1992-09-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY . SEPTEMBER 15 . i992
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 : 0 P . M . on
Tuesday . September 15 . 1992 at the Village Hail . 50 Raupp Boulevard .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : M . Kearns , J . Paul . B . Entman . L . Windecker ,
L . Arbus and R . Heinrich . QUORUM .
Commissioners Absent : None
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar . Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney : Tom Dempsey
Village Board Liaison : Bruce Kahn , Trustee
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 18 , 1992 - Motion to approve as submitted was made by
Com . Windecker and seconded by Corr . Kearns .
Roil Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Paul . Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
ABSTAIN - Entman and Arbus
Motion Passed - 4 to O . 2 abstentions
Minutes of August 18 . 1992 were approved and will be placed on file .
IV . BUSINESS
A . 55 West Dundee Road , Buffalo Grove Car Care
Sign Code . Section 14 . 40 . 020
Installation of a Manual Changeabie Copy Si n
Mr . Ron Hayward . owner of Buffalo Grove Car Care . 55 West
Dundee Road . was present but the sign company representative
was not , so the item was postponed until the end of the
meeting . Mr . Hayward left before the last item was discussed
and did not return .
Com . Kearns made a motion to Table until October 20 . 1992 .
Com . Arbus seconded the motion .
Voice Vote was AYE Unanimously .
Buffalo Grove Car Care will be scheduled as Oid Business at
the October 20 . 1992 Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing .
B. 41 Carlyle Lane . William and Cynthia Telione
Fence Code . Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Mr . William Tellone . 41 Carlyle Lane , was sworn in and the
public hearing notice was read . Mr . Telione summarized the
reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of construct-
ing a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood fence that would extend past the
building line along Carlyle Lane : :
1 . The fence will provide safety and security
for their two small children .
2 . The fence will confine their large dog and
allow him freedom to exercise .
2 . They need privacy . The existing trees and
shrubbery will screen the proposed fence .
3 . The lot slopes down toward the sidewalk and
the fence will not appear to be 6 feet high.
Ch. Heinrich observed that the lot is very large and has more
permitted yard space than on most corner lots . He asked why
they wanted to extend the fence past the building line?
Mr . Tellone replied they are planning to have an inground pool
installed in the side yard area .
Ch. Heinrich commented that there is still a lot of room on the
lot without a variance . Based on the slope of the lot . he does
not object to the six foot (6 ' ) height .
The Village Engineers Line-of-Sight Review , dated September
11 . 1992 , states : "The abutting property is a near side drive-
way which is not affected by the proposed fence .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Paul : Objected to the height and the shape of the fence .
The proposed location ranges from 20 feet to 13 feet from the
sidewalk and he would prefer it to be parallel to the sidewalk .
following the same curve . He questioned the location of the
proposed fence with relation to the trees?
Mr . Teilone said there is a berm in the area where three trees
are planted a distance of 5 feet to 8 feet from the sidewalk .
The trees will not be in 1 ine with the fence . He has talked to
his neighbors and agreed to end the fence along the rear lot
line a distance of 25 ' from the sidewalk so it will be safe for
them to exit their driveway. The fence would follow the curve
of the roadway at the 13 foot distance then be brought back to
the 25 foot distance .
Com . Paul : Would grant a variance for the fence to be parallel
to and no closer than twenty feet ( 20 ' ) from the sidewalk .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 15 . 1992 - Page Two
Com . Windecker : Objected to the fence extending 42 ' from the
side of the house . Asked if the fence would be six feet (6 ' )
all the way around the property?
Mr . Teilone said it is their intention to have the fence six
feet (6 ' ) in height all the around the yard . They have
discussed the proposed fence with all the neighbors that were
notified . Mr . and Mrs . Poore , 39 Carlyle Lane . (owners of the
property to the east ) do not object to the 6 foot height .
Mr . David Neurman , 43 Carlyle Lane , was present . His house is
to the rear of the petitioner ' s and he objected to the fence
being twenty feet (20 ' ) from the sidewalk along his driveway .
When he talked it over with the Teiiones and they reached an
agreement to end the fence twenty-five feet ( 25 ' ) from the
sidewalk on the south side of the subject property . He had no
objection to the six foot ( 6 ' ) height because it wiii provide
some privacy for his family also .
Ch. Heinrich said he does not see a reason for any variance
considering the agreement on a distance of twenty-five feet
(25) from the sidewalk at the south end of the lot , the size ,
configuration and the buildable area on the lot . The bulk of
the lot is usable and only a small amount of land would be
gained going five feet (5 ' ) out to the side .
Com . Windecker : Said there are very few fences in the area and
a six foot ( 6 ' ) fence would be detrimental to the character of
the neighborhood . so he would only support a five foot (5 ' )
fence ail the way around . The fence would have to be the same
distance from the sidewalk . whether twenty feet ( 20 ' ) . twenty-
five feet (25 ' ) or thirty fee;, (30 ' ) .
Com . Arbus : Said he observed the area from his car at differ-
ent times and tried to visualize the proposed fence . He agreed
with Com . Windecker : No to the six foot (6 ' ) height and the
fence would have to parallel the sidewalk . He had a problem
granting any variance because a five foot ( 5 ' ) variance would
not make much of a difference in the amount of space that would
be gained .
Com . Kearns : Expressed the same reservations about a six foot
(6 ' ) fence in such an open area and added that a five foot ( 5 ' )
fence constructed at the building line would still be in the
front yard of the neighbors to the south. He would not be able
to support any variance .
Com. Entman: Reiterated the previous comments . This is an
unusually large corner lot with a lot of usable space in an
area with no other fences . The next door neighbors would bear
the brunt of a six foot (6 ' ) fence and there is no reason for
the minimal variance that was agreed upon. The proposed fence
would be detrimental to the public health , safety and welfare .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 15 . 1992 - Page Three
Ch . Heinrich informed the petitioners that there is no support
for the variance into the side yard or the six root (6 ' ) height
and he didn ' t know of any modification that would change the
Commissioner ' s minds .
Mrs . Teilone said they really need a fence for privacy and for
the safety of their two small children . They also have a large
dog who needs space in which to run . If they construct a fence
along the building line , it will cut their yard space in half .
Ch. Heinrich explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals must
look out for the rights of all Village citizens , including the
petitioners and neighbors . Variances are sometimes granted for
corner lots because they usually have very small rear yards .
Not following the curve would be aesthetically detrimental to
all parties . There is no hardship and no reason for a six foot
(6 ' ) fence . A five foot (5 ' ) fence can be constructed along
the building line without a variance .
Mr . Tellone responded that they purchased a large lot and they
cannot put the pool where they want to without the variance .
Com . Paul made the following motion:
I move we grant the request made by William and
Cynthia Tellone at 41 Carlyle Lane for variance
of Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 . pertaining to
Residential Districts , for the purpose of con-
structing a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood fence past the
building line that would be twenty feet ( 20 ' )
from the sidewalk on the south portion and
thirteen feet off the radius off the sidewalk
at the front of the house on the north portion.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roil Call Vote : AYE - None
NAY - Kearns . Entman . Paul . Windecker
Arbus and Heinrich
Motion DENIED - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . and Mrs . Tellone of their right
to appeal to the Village Board of Trustees on Oct . 5 , 1992 .
They have fifteen ( 15 ' ) days to file a written request with
the Director of Building and Zoning - September 30 , 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 15 , 1992 - Page Four
C . 656 White Pine Road , Thomas Bozek
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020
Enclosure of Existing Balcony at Front of House
Mr . Thomas Bozek , 656 White Pine Road , was sworn in and the
public hearing notice was read . Mr . Bozek summarized the
reasons for requesting a variance :
I . The foundation of the house is right at the
twenty-five foot (25 ' ) set back line .
2 . The balcony on the front of the house is
lost space . They want to enlarge the living
room by enclosing the 4 ' x 16 ' balcony .
3 . The sliding doors , leading to the balcony ,
need to be replaced and they would like to
• put in a bow window for increased light .
4 . The Bozeks had no children when they
purchased the house . They now have three
(3) children and need move living space .
5 . They like the neighborhood and do not want
to move .
Mr . Bozek said they have informed their neighbors of the
plan and there have been no objections .
If the variance is granted , they plan to reside the front
of the house and replace the existing bedroom windows .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Kearns : No objections . Confirmed that the Bozeks would
have a financial hardship if they have to relocate to a larger
house because the size of the family has increased . Variance
will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood .
Com. Entman: No problem . Considering the size of the house
and the size of the family , the extra space is warranted .
There is not much else that can be done with the model and the
circumstances are unique .
Com . Paul : The proposal will improve the house and will not
have any impact on the neighborhood . No problem.
Com . Windecker : Asked if the bow window was included in the
variance . Mr . Bozek said the window would come out about a
foot and a half ( 1-1 /2 ' ) . It is not a bay window.
Com. Arbus : No problem . The neighborhood will benefit .
Mr . Dempsey explained the variance is necessary to bring the
house into compliance because the roof overhang projects into
the required front setback . Only one motion is necessary .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 15 . 1992 - Page Five
Com . Entman made the following motion:
I move the petition of Thomas Bozek , 656 White Pine Road ,
for variance of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 ,
pertaining to Area . Height , Bulk an Setback Requirements .
for the purpose of enclosing the existing balcony at the
front of the house that would encroach a distance of
three and one-half feet (3-1 /2 ' ) into the required
twenty-five foot ( 25 ' ) front yard setback and bring the
principal structure in to compliance with the
required front yard setback , be granted on both counts ,
subject to the following conditions :
I . Materials used for the construction are
to match the house in like kind and quality.
2 . Construction is to be pursuant to plans and
specifications approved by the Village .
3 . The encroachment is to be no more than 3-1 /2 feet
into the required twenty-five foot (25 ' ) front
yard setback .
4 . Variance is granted such that the existing
principal structure is brought into compliance
with the required front yard setback .
Petitioner having demonstrated unique circumstances , the
proposed variances will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion.
Roil Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Entman . Paul , Windecker .
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days - October 1 . 1992 .
D. Giordano ' s . 270 N . Mc Henry Road/Town Center
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 44 . 060 . E. 6 . a . ( ix)
Installation of Wall Sign on South Elevation
Mr . Scott Lovell , Landmark Outdoor Advertising Co . . Inc . .
7424 Industrial Avenue , Chesterton , IN 46304 ( 219-762-9577)
and Mr . Thanos Kourliouros , Restaurant Operations Manager of
Giordano ' s Enterprises , Inc . . 308 W. Randolph . Chicago , IL
60606 ( 312-641-6500) represented Melvin Simon & Assoc . , Inc .
Mr . Dempsey verified that the letter with the diagram of the
sign dated August 3 , 1992 and signed by Judy A. Murtaugh were
sufficient authorization.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 15 . 1992 - Page Six
Ch. Heinrich explained the reason for the variance . The
proposed sign will be located on a corner of the building , but
not on an elevation facing a dedicated right-of-way . This has
been the interpretation of the Building Department relating to
other Town Center businesses . Town Center signs exhibit unique
circumstances .
The Appearance Commission reviewed and recommended the sign on
August i3 . 1992 .
A site plan of Town Center was reviewed . Giordano ' s is on the
southeast corner of the building north of the interior road
leading past Deerfield ' s Bakery and the Post Office out to
Buffalo Grove Rd . The proposed sign will be on the south
elevation of the building and Mr . Kourliouros said it will give
exposure to people driving through the shopping center . Many
people cut through to avoid the traffic . The sign on the east
elevation facing Mc Henry Road cannot be seen too well . The
proposed sign will be 8 ' long and fits in the space within the
canopy of the building and is only the logo style name .
Ch. Heinrich said the ZBA wants Town Center businesses to
succeed and the sign will help serve this purpose . Giordano ' s
name is well known and 'word of mouth" advertising will also be
advantageous .
Trustee Kahn commented that approval has been given by Lake
County DOT to install a stop light at Old Checker and Buffalo
Grove Road . When Deerfield ' s opens . a lot more cross traffic
will be generated and the sign will be very visible to shoppers
coming from the south end of Town Center .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Paul : Observed the sign area and agreed it will identify
the restaurant from the south end of the shopping center better
than the sign on the front elevation ( east ) .
Com . Windecker . Com . Arbus . Com. Kearns . and Com . Entman:
Said they had no problem with the variance .
Com . Kearns made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that
Giordano ' s , 270 N. Mc Henry Road , be granted a variance of
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 44 . 060 . E. 6 . a( ix) pertaining
to Town Center Wall Signs , for the purpose of installing a
wall sign on the south elevation.
Com . Paul seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman . Paul , Windecker ,
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Item will be placed on the Village
Board Consent Agenda for Monday , October 5 , 1992 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 15 . i992 - Page Seven
E. Pewter Showcase , 206 N. Mc Henry Road/Town Center
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 44 . 060 . E . 6 . a( ix)
Installation of Wall Sign on the North Elevation
Mr . Philip Schramm , owner of Pewter Showcase . 206 N. Mc Henry
Road (634-0620) and Mr . Herman Hefler , Speedy Sign-A-Rama .
70 W . Dundee Road made the presentation. A letter , dated
August 17 . 1992 , from Melvin Simon & Associates , Inc .
accepted as authorization and approval of the sign.
Mr . Schramm requested a sign on the north elevation of the
building . The length of this elevation is forty feet (40 ' ) and
without a sign it looks like there is no open store there . The
sign will be seen by people using the interior road and from
Giordano ' s parking lot , as well as the new businesses in Phase
II .
Pewter Showcase has been in business for 17 years . They
specialize in pewter items , such as beer mugs , coffee services .
baby cups , etc . They have the largest selection in the nation
and customers are often referred to them from other stores .
The site plan was reviewed . Pewter Showcase is the last store
in Phase I and is close to the bridal shop . the tuxedo store
and flower store . Pewter Showcase has a bridal registry and
the businesses will help each other . The proposed sign will
give identification.
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Windecker : No problem . People , shopping in other stores ,
will see the sign and return when they have a need .
Com . Paul , Com . Kearns , and Com. Arbus : Said . 'No problem. '
Com . Entman: Asked about the length of the sign.
Mr . Hefler explained that they were originally given a space of
14 ' 6" to fill but they have been notified by Melvin Simon that
sign should be about nineteen feet ( 19 ' ) long and they will
comply . The letters will be 24" inch with serifs - University
Bold Type .
Com . Arbus made the following motion :
I move we recommend that the Corporate Authorities grant
the request made by Pewter Showcase , 206 N. Mc Henry Road ,
for variance of Zoning Ordinance ,
Section 17 . 44 . 060 . E. 6 .a . ( ix) pertaining to Town Center
Wall Signs , for the purpose of installing a wall sign on
the north elevation.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 15 . 1992 - Page Eight
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Entman , Paul . Windecker .
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Item will be placed on the Village Board
Consent Agenda for Monday , October 5 , 1992 .
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Text Amendment regarding Negative Recommendations
Mr . Tom Dempsey proposed the amendment to avoid having the Village
Board hear applications for variations that were given a negative
recommendation by the ZBA unless they are appealed .
See attached Exhibit A: Section 17 . 52 . 040 - Authorized Variations
There were no comments and no objections .
Com. Arbus made a motion to recommend to the Corporate Authorities
approval of the Text Amendment to Section 17 . 52 . 040 of the Zoning
Ordinance , per attached Exhibit A .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Entman . Paul . Windecker .
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 .
VI . ADJOURNMENT
Com . Arhus made a motion to adjourn.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 17 P .M.
Respectfully submitted ,
"g-R-1:11/4.Ze3 (ReLX24.1..4._
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
sb
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 15 . 1992 - Page Nine