveway at seventeen (17) feet, she would not be able to open her car door and step out without stepping into the grass. It would also make it difficult for her to get the car seats in and out of her car. She does not drive on the brick paver extensions. Com. Khan stated that when an owner goes to remove and replace a driveway, they should bring the driveway into compliance with 12/19/2018 the Codes. Ms. Goodman understands and added that they own three (3) v ehicles and there is very little street parking available. Com. Khan noted that the standard width of a parking stall is eight and one half (8-1/2) to nine (9) feet wide. Therefore a seventeen (17) foot wide driveway would be a standard size. 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 December 19, 2018 as Exhibit 1. The public hearing was closed at 7:48 PM Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board to approve a variation to allow the new driveway and walkway to have a maximum of forty-six (46) percent front yard coverage. Com. Weinstein thanked the Petitioner for makin g the improvement to her property and not making the driveway more expansive than what already existed. The Petitioner attempted to follow the rules. He is in favor of the request. Com. Moodhe stated that other homes in the area are a similar pie-shape configuration. The driveway fits with the neighborhood. RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] Next: 1/22/2019 7:30 PM MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Scott Lesser, Amy Au 2. Consider Approval of a Variation to Section 17.36.030 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance to Allow for a Recreational Vehicle (Boat and Trailer) to Exceed the Maximum Width Requirement and to be Stored in the Side Yard Year Round Without the Required Screening for the Property at 981 Indian Spring Lane (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Mr. Alex Ganzman, 981 Indian Spring Lane, was present and sworn in. Mr. Ganzman explained that he has lived in Buffalo Grove for approximately eighteen (18) years. He has owned a boat the entire time he has lived here. He uses the boat on the weekends. He believes it is important to have the boat on his property because it is not practical to keep it off-site. He keeps the boat in good condition and he does not store anything in it. This is his second home in Buffalo Grove. Currently he parks his boat in his side yard. Last year he added a paved driveway extension to store the boat on. He has spoken to some of his neighbors and collected signatures of those neighbors that have no issues with the boat being stored in its current location. Mr. Ganzman submitted the signatures and map showing the location of the neighbors that signed as evidence. Mr. Ganzman advised that he asked some of his neighbors to attend the hearing and testify they have no objections. He stated that he wants to comply with the Code, but he also wants what makes sense. The boat is shielded by his home and his neighbor’s home. 12/19/2018 There is existing landscaping on his neighbor’s property. The boat is not visible. He has thought about using a fence in front of the boat, but he cannot use landscaping. In addition, a fence would make it hard to move the boat in and out of the driveway. There is currently a fence behind the boat that has two (2) gates that he uses to access the rear yard. For him to store the boat off-site would be a financial burden and not all boat owners can afford off-site storage. Com. Goldspiel asked about the length of the boat. Mr. Ganzman advised that the boat is twenty-four (24) feet in length, with the trailer. Ch. Cesario stated that he drove past the property and completely missed the boat even though he knew the boat was there. The boat is very well screened and it is not a small boat. Com. Moodhe asked if the boat is located all the way at the back of the paved area. Mr. Ganzman responded yes, it is as far back as it can go. Com. Moodhe stated that the boat is pretty much in line with the garage, it is only about a foot beyond. Mr. Ganzman advised that he cannot move the boat back any farther due to the gate to access his rear yard. Com. Moodhe commented to staff that the Ordinance does not specify if the screening shall be temporary or permanent and suggested using potte d shrubs to screen the front of the boat. Mr. Stilling responded that potted shrubs could be used so long as they are a minimum of five (5) feet in height. Com. Goldspiel asked the Petitioner where he provides maintenance to the boat. Mr. Ganzman advised that he maintains the boat at the marina. Com. Goldspiel stated that his son has a twenty-three (23) foot long boat that is kept at a marina. Mr. Ganzman stated that is a standard size, with the trailer and tires. Com. Goldspiel believes that the Petitioner should follow the Ordinance as it relates to the screening of the boat. The side yard is narrow and he feels that fencing across the front is needed. He would not be in favor of the request without the required screening. Com. Khan asked the Petitioner if he had researched the cost of off-site storage. Mr. Ganzman responded that off-site storage is not just about the financial impact; it would alter his lifestyle and would not be convenient for him. Going back and forth would be time-consuming and would cut into his enjoyment time. Com. Khan asked how often the Petitioner uses the boat from October 1st to May 15th each year. Mr. Ganzman responded that this year he used the boat until the end of November. He starts using the boat in early spring, usually the beginning of May. He also needs access to the boat before he can use it. Com. Khan asked if the boat can fit into the garage. Mr. Ganzman stated the boat cannot fit into the garage. Even though it is a two-car garage, the boat on the trailer is too tall to fit. In addition, he cannot make the garage bigger. Com. Khan stated that he is faced with a dilemma; the Village has over one hundred (100) RV’s. The Village had done its research before enacting the Ordinance. A variation request has to meet the criteria in order to be approved. He suggested the Petitioner work with Village staff to determine if landscaping or fencing would work best as screening. Com. Weinstein stated that the Petitioner cannot rely on the neighbor’s landscaping. Today’s neighbor may be in favor of the boat but any future neighbor may not. He believes that screening must be provided by the Petitioner. He is not concerned with the other variations contained in the request, but wants the screening requirement to be adhered to. Mr. Ganzman stated that he wants to meet the Code and if he installed a 12/19/2018 fence at six (6) feet in height, the fence would only cover the bottom of the boat. The top half would still be visible. A fence needs posts and gates, which take up space and the paved area would then be too narrow to fit the boat. He is willing to use potted shrubs for screening. Com. Goldspiel advised that the screening does not need to cover the entire boat. If the boat were pushed back enough, the fencing would be sufficient. Com. Moodhe agrees with Com. Weinstein regarding the other variations contained in the request. He believes that the screening is necessary and should be easy to accomplish. The paved area is a good size to get the boat in and out of. He would be agreeable to potted shrubs in front of the boat but permanent landscaping on the side. Ch. Cesario entered the Petitioners signatures and map as Exhibits 1A and 1B and the Staff Report dated December 19, 2018 as Exhibit 2. Mr. Austin Klein, 991 Indian Springs Lane, was pres ent and sworn in. Mr. Klein advised that he is the neighbor directly next to the Petitioner and it is his landscaping that exists. The boat really cannot be seen from either side. The boat and the house are basically the same color. He believes a fence would be an eyesore more than the boat. To him, the boat is a non-issue. Mr. Walter Zisman, 680 Twisted Oak Lane, was present and sworn in. Mr. Zisman walks past Mr. Ganzman’s house all the time. He spoke with Mr. Ganzman about the driveway expansion to fit the boat in the side yard. He has a boat himself that he cannot fit in his side yard. This is a good looking boat. The boat cannot be seen unless you are looking for it. A fence would be an eyesore. Com. Goldspiel stated that the screening would not just screen the boat, but the trailer as well. Com. Weinstein stated to Mr. Klein that even though the Petitioner’s boat color currently matches the house, the Petitioner could paint the boat pink. He asked Mr. Klein to keep in mind that it is possible for the current situation to change. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. The public hearing was closed at 8:17 PM. Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to approve the variation to Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.36.030 to allow for a boat and trailer to exceed the maximum width requirement and to be stored in the side yard year round, subject to the following conditions: 12/19/2018 1. The Petitioner shall work with staff to determine the appropriate landscaping or screening as required. 2. The required landscaping or screen will be installed no later than September 30, 2019. Com. Weinstein noted that the landscaping or screening must be permanent with temporary landscaping or screening until the permanent landscaping or screening is installed. Mr. Stilling advised that staff will work with Mr. Ganzman to ensure adequate screening is provided as required by the Ordinance. Com. Khan confirmed that the Petitioner understands that a variation to eliminate the required screening is not approved and advised him to work with staff. Mr. Ganzman asked who determines what screening meets the Code. Mr. Stilling advised that the Ordinance dictates that screening must be a minimum of five (5) feet in height and either fencing or landscaping and provided examples of how to meet the Ordinance. He suggested five (5) to six (6) foot high arborvitaes with a minimum three (3) foot width. Com. Weinstein feels more comfortable when the affected neighbors are comfortable. This is a relatively new Ordinance and the granting of variations must be consistent. He supports the motion with the inclusion of the required screening. A question was raised about placing a condition within the motion that the variation does not run with the land. Com. Weinstein amended the motion to include the condition that the variation does not run with the land. Com. Moodhe seconded the amendment. Ch. Cesario explained that the RV regulations are new and why the Ordinance was created. He believes that the criteria has mostly been met, the boat is tucked in and is used. He is in favor of the request subject to the conditions. Com. Goldspiel noted that the neighbor has very few windows that directly face th e boat. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Scott Lesser, Amy Au Regular Meeting Other Matters for Discussion None. Approval of Minutes 12/19/2018 1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Dec 5, 2018 7:30 PM Moved by Com. Khan, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting as submitted. RESULT: ACCEPTED [3 TO 0] MOVER: Zill Khan, Commissioner SECONDER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner AYES: Adam Moodhe, Frank Cesario, Zill Khan ABSTAIN: Stephen Goldspiel, Mitchell Weinstein ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Scott Lesser, Amy Au Chairman's Report None. Committee and Liaison Reports None. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule Mr. Stilling advised that the January 2, 2019 regular meeting will be cancelled. There will be two items on the January 16, 2019 agenda; another RV variation and a Special Use for a fitness facility in the Industrial District. Public Comments and Questions None. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 PM Chris Stilling APPROVED BY ME THIS 19th DAY OF December , 2018