Loading...
1990-01-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JANUARY 16 , 1990 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 08 P . M . on Tuesday , January 16 , 1990 , in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , D . Stolman , J . Paul , B . Entman , R . Lewandowski , H . Fields and R . Heinrich Commissioners Absent : None Bldg . Dept . Liaison : James Sylverne Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Board Liaison : Sid Mathias , Trustee Village Attorneys : Richard Skelton and Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A . December 19 , 1989 - Motion to approve as submitted made by Com . Kearns . Seconded by Com . Lewandowski . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Paul , Entman , Lewandowski , Fields NAY - None ABSTAIN - Heinrich and Stolman Motion Passed 5 to 0 , 2 abstentions . Minutes of Dec . 19 , 1989 approved and will be placed on file . B . October 17 , 1989 - Motion to approve as submitted made by Com . Stolman . Seconded by Com . Lewandowski . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Stolman , Entman , Lewandowski and Fields NAY - None ABSTAIN - Kearns , Paul and Heinrich Minutes of Oct . 17 . 1989 approved and will be placed on file . II . OLD BUSINESS A . 720 Armstrong Drive , Willis & Kaplan , Engineers Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 050- Industrial Districts Com . Kearns made a motion to remove from Table ( 12/ 19/89 ) . Com . Fields seconded the motion . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Mr . Terry Willis , Partner ; and Mr . Matt Miller , Project Manager , Mc Lennan & Thebault , Inc . , 1771 Commerce Dr . , Elk Grove Village • IL 70007 ( 228-6700 ) were present . They had been sworn in at the previous meeting held on December 19 , 1989 . The hearing was Tabled because the Line-of-Sight Review , dated December 14 , 1989 , submitted by Richard Kuenkler , Village Engineer , states the " proposed sign location conflicts with the desired site distance for Armstrong Drive . " At the request of Messrs . Willis , Kaplan and Miller , the sign location was reevaluated and field tests were performed . A new Line-of-/Sight Review , dated January 12 , 1990 , states " the height of the sign allows it to exist within the sight triangle without obstructing traffic . The obstruction of the sidewalk is negligible ; and therefore , the sign from a traffic safety standpoint can be permitted . " Mr . Willis addressed the criteria for obtaining a sign code variance : 1 . Hardship - As a professional engineering company , it is very important to have a fully integrated and designed corporate office . The sign , as designed compliments the architecture very well . To change the location of the sign would constitute an aesthetic hardship . 2 . Unique situation - The sign is not the instrument of an economic hardship . It is not the means of increasing business . 3 . The sign would not be detrimental to any of the property owners in the vicinity . All property owners within the 500 foot radius have been informed , and there have been no objections . The conditions are specific to the petitioner ' s property and the sign meets the conditions of Sub-Section B , of Sign Code Section 14 . 44 . 010 , in that : 1 . The proposed signage is of particularly good design and in particularly good taste , and 2 . The entire site has been particularly well - landscaped . Mr . Willis stated the entire site has been well - landscaped . He presented photographs of the building and the sign wall . The Appearance Commission approved the lettering on Nov . 9 , 1989 and informed Mr . Miller that a variance would be necessary because the wall was located too close to the property line . Ch . Heinrich asked how close the sign was to the property line? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 16 , 1990 - Page Two Mr . Miller responded that the sign is about 6 to 8 inches from the property line , and there is not enough room to move it back 10 feet unless it was turned parallel to the building . This would make it a single faced sign and it would not be as attractive . The building is bermed in the front and there is a private sidewalk between the public sidewalk and the building . Mr . Willis added that the building was sited as close as possible to the front of the property to permit room for future expansion to the rear . Com . Paul observed that in view of the Village Engineer ' s second study , he would have no objection to recommending approval under Section B - the sign is in good taste , etc . Only a toddler on a bike would be endangered , and this is unlikely , considering the location . Com . Lewandowski - No problem , considering Mr . Kuenkler ' s review . Com . Fields asked what the cost would be to remove the sign wall and replace it? Mr . Willis estimated that it would be $3 , 000 to $4 , 000 because the landscaping would also have to be removed and replaced . Com . Kearns - The situation is unique and in view of if the t••/ Village Engineer ' s review , he has no problem . Com . Stolman asked how the field test changed Mr . Kuenkler ' s judgment? Ch . Heinrich responded that when the actual height of the sign was physically viewed with vehicles , the driver ' s vision was not obstructed . The original review could have been calculated in the office . Mr . Miller added that Mr . Kuenkler had been out to the site in December , but when they all went together last week , and observed the sign wall from the car , he changed his conclusion . Com . Entman - No objection , but expressed some concern about the height of the wall , and suggested removing a layer or two of bricks , to accommodate the vision from smaller cars . Com . Paul commented that most cars would not be affected , and he suggested that placement of a stop sign on the property might be of value to make people cautious when pulling out . Mr . Willis was very agreeable and this suggestion will be made a condition of the variance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 16 , 1990 - Page Three Com . Paul made the following motion : I move we recommend to the Village Board approval `.� of the petition of Willis and Kaplan , Engineers , 720 Armstrong Drive , pursuant to the Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 050 - Industrial Districts , for the installation of a ground sign closer that 10 feet to the property line . The sign will be located 11 inches from the south property line , contingent on a stop sign being placed on the subject property . Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity . Unusual conditions apply . The proposed signage is of particularly good design and taste , and the entire site is well - landscaped . Com . Kearns seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Stolman , Kearns , Paul , Lewandowski , Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached . The recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for placement on the next Agenda , as a consent item . Attendance of the petitioners was advised . V . NEW BUSINESS A . 1134 Devonshire Road , Albert and Andrea Carrino Zoning Ordinance , 17 . 40 . 020 - Pertaining to : Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations Purpose : Construction of an addition Request : 6 foot variance ; amended to 8 foot variance The Public Hearing Notice was read . Albert and Andrea Carrino were sworn in . Com . Fields acknowledged that he lives immediately East of the Carrinos and would be the most affected by the addition . He has no objections , but will abstain from the discussion and will not vote . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated January 2 , 1990 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern . Please advise the homeowner that no alteration to the grade is allowed within five feet ( 5 ' ) of any rear or side lot line . " The Carrinos had been sent a copy of Mr . Kuenkler ' s review . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 16 , 1990 - Page Four Mr . Carrino summarized the reasons for requesting the variance: 1 . The size of the kitchen is not adequate for their family of four (4) . 2 . They prefer to stay in B.G. and raise their family. 3 . The purchase of a larger home is not financially feasible . Com. Fields stated he has no objection to the proposed addition. Because of the way Devonshire curves , the rear yards curve toward each other and it will be possible to see into the new room, but the families are friends and this is not a problem. The addition will not affect the appearance of the community. He has personally spoken to the nearest neighbors and none have expressed any objections . Plans were submitted from two architects . Mr . Carrino asked to amend his petition from a 6 foot variance to an 8 foot variance . The addition will be basically octagon shaped. Mr . Carrino said they have contacted all neighbors within sight of the addition. (These neighbors are marked on the property owners ' list . ) Com. Paul : No problem or questions . Com. Lewandowski : No objections . Com. Kearns : Asked if the materials of the addition will match the existing construction? "Yes" Com. Stolman: No objections . Com. Entman: No objections . Com. Stolman made the following motion: I move that the petitioners Albert and Andrea Carrino , 1134 Devonshire Road be granted a variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 ; Pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations ; for the purpose of constructing a room addition, per the attached exhibits , that would not exceed encroachment of more than 8 feet into the required rear yard setback. Architectural integrity of the house will be maintained. Petitioner. is advised that no alteration to the grade is allowed within five feet (5 ' ) of any rear or side lot line?/ per Village Engineer ' s Review, dated 1/2/90 . Hardship having been demonstrated , and the proposed addition will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 16 , 1990 - Page Five Mr . Skelton commented that the date on the letter to the surrounding property owners was Tuesday, January 26 , 1990 . However , the public hearing notice and the agenda have the correct date , Tuesday, January 16 , 1990 . Copies of the agenda had been sent to the surrounding property owners , and it was noted that January 26th is not a Tuesday. Mr . Skelton advised the petitioners that because of the technical violation of the notice , there is a slight possibility that someone could come to object on January 26th. The matter was discussed. The Commissioners all agreed. They have no objections to the proposed addition, and their opinions would not change if delayed. Com. Fields repeated that he , as the most affected , does not oppose the addition. The Carrinos were given the choice of Tabling until February, with proper notice being sent out to the neighbors ; or having a vote taken, with the understanding that the date in the notice was a scriveners error , but there is the possibility of future legal problems . Mr . Carrino commented that there has been a sign up in front of the house and they have talked with many of the neighbors . The are making the final decision on which plan to build and hope to begin construction as soon as possible. The next ZBA meeting will be Tuesday, February 20, 1990 . Mr . Sylverne informed the petitioners that the plans could be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval at this time , and a permit could be issued on March 7 , 1990. It was Mr . Skelton' s opinion, and the consensus of the commissioners (some also being attorneys) that it was more advisable to Table. Mr . and Mrs . Carrino decided that since they can proceed with the plans , and construction could possibly begin in March, they asked to have the petition Tabled until February 20 , 1990 . Com. Stolman made a motion to Table until February 20 , 1990 and Com. Kearns seconded . Roll Call Vote : AYE to Table - Entman, Stolman, Kearns , Paul , Lewandowski and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Fields Motion to Table passed- 6 to 0 , 1 abstention. It is not necessary to republish, but the sign will remain on the property, and surrounding property owners will be notified. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 16 , 1990 - Page Six VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS - None . ADJOURNMENT Com . Fields made a motion to adjourn . Com . Lewandowski seconded . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 10 P . M . Respectfully submitted , CJLr4 Shirley Bate , Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 16 , 1990 - Page Seven