Loading...
1991-07-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS TUESDAY , JULY 16 , 1991 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 10 F . M . on Tuesday , July 16 , 1991 at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : J . Paul , B . Entman , L . Windecker and R . Heinrich Quorum Present . Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns and H . Fields Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Acting Deputy Building Commissioner Village Engineer : Richard Kuenkler Village Board Liaison : William Reid , Trustee Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey Ch . Heinrich made an announcement that it is necessary to have 4 affirmative votes in order for a motion to pass . Since there are only 4 Commissioners present a unanimous vote will be required . If any petitioners would prefer to have their hearing postponed until the next meeting when more Commissioners may be present , they can make that request at any time . III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 18 , 1991 - Com . Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes . Com . Paul seconded the motion . Corrections of the vote tally were noted on pages 3 , 6 , and 12 . Roll Call Vote to approve June 18, 1991 minutes as amended . AYE - Entman , Paul , Windecker , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Minutes of June 18 , 1991 approved . IV . OLD BUSINESS A . 4 Belaire Court , Kenneth and Marisa Duke Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Addition Com . Entman made a motion to remove from Table . Com . Paul seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE Unanimously Ch . Heinrich reviewed the reason for tabling the petition . It was to have a more complete drainage study made to determine what effect the proposed addition would have on the property to the rear . Richard Kuenkler , Village Engineer , is present . Mr . Kuenkler said he has reviewed the subject property and the drainage pattern has been changed since the original swale was put in. Most of the lots have been altered in one way or another . In his opinion, the proposed addition will not aggravate the drainage , but the situation could be somewhat alleviated by rechanneling the water from the roof toward the front of the house . In order to make any significant difference in the drainage pattern, alterations would have to be made to 5 or 6 houses in each direction so that the swale is reconstructed. Alteration to one property would not correct the situation because the system functions as a unit , irrespective of the individual property lines . Mrs . Karen Uhren, 760 Bernard Drive , was present and said that she has tried to get help from the Village for many years . Mr . Kuenkler ' s suggestion has been to put in a new drainage system, or try to have the neighbors go together to put in a new drainage system. She talked with Mr . Kuenkler today but he did not actually come out and walk the property with her . Mr . Kuenkler responded that he is very familiar with the property and the situation has not changed . He did not think it would be necessary to make an on-site inspection. Mrs . Uhren said she also talked with Mr . Schar after the last ZBA meeting and he encouraged her to put in a drainage system. His own property had a similar water problem that was resolved when he put in a new drainage system. She believes the problem will be exacerbated if the Dukes are permitted to build the proposed addition ten feet ( 10 ' ) closer to her property line. Ch. Heinrich said the ZBA respects Mr . Kuenkler ' s opinion because he is a registered professional engineer . He was asked to review the situation and he has given his opinion. The question before the ZBA is whether there will be any appreciable changes to her lot if the addition is permitted . From a common sense point of view , the problem is area-wide and drainage will not be aggravated because the source is several houses down the block. Mrs . Uhren could get some relief because the gutter system being proposed with the addition will channel water away from the back of the house . Mrs . Uhren said she had a structural engineer out to inspect the property and if the variance is granted she will have an independent engineer come out . She will send a copy of his report to the Village and will hold the Village responsible if additional flooding occurs . Mr . Dempsey informed Mrs . Uhren that the Village would not be held legally responsible for any action taken by the ZBA. Mr . Frank Schuster , 3 Belaire Court , asked how the downspouts were going to help the drainage situation? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Two Mr . Kuenkler explained that gutters would route the water away from the back of the house into the front yard and toward the sides of the house . He recalled that the swale in the side yard to the east drains from the rear of the house to the front and it would easy to direct water to that side of the house . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - Asked Mr . and Mrs . Duke if they had considered other possible alternatives for the location of the addition and would the shed be removed? Mr . Duke responded that there is no other feasible way to do what they want to do and have the floor plan they want . He agreed to remove the shed . Mr . Duke presented a new plan and said they would like to increase the length of the addition by five feet (5 ' ) to accommodate the storage space they will need without the shed. This change would bring the addition closer to the lot line and make the gutter system work better . Mr . Kuenkler looked at the revised plan and said the drainage would not be changed. Mrs . Uhren commented that a larger addition could affect the drainage on her neighbor ' s property which also floods . Mr . Schuster objected to the larger addition because it would be closer to his property line . Mrs . Duke presented photographs of their property and the view from Mr . Schuster ' s yard. Ch. Heinrich observed that there is a small concrete patio and a stone A/C pad that could be taken out . Considering the combined areas of the patio , A/C pad and shed which will be removed as conditions of the variance , the proposed addition will not greatly change the total amount of ground coverage. Mr . Duke mentioned that there are some timber areas in both corners of Mrs . Uhren' s yard that could be part of the problem. Mrs . Urhen said there is no dirt in the timber boxes . They were put there to contain some of the water and improve the view from her patio . She has been complaining to the Village for 5 years because of the filling that has been done by all her neighbors . Mr . Kuenkler said most of the water goes to the east and that is where of the yards have been built up with gardens , etc. Mrs . Uhren' s corner timbers are not a factor . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Three Com. Windecker - Asked for a description of the gutter system. Mr . Scott Svetic of Space Homes explained that water would be channeled away from the rear of the property by keeping the downspouts away from the back corners of the house , directing the water in the opposite direction toward the west . Planting shrubbery around the addition will not cause more flooding and the root system would , in fact , hold water . Mr . and Mrs . Duke agreed not to change the existing grade . Com. Entman: Asked if the addition will cover as much area as the existing patio. Mr . Duke responded that the depth of the addition will be about two feet (2 ' ) less and the width will be about five feet (5 ' ) more that the existing patio . He agreed to move the A/C off the stone pad and remove the shed. Mrs . Duke asked if the shed can be removed after the addition is completed? Ch. Heinrich said the shed should be removed to give the contractor room to work. Com. Entman - Asked about the future deck that is shown on the plan and said he could not support any additional ground coverage that would keep more water from soaking into the ground. The gutter system will be helpful . Com. Paul - Commented that someday someone will want a patio . A wood deck with spaces between the slats and gravel below could drain water into the ground. A concrete patio might be better because it could be pitched back toward the house and run the water into a gutter . Mr . Duke said their future plans are to add a wood deck. He offered to come before the ZBA again and discuss it then. Mr . Kuenkler said that considering the soils , the runoff would be about the same for a wood deck , concrete patio , or a grass surface . The issue is that the overall system does not work. A stipulation to come back to discuss the situation when they are ready to build a deck or patio could be helpful . Com. Entman: Asked Mr . Dempsey if such a condition can be included with the variance for the addition. Mr . Dempsey said the ZBA can add any condition to a variance. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Four Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Kenneth and Marisa Duke , of 5 Belaire Court , pursuant to Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40. 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a maximum distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) beyond the required rear yard setback , contingent upon the following conditions : 1 . Every effort should be made to alleviate the runoff from the roof of the addition by channeling water toward the front or sides of the house and not toward the back. The gutter system and drainage plan is subject to review and approval of the Village Engineer ; 2 . If a wood patio or any patio is added anywhere on the lot , petitioners shall return to this Board for review; 3 . The cinder blocks under the A/C and the shed are to be removed from the rear yard immediately upon commencement of construction; 4. The existing grade cannot be raised or changed in any way that would have a negative effect , or cause water to run off onto the property to the rear . 5 . The new construction is to be consistent with the existing architectural appearance of the house . 6 . Plans and specifications to be reviewed and approved by the Building Department . Petitioners having demonstrated unique circumstances , the proposed construction will not be alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Village Engineer ' s Drainage Review, dated July 2 , 1991 and the testimony of Richard Kuenkler is to be incorporated into the motion. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker , Paul , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 1 , 1991 . Objectors were advised of their right to appeal to the Village Board . Written request must be filed with the Director of Building and Zoning within 15 days . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Five V. NEW BUSINESS A. 681 Essington Lane , Karen J. Brubaker Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 .40 .020 - Patio Enclosure The Public Hearing Notice was read. Ms . Karen Brubaker was sworn in. She summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for a four foot (4 ' ) encroachment into the required rear yard setback for the purpose of constructing a patio enclosure : 1 . Since house has no patio or porch the patio enclosure would provide a place to relax and entertain guests . 2 . The enclosure would eliminate the sun from coming into the kitchen and would keep the kitchen more comfortable . Mr . William Donigan, Felco Patio Enclosures , presented and described the plans for the seasonal aluminum structure . It will not be heated . Ms . Brubaker has discussed the enclosure with some of her neighbors and there were no objections . There were no comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Saw no problems with the request . Com. Windecker : No objection. Com. Entman: No problem. Commented that the rear yard is spacious and confirmed that there is no place to sit outside . He spoke with one neighbor and invited him to come to the public hearing. The neighbor had no objection and did not come . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Karen J. Brubaker , 681 Essington Lane , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40.020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a patio enclosure that would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required rear yard setback. The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated July 2 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition need not alter the existing drainage pattern. Care will need to be taken to preserve the existing drainage pattern. " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Six Materials (aluminum and glass) are to match the plans submitted and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove . Petitioner having demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances , the proposed construction will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul , Windecker , Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 1 , 1991 . B. 1627 Rose Boulevard , Steven and Lauren Lubin Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Patio Enclosure The Public Hearing Notice was read. Steven and Lauren Lubin were sworn in. Mrs . Lubin described the proposed enclosure and summarized the reasons for requesting a variance of seven feet (7 ' ) into the required rear yard setback: 1 . The enclosure will be constructed on a deck with materials that will match the house . It will be have stained cedar `./ siding with sliding glass doors and a matching roof . 2 . The house is located next to the dirt hill in Arlington Heights and the hill is over- grown with weeds . There are so many bugs that they cannot sit outside . 3. Their daughter is allergic to mosquito bites and bee stings . The enclosure would provide relief from the dust and the bugs . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated July 2 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " The Lubins only have one neighbor and they do not object . Mrs . Lubin presented pictures of the dirt hill and said they have talked to Arlington Heights officials about it , and they have promised to plant grass seed , but all they do is cut the weeds , which grow back . The dirt is always blowing around. They promise to water it down , but it ' s only done that day. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Seven Mr . Lubin added that four-wheel vehicles drive up the hill and were coming through their yard before they put up a fence . Mr . Reid said that Mr . Balling could contact the Arlington Heights Village Manager and inquire about the maintenance of the landfill and how the situation could be improved . The theory is that it will settle . No comments from the audience . No questions , comments or objections from Commissioners . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Steven and Laurel Lubin, 1627 Rose Boulevard, be granted a variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40.020 , pertaining to Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Requirements , for the purpose of constructing a patio enclosure that would encroach a distance of seven feet (7 ' ) into the required rear yard setback. Conditions being: 1 . construction materials of like kind and quality will match the existing structure 2 . plans and specifications are to be approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove Petitioners having exhibited unique circumstances , the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated July 2 , 1991 , is to be incorporated into the motion. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 1 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Eight C. 1057 Alden Lane , Robert and Lynn Seitz Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Addition Robert and Lynn Seitz were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read. Mr . Seitz summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10" ) into the required rear yard setback: 1 . They have a young son, hope to have more children, and the Buckingham model does not have a family room or basement . 2 . They need an extra bedroom for Mrs. Seitz ' parents . They visit from Connecticut several times a year and usually stay for 2 to 3 weeks . 3 . Mr . Seitz maintains a small office at home , so the extra bedroom would double as an office . 4 . The 19 ' x 14' addition to the rear would be a family room and is more economically feasible than the purchase of a new home . They have lived in B.G. for 12 years and do not want to move from the neighborhood. Plans were submitted and they are the typical Buckingham addition with the garage pulled forward and a family room added to the rear of the house . The materials for the addition will match the house . The Seitz ' have spoken to their neighbors about the plans and there have been no objections . No comments from the audience. No objections or comments from the Commissioners . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Robert and Lynn Seitz , 1057 Alden Lane , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining Area, Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required rear yard setback. Materials are to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. The addition is to be constructed pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove . rnd ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Nine The petitioner has exhibited hardship and unique circumstances . The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated July 2 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern which is somewhat marginal . . . .no alteration of the grade is allowed within five feet (5 ' ) of any swale or any rear of side lot line . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Paul , Windecker , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached . The permit may be issued in 15 days , August 1 , 1991 . D. 109 Fox Hill Drive , Edward and Vicky L. Miner Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 - - Deck The Public Hearing Notice was read. Edward and Vicky Miner were sworn in. Mrs . Miner explained that when they submitted plans for a deck in May, they were informed a variance would be needed . The size of the proposed deck exceeds the maximum lot coverage requirement . They have already constructed a deck of maximum size , and they would like to add a gazebo. They are requesting a variance would exceed the 20% rear yard coverage requirement by 175 square feet . 1 . The Miners are expecting their third child . and need additional space for recreation. 2 . The house does not have a basement and additional space is needed for entertaining family and friends . 3 . The yard is enclosed with a privacy fence , so the deck will not be visible . Mrs . Miner said they have spoken with their neighbors and there have been no objections . The house is next to a bike path so there are no neighbors directly to the rear . There were no comments from the audience . The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated July 2 , 1991 , states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Ten Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : No problems . Com. Windecker : No objection. Com. Entman: There is a large amount of open space and the proposed deck will not be seen unless a person is standing next to the fence . With no basement , he sees the need for the deck which will be for the petitioners ' own use. Mr . Dempsey said the motion should be a recommendation to the Village Board for a variance to be granted by ordinance. Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees , that a variance be granted to allow construction of a deck at 109 Fox Hill Drive , property owned by Edward and Vicky L. Miner , pursuant to Zoning Ordinance , Sec . 17 . 32 .020, pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , for the purpose of constructing a deck that would be 175 square feet over the 20% rear yard coverage requirement . Unique circumstances having been demonstrated , the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com . Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Paul , Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. This item will be placed on the Village Board Agenda for the August 5 , 1991 meeting. E. 426 Lamont Terrace , Craig F. and Susan M. Steinman Fence Code , Section 15 . 20. 040 , Fence past building line The Public Hearing Notice was read. Craig and Susan Steinman were sworn in. Mr . Steinman summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) , dog ear , spaced picket fence that would extend a distance of twenty feet (20' ) past the building line at the corner of Lamont Terrace and Lockwood Drive: 1 . Their next door neighbor on Lamont Terrace has a five foot (5 ' ) privacy fence along the interior lot line and the Steinmans want a fence to enclose the yard. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Eleven 2 . Their house is just inside the building line and a fence built twenty five feet (25 ' ) from the sidewalk would severely limit the use of the backyard and would lower the resale value of the property. 3 . The request is being made in conjunction with their abutting neighbors at 441 Ronnie Drive who are requesting a variance for an identical fence . 4 . The Steinmans have a dog to confine in the yard. The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated July 2 , 1991 , states : "The limiting factor at the intersection is the principal structure itself . There is no driveway on Lockwood Drive abutting this property. " When the Steinmans purchased the property they did know about the Fence Code restrictions for corner lots . They have talked with their neighbors and none of them object . There were no comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - Usually likes to have fences back farther from the sidewalk , but this being only 4 feet in height and spaced picket , he would make an exception. Com. Windecker - No problem. Com. Entman - Asked about the notation on the 441 Ronnie Drive plat that a small section at the southeast corner "depends on contractor to be hired. " Mr . Steinman explained that the fence along the adjoining rear lot line will be on his property and they are sharing the cost . There is a small section where the existing fences do not meet . They do not want a gap so the open section will be filled. Com. Entman said he had no problem considering the height and style . He made the following motion: I move the petition of Craig F. and Susan M. Steinman, 426 Lamont Terrace , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) , dog ear picket fence that would extend twenty feet (20 ' ) past the building line at the corner of Lamont Terrace and Lockwood Drive , be granted. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twelve Conditions : The fence is to be no closer than five feet (5 ' ) to the sidewalk along Lockwood Drive , and placed in accordance with the attached survey attached as an exhibit to their petition. Petitioners have exhibited that the variance and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Paul , Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 1 , 1991 . F . 441 Ronnie Drive , Barry and Robin Weiner Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040 - Fence past building line The Public Hearing Notice was read . Barry and Robin Weiner were sworn in. Mr . Weiner confirmed that the fence would be identical to the fence at 426 Lamont Terrace and would be continuous along Lockwood Drive . It would replace the existing split rail fence and provide more security for their home and property. The Village Engineer did not prepare a line-of-sight review for this fence , but Mr . Kuenkler said the conditions would be the same as they are for 426 Lamont Terrace . There is no line-of- sight problem. No comments from the audience . No comments or objections from the Commissioners . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move the petition of Barry and Robin Weiner , 441 Ronnie Drive , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a four foot (4 ' ) dog ear picket fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Ronnie Drive and Lockwood Drive, be granted. Conditions: The fence is not to be constructed closer than five feet (5 ' ) to the sidewalk along Lockwood Drive and is to be positioned as shown on the survey attached to the petition, pursuant to the approval of Buffalo Grove . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Thirteen Petitioners have exhibited that the variance and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul , Windecker , Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 1 , 1991 . G. 401 English Oak Terrace , James and Cathy Arvanitakis Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040, 6 ft . fence past building line . The Public Hearing Notice was read. James and Cathy Arvani- takis were sworn in. The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated July 2 , 1991 states : " . . . the proposed fence conflicts with the desired sight distance , and encroachment is not recommended . Village Ordinance doesn' t allow encroachments within forty-five feet (45 ' ) [of an intersection] . The suggested location is shown on the enclosed plan. If considered , it should be set back five to ten feet (5-10 ' ) from the sidewalk on Brandywyn Lane. " Mr . Arvanitakis said they have seen a copy of the review and they will comply with Mr . Kuenkler ' s recommendation. They would like to step the angled section from 6 feet in height along Buffalo Grove Road , down to 5 feet in height along Brandywyn Lane . The fence will match the other 6 foot fences along Buffalo Grove Road. He said the corner is very busy and the fence will offer safety and protection for their 15 month old son. Ch. Heinrich agreed traffic at the corner is very heavy. He commented that the lot is unique because it is surrounded by three streets . This is the only house on Brandywyn Lane. Mrs . Arvanitakis said they have spoken with their neighbors and there are no objections . There were no comments from the audience. The Commissioners had no objections as long as the Village Engineer ' s recommendations are met and the fence is kept five feet (5 ' ) from the sidewalk . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Fourteen Li Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of James and Kathy Arvanitakis , 401 English Oak Terrace , for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a wood privacy fence that would extend past the building line at the corner of Buffalo Grove Road and Brandywyn Lane . Description of fence : 5 feet in height along Brandywyn Lane stepping up to 6 feet in height along Buffalo Grove Road, with the section in between the two streets angled in a straight line , 45 feet from the intersection, pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s drawing and Line-of- Sight Review, dated July 2 , 1991 . Said fence to be constructed no closer than five feet (5 ' ) to the sidewalk along Brandywyn Lane . The privacy fence described will be joined' to and match the neighbor ' s fence. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected. Petitioners having demonstrated unique circumstances , construction of the fence will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Mr . Dempsey confirmed that the petitioners amended the petition on its face . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Paul , Windecker , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in 15 days - August 1 , 1991 . H. 1180 Lake Cook Road - Additional Wall Sign Buffalo Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlor Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 .030 - Business Districts Sign Code, Section 14. 20 .090 - Wall Signs The Public Hearing Notice was read. William Katsogianos , owner , was sworn in. He said there will be identical signs on the south and west elevations . He summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of erecting a sign on the east elevation of the building: 1 . There is no exposure to westbound traffic. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Fifteen 2 . People shopping at Chase Plaza do not know there is a restaurant on the corner because there is no sign facing the center . Mr . Katsogianos said this will be a family restaurant serving breakfast , lunch and dinner . It features the same ice cream that is served at Buffalo ' s in Chicago . The sign is necessary for him to have a successful business in B.G. . There were no comments from the audience : The Appearance Commission recommended a variance be granted. Comments from Commissioners : Ch. Heinrich: He could see the need for the sign. Com. Paul and Com. Windecker : Agreed , the sign is necessary. Com. Entman: Did not object , if the size is permitted . Mr . Dempsey noted the public hearing notice stated the request is for a second sign, but it gives the location of the east elevation, so a variance is in order . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that a variance of Sign Code , Section 14. 20.030 , pertaining to Business Districts ; and Section 14 . 20.090 pertaining to Wall Signs , be granted pursuant to the petition of Buffalo Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlor , 1180 Lake Cook Road , for a third wall sign on the east elevation of the building. Criteria is relative to Section 14 . 44 .010 , Sub-section A: "Strict application of this title would cause undue and unnecessary hardships to the sign user because of unusual conditions pertaining to the specific building; the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity; and the variance will not be contrary to the general objectives of this title. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Windecker , Paul , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. The sign will be on the Village Board Agenda for the August 5 , 1991 meeting . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Sixteen I . Blockbuster Video - Zale Groves , Inc. 310 Half Day Road , Space J 13 , at Woodland Commons Sign Code , Section 14 . 20.030 - Business Districts Sign Code , Section 14 . 20.090 - Wall Signs Purpose : Wall sign on the southeast elevation The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mrs . Christie Wiegel was sworn in. She is Project Engineer for Zale Groves , Inc. and Contracts Administrator for the Woodland Commons Shopping Center at the corner of Half Day Road and Buffalo Grove Road . Mrs . Wiegel is also the representative for Blockbuster Video. Mr . Gregory Jenkins , Project Architect , and Pat Ryan of Keiffer Signs , Blockbuster Video ' s sign contractor , were also present as consultants , but they were not sworn in. Mrs . Wiegel summarized the reasons for requesting a second sign for Blockbuster Video and emphasized how important signage was during the early negotiations as prospective tenants . Some marketing studies have been done and Blockbuster has recently expressed some concern about having entered into the lease agreement at this time. Adequate signage is necessary in order for them to establish themselves in the market place . The Woodland Commons Sign Criteria was reviewed and approval was recommended by the Appearance Commission on May 23 , 1991 . Blockbuster Video will be located at the far eastern end of the Woodland Commons Shopping Center on Half Day Road , per site plan. The standard Blockbuster Video sign was acceptable for the front elevation facing southwest . Lettering will be 3 feet in height and 27 feet in length, per T. S. C. 4a. An additional sign was discussed for the southeast face of the building that would be visible to westbound traffic, per T. S. C. 4b. The torn ticket logo is 4 ' 10" x 9 ' 10" (approximately 50 sq . ft . ) There is no other storefront on this elevation of the building. Woodland Commons was designed with the intention that a national or anchor tenant would occupy this space. Zale entered into negotiations with Blockbuster Video believing this space would be deemed to be a corner space and would qualify for two signs . Mrs . Wiegel was surprised when the Appearance Commission informed her that a variance would be necessary. It is very important to Woodland Commons and to management that the sign be approved. Building J has 11 ,000 sq. ft . and Blockbuster Video will be occupying 6 ,000 sq . ft . of space. Four smaller stores will occupy the building, with Subway being located next to Block- buster Video. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Seventeen There will be a pylon sign at the east entrance to the center . Space on the pylon is determined through negotiation and Blockbuster Video did not press for a space . Dominick' s , Ace Hardware and Michael ' s Red Hots have been designated spaces on the sign and there is room for two more tenants . Ch. Heinrich asked if two signs will be requested for the end space on Building B, which is similar to Building 13 . Mrs . Wiegel responded that is an 864 sq . ft . space and will be occupied by Flowers . There is no provision in their lease for a second sign but they may ask for one in the future . Ch. Heinrich informed Mrs . Wiegel that no precedent is set just because the ZBA grants a variance for Blockbuster Video. Each application is considered on its own unique circumstances . Mrs . Wiegel said she understood and future petitions for any variance would have to be made by the individual tenants . Zale is seeking the variance because management may have prematurely entered into an agreement with Blockbuster Video without making certain that the additional sign would be permitted. No other spaces have been given any similar right . The Appearance Commission made a motion on May 23 , 1991 , recom- mening to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Blockbuster Video at Woodland Commons be granted a variance for one additional sign on the southeast elevation of the building. The petitioner was to have the option of having the torn ticket logo sign, or the individual letters , but not both signs . Comments from the audience: 1 . Mr . and Mrs . Fentress , 103 Willow Parkway, live across the street next to the fire station. Mr . Fentress stated that the 3 ' x 27 ' sign is sufficient signage. Property values will be lowered because the shopping center is so close to a residential area. Ch. Heinrich responded that Buffalo Grove is very strict on signage and the ZBA takes pride in the way the Sign Code is enforced. This would probably be the only sign on this face of the building and it is not large . All stores are entitled to some sort of identification and traffic traveling west would not know Blockbuster Video is on the corner . Ch. Heinrich informed the audience that the Village Board has remanded the four pylon signs back to the Appearance Commission and the entire Woodland Commons sign program is being reviewed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Eighteen 2 . Mr . Denis Jones II , 257 Willow Parkway, stated that one additional sign will change the character of the neighbor- hood quite a bit . The entrance to his unit is the first driveway into the subdivision. No matter which direction he , or anyone going to his house , will see the Blockbuster Video sign. Westbound traffic will know the shopping center is on the corner . Everyday traffic will see the sign on the front of the store and know Blockbuster is there . Mr . Jones commended the Village ' s stand on signs . He suggested that Blockbuster Video may be playing "bait and switch" with Zale to get special favors . He objects to the proposed second sign. There is a traffic light at the east entrance to the shopping center and people will see the primary sign before reaching the second entrance . Mr . Jones concluded his remarks with the statement that when he purchased his house four years ago , the Zale sales force misled him to believe that the shopping center would be similar to Bannockburn Green, with many trees , etc. Property values have already been affected. If Block- buster Video agreed to the existing sign ordinance , they should be represented here to defend their argument , and explain why the residents should have to suffer so they can now "cut a better deal . " Ch. Heinrich conceded that sales people are sometimes over- zealous . He asked the term of Blockbuster ' s lease? (5 years) He remarked that an empty shopping center is more detrimental to property values than the proposed additional sign. 3 . Mr . John Wallace , 194 Willow Parkway, lives across the street from Blockbuster Video. He recently moved into Buffalo Grove and wants it to stay as beautiful as it is . He does not want B.G. to look "honky tonk. " Mr . Wallace agreed that a business has to have a sign, but this one would be above the 6 foot fence and he would have to look at it day and night . 4 . Mr . Robin Ayres , 2931 Sandalwood, said he would not actually be seeing the sign every day from his house , but he and everyone else traveling back and forth on Half Day Road will see the Blockbuster Video sign on the front of the building every time they pass the shopping center going east , whether it is once a week or once a month. Commuters will know there is a Blockbuster Video on that corner . They advertise nationally, have other stores in the area and he will be glad to support this location. Dominick ' s and Ace Hardware will give Blockbuster Video good drawing to the center . Ch. Heinrich commented that he could understand Blockbuster ' s concern about the marketing aspect that requires x-amount of population per store because they are located in several other nearby centers . He said the proposed sign is small and he considered Blockbuster ' s 6 ,000 sq . ft . space substantial . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Nineteen Mr . Jones agreed he is satisfied with the location of the shopping center and plans to patronize it , but the residents would like to keep the atmosphere as nice as they can. He respects the ZBA' s position of keeping the balance between the desires of the businesses and the desires of the residents . Ch. Heinrich asked the residents if it would have made a difference in their selection of a house if the shopping center had been represented the way it is? Mr . Jones responded that he would have seriously considered much less expensive housing if he had suspected the center would look like Dundee Road. There is a drastic difference between what is there and what was represented. Woodland Commons has already affected property values because Zale houses purchased just two years ago are being sold at a loss. 5 . Mrs . Ronna (Dennis) Leavitt , 3006 Sandalwood , commented that other businesses , such as Mc Donald ' s and Burger King, got started with Golden Arches , etc . , but now they are changing to smaller , more attractive signs . She is eagerly anticipating the opening of Woodland Commons and she will shop there . Woodland Commons architect , Mr . Greg Jenkins , stated that the Sign Criteria is substantially more restrictive than the Buffalo Grove Sign Code . The area on the side of Bldg. J was designed for a sign. Ch. Heinrich asked Mrs . Wiegel if she was involved with the residential sales and if she knows what representations were made concerning the Woodland Commons Shopping Center? Mrs . Wiegel said she has worked for Zale for two years and was indirectly involved with residential sales . She was not involved with the Planned Unit Development agreement . She knows of no misrepresentations that were made and she added that landscaping totaling $300 ,000. includes hundreds of trees . She has been involved in the landscaping plans and they have already been approved by the Village. Ch. Heinrich recalled that the land was once the Fiore Nursery and the Village will enforce the developer to plant every tree that is called for in the approved landscape plan. He thought that bond money is established to guarantee replacement of trees that die . The Village Board discussed the trees on Buffalo Grove Road at the meeting on July 15 , 1991 and these trees will be replaced. Trustee William Reid said that he did not think the trees on residential lots are under warranty. Mr . Dempsey said that there is a separate warranty with the • Village on the commercial property. The PUD agreement would have to be researched . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty Mrs . Leavitt said that she and her family have lived in B.G. for 13 years . When it was time to purchase upscale housing, they decided against Northbrook or Highland Park. She is proud of Buffalo Grove and has encouraged friends to move here . Some other shopping centers have entire glass fronts without wall signs , and she would not object to Woodland Commons if the developers try to make the center as nice as possible. Some residents of Long Grove and Vernon Hills shop here now and will continue to come , so Buffalo Grove should be made attractive. It is her understanding that the Fiore tree preservation plan is experimental . Some of the trees planted on residential property have died and they are not being replaced. Chairman Heinrich said the character of the development will be changed if the trees do not survive. The effect could be detrimental to the surrounding property owners and that would make him have a different opinion regarding the whole center . He said a review of the PUD agreement would be necessary. Mrs . Wiegel said full landscape plans are available in her office and she would be happy to show they to anyone at any time . The plant materials are guaranteed. She did not realize the plans would be questioned or she would have had them with her . Blockbuster was promised two signs and could terminate their lease without approval . The residents questioned the size of the other tenants signs , i . e . Dominick' s , Subway, Michael ' s , Ace Hardware , etc . Mr . Jenkins answered that all the businesses mentioned will have signs that are substantially smaller than the Buffalo Grove Sign Code allows . Woodland Commons has color require- ments and other limitations . Ch. Heinrich asked Mrs . Wiegel if Zale would consider giving Blockbuster Video identification on the pylon as a negotiating point and , if so , would B.V. forego the secondary wall sign? Mrs . Wiegel responded that Blockbuster Video is the most sophisticated negotiator she has dealt with. They are tough. They asked for an identical set of letters on the southeast elevation along with the torn ticket and the request was absolutely refused . When they requested a special material for their awning, they were rejected because the it is shiny and the approved awnings are going to have a dull matt finish. Ch. Heinrich commented that the Appearance Commission does not publicize their meetings and the residents have not had an opportunity to know what Woodland Commons will look like . He suggested Tabling the request until a presentation of the materials , sign criteria and landscaping can be prepared. He is not personally aware of the aesthetics of the center and would not be able to give an opinion without a review of the architecture , materials , landscaping, etc . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty One r . Mr . Jenkins said he is very proud of the work he does and the building was designed for an anchor tenant on this corner location. If two signs are not allowed for this anchor tenant , the space could be divided into 5 stores , and there could be an additional 4 signs on the front elevation. He added that every other nationally known anchor tenant would ask for the same sign privilege . Ch. Heinrich recalled his long history with the Village of B.G. Considering the climate of today' s economy , the fact that the center is getting tenants is positive. A community cannot afford to have multiple shopping centers that are not occupied. This reflects negatively on the community and affects all the resident ' s property values . The ZBA must consider all the aspects . Retailers must be given a chance to succeed. The ZBA is the only public hearing open to the residents , and they have a right to see what is actually being proposed by Zale. Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul - Said he does not know enough about the total pro- ject including elevations , landscaping , etc. to approve the sign now. He agreed Ch. Heinrich' s suggestion to Table is an excellent idea. Com. Windecker - Questioned whether the sign would be seen, if many trees are planted in the front area? He has been in the position of making similar presentations and had to provide very specific information as to the location, height and size of trees in relation to the buildings. He is not equipped to vote at this time and if a vote is taken, his vote will be "no. " Mrs . Wiegel responded that she is not sure where the trees are placed . Had she realized the landscaping was going to be discussed , she would have had specific drawings prepared and the landscape architect would have been present to answer direct questions . She would also have had copies of the landscape contract and lease agreement for reference. Ch. Heinrich repeated his opinion that it would be beneficial to Table the petition until the next meeting when a complete presentation can be given, so that the ZBA will have enough information to make a fair decision. It is important that this is "the" market place for people in the area. They should be made to feel good about their community. The ZBA wants the center to be successful and is willing to give Zale the opportunity to come in with a full presentation next month. Com. Windecker - Asked if Blockbuster is granted this sign, would there be the possibility they would threaten to cancel the lease without the lettering on the wall? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty Two Mr . Pat Ryan, Keiffer Sign Co. , 1322 Barclay Blvd. , B.G. responded. He said this aspect has already been discussed with the Blockbuster Video real estate and construction people . They have been informed that only the torn ticket logo would be acceptable . Mrs . Wiegel confirmed that Zale will not be back asking for a third sign nor will Blockbuster Video be permitted to have the shiny blue awning. She is making this presentation because the lease language gives Blockbuster the opportunity to cancel . Zale has agreed to go ahead with $50,000. of tenant space improvements and she would like to avoid a legal battle . Com. Entman - Said he has had some professional dealings with Zale , but his opinion will not be affected by these associations . The ZBA has heard similar situations about getting into lease agreements without having all the pertinent facts , resulting in some possible legal difficulties and the com- missioners have been able to work out these problems . It is his job to deal with similar situations every day. He agreed the offer to table would give everyone the opportunity to look at alternative solutions in order to compromise . Mrs . Wiegel said she is extremely proud of the landscaping and she would like to come in and share it with everyone , but she said she would prefer to have a vote on the Blockbuster taken at this time . She would rather go to Blockbuster tomorrow and tell them the sign has been denied. Given the way the people in the community feel , she does not think it is fair to keep the tenant in suspense , for another month, waiting to see if he sign will be approved. Ch. Heinrich informed Mrs . Wiegel that if the ZBA denies the sign at this time , it will still go to the Village Board. Mr . Jones said he agreed with Com. Entman. As a resident , he would be willing to listen to some alternatives . He does not want to put Block buster out of business , but he does not think they need the sign. He expressed surprise that Mrs . Wiegel would rather go back to the tenant with a denial . Mrs . Wiegel said the landscaping will not be put in until next October . She is more than willing to give the ZBA a complete presentation next month if there is some question of the viability of the landscaping and/or the project in general . She feels the signage and landscaping are two separate issues and there is no assurance the sign will be approved. Ch. Heinrich said that the signage and the landscaping are related issues . The residents feel they have not been given enough information and Zale should want to overcome this negative opinion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty Three F Trustee Reid commented that the ZBA is not the proper public forum for giving a complete review of the landscaping plans . The approved landscape plan indicates 313 trees , 885 shrubs and over 12 ,000 ground cover plants . It would be appropriate to give a landscape review in conjunction with the request for a sign variance , and it might be beneficial , but it would not be appropriate if the sign is not an issue . Ch. Heinrich agreed and added that he would be reluctant to dispose of the matter without having adequate information and it would not be fair to the Village Board either . It is not in the best interest of either party. Mr . Dempsey confirmed that the petitioner has the right to ask for a decision and the ZBA has the right to respond with a negative recommendation based upon insufficient information. Mr . Heinrich commented that it is typical for a petitioner to take the opportunity to make a fuller presentation. The ZBA usually illudes to the lease agreement and makes it a part of the exhibits . The ZBA takes all circumstances into consider- ration. He asked Mrs . Wiegel if denial would help because they are under a time constraint? Mrs . Wiegel said she did not want to make the lease an issue. They are committed to make some very expensive changes to the space for Blockbuster . She asked for Mr . Jenkin' s opinion. Mr . Jenkins said it would be costly if the sign issue is delay- ed a month and they went ahead with the space improvements but did not get the sign. They could not only lose the lease but they will lose time and money spent on tenant improvements. He advised Mrs . Wiegel to ask for the decision now. He asked if they can return to the ZBA with another request later? Ch. Heinrich explained that they would have to go through the entire variance procedure again and that would take time. Based on this presentation, he could not make a decision at this time . He knows what is there today , but he does not know what Woodland Commons will look like when it is completed. Mr . Jenkins said that all the elevations and landscaping have been approved by the Appearance Commission and the Village Board . It seems repetitious to go through the procedure again. He supported Mrs . Wiegel ' s request for a vote. Mrs . Wiegel repeated her request to have the sign denied . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty Four Com. Entman made the following motion. I move we recommend to the Village Board that the petition of Zale Groves , Inc . on behalf of Blockbuster Video , 310 Half Day Road at Woodland Commons , for variance of Sign Code , Sec . 14. 20.030 , pertaining to Business Districts and Sign Code, Section 14 . 20.090 , pertaining to Wall Signs , for the purpose of erecting a wall sign on the southeast elevation of the building , be DENIED. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Entman and Heinrich NAY - None Motion to DENY passed - 4 to 0. Finding of Facts Attached. This recommendation will be sent to the Village Board of Trustees for action on Monday, August 5 , 1991 . Mr . Dempsey said the item will probably go on the Consent Agenda and the Village Board usually approves the Consent Agenda without comment . If so, the sign is denied. Trustee Reid commented that if any one wants to remove an item from the Consent Agenda , it is held for discussion until the end of the regular meeting. He added that it is unusual for an item to have a positive Appearance Commission recommendation and a negative Zoning Board recommendation. He thought this would be an agenda item. Ch. Heinrich informed the petitioners that they have the right to appeal the decision of the ZBA. In this case , the item would be reviewed by the Village Board and Trustee Reid would be present to verify these proceedings . Mr . Jones asked what happens at the Village Board level? Can Blockbuster officials appear and make a presentation? Would it be beneficial for the residents to appear? Ch. Heinrich said the Village Board decision is final and he told Mr . Jones that numbers do not sway the Zoning Board or the Village Board. He added that it is always beneficial to have citizen input . It is better to have all sides of an issue clarified. A successful shopping center generates sales tax and is very effective in holding down real estate taxes . Mr . Ayres suggested they circulate a petition and bring it to the Village Board meeting. He added that they want the shop- ping center to have successful businesses . Mrs . Wiegel asked the status of the pylon signs? Do they have to come before the Appearance Commission and/or the ZBA? Trustee Reid advised her to contact the Village Manager for information and directions. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty Five J. Steeple View Condominiums - Entrance Signs Lake Cook Road and Armstrong Drive Sign Code , Section 14. 20 .010 - Residential Districts Sign Code , Section 14. 20 .070 - Ground Signs The Public Hearing Notice was read. Dennis J. Hughes , H and H Management & Leasing Company, 15 East Palatine Road, Suite 112 , Prospect Heights , IL 60070 (808-1818) the agent for Steeple View Condominium Association was sworn in. Mr . Hughes explained that Steeple View would like to have two entrance signs off Lake Cook Road . He requested a variance of the Sign Code for the purpose of erecting the second ground sign because it would be within 250 feet of the first sign. The signs would be angled to give visibility from both directions . The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated July 2 , 1991 states : "The property line landscaping does restrict the view and should be trimmed. The Fire Department has also complained that the median landscape planter restricts their access . " Ch. Heinrich commented that the Zoning Board and the Village Board generally upholds the Village Staff recommendations . If the Fire Department has a problem accessing property it could take longer for them to get to a fire . Mr . Hughes said the median landscaped planter has been there for several years . The Board of Directors has discussed its removal but it does keep traffic from entering and exiting Lake Cook Road from two lanes . They realize the lane on the right (east) side is narrow, but there is more than adequate space for entering on the left (west) side. Mr . Hughes said he met with the Fire Department four (4) months ago and the median planter was not mentioned. He will not object if they recommend removal of the planter and he will have the property line landscaping trimmed. Mr . Dempsey said they could Table the matter , or they could make a motion contingent upon clarification of the Village Engineer ' s and the Fire Department ' s recommendation. Mr . Hughes said he would prefer not to come back. He under- stood that the variance would be negated if the conditions are not met . There were no comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty Six The Appearance Commission recommended a variance . There were no objections from the Commissioners Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees , that the petition on behalf of Steeple View Condominiums be granted a variance pursuant to Sign Code , Section 14 . 20.010, pertaining to Residential Districts ; and Section 14. 20.070 , pertaining to Ground Signs , for the purpose of erecting entrance signs at the corner of Lake Cook Road and Armstrong Drive. The signs are to be erected in accordance with the diagram and plat submitted. Construction is to conform to the Sign Code and is to be approved by the Building Department . Criteria for the sign meets the conditions set forth in Sign Code , Section 14. 44.010 , Sub-section B in that : "the proposed signage is of particularly good design and in particu- larly good taste ; and the entire site has been particularly well-landscaped . " The variance is recommended subject to the following conditions : 1 . The property line landscaping restricting the view should be trimmed. 2 . The median landscaped planter that obstructs the access should be remedied in accordance with more specific recommendations from the Village Engineer and the Fire Dept . Issuance of the permit is contingent upon compliance with the conditions prior to July 30 , 1991 . Com. Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker , Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached. This recommendation will be sent to the Village Board of Trustees for action on Monday, August 5 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty Seven VT . ANNOUNCEMENTS None . VII . ADJOURNMENT Com . Windecker made a motion to adjourn. Com. Paul seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 11 : 40 P.M. Respectfully Submitted , a6eA Shirley Bates , Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 16 , 1991 - Page Twenty Eight