Loading...
1989-10-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes .16\ 4 711 I..4.A.G-E] OF' ' - _ !‘1 , mar_Tplip-AL,10 GROVE • r tFfyyt-eyne Arufmt e1id'. - Ju/fzii 6 taue Tti. 6'0089 AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY , OCTOBER 17 , 1989 8 : 00 P .M. I . CALL TO ORDER II . ROLL CALL III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV . BUSINESS A . 17 Crestview Terrace , Larry and Dorothy Yunker Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Purpose : Constructing of a 6 foot fence B . 590 Twisted Oak Lane , Jerome Gould Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020- - Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Requirements Purpose : : Construction of a room addition at the rear C . 344 Buffalo Grove Road , James and Jo Ann Tennenbaum Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 - Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Purpose : Construction of a deck `,/' D . 1010 Johnson Blvd . , Toshiba America Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Purpose : Construction of additional satellite receiver antennas E . Riv►erwalk - Milwaukee and Lake Cook Road Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs Erection of a new ; .marketing sign F . Carlyle of Buffalo Grove , 2199 Brandywyn Lane Edward Schwartz .& • Company Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations Purpose : Construction of a Carlyle model house IV . ANNOUNCEMENTS V . ADJOURNMENT repared by : B it ing Dept . Liaison James Sylverne Housing and Zoning Inspector For : Richard Heinrich , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1989 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairman David Stolman called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.B. at the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Blvd. on Tuesday, October 17, 1989. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: D. Stolman, R. Lewandowski, B. Entman and H. Fields Commissioners Absent: R. Heinrich, B. Kearns and J. Paul Bldg. Dept. Liaison: James Sylverne, Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Attorney: Richard Skelton Village Board Liaison: Sid Mathias, Trustee, arrived 9:50 P.B. Acting Chairman Stolman announced that it takes four (4) affirmative votes to grant a variance. Any petitioner, mho prefers to be heard at a later date, may ask for their variance to be Tabled. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sept. 19, 1989 - Deferred until the next meeting because of absence of Commissioners. IV. BUSINESS A. 17 Crestview Terrace, Larry and Dorothy Yunker Fence Code, Section 15.20.040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice, published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on Sept. 28, 1989, was read. Mr. Yunker was sworn in and stated he mould have joined his neighbors who were granted similar variances in August, if he had been aware that they had filed petitions. Mr. Yunker summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a 6 foot fence in the rear yard: 1. 62' of rear yard borders Buffalo Creek Apts. 2. They have a pool and the six (6) foot fence will discourage kids from entering the yard. 3. Fence mill block the sight of and noise from the apartments. A colored diagram was presented and described. The entire fence will be replaced. It will be similar to the neighbors' 6 foot fences, but it will be constructed by a different fence company. The 6 foot part of the fence will be cedar stockade. Some of the fence will be 5 foot chain link and part 3 foot split rail. There is a manhole in the corner of the yard and Mr. Yunker asked if he could put in a gate so that the Village would have access to the easement. If not, the fence will bypass the manhole. He has spoken with his neighbors and there are no objections. The Commissioners had no objections. It would be permissible to have a gate for access into the yard. There were no comments from the audience. Coon. Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Larry and Dorothy Yunker for variance of the Fence Code, Section 15.20.040 - Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a six (6) foot cedar stockade fence at the rear of the property along the property line, pursuant to Exhibit A. Hardship having been established. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, nor will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Coen. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields, Entman, Lewandowski, Stolman NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days. B. 590 Twisted Oak Lane, Jerome Gould Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020 Pertaining to: Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Requirements Purpose: Construction of a room addition at the rear The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr. Gould was sworn in and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance: 1 . Wife has cancer and needs a hot tub for physical therapy. She will also be sleeping in the new room. 2. It would be financially impossible to purchase a different house. 3. Additional space is needed for 2 college age children ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 17, 1989 - Page Two The proposed addition was to be 16' x 16' but this would exceed the ZBA's authority. Mr. Gould was informed and said his contractor will adjust the dimensions so that the rear yard will be 20 feet. The addition could be 240 square feet 12' x 20 ' , if feasible; or approximately 12' x 16' . The 1-story addition will match the existing house: same siding, roof lines, etc. There will be windows, with a skylight in the rear. The neighbors have been informed and do not object. The Commissioners had no comments or objections. There were no comments from the audience. Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Jerome Gould, 590 Twisted Oak Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Requirements, for the purpose of constructing a room addition at the rear of the house. Said addition not to exceed twelve ( 12) feet in depth, and should be built of like materials to match the exterior of the existing house. Addition to be 1-story, built in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Village. Unique circumstances having been established, the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Fields seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Lewandowski, Field, Entman, Stolman NAY - None Motion Passed: 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days. C. 344 Buffalo Grove Road., James and Jo Ann Tennenbaum Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.32.020 - Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures; Purpose - Construction of a Deck The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr. Tennenbaum was sworn in and explained that he is requesting a variance for a deck that would exceed the 20X rear yard coverage limitation. There is a pool in the rear yard that is used by many children (nieces, nephews and neighbors). Grass will not grow around the pool and stones mould be dangerous. The deck would enhance the property, as well as the community. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 17, 1989 - Page Three Hr. Tennenbaum said he obtained a permit for the pool but he did not know a deck permit was necessary. He began the deck and work was stopped when the deck was 3/4 finished. Hr. Sylverne said he and Richard Kuenkler, Village Engineer, inspected the deck. It is too close to the rear yard lot �/ line, and too close to the north side of garage. The proposed deck was 388 square feet and this is over the ZBA's authority to grant a variance. Hr. Tennenbaum was advised by Hr. Kuenkler ( emo dated 10/13) that t e Village Ordinance does not permit/alteration of the grade w'thin any easement or within five /('5) feet (of the lot line) in the absence of an easement. The memo recommended that no encroachment of this area be permitted. Mr. Tennenbaum attempted to obtain waivers from the utility companies and ,go the Village Board for approval, but he was unable to get permission. He submitted a revised drawing, reducing the size of the deck to 225 square feet, and will remove the sections of the deck that do not comply with the ordinances. He will put in new 'piers where necessary. The Commissioners had no objections to the variance if it is within the ZBA authority. There were no comments from the audience. Con. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant petitioners, James and Jo Ann Ten- nenbaum, 344 Buffalo Grove Road, a variance of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to: Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, to permit construction of a deck that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. Petitioner shall modify and complete the wood deck, which shall not exceed 225 square feet, in conformance with Village Ordinances. Petitioner shall remove 3 feet from the deck (next to the garage) and shall not build on the easement. A new plat of survey shall be submitted for review and approval before a permit is issued. Proposed deck will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Unique circumstances were shown. Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Lewandowski, Fields, Stolman NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Oct. 17, 1989 - Page Four Mr . Tennenbaum said he obtained a permit for the pool but he did not know a deck permit was necessary. He began the deck and work was stopped when the deck was 3/4 finished. Mr . Sylverne said he and Richard Kuenkler , Village Engineer , inspected the deck. It is too close to the rear yard lot line, and too close to the north side of garage. The proposed deck was 388 square feet and this is over the ZBA' s authority to grant a variance. Mr . Tannenbaum was advised by Mr . Kuenkler (memo dated 10/13) that the Village Ordinance does not permit alteration of the grade within any easement or within five (5) feet (of the lot line) in the absence of an easement . The memo recommended that no encroachment of this area be permitted. Mr . Tennenbaum attempted to obtain waivers from the utility companies and go the Village Board for approval , but he was unable to get permission. He submitted a revised drawing, reducing the size of the deck to 225 square feet , and will remove the sections of the deck that do not comply with the ordinances . He will put in new piers where necessary. The Commissioners had no objections to the variance if it is within the ZBA authority. There were no comments from the audience . Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we grant petitioners , James and Jo Ann Ten- nenbaum, 344 Buffalo Grove Road, a variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 .020 , pertaining to: Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , to permit construction of a deck that would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage limitation. Petitioner shall modify and complete the wood deck, which shall not exceed 225 square feet , in conformance with Village Ordinances . Petitioner shall remove 3 feet from the deck (next to the garage) and shall not build on the easement . A new plat of survey shall be submitted for review and approval before a permit is issued. Proposed deck will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Unique circumstances were shown. Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Lewandowski , Fields , Stolman NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Oct . 17 , 1989 - Page Four 1 ti • ., (. f • H• 1 • v Mr. Tennenbaum asked if he can begin to remove the portion of the deck, that is not in compliance, before the permit is issued? Can he plant on the easement? Can he pour concrete between the deck and garage? Mr. Sylverne replied, "Yes" to all three questions. A permit is not necessary for concrete. D. Toshiba America - 1010 Johnson Drive, Chevy Chase Bus. Park Zoning Ordinance, Section 17. 32. 020 - Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures; Purpose - Construction of two additional satellite receiver antennas in front of building The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Todd Takato, Chief of Engineers, and Mr. Greg Nicorata , Engineer, representa- tives of Toshiba America, were sworn in. Toshiba was granted a similar variance on July 19, 1988. It was for one 10 foot dish and one 3 foot dish to be located in front of the building along Johnson Drive. Mr. Nicorata explained the reasons for requesting another variance for satellite receiver antennas. They have a 10 year lease with Hamilton Partners and there are 8 years remaining. The Video Communications Group has grown and 5 new employees have been added . Technology is being improved day by day and Toshiba is one of the top three vendors in the marketplace. Two additional satellite receiver antennas are required to provide the necessary signals for research and development, and to provide better customer service. ` i Acting Chairman Stolman observed that fencing had been discussed at the July 1988 ZBA meeting and the previous variance included the provision for landscaping around the structures. Mr. Nicorata responded that he thought the landscaping was optional , with the decision to be left with Toshiba. He said it is not necessary to enclose the antennas because they use low voltage, with a maximum of 18 volts. The antennas are installed about 6 to 10 feet off the ground , and can only be reached by using a ladder. He said they have not experienced any vandalism with the two existing antennas. Summary of answers to Commissioner 's questions: Mr. Nicorata described the use of audio and video receivers in research and development within the satellite industry . Data is received from throughout the United States. Toshiba sells new equipment, and does repair work. They supply equipment for the US and Canada. The two additional antennas will enable them to save time, and should be sufficient for the next 1 to 2 years. If expansion continues, a new facility may be required . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 17, 1989 - Page Five v . The reason the antennas are not installed on the roof is because they require monthly maintenance and adjustment. The roof is 30 feet high and it mould be dangerous for workers to be on the roof in inclement weather. Mr. Nicorata said that satellite reception is dependent upon line-of-sight. He requested that they be permitted to move the smaller receiver to the west and move it 5 feet south. The new receivers mould be installed to the East nearer the entrance, where there is more space. They need to be staggered for the best reception. Mr. Sylverne said a site plan showing the specific location of each satellite receiver would have to be submitted for approval. Mr. Skelton said there is nothing in the ordinance that limits the number of satellite dishes per facility. The ZBA sends a recommendation to the Village Board. The Trustees make the final decision and, if approved, a variance is granted by ordinance. The Commissioners discussed landscaping and agreed that some shrubbery around the bases of all four antennas mould be required. Mr. Nicorata and Mr. Takato did not object. There mere no comments from the audience. Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board that Toshiba America, 1010 Johnson Drive, represented by Todd Takato and Greg Nicorata, be granted a variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.32.020, Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, to permit construction and placement of two (2) nem satellite receiver antennas on the front lawn of the property. Said antennas to be located to the east of the two existing antennas, and spaced ten ( 10) feet apart, and may be moved forward up to five (5) feet, in a step pattern, for the purpose of obtaining good reception. Appropriate landscaping at the bases of all four (4) antennas shall be added to the site. Com. Lewandowski seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Lewandowski, Fields, Stolman NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 17, 1989 - Page Six E. Riverwalk - Milwaukee Avenue and Lake/Cook Road Sign Code, Section 14.20.070 - Ground Signs Erecting of a marketing sign that exceeds square footage The Public Hearing Notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on Sept. 28, 1989. Mr. Timothy Beechick, Hamilton Partner's representative, was sworn in. He described the Riverwalk site plan and requested a 20 ' x 30 ' marketing sign to be located on Milwaukee Avenue near Lake/Cook Road. The Riverwalk Project is very large and it has taken several years to begin construction. It is now time to promote the building. Within two years, construction of the proposed overpass at the corner will begin and signage exposure at the corner will be greatly limited. The size of the project, when subdivided, would allow for approximately three (3) 120 sf. signs, but in lieu of multiple signs, Hamilton Partners is requesting only one ( 1 ) 600 sf. sign for the entire development. For comparison, there is a Hamilton Lakes sign of similar size at Thorndale and Route 53. The Appearance Commission approved the aesthetics of the sign on September 14, 1989. The double-faced sign will feature a painted mural of the building, with construction and leasing information. It will be landscaped and lighted. When the construction begins on the "twin" building, the sign will be be relocated. �./ Mr. Beechick said they want the sign as close to the inter- section as possible. It will be 75' east of Milwaukee Avenue and 50 ' north of Lake/Cook Road. The building setback line is 25 feet, so there is no line-of-sight problem. The base of the sign would be 4 feet making the total height of the proposed sign 24 feet. It would meet the distance requirement of height vs. setback; but a height variance would be required, because the code limits the height of signs to 20 feet. Acting Chairman Stolman said this is an extraordinarily large sign to be located so close to the intersection, and the attending Commissioners agreed. Mr. Beechick responded they want the sign to be readable, and large enough not be be dominated by the building. The mural will give people a good idea of what the building will look like. He was agreeable to scaling it down. Since the site mould be allowed three (3) 120 sf. signs, totaling 360 sf. , he asked if a 15' x 25' ( 375 sf. ) sign would be acceptable? It could be put up within two weeks of approval. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 17, 1989 - Page Seven Li ti A definite completion date has not been projected. The glass work has been started, but it will be February before the building will be totally enclosed. It is important to have the sign for marketing purposes. The overpass project has been approved, but funds have not been allocated, and engineering procedures have not been completed. Mr. Beechick said he believes the construction should begin in about two years. If the building is not leased out, the marketing sign could be up longer than two years. The Commissioners discussed the ZBA's ability to limit the duration of the sign. Mr. Skelton said variances for signs are approved by the Village Board. The ZBA can put a time limit in the recommen- dation, requiring the sign to be reviewed periodically. (See Sign Code Section 14.32.010 - Subdivision development signs. ) He suggested a one ( 1 ) year period of time. The Commissioners agreed this would be appropriate. Trustee Mathias asked if there would be monumental signs on . Lake/Cook Road? Mr. Beechick replied that some directional signage may be needed, but they would prefer to wait and see what happens. He did not object to returning to the ZBA yearly for review of the marketing sign. If the road is not built, they would want the sign to continue, even up to 5 years. There were no comments from the audience. Com. Lewandowski made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board approval of the petition of Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake/ Cook Rd. , for a variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs, for the purpose of erecting a marketing sign for Riverwalk at the corner of Milwaukee and Lake/Cook Rd. pursuant to the site plans (Exhibits B-1 & B-2), color rendering (Exhibit C), and diagram (Exhibit D). The sign is not to exceed 375 square feet, and the top of the sign is not to exceed 19 feet from the ground. (No variance is required for the height. The petitioner has exhibited unique circumstances and has agreed that no additional marketing sign will be permitted for the project. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 17, 1989 - Page Eight • In addition, the sign shall be appropriately landscaped, per the Appearance Commission recommendation, 9/14/89. Further condition: The petitioner shall return to the Zoning Board of Appeals at the end of one ( 1 ) year for review and recommendation of renewal of the sign. The petitioner has not waived his rights to other signage, should this sign be denied. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Fields, Entman, Lewandowski, Stolman NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. F. Carlyle of Buffalo Grove, 2199 Brandywyn Lane Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to: Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations; Purpose: Construction of a Carlyle model house by Edward Schwartz & Company The Public Hearing Notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on October 2, 1989. Mr. Ed Schwartz was sworn in. He described the site plan. The house is situated on a curvilinear street and the lot is an irregular shape. The building line in front is 30 feet and the house meets this setback, measured perpendicular to the street. The required rear yard setback is 40 feet. The house meets this dimension if measured straight back from the rear to the lot line. The Building Department measures the shortest distance from the house to the lot line, and this distance is 37.50 feet. Mr. Schwartz requested a 2.5 foot variance, because the foundation has already been poured. If he had been aware of the Buffalo Grove rule, he would have subdivided the lot differently, and the house would have been in conformance. Mr. Sylverne confirmed that there is a difference in interpretation, but the Buffalo Grove Building Dept. has always measured the distance from the house perpendicular to the nearest lot line. Mr. Schwartz said this is the smallest lot in the subdivision and no other houses will require a variance. The nearest house to the rear is over 80 feet away. The Commissioners did not object to the variance. There were no comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 17, 1989 - Page Nine Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Edward Schwartz & Co. , 1110 Lake/Cook Road, for variance of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to: Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a Carlyle model • house at 2199 Brandywyn. Variance not to exceed 2-1/2 feet into the required 40 foot rear yard setback, per Plat of Survey, Exhibit B. Unique circumstances having been established. Said variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. When the model house is sold, the petitioner shall notify the purchase of the rear yard variance. Com. Fields seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Lewandowski, Fields, Entman, Stolman Nay - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days. IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. V. ADJOURNMENT Com. Fields made a motion to adjourn. Com. Entman seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Bates, Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 17, 1989 - Page Ten