Loading...
1991-09-24 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE . ILLINOIS TUESDAY , SEPTEMBER 24 , 1991 I . CALL TO ORDER Michael Kearns called the meeting to order at 8 : 08 P . M . on Tuesday , September 24 . 1991 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . Com . Kearns chaired the meeting until Ch . Richard Heinrich arrived . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : M . Kearns . J . Paul . B . Entman , H . Fields , L . Windecker , L . Arbus . QUORUM . R . Heinrich arrived at 8 : 20 P . M . Commissioners Absent : None Bldg . Dept . Liaison : James Kelly , Building Inspector Richard Jensen , Building Inspector was also present . Village Attorney : Thomas Dempsey III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 29 , 1991 - TABLED until after the business meeting . Voice Vote was AYE Unanimously . IV . BUSINESS A . 7 Amherst Court , Gary and Judy Hardy Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Variance of 10 ' into rear yard setback for screened porch Gary and Judy Hardy were sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Hardy summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They want to remain in their house but it is not large enough for their family because the children are growing . They want to construct a sun room . 2 . The house has a basement but it has molds and mites to which their daughter is allergic , so they cannot use the basement for recreation . 3 . The lot slopes toward the front , so the addition has to be constructed at the rear of the house . 4 . They cannot construct the addition on the north end of the house because they have a large stone patio and an existing tree in that area . The roof lines will match and the materials for the addition will match the existing siding , shingles , soffit , etc . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Asked about the revised plan. Mr . Hardy explained that after Mr . Edward Schar informed him the original roof had too much of an overhang , he changed the design to meet the Code Requirements . He prefers the new design. Com. Paul : Talked to the neighbors next door and they have no objections . He had no problem with the variance . Mr . Hardy said they have talked to all their surrounding neighbors . There have only been good comments and the addition will increase property values . Com. Windecker : Asked about the final dimensions of the addition? Mr . Hardy said it would be a little smaller because of the new roof design. The depth at the peak will be 19 feet and the width will stay the same - 26 ' 3-5/8" . Com. Windecker : No problems . Com. Arbus : Since the neighbors do not object , no problems . Com. Entman: Commented that the Hardys are neighbors but �./ this will not affect his judgment . Mr . Hardy did contact him personally. He has no objections . Com. Fields : No problems with proposed addition. No questions from the audience . The Village Engineer ' s Drainage Review , dated September 6 , 1991 , states : ' The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. " Com . Paul made the following motion: • I move we grant the petition of Gary and Judy Hardy at 7 Amherst Court , for variance to Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area . Height , Bulk , and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of con- structing an addition that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) beyond the required rear yard setback building line . Construction will be consistent with the existing construction. Hardship having been demonstrated , the proposed variance will not alter the existing character of the neighborhood . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 . 1991 - Page Two Com . Windecker seconded the motion Roll Call Vote : AYE: Fields , Entman , Arbus , Windecker , Paul and Kearns NAY : None ABSENT: Heinrich Motion Passed - Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - after October 9 , 1991 . B. 3 Regent Court East , Norman and Joan Ridell Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Variance of 4 ' into rear yard setback for addition Norman and Joan Ridell were sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mrs . Ridell explained that their lot is pie-shaped and located on a cul-de-sac . The only space available for the addition is at the rear of the house . The house is raised ranch with a family room downstairs . They want the addition to be upstairs off the kitchen and the topography of the land requires them to seek a variance . Mr . Ridell summarized their reasons for needing an addition: 1 . They have three sons : two in college and one in high school . The addition will permit the boys to study downstairs and they will have some space for relaxing , entertaining , etc . upstairs . 2 . The slope of the lot and the trees will almost hide the addition. The three houses to the rear are about 20 feet below the second story of the house . The addition will not be near the fence , and there is a six foot drop-off , so the largest addition they can build is fourteen feet ( 14 ' ) and they need a variance of only four feet (4 ' ) . The addition will be cantilevered up five feet (5 ' ) . The Village Engineer did not send a written drainage review because the addition will not be on the ground and drainage will not be affected . Ch. Richard Heinrich arrived at 8 : 20 P.M. and chaired the rest of the meeting . No comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields : No problem because of the topography and proposed plans . Verified that the materials will match the existing construction. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 , 1991 - Page Three Mrs . Ridell said the addition will be mostly windows . Mr . Ridell said the room will be on the southeast corner next to a deck with a spa . It is the sunniest side and is the most level area . The soffits will not match because the addition will have a cathedral ceiling . Com . Entman: Agreed that the lot is unique and the addition will not be seen from the street . Asked why they need additional living space? Mr . Ridell explained that the house has four bedrooms and with the boys studying and playing pool downstairs , he and his wife need some place to go for relaxation , etc . They have informed all their neighbors about the addition and there have been no objections . Com. Kearns : No problems with proposed variance . Com. Arbus : No problems . Com . Paul : No problems . Com . Windecker : Lot is unique . The room will not be seen. Asked if there are any similar additions? Mrs . Ridell responded that there is one house nearby with the same type of room . It can be seen from Bernard . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the variation requested by `.i Norman and Joan Ridell of 3 Regent Court East , pursuant to Zoning Ordinance , Sec . 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area . Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of four feet (4 ' ) into the required rear yard setback . Materials are to match the existing construction where possible , in like kind and quality. Addition to be constructed pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Village . Petitioner has exhibited hardship and unique circumstances exist . The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Entman, Kearns , Paul , Windecker , Arbus and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to O . Findings of Fact AtLached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - after Oct . 9 , 1991 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 , 1991 - Page Four D. 1102 T :.ckwood Drive . Paul and Donna Mermel ZrAing Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 Variance of 11 ' into rear yard setback for a screened room. Paul Mermel was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Mermei summarized the reasons for construct- ing a screened porch: I . They have a deck in the rear yard and they want to screen in half of it to enclose a whirl pool . The room will protect them from insects and will permit them to use the spa in winter . The room will not be heated . 2 . Mr . Mermel has had back surgery and his daughter has an arthritic condition . so the spa is used for therapy. The trees in the rear yard will obscure the proposed screen- ed room from the surrounding area . The yard is fenced and the room will be kept locked . Mr . Mermel has talked to their neighbors and there have been no objections . No comments from the audience . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : No objection. The is ample room to the rear . Asked how the screened room can be used in winter? Mr . Mermel said the porch will have removable screens that can be replaced with storm windows in the future . Com. Windecker : No questions or objections . Com. Arbus : No questions or objections . Com. Kearns : No questions or objections . Com. Entman: No problems . Porch will not be visible . Com . Fields : He is acquainted with the petitioner , but this will not affect his judgment . He had no questions , comments or objections . Ch. Heinrich: Also acquainted with petitioner . No objections to proposed addition. Com. Kearns made the following motion: I move that a variance be granted to petitioners , Paul and Donna Mermel , 1102 Lockwood Drive , pursuant to Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 . pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of adding a screened room that would encroach a distance of eleven feet ( 11 ' ) into the required rear yard setback of thirty-five feet ( 35 ' ) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 . 1991 - Page Five Hardship and unique circumstances having been demonstrated , the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Fields , Entman , Kearns , Paul . Windecker . Arhus and Heinrich. NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days - after October 10 , 1991 . Gerald Zingheim , 293 Indian Hill Drive , came to inquire if the addition proposed for 3 Regent Court East would have an effect on the drainage . His property is to the rear of the Ridellss property and , because of the steep slope , water flows into his yard . He was assured that the Village Engineer had made an inspection and , because of the canti- lever construction, the drainage pattern will not change . D. 1554 Countryside Drive , Darrell and Donna Cheicun Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 Variance of 10 ' into rear yard setback for addition Darrell Chelcun was sworn in and the Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Chelcun summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : Li 1 . The Chelcuns need additional living space . They have three children and want to stay in the B.G. area because of the excellent schools and B.G. R. A. activities . The family room is too small and the addition will give them about 480 sf . of space . 2 . The economic expense of purchasing a new , larger home is not an option. The addition will be constructed with materials that match the existing house . Mr . Chelcun said he and his wife have contacted all their surrounding neighbors in both B.G. and Arlington Heights . There have been no objections . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Observed that there is more distance between the petitioners home and the homes to the rear that in most situations . The addition will be quite attractive and he has no objections . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 , 1991 - Page Six Com . Windecker : No objections . Commented about the dirt hill next to the property . Com. Arbus : Because the lot is located on a corner , the area can support the proposed addition. He inquired about conformance with the Village Engineer ' s Review. The drainage review , dated September 6 , 1991 . states : "The proposed addition will not alter the existing drainage pattern. It was noticed that the property has been filled in along the rear property line . This retaining wall and filling should be removed in conjunction with this approval . Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Cheicun that removal of the wall would be made a condition of the variance . Mr . Chelcun explained that he knew he could landscape with- out a permit . After he constructed the wall , Mr . Kuenkler informed him that there is a five foot (5 ' ) drainage ease- ment . The wall is about two feet (2 ' ) high located about one foot ( 1 ' ) past the swale . He informed his neighbors of his plan and there were no objections . It would be quite expensive to remove the wall . He offered to move the bushes back five feet (5 ' ) from the swale . Ch. Heinrich said the problem is not with the plantings , but with the wall which has altered the swale . Com. Paul agreed that the wall could affect the drainage on property of neighbors six to seven houses down the block . The Chelcun property is next to the retention basin and if the water is restricted there , it will back up everywhere . Mr . Cheicun said , based on his discussion with Mr . Kuenkler , he was left with the impression that he could agree to remove the wall if drainage becomes a problem . Mr . Kelly said he has had no further communication with Mr . Kuenkler . Com . Arbus commented that the wall is attractive and asked if a variance could be granted and let Mr . Chelcun work out the drainage situation with the Village Engineer . Mr . Dempsey confirmed that Mr . Kuenkler has the authority to require removal of the wall whether it is made a condi- tion of the variance or not . Com. Kearns , Com . Entman and Com. Fields had no basic objections to the addition, but felt the drainage situation is very important and should be resolved first . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 , 1991 - Page Seven Com . Paul commented that since the wall was just constructed in April of this very dry year . there has not been enough rain to judge whether there will be a drainage problem . After further discussion , including the possibility of granting the variance subject to the Village Engineer ' s written approval that the drainage situation has been resolved . Mr . Chelcun was given the option of removing the retaining wall or tabling the hearing until October 15 , 1991 the date of the next Zoning Board meeting. Mr . Chelcun requested the matter be Tabled . Com . Fields made a motion to Table the variance requested by Darrell and Donna Chelcun , 1554 Countryside Drive , until October 15 , 1991 . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Windecker , Paul , Kearns , Entman. Fields and Heinrich NAY - Arbus Motion to TABLE passed - 6 to 1 . Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Kelly to inform Mr . Kuenkler of the decision and request that he submit another written review and attend the October 15 , 1991 ZBA meeting . E. Furs By Michael , 146-150 W. Dundee Road Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs Mr . Michael Katsamakis , 720 E. Bradford Court , Arlington Heights , IL (owner of property) was sworn in. The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Katsamakis summarized the reasons for requesting a variance . He has had a business in Buffalo Grove for 15 years . In July 1991 , he purchased the building at 146-150 W. Dundee Road and would like to change the top portion of the existing ground sign from Dundee Building to Furs By Michael in order for his business to survive . Customers do not recognize the name Dundee Building and cannot see the wall sign as they drive by. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Katsamakis why he cannot put the name in a prominent location on the reader board? Mr . Katsamakis replied that there are no empty panels on the reader board portion of the sign. The building is occupied by 3 doctors and 1 photographer in addition to his business . There is one panel available and it says "For Rent " with the telephone number . He wants to keep the "For Rent " panel . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 , 1991 - Page Eight The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign on July 11 , 1991 and recommended its approval . A variance is necessary per the ZBA condition on March 15 , 1983 , that " if the top 1/3 of the sign is changed , the sign would lose the variation. " Mr . Katsamakis said the wall sign is not adequate , but is was quite costly and he does not plan to have it removed . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Fields : Understands the petitioner ' s reasons for wanting the sign face changed . The building , with it ' s list of tenants , looks like a medical building and he wouldn' t be looking for a furrier in a medical building . Because of the mixed use , a unique condition exists , and he would recommend that the Village Board grant the request for a variance . Com. Entman: No objections . Asked how the face would be changed? Mr . Katsamakis explained the top portion has deteriorated and it will be repaired and repainted . The rest of the panels have been replaced with new panels . He has a permit to put spot lights on the ground on both sides of the sign. Com . Kearns : Since only the top of the sign is being changed , he has no objections to the proposal . It has been there several years and has not caused any traffic problems , so the variance will not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . Com. Paul : No problems . Com. Windecker : No problems . Verified that both lines of copy will be fifteen ( 15) inches in height . Com. Arbus : Asked if variances will be necessary in order to change the top panel again? Mr . Dempsey said the variance would cover the face change , area and setback , but future face changes would not require a variance , unless the ZBA attaches a similar condition. If the sign face is changed , it would require Appearance Commission Review. He recommended clarification of Sign Code , Section 14 . 28 . 030 - Loss of Status . It refers mostly to non-conforming signs . Mr . Kelly said , per the April 26 . 1990 Appearance Commission minutes , the Dundee Point ground sign was to be located 250 feet from the Dundee Building sign , so a variance for distance between signs is not necessary. No questions or comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 , 1991 - Page Nine Com. Fields made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village Board of Trustees grant the variance as requested by FURS BY MICHAEL , owned by Michael Katsamakis , Dundee Building , at 146-150 Dundee Road . per Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 , pertaining to Ground Signs pursuant to Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-Section A. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Unique conditions apply . Com . Paul seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich commended staff for keeping the records of the previous variance and following through with the conditions . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker , Paul , Kearns , Entman, Fields and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An Ordinance will be prepared and recommendation will be sent to the Village Board for final action on Monday , Oct . 21 , 1991 . Permit may not issued before the ordinance is approved . ANNOUNCEMENTS Approval of August 29 , 1991 Minutes - Com. Kearns made a motion to remove from Table . Com . Paul seconded the motion. Correction - Page Five , Paragraph 2 . Line 7 : delete " they" and insert Ownership. The landscape architects would not be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul . Entman . Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Kearns and Fields Minutes of August 29 , 1991 approved and will be placed on file . Discussion of Sign Code Revisions Topics discussed were : 1 . Section 14 . 28 - Clarify Loss of Status and Amortization Sections . Are there are any non-conforming signs? 2 . Need to streamline the process . Possible notification of residents when business signs are to be reviewed by the Appearance Commission. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 . 1991 - Page Ten 3 . Proximity of signs on commercial property adjacent to residential districts . Section 14 . 20 . 070 E. 4 . Wall signs facing residential property. 5 . Should free standing commercial buildings on corners be permitted a third wall sign facing the parking lot? If the AC and Village Board approves the sign, it should not require a variance . 6 . Should Section 14 . 20 . 070 A be subdivided into two sections : 1 - Number of ground signs is limited by the 250 foot distance requirement : Leave as written. 2 - Shorten the distance between ground signs to 100 feet on Dundee Road because of the number of businesses with less than 100 feet of frontage . The intent of this limitation was based on the premise that every business is not entitled to a ground sign. The limitation also eliminates ground sign clutter . Businesses on a commercial boulevard can have effective signage without pylon/ground signs every 100 feet . Clarify the definition of pylon/ground/monument signs . There could be exceptions for unique circumstances . Size , number and density of signs should be considered . After discussion, a poll was taken: Should there be a double standard with Dundee Road being considered a commercial boulevard with separate signage restrictions? ROLL CALL: Yes - Com. Fields (made the proposal ) No - Com. Entman , likes the control the ZBA has to consider all issues using checks and balances . Possibly a future change . No - Com. Kearns , satisfied with the code as it is . Some petitioners have been well pleased with the results of a ZBA hearing . Other commercial streets would want the same privileges . No - Ch. Heinrich, satisfied with the procedure No - Com . Paul , satisfied that the procedure is working well as it is . Example : When the Standard Oil station asked for signage on the whole building . The ZBA considered the area and determined that there could be a residential area adjacent to the corner , so the signage was limited . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24 , 1991 - Page Eleven No - Com . Windecker , basically leave the code as it is written, with a few revisions and clarifications . No change for Dundee Road 7 . The ZBA previously had the authority to grant variances for signs . Now they are placed on the Village Board Consent Agenda and are usually approved without debate . The VB has returned signs to the ZBA for second public hearings . Should this procedure be reversed? 8 . Is the 15 day waiting period necessary? It make the delay much longer because of meeting the VB schedule . Example : Furs By Michael will not be sent to the VB until October 21 , almost a month ' s waiting period . The requirement creates a hardship on the property owner . 9 . Clarification of definitions : i . e . hardship , name and nature , need for registration to permit logos . right-of- way , can ground signs or wall signs carry prices? 10 . Does the Sign Code need a preamble to clarify the difference between identification and advertising? The discussion will be continued after the next ZBA meeting . VI . ADJOURNMENT Com. Fields made a motion to adjourn at . Com . Entman seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 : 25 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Shirley Bates Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Sept . 24 , 1991 - Page Twelve