Loading...
1992-06-16 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE . ILLINOIS • - TUESDAY , JUNE 16 . 1992 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 8 : 05 P . M . on Tuesday . June 16 , 1992 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard . II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : J . Paul . B . Entman , L . Windecker , L . Arbus and R . Heinrich . QUORUM . Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Thomas Dempsey Village Board Liaison : Bruce Kahn . Trustee III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Because of the length of the Agenda , approval of the minutes was postponed until after the business was conducted . IV . BUSINESS A . 153 Lilac Lane , Ilya Golod Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts The public hearing notice was read and Mr . Ilya Golod was sworn in . He reviewed his past appearances before the ZBA in his quest for a variance of the Fence Code for the purpose of constructing a fence that would extend past the building line along Armstrong Drive . The previous location was denied by the ZBA and by the Village Board of Trustees because the fence would not be in line with the existing fence at 622 Armstrong Court . Mr . Golod has revised his application to comply with Zoning Board ' s decision and the Village Engineers line-of- sight recommendation . The fence would be located ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line and would be in line with the fence on the abutting property . Comments of Commissioners : Ch . Heinrich : None Com . Paul : Asked why the part of the fence . facing Lilac Lane , was angled and what advantage was there in not having it perpendicular to the house? Mr . Golod responded that it is angled pursuant the Village Engineer ' s line-of-sight review and it is more pleasing to him personally from an aesthetic point of view . He said the additional cost and maintenance were not important factors . Com. Entman: No further comments or objections . Com. Windecker : No questions or comments . Com. Arbus : No questions or comments . There were no questions or comments from the audience . Com . Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Ilya Goiod , 153 Lilac Lane . for variance of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 . pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) solid wood privacy fence that would be fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the sidewalk along Armstrong Lane . Said fence would be in line with the existing fence on the adjoining property and would be tapered pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated 2/28/92 . The essential character of the neighborhood would not be affected and the proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . Com. Entman seconded the motion Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus . Windecker , Paul , Entman . Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days (July 2 . 1992) . B. 229 Cottonwood Road , Terry L. Weber Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 32 . 020 - Pertaining to : Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Terry L . Weber was represented by attorneys Jerry Weintraub and Alfred Stavros . 350 E . Dundee Road , Wheeling . IL 60090 Terry Weber was sworn in. The public hearing notice was read . Mr . Weber is seeking a variance to permit completion of the construction of a garage that would encroach a distance of five feet (5 ' ) into the utility and drainage easement at the rear of the property. Ch. Heinrich informed the applicant , and the audience , that it takes a minimum of four ( 4 ) affirmative votes to pass a motion and there are only five ( 5 ) out of six (6 ) ZBA Commissioners present . If any petitioner feels it is more advantageous to table or postpone their hearing until the next official meeting night , request may be made anytime during their presentation. Mr . Weintraub said they would proceed . He summarized the events that have taken place since the Zoning Board of Appeals granted Mr . Weber a variance for the purpose of constructing a garage that was to be located ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the rear property line . Section 17 . 32 . 020 of the Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance permits garages to be constructed five feet (5 ' ) from the rear property line , but not on any easement . After a permit was issued on April 15 . 1992 , Mr . Weber proceeded to spot the garage and on May 5 . 1992 he was given approval to pour the footings and the foundation wails (Exhibit II ) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 . 1992 - Page Two When an inspection was made on May li , 1992 . it was discovered that the garage was actually located within the utility easement . Mr . Weber obtained a new survey which verified that the foundation appears to be 4-1i2 to 5 feet into the utility easement . He obtained consent waivers from Com Ed and IL Bell . When construction of the garage continued , a Stop Work Order was issued on May 19 , 1992 . It would be a hardship on Mr . Weber to have to remove the foundation and relocate the garage . Because of the unique character of the lot , with White Pine Ditch to the rear . there is no other house directly to the rear . Mr . Weintraub asked Terry Weber to verify the facts that have been stated . He repeated that it would be very costly to him to have to reconstruct the foundation of the garage and it would also move the structure much closer to the house . The place- ment of the garage , five feet (5 ' ) from the rear lot line . would not be a detriment to any of the neighbors . Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Schar how the garage got to the present stage of construction if a survey was submitted with the permit application? Mr . Schar replied that the permit was issued based on a diagramed plat of the property showing a ten foot ( 10 ' ) easement . It did not show the garage encroaching into the ten foot ( 10 ' ) easement . Mr . Stavros corroborated this statement . He added that it was an oversight on the part of Mr . Weber not to take a second measurement after he spotted the garage and the footings were poured . The unintentional mistake was discovered by the Building Inspector when the second inspection was being made . The Ordinance does not require a spotted survey for an acces- sory building . Ch. Heinrich said the problem occurred when Mr . Weber submit- ted a rendering instead of an actual piat of survey. He wanted to clarify whether there was an administrative oversight on the Village ' s part and it appears that there was not . Mr . Stavros agreed . It was a problem that could not have been anticipated by Mr . Weber , the applicant , or by the Village when the permit was approved . Ch. Heinrich quoted from the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 4 , 1992 : "This location has been previously reviewed and involved a revision to the Village Floodplain Map which ulti- mately removed this property from the floodplain. While we would not encourage routine - crowding" of facilities such as the White Pine Ditch . it does not appear that encroachment is significant . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 . 1992 - Page Three All soil ( including that of the abutting property) needs to be removed . and the property restored to its existing condition. Although there is no established easement along the south property line , we would suggest five feet (5 ' ) setbacks in the future . " Ch. Heinrich verified that the garage materials will match the house and the driveway will run along the side of the house . Comments from the audience : Mrs . Greta M. Harris , 248 Lincoln Terrace , owner of property to the rear of Mr . Weber ' s , inquired about any possible drainage problem? Ch. Heinrich assured her the Village Engineer ' s Review has established that the drainage will not be affected , but if the creek overflowed in the past . it could happen again. Comments from Commissioners : Com . Arbus : Asked whether the gas company or cable company has been contacted? Mr . Stavros replied that he checked the Title Policy . The gas easement is in the front , not the rear . They are not aware of any cable lines . Com. Arbus : Recommended that the utility letters be attached to any ordinance that is passed ; that the petitioner hold the Village harmless from any future liability for granting the ordinance ; and he would also like to have the variance recorded as a covenant that runs with the land to prevent any future purchasers of the property from claiming liability. In response , Mr . Dempsey stated that the Village does not enforce the utilities ' use of the easements . If access is required , the utility companies would have to deal directly with Mr . Weber . He bears the responsibility to remove a portion of the garage , if necessary . The Village would bear no liability. Com. Entman: Shared Com. Arbus ' concerns about a potential claim that granting of the variance would somehow condone and/ or affirm the actions of the petitioner . Mr . Dempsey said the Village Ordinance prohibits building on the easement . Granting the variance does not hold Mr . Weber harmless or indemnify him for the future responsibilities or rights of the various utility companies . Any variance runs with the land . Any future sale of the property would include the encroachment of the garage on the easement and the papers would include a copy of the ordinance . The buyer should be informed of his rights and responsibilities . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 . 1992 - Page Four Com. Arbus : Said it is his intention to vote affirmatively and he just wanted to be satisfied that the risk is on the part of the petitioner , not on the Village , if he does not have letters from other utilities . etc . The Village Engineer ' s requirements should also be made part of the variance . Mr . Dempsey said that the variance can include conditions , but he noted Com Ed ' s approval letter raises some requirements . Mr . Stavros said the Illinois Immunity Act actually protects the Village . The property belongs to the Titleholder but the easement is a conditional right for utility companies to come onto the property. The utility companies would have the direct line for cause of action against Mr . Weber if he obstructed or prohibited their access to come on the property. He would not object to conditions being stated . Com. Arbus : Was satisfied if problems would be between the petitioner and the utility companies . He had no objections . Com. Windecker : Asked Mr . Schar if the location of the pour was inspected before the pour? The packet did not include Exhibit B which is a copy of the Field Inspection Report . Mr . Schar said it is sometimes very difficult to determine the exact location of a building . It is the responsibility of the homeowner to follow the approved plan. Exhibit B. dated 5-5-92 . was produced and states : "Trench foundation - pre pour walls only - wall cap not included . OK to pour . " Signed by the Building Inspector and Mr . Weber . Ch. Heinrich agreed that the Building Department has stipulated that the actual location was not checked prior to the pouring of the foundation. He asked Mr . Schar when locations are checked? Mr . Schar answered that there are usually some barriers , such as a fence , that are in place that make it easy to determine where a lot line is , but there is no way of knowing where a lot line actually is . They do not have the jurisdiction or the authority to determine where the lot line is . This is the homeowner ' s responsibility. Mr . Stavros said the stakes were put in after Mr . Weber called for a staked survey . There were no exposed iron pipes when the foundation was put in. There was no intentional error . Com. Paul : Said that under the given circumstances . he sees no reason not to grant the variance . Com. Entman: Said if Mr . Weber has talked to his neighbors and they do not object , then he has no problem with the variance as long as there is no potential for any liability against B. G. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 . 1392 - Page Five Mr . Stavros said they would file the utility letters of record and will provide the Village with copies of the filing . Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Dempsey if it is necessary to record the documents? Mr . Dempsey said the garage will be there if the property is ever sold and it wiii be shown on the survey , so it would not be necessary to record the paper . but Mr . Stavros said he would have it done . Com . Paul made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the request made by Terry L . Weber , 229 Cottonwood Road , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures , be granted for the purpose of constructing a garage five feet ( 5 ' ) into the easement on the east side of the property . Said variance to be subject to the criteria set by the Village Engineer . Condition of the variance being that the letters from the utilities be properly recorded with the Recorder of Deeds along with the variance as a permanent record on the property. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances . `./ Hardship having been demonstrated , the granting of the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman. Arbus , Windecker , Paul , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. An Ordinance will be prepared and this item will be placed on the Village Board Consent Agenda of the July 6 , 1992 meeting . C. 448 Glendale Road . Gerard and Linda De Lizer Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 32 . 020 , Pertaining to : Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Gerard and Linda De Lizer were sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . De Lizer summarized their reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . They need more storage space 2 . They have 3 cars and a 1 car garage . 3 . They want to construct a 2 car garage with a second story to be used for Mr . De Lizer ' s hobbies . In order to have enough room for the second story , a one foot ( 1 ' ) variance is required . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Six They have discussed the proposed garage with their neighbors and there have been no objections . No neighbors were present . A diagram of the garage was presented . It will match the house and they will run the electric underground in accordance with the Buffalo Grove requirements . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Asked about the actual height of the garage . The garage itself will be eight feet (8 ' ) . The second story would be six foot four inches ( 6 ' 4 ' ) plus allowance for ceiling height . totaling another eight feet (8 ' ) . Com . Paul : No problem with proposed variance . Com . Windecker : No questions or objections . Com . Arbus : Asked what the unique circumstances were? The criteria of the Zoning Ordinance requires unique circumstances . Mrs . De Lizer explained that their house is very small and has very little storage space . The additional storage space would be beneficial if they were to sell the house . The house has a finished basement . One of their cars is an old Beetle and they need to store it inside the new garage . They plan to restore it someday , so they are keeping it as an antique . Com. Paul commented that without the additional space . they would not have room for storage . Mr . De Lizer added that he also wants the second story space to work on his hobby . which is electronics . He is close to retirement age . but they want to have the garage built now . Com. Entman: Said he understood there is hardship and the circumstances are unique . As long as the next door neighbors do not object , he has no problem with the variance . Ch. Heinrich: Referenced the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 4 , 1992 , which states : "The proposed garage . . . . will not affect the existing drainage pattern. " He had no objection. Com . Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board that the variance requested by Gerard and Linda De Lizer , relative to Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to Placement of Accessory Buildings and Structures - Height Restrictions . for the purpose of constructing a garage that would exceed the height limitation by one foot ( 1 ' ) be granted . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 . 1992 - Page Seven Materials are match the existing house in like kind and quality. Garage to be constructed pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the Village of B.G. Petitioner having exhibited hardship and unique circumstances , the proposed garage will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . The recommendation of the Village Engineer should be followed , that being : . . . "no alteration of the grade within five feet ( 5 ' ) of the property line or swale is allowed . ' Com . Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman. Paul , Windecker . Heinrich NAY - Arbus Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An Ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed on the Village Board Consent Agenda of the July 6 , 1992 meeting . D. 546 Crown Point Court , Myles and Elyse O' Desky Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to : Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations Myles O' Desky was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . There was a scriveners error in the notice . The address is Crown Point Court . not Drive . Mr . O' Desky summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . A patio was poured in 1986 with the intent of eventually constructing the screen porch and 42" footings were also poured at that time . 2 . The property abuts Willow Stream Park and the Farrington Ditch. They cannot use the patio because there are so many mosquitoes . The screen porch is necessary for them to sit outdoors . 3 . They have 2 growing sons and want to enjoy spending time with them on the porch. When they requested a 14 ' x 18 ' porch , they were informed the Ordinance only permits variances of up to 1/3 of the required rear yard , so the request is for a variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) . Mr . O' Desky said he has informed his neighbors of the proposed screened porch and there have been no objections . There were no neighbors present . The siding , roof and shingles will match the existing house . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Entman: Said he saw the house . With the park and ditch to the rear , there are no neighbors to be affected . The porch will be an improvement . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 . 1992 - Page Eight Com. Paul : No objections . Com. Windecker : No objections . Com . Arbus : No objections . Com . Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the petition of Myles and Elyse O'Desky, 546 Crown Point Court , for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to : Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a screened porch at the rear of the property that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback . Conditions being that the variance is not to exceed ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the rear set back ; and the proposed addition is to be built pursuant to , and in accordance with, plans and specifications approved by the Village . Materials are to match the existing structure . Variance is granted subject to the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 4 , 1992 , relative to drainage and that no alteration of the grade within five feet ( 5 ' ) of the property line or swale is allowed . Petitioner having demonstrated unique circumstances , the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker , Paul . Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days (July 2 , 1992 ) . E. 1311 Hidden Lake Drive , Lee and Nancy Singer Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Lee and Nancy Singer were sworn in. Com . Arbus announced that he lives next door to the Singers and said he would not comment or vote on their petition. Ch. Heinrich reminded Mr . and Mrs . Singer about the require- ment of four (4) affirmative votes to grant a variance and asked if they wanted to proceed after Com. Arbus announcement? The Singers opted to proceed . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mrs . Singer summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a fence that would extend nineteen feet ( 19 ' ) past the building line along Thompson Boulevard : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Nine 1 . To maximize the use of their back yard 2 . They purchased a corner lot to have more space . 3 . They have two young children and a dog so they need the fence for safety and protection from the traffic at the corner . 4 . The traffic will be heavier if/when Thompson Boulevard is extended across Buffalo Grove Road . The fence will be a five foot ( 5 ' ) picket style with 1-1 /2 inch spacing between boards . They have not spoken with the people who live to the rear . They talked with Lee Arbus , but he declined to comment . Ch. Heinrich said he looked at the property and observed that this would be the first fence going into the side yard along Thompson Boulevard . This situation is different because usually houses on corner lots have more room in the side yard than to the rear . The Singers have a large yard to enclose without a variance . Mr . Singer commented that they would be cutting off about 1/3 of their back yard without a variance . With their patio , if they put up a swing set , there would not be much room for the children and the dog to run around in. He cited a similar fence two houses away . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Drove down the block to the east and looked back at the property. The area is very open and there is a driveway along the rear lot line , so he would not want a fence to extend too far out . He said he would compromise and proposed to allow a fence extending ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line . Mr . Singer commented there are bushes along most of the adja- cent property line . These neighbors have not come to object . Ch. Heinrich responded that neighbors do not like to come forward because it causes bad feelings . One reason for having a Zoning Board of Appeals is to permit review of situations and prevent variances that would alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Windecker : Would not vote for a variance ten and a half feet ( 10 . 5 ' ) from the sidewalk , but he could support a variance ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the building line . Com. Entman: With the driveway to the rear , the end of the proposed fence would be too close to the driveway and would be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare . The area down Thompson Boulevard is very open and he would not want to see walls built . People should make themselves aware of any Village restrictions when they purchase corner lots . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Ten Com . Singer commented that their model projects at least ten feet ( 10 ' ) farther into the rear yard than many of their neighbors ' houses so they have a smaller back yard . They did talk to many of their neighbors and heard no objections . Com. Entman: Said he understood that they want to use as much of the property as possible , but they would nearly have a 2 , 000 square foot rear yard without a variance . Not sure he could support any variance . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 4 , 1992 , states : " . .we have reviewed the line-of-sight requirements at the subject location and find it is not affected by the proposed fence . " Ch. Heinrich: Was also hesitant to grant any variance . He explained the Singer ' s options : To Table until July 21 , 1992 , amend their petition, or ask for a vote on the variance as proposed . If denied , they can appeal to the Village Board . The Village Board generally upholds the ZBA decisions . Ch. Heinrich polled the Commissioners : Com . Paul : Variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) would be acceptable . Com. Windecker : Would support a variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) . He added that it is customary for commissioners to acknowledge that they are personally acquainted with petitioners and they do not comment or vote . Com . Entman: Repeated his concern about the line-of-sight from the neighbor ' s driveway but decided he could permit the fence to be ten feet ( 10 ' ) past the building line . Ch. Heinrich: Asked Mr . Schar to request a statement from the Village Engineer whenever there is a nearside driveway . He would consider a variance of no more than ten feet ( 10 ' ) and commented that a fence located there would not affect the neighbor ' s line-of-sight when exiting the driveway . Mr . and Mrs . Singer considered their options and agreed to amend their petition and asked for a variance to permit a fence to be located ten feet ( 10 ' ) from the building line . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Lee M. and Nancy D. Singer , 1311 Hidden Lake Drive , for variance of the Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts . for the purpose of constructing a five foot ( 5 ' ) open picket fence that would be located twenty feet (20 ' ) from the sidewalk along Thompson Boulevard . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Eleven The essential character is the neighborhood will not be altered and the fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare . Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul . Windecker , Entman , Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Arbus Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . 1 abstention. Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days (July 2 . 1992) . Com. Arbus commented that the Singers are wonderful neighbors . F . 1307 Witney Lane . Mark and Marlene Schwartz Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 36 . 020 - Pertaining to : Parking and Loading : Purpose : Construction of a circular driveway with two curb cuts on Witney Lane Mark Schwartz , 1307 Witney Lane , was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Ch. Heinrich read letters of objection from two neighbors . One from an anonymous person and one from Larry and Mary Hill . 1300 Witney Lane . Objections were based on concern for the safety of small children because of the additional curb cut . Mr . Mark Schwartz explained that the reasons they requested a variance are not for their personal use . They will continue to use the garage for their cars . They could not back out of it and use the circular driveway. The purpose of the circular driveway would be for other cars that come to their residence and must sometimes be parked overnight . They are also concerned with the safety of the small children who live on the street . Many families have basketball hoops on the driveways . For this reason . cars are being parked on the street . making it difficult to back out of the driveway and avoid backing into the cars which are parked in the street . The Schwartz ' have three growing boys . They anticipate that the family could someday have as many as five (5) cars . They do not want to add to the congestion of cars already on the street , especially in the winter . Another reason for seeking the variance is for the convenience of Mrs . Schwartz ' father when he comes to visit . He is a diabetic and has had several heart attacks , so a circular driveway would make it easier for him to enter the house . Mr . Schwartz presented photographs of similar sized lots with two curb cuts and commented that property is enhanced when tastefully landscaped . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twelve Ch. Heinrich said . based on his observation , the property is too narrow for two curb cuts . He personally has a wider lot on a cul-de-sac but he would not consider a circular driveway . They also have a two car garage and at times there are five cars that have to be shuffled around , but it can be done . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : Agreed with Ch . Heinrich' s comments and said the front yard would look like a parking lot because there would be no room left for any landscaping . The photographs showed one house with a truck and a van parked in front of the house . He would want to avoid this . It was noted that the pictures were not taken in Buffalo Grove . Ch. Heinrich said that when the ordinance was revised recently . it was to accommodate larger width lots with the houses to be set back farther . It would not work in this case . Mr . Schwartz asked what size lot would support a circular driveway? Mr . Schar said that zoning districts R-E, R-1 and R-2 would permit a circular driveway and the required widths at the building lines are 125 ft . , 100 ft . and 90 ft . . respectively . Com. Windecker : Observed that the photographs were of houses that are set back farther than the petitioner ' s house and there is attractive landscaping . He could not support the variance . Com. Arbus : Said he is acquainted with Mr . and Mrs . Schwartz . They live a block west of him and he is a very good friend of the Pritikins who live across the street from the Schartz ' . He has not discussed this situation with any of them . Com. Arbus said the number one thing he considers when review- ing any variance request is the affect it will have on most of the neighbors . Based on the letters from two neighbors , he could not support the variance . None of the people in the audience stated any objections . Mr . Jeff Pritikin, 1308 Witney Lane . was present . He had taken the pictures of circular driveways in Northbrook . The houses were set back 30 to 40 feet and the lots are from 70 to 80 feet wide . He has no objections to the proposed circular driveway. Com. Entman: Said he spoke to a neighbor who expressed concern with the speed issue . He could not support the request because the petitioners have not exhibited any unique circum- stances that warrant a circular driveway and , if permitted , it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Ch. Heinrich said the consensus of the ZBA Commissioners is negative and asked Mr . Schwartz if he had any other testimony? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Thirteen Mr . Schwartz asked if he could widen the driveway into a 3-car driveway? Some of his neighbors have 3-car garages and 3-car driveways . Ch. Heinrich said they would require an 80 foot width lot and the setback of the house would have to be a minimum of 30 feet . The plat of survey indicates that the lot meets these require- ments but they only have a 2-car garage . He asked Mr . Dempsey if it is necessary to have a 3-car garage to have a 3-car driveway? Mr . Dempsey said they would have to apply for variance of a different section in order to have a 3-car driveway without a 3-car garage . They could widen the driveway without a variance , but it could be no wider than 18 feet at the sidewalk . Mr . Schwartz said they were considering a different model house and asked for 3-car garage , but the builder told them it would not be permitted . They learned later that it would have been allowed but the foundation had already been poured . Mrs . Schwartz was present and commented that their neighbors across the street have cars parked on the street all the time and it is very difficult to back out of their driveway . She said she does often drive her boys to ball practice but she observes the speed limit and is careful of the small children. A 3-car driveway down to the street would be very helpful . Ch. Heinrich said he would support a 3-car driveway widened to the curb , but the Schwartz ' would have to reapply for another variance . Com. Paul : Would not have a problem if the driveway was widened out to the street . Com . Windecker : Would not support widening the driveway to the street . They can park two (2) cars in the garage and four (4) on the existing driveway . Mr . Schwartz responded that four (4) cars on the driveway would block the sidewalk. Com . Arbus : Would want to know how the neighbors would feel about widening the driveway. Said the house next door to his has a 3-car garage with a 3-car apron and there is still nine feet on either side . If the Schwartz ' extended their driveway all the way the property line it would be right next to the neighbor ' s driveway and there would be a very wide curb cut . A driveway could not be extended toward the house because there is a window well . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Fourteen Mr . Schwartz said his boys are only 8 , 10 and 12 years old now , but he wants to change his driveway from asphalt to cement and he does not want to wait until parking becomes an issue . Com . Entman said he could not commit himself to any decision. Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . and Mrs . Schwartz that if they with- drew their request they would lose their right to appeal a negative ZBA decision. Tabling was not advisable because even if 7 ZBA Commissioners are present , they would not get 4 votes . Com . Arbus made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the variance requested by Mark and Marlene Schwartz , 1307 Witney Lane . for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 36 . 030 . pertaining to Parking and Loading , for the purpose of constructing a circular driveway with two curb cuts on Witney Lane , be granted . The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and the proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com . Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - None NAY - Entman . Paul . Windecker . Arbus , Heinrich Motion Denied - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An ordinance will be prepared and this item will be placed on the Village Board Agenda of the July 6 , 1992 meeting . Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . and Mrs . Schwartz to attend the Village Board meeting if they want to present their case and try to have the ZBA decision changed . G. 399 Regent Drive , Douglas and Susan Millstone Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 . Pertaining to : Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations Mr . Gary Lyne , Lyne Construction, 337 Rosewood Avenue Buffalo Grove , IL 60089 (541-0503) was authorized to repre- sent Douglas and Susan Millstone by letter dated May 22 , 1992 . The Public Hearing Notice was read and Mr . Lyne was sworn in. He summarized Mr . and Mrs . Millstone ' s reasons for requesting a variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) in order to construct a screen porch: 1 . The variance would permit construction of an 18 ' x 13 ' screen porch and the porch would permit them to enjoy the outdoors without the annoyance of insects , etc . 2 . The screen porch will connect with the family room at the only viable location. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Fifteen The shingles will match the existing roof and the rest of the addition will be screens with cedar siding to match the house . Mr . Lyne said the Millstones have informed their adjacent neighbors . There were no objections and no objectors were present . The existing patio will be removed and a deck will be built . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Entman: No objections . The corner lot is large and there are bushes around . The proposed addition will not impinge on any of the neighbor ' s privacy . Com. Paul : No problem with variance . The addition would really be in the side yard . There are bushes and 2 trees between the addition and the neighbors to the south. Com. Windecker and Com. Arbus : No questions or objections . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 4 , 1992 , states : "The proposed addition will not affect the existing drainage pattern. " Com . Paul made the following motion: I move we grant the petition made by Douglas and Susan Millstone , 399 Regent Drive , for variance of Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a screened porch that would extend a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback . 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 - Entman , Arbus , Windecker , Paul , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days (July 2 , 1992 ) . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Sixteen H. 920 Knollwood Drive , Lynn and Mary Herther Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 , Pertaining to : Area . Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations Lynn and Mary Herther were sworn in . The Public Hearing Notice was read . Mr . Herther summarized their reasons for requesting a variance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) for the purpose of constructing a screened porch: 1 . The screen porch would permit them to enjoy the outdoors without insects . 2 . Their daughter is allergic to mosquito bites and she cannot go out on the patio . 3 . The existing block patio is deteriorating and it would be nice to replace it with the porch. They have informed their neighbors of the proposed plan and there have been no objections . The porch will match the existing house , with wood painted to match the siding and shingles to match the roof . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : The house backs up to the retention basin . which breeds mosquitoes . No problem with variance . Com. Windecker : No questions and no objections . Com. Arbus : Represented Mr . and Mrs . Herther when they bought the house , but has had very little contact with them since . He had no objections . Com. Entman: No questions or objections . Com . Arbus made the following motion: I move we grant the request of Lynn and Mary Herther , 920 Knollwood Drive , for variance of Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 , pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the purpose of constructing a screened porch at the rear of the property that would encroach a distance of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback . The roof shingles are to match the existing shingles . Petitioners have demonstrated unique circumstances . in that their daughter is allergic to mosquito bites , and the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Seventeen The Village Engineer ' s Review, dated June 4 , 1992 , states : "The proposed addition will not affect the existing drainage pattern. " Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Paul , Windecker , Arbus , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . Permit may be issued in 15 days (July 2 , 1992) . I . 440 Foxford Drive , Michael and Kandy Holton Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts Michael Holton was sworn in and the Public Notice was sworn in . Mr . Holton summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood privacy fence along 30 feet of the rear lot line and the interior lot line : 1 . A six foot (6 ' ) fence would eliminate the noise from Buffalo Grove Road which is approximately 70 - 75 feet away from the interior lot line . 2 . They have a 7 year old daughter and a baby on the way , so they want to provide security and privacy for them. 3 . Since Dominick ' s opened up , there has been a significant increase in traffic . 4 . Construction trucks create a lot dirt and dust . Ch. Heinrich commented that Canterbury Fields has an existing wrought iron fence along Buffalo Grove Road . This lot does not abut Buffalo Grove Road and there is one buildable lot in between. The proposed fence would be a wall between the Holtons and their future neighbors . Mr . Schar said this fence must be approved by the builder and the Homeowner ' s Association. Mr . Holton said he is aware of these requirements and he will secure the proper documents after the variance is granted . Ch. Heinrich hesitated to permit the proposed fence without the approval of Dartmoor because it might make it more difficult to sell the lot . He asked if one foot ( 1 ' ) will make much of a difference in the noise factor . Mr . Holton said he has discussed the fence with Dave Obos , Dartmoor ' s Superintendent . Another reason for requesting a six foot (6 ' ) fence is that the lot slopes down at the rear and the fence will give them more privacy around the patio . The higher fence will protect the lot from the wind . They plan to put trees along the rear lot line to screen the fence . The neighbor to the rear does not object to the proposed fence . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Eighteen Ch. Heinrich said that when the next house is built , it will block a lot of the traffic noise and dirt , etc . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Entman: Agreed that the difference between a six foot (6 ' ) and a five foot (5 ' ) fence may not help much, but he would not want to permit the variance until after the house is built on the next lot . The purchaser may or may not want a six foot (6 ' ) fence along the interior lot line . He added that a five foot ( 5 ' ) fence may take care of the problems . Com . Paul : Agreed that it is premature to allow a six foot (6 ' ) fence without hearing from someone who has a direct bearing on the situation. He could not support the variance at this time . Com. Windecker : Agreed with Com. Entman ' s and Com . Paul ' s comments . He would want to have the consent of the association and the builder before granting the request . Ch. Heinrich recommended Tabling the petition until after the approvals from Dartmoor and the Homeowner ' s Association have been given. It would then be possible for the ZBA to act , but there is no certainty that a variance would be granted . Mr . Holton said Dartmoor was notified of the variance and has not objected . He was willing to seek the written approvals and come back to discuss the situation with the ZBA. Com . Entman questioned whether the ZBA could approve a variance without the approval of the Homeowner ' s Association. Mr . Dempsey responded that the ZBA could grant the variance because the Village does not enforce private covenants . Com. Arbus : Expressed the same concerns as the other Commis- sioners but questioned whether , regardless of Dartmoor and/or Association approval , the approval of one six foot (6 ' ) fence would make it necessary to approve all other similar requests? Ch. Heinrich said that the ZBA would convey to the Association that the approval of Mr . Holton' s six foot (6 ' ) does not bind either the Village or the Association to any type of precedence Com. Arbus : Said he would be hard pressed to approve the fence at this time . He went into the sales trailer to see if the adjacent lot is buildable . Mr . Holton is close to Dominick ' s . Mr . Holton explained that they knew about the Buffalo Grove Road expansion when they purchased their home two years ago . They knew there could someday be a house next to theirs and it will be even closer to Buffalo Grove Road when it is widened . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Nineteen Ch. Heinrich said he understood how bad the Buffalo Grove Road traffic is but the when a house is constructed on the next lot , it will do an effective job of blocking the noise , etc . Mr . Holton expressed doubt whether the lot will ever be sold , because of its location, and said that the six foot (6 ' ) fence will help his cause . He thought he could get Pat Taylor of Dartmoor and the Association to sign off on the fence . Assuming that Dartmoor and the Association recommended that a variance be granted , Ch. Heinrich polled the Commissioners : Com . Arbus : Said he wasn' t sure if he could support the variance . Com . Windecker : Would consider the situation at that time . He has lived on busy roads and knows that there is not truck traffic all the time and people do get used to vehicles . He didn' t think the one foot ( 1 ' ) difference would make much difference as a buffer for noise or reduction of dust and dirt . Mr . Holton said he felt it would help his family and would not be a detriment to any of the neighbors . Com. Paul : Considering the future homeowner of the lot next to the petitioner ' s . It is probably the worst lot in the area . With the builder ' s approval he might possibly vote for the variance . He would like to talk with the purchasers . Com. Entman: Would be better if they could talk to the purchaser , but that may or may not ever take place . Assuming the variance was granted , purchasers would know they are buying a lot with a neighboring six foot (6 ' ) fence and they might be able to use it as a good negotiation point to get a good deal . It would be a bad scenario , if the lot is sold before the fence is constructed . Without a disclosure clause , it would be an unfair situation. Doesn' t see that a six foot (6 ' ) fence is really any better , but if the builder and the association do not have any objection, he would consider the new input . Ch. Heinrich explained the options to Mr . Holton. They could vote on the petition and if denied , the decision could be appealed to the Village Board . The request could be Tabled and Mr . Holton could go to Dartmoor and the Association , but even with their approval the variance could be denied , so the process could be delayed . Mr . Holton elected to Table until July 21 , 1992 and said he would bring in written approvals . There were no comments from the audience . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty Ch. Heinrich directed that Dartmoor and the Association be notified that each variance is considered on its own merit and there is no precedence for granting a variance . Their approval is not to be construed as Village approval . Com . Entman made the following motion: I move we Table the request of Michael and Kandy Holton , 440 Foxford Drive . for variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 , pertaining to Residential Districts , for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood fence along the rear lot lien an the interior lot line , until the next regularly scheduled meeting , July 21 . 1992 . Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker , Paul , Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion to Table Passed - 5 to 0 . J . 500 Half Day Road - Harris Bank Wall Sign on East Elevation Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 , Business Districts Mr . John Byrnes . Senior Vice President , Harris Bank Barrington, 201 South Grove Avenue , Barrington, IL 60010 ( 381-4000) was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Byrnes said the reason for requesting a variance is for the purpose of installing a wall sign on the east elevation of the Harris Bank at the Woodland Commons Shopping Center . Harris Bank is a free-standing building on an outlot at the shopping center . Two wall signs are permitted facing the two right-of- ways , but there is no sign on the east elevation to identify the building to people within the center or those traveling westbound . Ch. Heinrich asked if the lack of a sign on the east elevation will affect business? A bank is not normally a transient facility and people living in Buffalo Grove will know where the bank is located . Mr . Byrnes replied that people coming into the shopping center do not know where the building is . The signs on the building are very conservative and the bank is not identified on the Woodland Commons Ground Signs . Ch. Heinrich asked if they have other free standing buildings and how these buildings are identified? Mr . Byrnes said that the building in South Barrington has a ground sign : in Lake Barrington Shores the sign is part of the center ' s identification sign; and in Crystal Lake the signs are on the building. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty One Ch. Heinrich noted the Appearance Commission recommended approval on June 11 , 1992 . Comments from Commissioners : Com . Paul : Considers the sign to be an information sign. The shopping center is large and if someone new to Buffalo Grove is looking for the bank they would not know where the building is located from within the center . He would recommend approval . Com. Windecker : The sign will be identical to the other signs and is needed to identify the building from the east side of the center . He will support the variance . Com . Arbus : Agreed . Said it will improve the side of the building and will also be good advertising for Buffalo Grove . Com . Entman: No objections . No comments from the audience . Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees approval of the variance requested by Harris Bank , of the Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Business Districts , be granted that would permit construction of a wall sign on the east elevation. Sign to be constructed according to plans , drawings and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village . Sign to be approved according to Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section B. Com . Entman seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus . Windecker , Paul . Entman, Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An Ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed on the Village Board Consent Agenda of the July 6 , 1992 meeting . K. 300-350-400 E. Dundee Road , Grove Terrace Condominiums Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 010 - Residential Districts Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 - Ground Signs Mr . Mike Williams of Saturn Signs , 830 Seton Court , Wheeling , IL represented Grove Terrace , per letter of authorization dated , May 19 , 1992 . The Public Hearing Notice was read . The Appearance Commission reviewed the signs and recommended a variance on May 14 , 1992 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty Two Mr . Williams was sworn in and he summarized the reasons for requesting a variance : 1 . There is no building identification. 2 . Two signs are requested for aesthetic reasons and for better visibility from both directions . 3 . The sandblasted signs are small and will blend well with the landscaping . They will also be incorporated into the existing brick columns . The Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 4 , 1992 , states : "From a sight distance standpoint , the east location would be acceptable five feet (5 ' ) back from the property line ; the west location would be acceptable eight feet (8 ' ) from the property line . However , both will have to be set back further due to a watermain conflict . " Mr . Williams said they would comply with the Village Engineer ' s Review and they always check all the utilities before instal - ling signs . Mr . Schar said the signs would have to be set back a minimum of eight feet (8 ' ) and would require the Village Engineer ' s approval . Comments from Commissioners ; Com . Paul : Would hesitate to approve the signs without knowing exactly where the signs are going to be located . He ' s not sure where the brick columns are located. He assumes they are north of the water main, but they may be at the southernmost point where the sign could be located and if the signs are setback farther , the brick columns could block out the signs Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . Williams to consult with the Village Engineer and submit a drawing giving the exact location of each sign and its relation to the brick columns . The item will have to be Tabled until July 21 . 1992 . Com. Arbus asked if it was possible to identify Grove Terrace with one sign? Mr . Williams said one sign was considered . If it was parallel to Dundee Road , it would be obstructed and with the speed of traffic , it would not work well . If a double-faced sign was located on the island , it would also be obstructed with trees . Com. Paul made a motion to Table until July 21 , 1992 . Motion was seconded by Com . Windecker . Voice Vote - Aye Unanimously. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty Three • L . 2150 East Lake Cook Road - Riverwalk Sign Code . Section 14 . 20 . 030 , Business Districts Mr . Timothy Beechick , Partner , Hamilton Partners , Inc . , 1130 Lake Cook Road , Buffalo Grove , IL 60089 (459-9225) was sworn in. Notice was published in the Buffalo Grove Herald on May 29 . 1992 . Mr . Beechick said Hamilton Partners is the managing agent and developer of the Riverwalk project . Mr . Beechick presented the site plan and sketch of the proposed signs . They are requesting a variance for the size , height and location on the property because of the impending construction of the overpass at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue . Proper identification in keeping with the high profile that has been established by the Riverwalk Development is needed along Lake Cook Road and on Milwaukee Avenue . Workshop sessions have been held with the Zoning, Board of Appeals and the Appearance Commission to discuss the whole sign concept for the development . The proposed sign , in size and detail , is almost identical to the collective agreement that was made during the workshop sessions . Only slight changes have been made . i . e . the size of the base has been increased to give the public more view of the granite . The Appearance Commission reviewed the signs on June 11 , 1992 and recommended that the variance be granted . Ch. Heinrich asked where Lake Cook Road begins to elevate and what the height will be in relation to the sign? Mr . Beechick said there will be a grade change just to the west of the Des Plaines River . Riverwalk will probably be about 2-1/2 feet below the grade of Lake Cook Road at the point where there is an entry into the development and where the sign will be located . The height of this sign is very important because there will be a right turn into Riverwalk from the off ramp that will be installed . The sign will actually be setback a distance of sixty feet (60 ' ) from the Lake Cook right-of-way. After condemnation of the land has taken place and the sign will be setback a distance of fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the new property line . Since signs are to be setback the same distance as the height up to twenty feet (20 ' ) , the proposed twenty-four foot ( 24 ' ) sign would require a variance of four feet (4 ' ) at this time . even though it will be setback a distance of sixty feet (60 ' ) from the right-of-way . Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Dempsey if variance would give the sign "grandfather rights?" Mr . Dempsey answered that the variance would be valid and the sign would become non-conforming . If the sign should be destroyed . it could not be replaced without another variance . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty Four Ch. Heinrich established that the twenty-four foot (24 ' ) height of the sign is necessary to give drivers enough visibility to safety enter the Riverwalk development . The sign on Milwaukee Avenue will be setback a distance of thirty feet (30 ' ) to permit a future walkway around the development . The sign is located within the area of the detention pond for two reasons : 1 . The developer does not have control of the property around the entrance which is to the north. To date , they have not been successful in working out an agreement with the owners of this property . The situation may change in the future after the Milwaukee improvements are completed . The proposed sign will help people to identify Riverwalk . 2 . They do not want the sign located too close to the veterinary office because people may mistake that driveway as the entrance to Riverwalk . The monument sign will not be relocated even if the property at the entrance is someday obtained . An agreement may be reached that would permit a small ground sign that does not block the gas station or the restaurant . Mr . Beechick said they want the signs to be identical . People driving on Milwaukee Avenue will never see the Lake Cook Road sign and it is very important to have Riverwalk identified from both directions . There will be a traffic signal at the corner so when people are stopped they will be able to see the sign. Ch. Heinrich commented that the signs are different and very much improved from the thirty-one foot (31 ' ) signs that were originally proposed . He has no objections . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Paul : Questioned how people traveling east on Lake Cook Road would ever get to the building? By the time they cross Milwaukee Avenue , it is too late . He suggested turning the sign on Milwaukee at a different angle so that it could be seen and give people time to exit and go under Lake Cook Road . Mr . Beechick said they are aware of this problem and there is no good answer to Com . Paul ' s question. Customers and clients will be given directions when they call for appointments , so people will learn how to get there . There is only so much access to the right-of-way and they must work with what they have . They have discussed how to get the best exposure . They may be able to get an off-premise sign on the south side of Lake Cook Road west of Milwaukee Avenue . Com. Paul : Has no problem with the signs and locations . Com . Windecker : No problem with the signs or location. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty Five Com . Arbus : Asked if the plans for the overpass are complete? Mr . Beechick said construction of the off ramps is scheduled for September and they will actually become Lake Cook Road until the bridge is completed . The land has not been taken and they have not been informed of anything definite . The project will take more than two years to construct with funds coming from the State and the County. Com. Entman: Said he has talked with Mr . Beechick about the possible leasing of space in the Riverwalk building , but this will not influence his opinion. The proposed signs have been scaled down from the original proposal and he has no problem with the size , height and location in relation to the size of the project and the buildings . He asked if other tenants will be included on the signs (with Zenith)? Mr . Beechick said they will be requesting additional copy to be installed on the signs in the future , but it will always be the same concept and copy will be presented to the Appearance Commission for approval . The signs will have white internal illumination. Any future directional signs will be submitted for approval . They hope to have the Lake Cook Road sign installed this year , but they will delay installing the one on Milwaukee Avenue . They have a significant amount of landscaping to be relocated . Mr . Dempsey informed Mr . Beechick that if the State takes the property before the signs are in place , they could not be put up without variance of another regulation of the Sign Code . The signs will only become non-conforming if they are existing when the land is taken. Mr . Beechick thanked Mr . Dempsey for the information and said they will make this a condition of the agreement that they will have with the State . He will make sure that the State does not take Title to the land before the signs have been installed . Com . Arbus made the following motion: I move we recommend that the Village Board of Trustees grant the request made by Hamilton Partners for variance of the Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 , pertaining to Business Districts , for the purpose of constructing two permanent monument signs : one ( 1 ) on Lake Cook Road and one ( 1 ) on Milwaukee Avenue for property located at 2150 East Lake Cook Road . known as Riverwalk , as per the site plan and drawings provided by Hamilton Partners . Petitioners having demonstrated that the provisions of Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section A have been met in that : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty Six 1 . The literal interpretation and strict applica- tion of the provisions and requirements of this title would cause undue and unnecessary hardships to the sign user because of unique and unusual conditions pertaining to the specific building or parcel or property in question ; and 2 . The granting of the requested variance would not be materially detrimental to the property owners in the vicinity ; and 3 . The unusual conditions applying to the specific property do not apply generally to other properties in the Village ; and 4 . The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the general objective of this title of moderating the size , number and obtrusive placement of signs and the reduction of clutter . Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Mr . Dempsey added that the variance is subject to the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 4 , 1992 , which states : "Due to the existing proposed configuration of Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue , there is no applicable sight distance . Lake Cook Road should be located by an accurate survey as this right-of-way line has not yet been determined . The Milwaukee Avenue location needs to be reviewed due to its close proximity to Village utilities . " Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Paul . Windecker , Arbus . Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An Ordinance will be prepared and the item will be placed on the Village Board Consent Agenda of the July 6 , 1992 meeting . M. Route 83 and Bank Lane - Winchester Estates Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 010 - Residential Districts Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 030 - Ground Signs Mr . Mike Larsen, Vice-President , Red Seal Development Corp. 425 Huehl Road , Building Eighteen , Northbrook , IL 60062 was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read . Mr . Larsen summarized the reasons for requesting a variance is for the purpose of constructing two ground signs for identifi- cation of the Winchester Estates subdivision. The main monu- ment sign, located on Route 83 has been incorporated into the landscaping and will enhance the retention pond area . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty Seven Access into the project is off of Bank Lane so the second identification sign is being requested for that intersection. Ch. Heinrich noted that some of the comments made at the Appearance Commission meeting (June 11 . 1992) are not correct and the variances are required as published . Comments from Commissioners ; Com. Paul : No objections . Because of the way Route 83 curves . it would be difficult to see more than two of the signs at one time , probably not even two signs . Com. Arbus : No problem if the Village Engineer ' s Review, dated June 4 , 1992 , is complied with, i . e . the reference to the water distribution system being in close proximity to both signs and their exact location to be reviewed by the Operation Division. Mr . Larsen agreed to work with Mr . Kuenkler and Mr . Rigsby. Ch. Heinrich said this would be made a condition of the variance . Com . Windecker : No problem. Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Dempsey about the homeowner ' s associa- tion being responsible for maintaining the signs and if so , should it be written up in the variance? Mr . Larsen said he will verify if this requirement is written up in the declaration and covenants . If not he agreed to the stipulation. Com . Entman made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the petition of Winchester Estates at Route 83 and Bank Lane , for variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 010 pertaining to Residential Districts ; and Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 . 070 , pertaining to Ground Signs , for the purpose of constructing two ground signs , be granted subject to the following conditions : 1 . Adequate assurance be given that the home- owner ' s association or some other entity will be given the responsibility for the maintenance of the signs . 2 . The variance is subject to the Village Engineer ' s Review , dated June 4 . 1992 , which has been read into the record . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 , 1992 - Page Twenty Eight 3 . Signs are to be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications and materials approved by the Village . Location to be pursuant to the site plan submitted with the application for permit . in compliance with the Village Engineer ' s Review . 4 . Variance granted pursuant to Sign Code , Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section B. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Arbus , Windecker , Paul , Entman , Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached . An Ordinance will be prepared and this item will be placed on the Village Board Consent Agenda of the July 6 . 1992 meeting . V . ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr . Dempsey announced that the Sign Code Revision is nearing completion and something should be ready for submittal in July . Ch. Heinrich asked if a change is being considered to permit free- standing buildings on corner lots to have additional wall signs? Mr . Dempsey responded that the Village will retain better control of each individual situation, if the third sign is not automatically given. Ch. Heinrich asked if the text amendment permitting placement of air conditioners on corner lots has been addressed? Mr . Dempsey was uncertain when this will be done . Motion to Table all the unapproved minutes was made by Com. Arbus and seconded by Com. Windecker . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously . VI . ADJOURNMENT Com . Arbus made a motion to adjourn. Com . Windecker seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 50 P.M. Respectfully submitted . Oder - Shirley Ba Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 16 . 1992 - Page Twenty Nine