Loading...
1991-04-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , APRIL 16 , 1991 I . CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Chairman Richard Heinrich , the meeting was called to order at 8 : 05 P . M . and chaired by Com . Michael Kearns . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , B . Entman , H . Fields and L . Windecker QUORUM PRESENT . Commissioners Absent : R . Heinrich , J . Paul and R . Lewandowski Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Board Liaison : Sid Mathias , President /Village of B . G . Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 19 , 1991 - Commissioners not present . March 16 , 1991 - Com . Fields made a motion to approve as submitted . Com . Windecker seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Fields , Windecker , Kearns NAY - None Minutes of March 16 , 1991 approved and will be placed on file . Ch . Kearns informed the audience that in order for a variance to be granted , all 4 of the Commissioners who are present must vote affirmatively . If , for any reason , a petitioner would prefer to have their hearing tabled until May 21 , 1991 when more of the 7 members of the Commission may be present , they can so request at any time before a vote is taken . IV . BUSINESS A . 887 Newport Court , Michael and Paula Comm Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Pertaining to : Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Restrictions Construction of addition , request rear yard variance of 5 ' 4 " Michael and Paula Comm were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Comm summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They have a galley style kitchen with cabinets and appliances on both sides and a narrow space in between . They want to increase the size of the kitchen and add a breakfast nook . 2 . They are expecting a child and there is no room for a high chair . Mr . Comm said they have informed their neighbors and there have been no objections . The materials for the 1-story addition will match the existing house . All residents on the cul-da-sac have been informed of the proposed addition including the owners of the townhomes to the rear . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated April 9 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing discharge pattern. " There were no comments or objections from the Commissioners . There were no comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Michael and Paula Comm , 887 Newport Court , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house that would encroach a distance of 5 '4" into the required rear yard setback of 35 feet . Materials are to match the existing construction, in like kind and quality. Addition to be constructed pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove . Petitioner having demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances , the proposed addition will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighbor- hood and will not affect the drainage pattern. Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Entman, Windecker , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - May 1 , 1991 957 Cooper Court , Mathias and Jane Brown Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 .020 - Pertaining to: Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations - Addition Mathias and Jane Brown were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Brown summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition at the rear of the house : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Two He explained that two variances are required. One that would permit the house to encroach a distance of 7 . 35 ' into the required rear yard setback and bring it into conformance with the current zoning ordinance and a second variance of 9 . 35 ' to permit construction of an addition: 1 . The house is a Village Board approved structure and a 7 . 35 feet variance is needed to bring it into compliance with the current zoning ordinance . 2 . They have 4 children and need a larger kitchen to accommodate the family. 3 . They want to construct an addition over part of the existing deck . The addition will require a variance of 9 . 35 feet and the 1-story addition will not extend out as far as the existing deck . 4 . The materials of the addition will match the existing house. The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated April 9 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " The family is well satisfied with the schools in Buffalo Grove �./ and they do not want to move . It would cause a financial burden if the variance is not granted and they have to pur- chase a different house. They have informed their neighbors and there have been no objections . Mr . Dempsey explained that when the Crossings were originally plated , some of the lots only had a 23 foot rear yard. The developer could not change the plats so the Village Board changed the setbacks and approved the existing structures . In order for a variance to be granted , the house must be brought into conformance with the current zoning ordinance. He did not know how many houses were granted exceptions . There were no objections from the Commissioners . Jim Marth, 987 Cooper Court , was present and testified that he had no objections to the proposed addition and he would be the most affected neighbor . A petition signed by 14 property owners within 250 feet of the subject residence was submitted , approving of the addition. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Three Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Mathias E. and Jane G. Brown, 957 Cooper Court , variances of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40. 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations : one variance of 7 . 35 feet into the required rear yard setback , for the existing structure and a variance of 9 . 35 feet into the required rear yard setback , the purpose of constructing an addition. Petitioners have exhibited unique circumstances and have exhibited that granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. With regard to the request of the addition, Com. Entman moved that it be granted with the condition that it extend no farther than 9 . 35 ft . into the required rear yard setback and that the proposed addition match the existing structure , and be constructed with materials of like kind and quality. The addition is to be constructed according to plans and specifications approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove . Petitioner having exhibited unique circumstances , granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated April 9 , 1991 is noted: The existing drainage will not be altered. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Windecker , Entman, Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - May 1 , 1991 . D. 550 Mayfair Lane , Alden and Karen A. Stiefel Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - Residential Districts The Public Hearing Notice was read and Alden Stiefel was sworn in. He explained that they purchased a premium lot but they were not informed of the Fence Code restrictions . Mr . Stiefel summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) stockade fence that would extend a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) past the building line at the corner of Mayfair Lane and Hawthorne: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Four 1 . They have a very large sheep dog who is able to jump over their four foot (4 ' ) dog run. A six foot (6 ' ) fence is needed to keep the dog in the yard and for the safety of the neighborhood. 2 . Traffic at the corner is heavy and cars travel very fast . The fence will provide safety for his baby. 3 . Car lights are disturbing and the fence will give the family privacy. The height is needed because the grade slopes down. Mr . Stiefel explained that when he submitted the application for a permit he had an engineer do a line-of-sight study and based on that study , the fence should be set back a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk . This review is more conservative that the Village Engineer ' s Study. Richard Kuenkler ' s Report , dated April 9 , 1991 , states : "The limiting factor is the principal structure. The abutting property is near side driveway , and the fence should be set back ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the sidewalk . " Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields : Asked if the petitioners were told they could construct a fence and Mr . Stiefel responded that they were told they could fence the entire yard . Com. Fields said he walked around the area and a six foot (6 ' ) fence would create a wall . There is a 5 ' open picket fence 2 houses to the west and a 3 ' open picket fence to the north. He could support a picket fence but would not support a five foot (5 ' ) stockade fence , or board-on-board fence , because of the wall effect it would have on the neighbor ' s property. Com. Entman: Agreed that he is concerned with a six foot (6 ' ) solid fence because of the wall affect on the corner and the neighbor ' s driveway. A picket fence will permit enlargement of the petitioner ' s property. Placement of the fence could be scaled back to open up the view. Com. Windecker : Opposed to the six foot (6 ' ) stockade fence . He would approve a five foot (5 ' ) fence of some other style . The ZBA had required a compromise for the existing fence on Mayfair Lane. Comments from the audience: Lance and Susan Goldberg , 505 Hawthorne Road, were sworn in. Their lot is adjacent to the petitioner ' s property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - April 16 , 1991 Page Five Mrs . Goldberg presented pictures of the view from their driveway, with the proposed fence sketched in. A petition, signed by 19 neighbors was also submitted . It stated that the proposed fence "would not only be hazardous and detrimental to the safety of the community, but also not conform aesthetically with the neighborhood ' s design and architecture . " A number of Windsor Ridge residents were also present . Mr . Goldberg stated the children of the neighborhood would be affected by the proposed fence because it would block the view of the school bus driver when stopping at the corner . Mrs . Goldberg read a statement (attached) that listed the following objections to the proposed fence: 1 . Half of their driveway would be blocked , and it would be dangerous for cars to back out . 2 . Their 2-1/2 year old daughter and her friends play on the driveway. They would not be able to see cars on the street and would not be seen by drivers because of the stockade fence . 3 . (Older) children, riding bikes on the street , would not be seen and an accident could occur . 4 . The intersection of Mayfair and Hawthorne would be blocked . 5 . The Goldbergs would have to honk their car horn when exiting the driveway and this would create a neighborhood disturbance . 6 . The school bus driver stated the fence would be an obstruction and could cause an accident . 7 . Guests would have to be cautioned about the danger when backing out of the driveway. 8 . Cars speed down Hawthorne and there are no stop signs posted . 9 . Snow would drive up against the fence , and leaves and garbage would also collect on the driveway. 10 . The fence could cause a drainage problem. 11 . The fence is in violation of Section 2 . 01 , 2 . 04 , 2 . 11 & 2 . 18 of the Windsor Ridge Declaration of Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions (submitted and attached) . Mrs . Goldberg said they would not oppose a fence constructed in accordance with the Buffalo Grove Fence Code . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Six Mrs . Goldberg concluded with the statement that the proposed fence would affect the resale of their house because of the aesthetic appearance . She suggested the dog be kept on a leash. Mr . Goldberg stated that Mary Fran Laury, Development Manager of Windsor Ridge , Lexington Homes ' representative , told him that buyers are informed that there are fencing restrictions . The neighbors have come to affirm that permitting this fence could set a precedent . If so, their children' s safety would be affected and the Village ' s green area would be lessened. The following objectors were present : 1 . Howard Kreiger , 560 Mayfair Lane , has three (3) small children. Stated the dog is large and playful . It could easily jump a five foot (5 ' ) fence and crush a child. Placement of the fence is not a concern. 2 . Jean Krulewich, 525 Hawthorne , has two (2) children. She was more concerned with the safety of children than with aesthetics . A high solid fence would create a hazard. In a few years , there will be more kids going to school on bikes . Traffic on Hawthorne is heavy and teenage drivers often exceed the speed limit . 3 . Stanley Rosen, 555 Mayfair , lives on a corner lot and was not told about fence restrictions . He has two (2) children and his son likes to ride his bike down their driveway. He is opposed to a stockade fence for safety reasons . Picket style acceptable. 4 . Fred Kahn, 535 Mayfair , opposed to a solid fence for aesthetic and safety reasons . A fence along the building line would give the petitioner a large enough yard . Safety of children is the primary concern, so the dog might have to be given away. 5 . Robert Stoller , 405 Mayfair , agreed that the safety issue is a problem and is more important that the welfare of the petitioner ' s dog. He asked for clarification of the Village Engineer ' s Review. He said that lack of knowledge about the Fence Code is not a valid reason for granting a variance . Ch. Kearns explained that Mr . Kuenkler has concluded that the proposed fence is not a safety hazard if it is set back ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the petitioner ' s property line . The review will be available for examination after the hearing. 6 . David Schumer , 420 Mayfair , commented that his children will be passing the corner every day going to school and the fence would be a hazard . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Seven The following residents testified on behalf of the petitioner : 1 . Rick Stein, 590 Mayfair Court North, said that since a stop sign was put up east of Hawthorne much of the speeding has stopped . He is within 250 feet of the petitioner ' s house and does not object to the fence . 2 . Ted Paoulos , 575 Mayfair , has two (2) children and he cares about their safety, but he did not think a driver ' s vision would be blocked by the proposed fence . It is far enough back from the corner . The Stiefels want to use the property that they purchased. A picket fence would be more aesthetic and could be enhanced with shrubs . Mr . Ed Wajda , 515 Hawthorne , commented about the speed of the traffic and suggested a police study be conducted. Ch. Kearns asked Mr . Schar to have the Village Engineer do a line-of-sight study from near side driveways for future corner fence variances . He explained to the audience that the Zoning Board of Appeals was formed according to State Statute to conduct public hearings and provide variances for residents of the Village who prove a hardship. The ordinances make it possible for people to enjoy their property and provide an equal opportunity for people to have a hearing if they have a hardship. Developers are informed about the ordinances , but salesmen are salesmen, and it is up to purchasers to investi- gate the restrictions before buying property. Mr . Stiefel said the driveway is 47 . 1 feet from the street to the top of the driveway and the fence will be 32 . 2 feet in length, leaving approximately 1/3 of the driveway open. The dog is not the main issue to be considered. He wants to get the best use of his property and he wants privacy, but he might have to agree to having a picket fence . Com. Fields said that after hearing the comments he would support a five foot (5 ' ) picket fence at the location shown on the plat , including the rear property line to keep the area open, but he would not agree to a 5 or 6 foot stockade fence . Com. Entman commented that this is not a typical situation. After hearing all the comments , considering the reasons the petitioner has given for his request (the need for the use of his property) and understanding the Village standard for fences not being detrimental to public health, safety and welfare , the Zoning Board can deny or grant the petition. It is better when residents can reach some accord . He agreed with Com. Fields that the height of the fence should be reduced. If the dog becomes a neighborhood problem then it might have to go . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Eight Com. Entman also agreed that a privacy fence would not be appropriate , but the petitioner should be permitted some fence beyond the building line. Considering the safety requirements and the aesthetic quality , the most viable solution would be a picket fence . Com. Windecker asked Mr . Stiefel if he would consider moving the fence back from the fifteen foot ( 15 ' ) distance to increase the line-of-sight? He observed the speed of the traffic but that is not the issue at this time , safety is , and he could not support the proposed location. He proposed a five foot (5 ' ) picket fence that would extend a distance of eight feet (8 ' ) past the building line . Mr . Dempsey informed the objectors that the Windsor Ridge Covenant is a private agreement with the developer that would not be enforced by the Village but could be enforced by a court of law. The Village Zoning Ordinance and Codes are applied equally to all residents . There are other standards that prohibit altering the drainage pattern for water flow. There are similarities between the Village Codes and the Covenants , but the specific items that were cited would not be enforced by the Village . The standard for a fence variation is that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Ch. Kearns said he has looked at the pictures and he agrees that the fence would be coming right into the driveway area of Mr . and Mrs . Goldberg ' s property to the rear . He would support a picket fence and only if it is no more than ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line and about fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) back from the location shown on the plat (away from the driveway) . Ch. Kearns informed Mr . Stiefel of his option of asking for a continuance until the next ZBA meeting on May 21 , 1991 or going ahead with a vote . If the matter is Tabled , more ZBA Commissioners may be present and they will have read copies of the minutes of this hearing. He would ask the Village Engineer to review the line-of-sight from the driveway next door . Mr . Stiefel asked for his petition to be Tabled . Com. Windecker made a motion to Table the petition of Alden Stiefel , 550 Mayfair Lane until May 21 , 1991 . Ch. Kearns seconded the motion. Com. Entman asked Mr . Dempsey who would be eligible to vote at the May meeting? Would the Commissioners who are absent be able to vote , or just the Commissioners present at this time? Mr . Dempsey answered that all Commissioners present on May 21st would be voting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Nine Mr . Steifel asked if the petition and the objectors who are present would weigh into the decision of the ZBA because he could bring as many supportive neighbors to the next meeting . Ch. Kearns assured Mr . Steifel that the ZBA makes decisions based on the conditions set forth in Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 110 - Variation Power and Criteria: " 1 . Allows the Zoning Board of Appeals to vary the Fence Code where there is sufficient evidence that the presence , or absence , of a particular type of fence , or screening would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . " Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker and Kearns NAY - Fields Motion Passed - 3 to 1 . Ch. Kearns asked Mr . Schar to have the Village Engineer conduct another line-of-sight study from the Goldbergs driveway. He also asked that a letter be sent to the Police Department informing them of the residents ' concern about the speeders on Hawthorne Drive near Mayfair Lane. Ch. Kearns informed the audience that they are welcome to attend the May 21 , 1991 Zoning Board meeting , but that their comments have been recorded and will be sent to the absent commissioners with a copy of the Village Engineer ' s review. Com. Entman commented that Tabling does not express an opinion but the concerns that have been raised do indicate that more information would be helpful in providing better judgment . Ch. Kearns answered some general questions about the necessity for at least four commissioners to be present in May and that the issue could be tabled again if there are good reasons . If the petition is denied , the petitioner has the right to appeal to the Village Board of Trustees . If the petition is granted as submitted , or amended , any objector can appeal . Com. Entman asked Mr . Dempsey what a tie vote on the motion to Table would indicate? The answer was the motion is denied. Com. Fields made a motion to remove the petition from Table . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields and Entman NAY - Windecker and Kearns Motion to remove from Table denied by tie vote 2 - 2 . Petition of Alden Stiefel was Tabled until May 21 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Ten D . 2214 Magnolia Court West , Jeffrey and Debra Adams Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Purpose : Construction of 5 foot stockade fence that extend past the building line a distance of 20 feet . Jeffrey and Debra Adams were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Adams summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . When they purchased the corner lot , they wanted as large back yard , and were not made aware of the fence restrictions . 2 . They assumed that the house would be centered on the lot , but it is not . One side yard is 10 feet and the other 30 . 00 feet . 3 . The utility lines are farther from the rear lot line than the usual 5 feet , so a utility shed in the northeast corner will have to be located farther into the lot . 4 . The fence is necessary for the safety of their young children and confinement of their dog . 5 . The lot backs up to Buffalo Grove Road and the fence will help reduce the noise pollution , Mr . Adams described the proposed fence and said it would be 6 feet in height along Buffalo Grove Road and drop down to five feet along Satinwood Drive . They have request a set- back of 10 feet from the property line along Satinwood Drive . The property drops off toward Satinwood Drive and will appear to be a 4 foot fence . The proposed fence is a cedar solid board with an arched top . They have informed their neighbors and there have been no objections . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated April 9 , 1991 , states : " The Village Ordinance does not allow encroachments greater than three feet ( 3 ' ) in height ( above curb height ) within forty-five feet ( 45 ' ) of the corner curb lines . " Mr . Kuenk l er has shown on the plat of survey the acceptable fence location . Mr . Adams stated that because of existing bushes and fences , it is necessary to move up past the stop sign in order to enter the intersection and the proposed fence would not create a problem . Ch . Kearns informed him that the Zoning Board cannot change or deviate from the Village Engineer ' s recommendation for liability reasons . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Eleven Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields - Concerned with fences on double corner lots . Following the Village Engineer ' s drawing , he recommended an angled piece of fence connecting the Buffalo Grove Road side toward the Satinwood Terrace side . Only the back corner of the lot would be lost . He had no objection to the 5 foot solid wood fence because there are no neighbors who will be affected . The fence will not appear to be a wall . Com. Entman - Agreed with Com. Fields ' recommendation. He agreed that they could not go against the Village Engineer ' s review . The character of the neighborhood will not be affected . Com . Windecker - Agreed with Com . Fields . No further comment . Com. Kearns - Commented that the yard does drop down and he suggested that the first angled section should be 6 feet and then be reduced to 5 feet along Satinwood Drive . Mr . Dempsey responded that a height of 6 feet along the Satinwood Drive side was not published . Ch. Kearns asked Mr . Adams if he wanted the matter Tabled until May 21 , 1991 , and have the request republished . Mr . and Mrs . Adams did not want to return in May and asked if the section past the building line along Buffalo Grove Road could also be 6 feet in height . This was so published . There were no comments from the audience . Com . Fields made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Jeffrey and Debra Adams , 2214 Magnolia Court West , for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a 5 foot solid wood fence that would extend a distance of twenty feet (20 ' ) past the building line at the corner of Buffalo Grove Rd . and Satinwood Ter . The portion along Buffalo Grove Road will be 6 feet in height . Pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated April 9 , 1991 , said fence will not encroach within the 45 foot arc per the location shown on the plat of survey . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Twelve Said fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not adversely impact the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Ch. Kearns suggested that the Village Engineer approve the actual location of the fence and Mr . Schar said he would mark the plat of survey so that the fence company would be able to determine placement . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Fields , Windecker , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - May 5 , 1991 . E. 1330 W. Dundee Road (former Pizza Hut) Sgt . Pepper ' s Pizzeria & Pub - Signage Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 090 - Wall Signs Representatives were : Robert Jacks , Attorney , 883 Oakhurst , Riverwoods , IL (708) 945-2200 ; Kerry and Cathy Kuhn, Owners ; 10195 Kathy Court . Des Plaines , IL 60018 (299-0887) and Ms . Penny Hughes , Hughes Signs , 652 W. Terra Cotta , Crystal Lake , IL 60014 (815) 459-1887 . Mr . & Mrs . Kuhn and Ms . Hughes were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Ch. Kearns advised those present that he is a personal friend of Mr . and Mrs . Kuhn but this will not affect his decision. Mr . Kuhn summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of the Sign Code for the purpose of erecting a ground sign and a wall sign on the east elevation: 1 . There is no entrance to the restaurant from Dundee Road . Patrons must enter through the parking lot of Strathmore Square Shopping Center . 2 . The building has a low roof with bermed up landscaping in front of the ground level windows . 3 . Eastbound traffic on Dundee Road cannot see the building because the Fireside Terrace Apartment sign and trees block the view. 4 . Westbound traffic cannot see the building because it is blocked by the Strathmore Square ground sign ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Thirteen 5 . The business will include carry out and delivery service as well as a sit down restaurant . Start-up costs are high and signage is necessary for success . People must be able to identify the building. Mr . Kuhn added that the signs are the same style and size as the previous Pizza Hut signs . The brackets are still on the roof and the pole is still in front of the building. The ground sign is 6 ' x 10 ' and the pole will be 4 ' in height . Ch. Kearns informed the petitioner that the ZBA does not have the authority to grant a variance for signage . A recommenda- tion will be made to the Village Board of Trustees and an ordinance has to be drafted . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Entman: Is familiar with the location. The building is hidden and signage is needed . The sign will be located on a graded area and if the pole is 4 feet height , the sign will be approximately 7 feet off the ground from the sidewalk level . If the sign is lowered , it would still be visible enough from either direction. Mr . Kuhn explained that the roof of the building is 10 feet in height and the total height of the sign would also be 10 feet . The height was chosen because of aesthetic reasons . Mr . Jacks referred to the Appearance Commission recommendation (Minutes of April 15 , 1991 ) . He noted that it was positive . The sign was reviewed and it will meet all other Sign Code requirements . A variance is required because the ground sign will be closer than 250 feet from two existing ground signs . Com . Fields : No objection to the signs as presented . The area is commercial and the height is not objectionable . He noted that the AC recommendation included a condition that the interim sign be removed when the permanent sign is erected . (An interim sign, constructed of plywood , will be erected while the permanent sign is being fabricated . The AC minutes refer to the interim sign as being mounted on the north elevation , but Mr . Kuhn indicated after the 4/11 /91 AC meeting that a ground sign would be more economical and the publication notice reflects this request . ) Com . Windecker : No objection to either sign or the height . Ms . Pat Woolley , 795 Grove Terrace , was present . She inquired about the height of the Pizza Hut Sign and said she would object to a higher sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Fourteen A review of the Pizza Hut sign confirmed that its height was a total of 8 feet , 2 feet lower than the proposed sign . Ms . Woolley was opposed to the additional 2 feet and expressed concern that residents in second floor units would be able to see the top of the sign from their balconies . Her condo is on the first floor . All residents of Fireside Terrace and Sandpiper were notified of the public hearing and no other residents came to speak . Ms . Woolley commended the Village on its signage and stated that if the Appearance Commission felt the proposed sign was appropriate she would not be object . Mr . Kuhn described the construction of the Pizza Hut sign. It had a brick base that was 2 feet high and almost as wide as the sign. This gave it the appearance of being lower . The proposed sign will be mounted on a column and if the column is shortened the appearance of the sign will not be improved . Com . Entman said his opinion has not changed . He would prefer a lower sign. Com . Fields and Com. Lewandowski had no additional comments . Ch. Kearns questioned whether the 10 foot sign would be more functional in bringing in business than an 8 foot sign . Com. Fields asked Ms . Hughes about the perspective of the height of the building compared with the height of the sign? Would the building appear to be squatty if the sign is the same height as the roof? Would the proportion be better is the sign is lowered? Ms . Hughes responded that in general , the higher a sign is the smaller it looks . A sign would look larger closer to the ground , than it would if it is raised . She folded the diagram to exhibit how the sign would look on a shorter pole . She said that in her opinion, it would not look better . Com. Fields observed that only motorists will be attracted by the sign because there is very little pedestrian traffic there . He suggested that the Commissioners compromise and recommend a 3 foot pole , making the height of the sign 9 feet . Mr . Dempsey advised the ZBA that 4 votes would be necessary in order to give the Village Board a positive recommendation. Mr . Jeffrey Rothman , representative of Superior Investment and Development Corporation , managers of the shopping center , was present . He informed the ZBA of two issues relative to the parking requirements of the PLID agreement for Strathmore Square . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Fifteen Ch. Kearns informed Mr . Rothman that the subject of parking spaces was not relevant to the signage issue and that it could better be addressed at the Village Board level when the sign is sent to the Village Board for approval . He would be given an opportunity to speak after the recommendation has been made . His remarks would be recorded and sent to the Village Board. Ch. Kearns said he has no problem with either the 8 foot or 10 foot height because no one present is directly affected and because the height will make not make any difference in the aesthetics of the sign. He polled the Board. Would any of the Commissioners be opposed to the 10 foot sign? Com. Entman said he would not deny the 10 foot sign, but the ZBA has made a concerted effort to keep signs lower and he has not heard anything to convince him that the extra 2 feet are necessary for business reasons or any other reason. Com. Fields agreed that the ZBA has made a concerted effort to keep sign heights as low as possible . The difference between 8 feet and 10 feet is not a great concern and he would not have a problem with 10 feet . Com. Windecker said 10 feet is not a problem. Ch. Kearns informed Mr . Kuhn that he has the option of Tabling the signage until May 21 , 1991 when more Commissioners may be present , or have a vote taken that could result in a negative recommendation to the Village Board . He would have an opportunity to present his petition to the Trustees . Mr . Jacks commented that there are many signs on Dundee Road that are higher than 10 feet , including the Strathmore Square sign. The relative appearance of an 8 foot or 10 foot sign is minimal when compared with the higher signs around it . Mr . Kuhn responded that he would prefer to come to an agreement at this time so he will not have to open his business without a sign. Including the bermed up area , the total height of the sign would be about 13 feet . If necessary he would agree to the 8 foot height and reconsider the appearance of the base . Mr . Dempsey reminded the commissioners that the variance is necessary because of the distance between signs , not height . Height can be made a condition of the variance or the petition- er has the option of amending his petition. After conferring with his attorney , Mr . Kuhn agreed to amend his petition and reduce the height from 10 feet to 8 feet . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page Sixteen Com . Fields made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board that the request of Kerry Kuhn , owner of Sgt . Pepper ' s Pizzeria & Pub , located at 1330 W. Dundee Road , for variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 , for the purpose of erecting a ground sign that would be within 250 of other existing ground signs ; and Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 090 pertaining to Wall Signs , for the purpose of erecting a wall sign on the east elevation of the structure , be granted . The variance will allow the ground sign to be closer than the 250 feet spacing requirement from the properties to both the east and the west . A condition of said variance to be that the ground sign shall not have a total height from the top of the bermed elevation of more than 8 feet . Said ground sign to have a face of 6 x 10 feet . The sign to be attached to the east elevation of the structure shall be 17 feet by 3-1/2 feet . Additional condition of said variation and recommend- dation to the Village Board is that upon completion of the construction of the two permanent signs , the interim sign, as approved by the Appearance Commission, shall be removed . The variance would to be subject to Sub-sections A and B of Sign Code , Section 14 . 44. 010 . The entire site has been and will continue to be well-landscaped . The literal interpretation of the statute would cause undue hardship in that , failure to allow signage would be detrimental to a pizza restaurant establishment . The granting of the requested variance would not be materially detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity. Unusual conditions exist because of existing signage and granting of this variance will not be contrary to the general objective of this title in monitoring the size , number and extrusive placement of signs and the reduction of clutter . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Fields , Windecker , Kearns NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . The recommendation will be sent to the Village Board for the special meeting April 22 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 . 1991 - Page Seventeen Mr . Jeffrey Rothman , (representative of Superior Investment and Development Corporation , managers of the shopping center) stated the two issues he is concerned about : 1 . He has been receiving conflicting information from various parties who had an interest in purchasing the property . Some have said the Village will require a amendment to the existing easement . Others have indicated that there is no requirement to amend the existing easement . They want to make sure that there is no detrimental effect to the Strathmore Square parking lot . 2 . A memo from Bob Pheil that was generated when they were talking to the Village about a new tenancy within the shopping center , stated the fact that the requirement that 60 parking spaces be located within a certain proximity to the Pizza Hut building expires at the end of 1991 . They have not been able to reach any agreement regarding an extension of that requirement . If the Village sees that as a problem , it is a problem the Village should address prior to permitting this establishment to be opened . Mr . Kuhn said he knows what Mr . Rothman is referring to and he would prefer to discuss the situation with the proper body . Mr . Jack ' s said these issues have been discussed and resolved . Ch. Kearns advised the gentlemen to contact the Village Manager and have the agreement researched by the Plan Commission or Village Board . It is not an issue germane to the Zoning Board of Appeals . V . ANNOUNCEMENTS None . VI . ADJOURNMENT Com . Windecker made a motion to adjourn. Com . Fields seconded . Ch. Kearns adjourned the meeting at 11 : 15 P. M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 16 , 1991 - Page