1994-05-17 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY , MAY 17 , 1994
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting of the Zoning
Board of Appeals to order at 7 : 37 P .M. on Tuesday, May 17 , 1994
in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : M. Kearns , B . Entman,
L . Windecker and R. Heinrich
Commissioners Absent : J . Paul , L . Arbus and H . Hefler
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar ,
Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney : Richard Skelton
Ch . Heinrich informed the audience that it requires four ( 4 )
affirmative votes in order for a variance to be granted .
Since there are only four ( 4 ) Commissioners present , any
petitioner may ask that their hearing to Tabled until next
month when more Commissioners will be present .
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 15 , 1994 - Com. Kearns made a motion to Table .
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously
Minutes of March 15 , 1994 were Tabled.
IV. BUSINESS
A. 700 Thompson Boulevard , Harilaos and Kristen Mantzoros
Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 - Residential Districts
Four foot ( 4 ' ) chain link fence past building line
Harilaos and Kristen Mantzoros were sworn in and the
Public Hearing Notice was read . Mrs . Mantzoros
summarized their reasons for requesting a variance for
the purpose of constructing a four foot ( 4 ' ) chain link
fence that would extend a distance of 23-1 /2 feet past
the building line along Brandywyn Lane :
1 . Safety of their children
2 . The corner of Busch and 83 is busy and because of
the construction oN 83 it has become busier .
3 . If the fence is constructed up to the building
line they would lose about 1 , 000 square feet of
property .
The Village Engineer' s Line-of-Sight Review dated May 4, 1994
states: " . . .the sight distance is not affected. . . I would
suggest (a setback of) nothing less than two feet (2 ' ) .
Mrs. Mantzoros requested that the fence be constructed three
feet (3 ' ) from the property line. The existing bushes will
conceal the fence along Brandywyn Lane.
Ch. Heinrich said that typically the ZBA does not grant
variances for fences to be located that close to the property
line. He asked if they have discussed the fence with their
neighbors?
Mrs. Mantzoros responded that they have talked to their
neighbors on both sides of them at 1372 Brandywyn and at
710 Thompson Boulevard. They did not have any objections.
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Windecker: The neighbors also have a chain link fence
and if they continue the fence five feet (5 ' ) from the lot
line, he would have no objections.
Com. Kearns and Com. Entman had no problem with a fence
five feet (5 ' ) from the property line since it would be
hidden by the bushes and the bushes are to remain. .
Mr. and Mrs. Mantzoros agreed to amend their petition on
its face and locate the fence five feet (5 ' ) from the
property line.
No comments from the audience.
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the petition of Harilaos and Kristen
Mantzoros, 700 Thompson Boulevard, for variance of
Fence Code, Section 15. 20.040, pertaining to Residential
Districts, for the purpose of constructing a four foot
(4 ' ) chain link fence along Brandywyn Lane that would be
located five feet (5 ' ) from the property line inside the
existing bushes, as agreed to by the petitioners.
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated, said
fence will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
Fence to be constructed pursuant to the Village
Engineer' s Review that states there is no line-of-
sight problem with the fence and the condition that
the landscaping and bushes remain.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAY 17, 1994 - Page Two
_ J
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Kearns, Windecker, Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days, after June 2, 1994 .
B. 957 Bedford Court, Sam and Ella Kaykov
Fence Code, Section 15. 20.040
Residential Districts - Six foot (6 ' ) wood fence
past building line along Providence Lane.
Sam and Ella Kaykov were sworn in and the public
hearing notice was read. Mrs. Kaykov summarized their
reasons for requesting a variance of the Fence Code
for the purpose of constructing a six foot (6 ' ) wood
fence surrounding the rear yard that would extend past
the building line along Providence Lane:
1. The rear yard is located at the intersection
of Providence Lane and Fremont Way and they
need the fence for privacy. Other houses
on Fremont Way have six foot (6 ' ) fences.
2. They have a German Shepherd dog who can jump
over a five foot (5 ' ) fence and the fence
will keep him in the yard.
The Village Engineer' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated
May 4 , 1994 states: "Village ordinance dos not allow
encroachments within twenty feet (20 ' ) of the corner.
Since the curb for Providence Lane is at the property
line, no fence can be permitted beyond the north
property line. " A diagram was submitted with the
study showing the required placement of the fence.
Mrs. Kaykov said they would comply with the Village
Engineer' s diagram but they want the fence to be
six feet (6 ' ) in height. They have talked to all
their neighbors and none of them had any objections.
When they bought the house they did not anticipate
a problem getting a six foot (6 ' ) fence because the
neighbors on Fremont Way all have them.
Mr. Schar confirmed that Fremont Way residents are
permitted to have six foot (6 ' ) fences along the rear
lot line.
Ch. Heinrich observed that this lot presents a very
unique circumstance.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17, 1994 - Page Three
Mr. Sandy Victor was present. He lives at 1009 Provi-
dence Lane at the corner of Saybrook. He drives past
this intersection every day and a six foot (6 ' ) fence
would greatly obstruct his vision. There are existing
high bushes that cause him to come to a complete stop
before he can proceed. After Mr. Victor saw the Village
Engineer' s diagram, he said he would not object to a six
foot (6 ' ) fence along Fremont Way if it stopped at the
building line along Providence Lane.
Mrs. Deborah Green, 924 Providence Lane, goes past
this intersection every day. It is very difficult
to see any cars coming from the south because you
cannot see past the bushes and a fence would completely
obstruct the view. There are a lot of children in the
neighborhood and people do not drive carefully so this
fence would make it more dangerous.
After the Village Engineer' s diagram was explained to
Mr. Victor and Mrs. Green they said she would not object
as long as there is no safety problem. Mrs. Green was
informed that there is no ordinance against the bushes.
Comments from Commissioners:
Com. Windecker verified that the other six foot (6 ' )
fences along Fremont Way have been granted variances.
He would prefer to have the fence be five feet (5 ' )
along Providence Lane.
Ch. Heinrich said he had no problem with a six foot
(6 ' ) fence along Fremont Way because it is the rear
yard and will be facing 2-story townhouses. He would
prefer five feet (5 ' ) along the side lot line.
Com. Kearns said that a six feet (6 ' ) fence was accept-
able along Fremont Way but agreed it should only be
five feet (5 ' ) along Providence Lane. The house is
exposed on three (3 ' ) sides.
Com. Entman said he supported the opinions of the
residents who spoke about the fence. He did not object
to a six foot (6 ' ) fence along the rear, if it was five
feet along Providence Lane and the interior lot line.
The height of the fence along the interior lot line
was discussed at length. Com. Kearns and Com. Entman
agreed that the fence along the interior lot line
should be five feet (5' ) in height.
Eugene Kaykov (their son) was present and asked for
an explanation why the fence would have to be five
feet (5 ' ) in height.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17, 1994 - Page Four
Ch . Heinrich explained Providence Lane is not a major
street and it is used by many residents . Even though
their neighbor has not objected to a six foot (6 ' )
between the houses , Buffalo Grove does not want people
to build walls . With regard to their dog , it was noted
that five feet ( 5 ' ) would be a high jump and if if gets
over the fence they would have to solve that problem in
some other way. The fence can be tapered from six feet
(5 ' ) to five feet (5 ' ) along the angle .
Mr. Schar noted the configuration of the corner is
angled and asked if that section should be curved or
parallel to the lot line . It was decided that it
should be parallel not arced .
Mr. and Mrs . Kaykov agreed to amend their petition on
its face to conform with the Zoning Board of Appeals as
recommended . It was noted that variance is not needed
for a five foot (5 ' ) fence along the interior lot line
or along the building line .
Com. Entman made the following motion :
I move that we grant the petition of Sam
and Ella Kaykov , 957 Bedford Court , for
variance of the Fence Code , Section 15 . 20 . 040 ,
pertaining to Residential Districts , for the
purpose of construcing a six foot ( 6 ' ) wood
fence along rear lot line abutting Fremont Way .
Said fence is not to extend past the building
line along Providence Lane , with the following
conditions :
1 . Fence will be constructed in accordance
with the Village Engineer ' s Review and
diagram.
2 . The portion from Providence Lane to
Fremont Way and from Fremont Way to
the interior lot line may be tapered
from six feet ( 6 ' ) to five feet ( 5 ' )
in height.
Said fence will not be detrimental to the public
health , safety and welfare .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman , Windecker, and
Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in fifteen days (June 2 , 1994 ) .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17 , 1994 - Page Five
C. 1150 Thompson Boulevard, Harvey and Patricia Morowitz
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40. 020
Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations
Addition that would encroach 8 ' into rear yard setback
Ch. Heinrich disclosed that he has known Mr. and Mrs.
Morowitz for many years, but this will not affect his
judgement in this matter.
Harvey Morowitz was sworn in and the Public Hearing
Notice was read. Mr. Morowitz summarized their reasons
for requesting a variance for the purpose of constructing
an addition that would encroach a distance of eight feet
(8 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback:
1. Mrs. Morowitz has MS and the addition will
provide a handicapped accessible master
bedroom and bath for her on the first floor.
2. The addition will permit sufficient living
space on the second floor for Mrs. Morowitz '
mother, who will be living with them.
Mr. Morowitz said they have informed the neighbors on
both sides and those directly across the street. There
have been no objections to their plans. .
Preliminary plans were submitted. Their architect
explained that the existing garage will be demolished
and the space will be used to construct the new bedroom
with a handicapped accessible bathroom and closet. The
addition will not protrude into the rear yard any farther
than their neighbor' s addition. A new garage will be
constructed with a ramp along the side that would permit
entrance into the house without encroaching into the side
yard setback. The materials of the addition will match
the existing house as much as possible.
Commissioners Kearns, Entman and Windecker had no
questions, comments or objections.
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we grant a variance to Harvey and Patricia
Morowitz , 1150 Thompson Boulevard, to the Zoning
Ordinance, section 17. 40 . 020, pertaining to Area,
Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the
purpose of constructing an addition at the rear
that would encroach a distance of eight feet (8 ' )
into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard
setback.
�./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17, 1994 - Page Six
Unique circumstances having been demonstrated ,
this variance would not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion .
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman , Windecker , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may he issued in 15 days - June 2 , 1994 .
D . 891 Beechwood , Donald and Diana Hooghkirk
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020
Area , Height , Bulk and Placement Regulations
Purpose : Construction of an addition with front
and side yard setback encroachments
Mr . and Mrs . Hooghkirk were sworn in . The Public Hearing
Notice was read . The request is for a variance to permit
construction of an addition that would encroach a distance of
8 ' 4 " into the required 25 ' front yard setback and 2 ' into the
required 6 ' side yard setback , permitting less than the 14 '
required side yard total . Ch . Heinrich asked if there were
any plans showing the proposed addition ?
Mrs . Hooghkirk said they only submitted drawings because they
did not want to invest money if they do not get the variance .
They want to construct an addition that is similar to what
three of their neighbors have had built .
Ch . Heinrich asked where any other front yard variances of
this magnitude have been granted ?
Mrs . Hooghkirk did not know the exact dimensions of the other
additions , but the same architect and contractor built them .
They have been in contact with the Hoims at 545 Chatham and know
they were granted a similar variance .
Ch . Heinrich could not recall any variance that has been
granted this distance into the front yard because it would
totally affect the character of the neighborhood . He has
a problem going out into the front yard this much so that
the house would be set forward more than any other house on
the block .
Mrs . Hooghkirk referred to the photographs that were submitted
to point out that their house is setback farther than some of
the other houses in their area . There is also a lot of space
between their house and their neighbors house to the west
because of the placement of the garage . The photographs were
described .
• ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17 , 1994 - Page Seven
Com . Kearns observed that they have a large rear yard .
Mrs . Hooghkirk said they cannot build the addition in the rear
because of the split level design of the house . There is not
enough space to go out on the garage side . Mrs . Hooghkirk
said they were willing to compromise on the distance in order
to be able to enlarge their eating area . Their house only
has a galley kitchen and they need additional space for their
family . How much of a variance could they be granted':
Ch. Heinrich said a variance of almost nine feet (9 ' ) into the
front yard would contradict the purpose of the Zoning Ordin-
ance . It specifically prohibits going farther than twenty-
five feet (25 ' ) into the front yard setback . Since there
are only four (4) Commissioners present , he suggesting Tabling
until June when there would be three (3) other Commissioners .
Mrs . Hooghkirk said they have considered the neighborhood .
They have lived in the house for 27 years . Other people have
moved away in order to upgrade but that is something they
cannot do financially. They like their neighborhood and take
pride in their property. They want to remain and believe that
the addition would increase the value of their property .
• Ch. Heinrich said that at this point , he is not willing to
grant a front yard variance . Since four votes are necessary
to grant a variance , he repeated his suggestion to Table .
Mrs . Hooghkirk asked for a consensus of the Board and asked if
they would consider a variance of five feet (5 ' ) to permit
construction of a six foot (6 ' ) addition?
Com. Entman and Com . Windecker concurred with Ch. Heinrich' s
hesitancy about granting a front yard variance .
Mr . Hooghkirk said they have been in the house at 545 Chatham
and talked with the owners . A variance into the front yard
setback was granted for their addition. They were shown the
plans and have had the same the architect and contractor over
to discuss a similar quality addition.
Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Schar to get the documents pertaining
to the variance that was granted for 545 Chatham.
Motion to Table while the papers were brought up was made by
Com. Entman and seconded by Com . Windecker .
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously.
Item E . Outback Steakhouse Ground Sign , was reviewed .
Motion to remove from Table was made by Com. Entman and
seconded by Com . Windecker . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17, 1994 - Page Eight
it was confirmed that on February 18 , i992 , Harry and Heike
Holm , 545 Chatham Circle . were granted a variance of five feet
(5 ' ) into the front yard setback and a variance to permit a
combined total side yard of less than fourteen feet ( 14 ' ) .
Ch. Heinrich and Com . Entman were not present at this meeting ,
so Ch. Heinrich ' s recollection was correct .
Com . Windecker said he looked at the house at 545 Chatham.
The addition does put the house closer to the front than the
other houses in the neighborhood so he would be willing to
grant a variance of no more than five feet (5 ' ) including
an overhang .
The Hooghkirks defended their request by saying that if the
variance is granted , it would encourage other homeowners to
upgrade their property and improve the neighborhood. With
reference to the Village Engineer ' s Review, dated May 4, 1994
they will remove the driveway next to the garage . They are
hoping that the ZBA will grant a variance permitting them to
have a combined side yard total of less than fourteen feet
( 14 ) so that they can extend the garage two feet (2 ' ) . They
have looked at other houses in their area and find they are
not well maintained . They plan to remain where they are .
They have an eleven ( 11 ) year old daughter who is set on going
to Buffalo Grove High School . They have not hired the archi-
tect because they were advised to file for the variance first .
The size of a six foot (6 ' ) addition, including the two feet
(2 ' ) into the side yard would add approximately 120 square
feet to the house .
Ch. Heinrich said that if Com . Paul was present , he might give
someguidance to the Hooghkirksg
because he is an engineer and
could perhaps suggest something to would give them more area .
Mrs . Hooghkirk said they need the additional space in the
kitchen and dining area . After seeing what was accomplished
at 545 Chatham , they know they would be satisfied with the
same size addition which would include more cabinet space .
Mr . Hooghkirk said they were going to request a variance that
would permit them to add on six feet (6 ' ) in the front and
four feet (4) on the side . When they submitted the plat to
the Building Department , they were informed that they could
only go two feet (2) into the side yard , but they could ask
for the maximum 8 ' 4" which is 1 /3 of the required twenty-
five (25 ' ) front yard setback . No assurance was given.
They will compromise and be satisfied with the Board ' s
decision .
Mrs . Hooghkirk said they have discussed their plans with all
their neighbors . There have all been very supportive and have
had no objections .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17, 1994 - Page Nine
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Kearns : No problem with a five foot ( 5 ' ) variance if
the neighbors do not object . He understands the problem of
needing more space for married children coming to visit , etc .
and elderly parents coming to live with them .
The side yard setback was discussed. 8 ' 9" + 6 ' 3" = 15 ' 1/4"
and the ordinance would only permit two feet (2 ' ) into the six
foot (6 ' ) side yard .
Ch . Heinrich asked about how the roof lines would connect but
there were no drawings to show how this would be accomplished .
He asked the petitioners if they would be willing to have an
architect draw up some elevations showing the addition and how
the roof lines would look and return in June to continue the
discussion?
Mr . and Mrs . Hooghkirk agreed and after polling the Commis-
sioners . they were advised to permit the addition to be
no closer than twenty feet ( 20 ' ) to the front property line
and two feet ( 2 ' ) into the side yard setback . This would give
them a total of s i x feet (6 ' ) to the front wall with no bay
window . The ordinance would permit a one foot ( 1 ' ) overhang .
Ch . Heinrich suggested bringing the architect with them in
June to describe the plans .
There is a 1-car garage and if they could add a couple of
feet, it would give they needed storage space , but such an
addition may not be financially feasible . and they are not
requesting a variance for additional encroachment on the west
side . just to permit the combined side yards to be less than
fourteen feet ( 14 ' ) .
Ch. Heinrich said he would not advise increasing the size of
the garage because it could affect bulk overuse of the lot
and he said drainage should also be taken into consideration
by the architect .
Mr . Skelton concurred with the option to Table .
Com . Entman made a motion to Table the petition of Donald
and Diana Hooghkirk 3 9 i Beecnwood Road . until June 2 . 1994 .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17 , 1994 - Page Ten
E. Outback Steakhouse. 720 West Lake Cook Road
Sign Code, Section 14.20.070 - Ground Signs
Purpose: Construction of a ground sign within
250 feet of an existing ground sign.
Mr. Greg Pradun, AIA, GPA, Inc. . 2219 Chestnut Street,
Northbrook, IL 60062 (291-1744), representative of
Outback Steakhouse, was sworn in and the Public Hearing
Notice was read.
Mr. Pradun summarized the reasons for requesting a variance:
The Outback Steakhouse ground sign was reviewed by the
Appearance Commission on November 10, 1993. It was originally
positioned in the center of the property in accordance with
• the Sign Code regulations. It was located ten feet (10') from
the front property line. It was twelve feet (12') in length
and perpendicular to Lake Cook Road. It was only three feet
(3') from the back of the sign to the parking area which would
not leave enough room for the required landscaping around the
base of the sign. The Appearance Commission expressed concern
about lowering the berm in front of the sign because it would
permit car lights to shine into the homes across the street.
Another reason was that without a sign at the intersection of
Weidner and Lake Cook patrons traveling from west to east
would miss the turn, creating a hazard by slowing down and
making U-turns in order to enter the site.
The Appearance Commission recommended that the location be
changed, but did not inform him that a variance would be
required because of the 250 foot separation rule. Mr. Schar
has been very helpful in guiding him through the variance
process.
Mr. Pradun submitted a revised site plan based upon the
Village Engineer's Line-of-Sight Review, dated May 5. 1994,
which states: "The sign should be set back fifteen feet
(15') from the sidewalk. not the right-of-way." He said
the sign is 96 square feet not including the masonry base
which is not counted in the measurement of the sign face.
Ch. Heinrich said he concurs with the Appearance Commission's
recommendation about the location of the sign. He asked
about the location and height of the sign in relation to the
Winberie's sign.
Mr. Pradun said he measured the Winberie's sign. It is also
fifteen feet (15') above grade level. It is mounted on two
(2) posts but the landscaped berm beneath it gives it the
appearance of having a base. The Outback sign will be even
with Winberie's sign. The land slopes up from the street so
the sign is not fifteen feet (15') in height from the ground
and the landscaping screens most of the brick structure; and
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17. 1994 - Page Eleven
the sign is peaked at the top so , if you reduce the size by
the square footage of the two (2) triangular pieces , the sign
face is actually less than 96 square feet . The size is about
65 square feet
Ch. Heinrich verified that the building and the brick base of
the sign will match the Zierk' s building. He asked if this
is the first Outback Steakhouse in the area, are they all the
same and how many patrons will it accommodate?
Mr . Pradun responded that Outback Steakhouses are located in
Wheaton, Naperville and Schaumburg. Another one will be in
Orland Park . The buildings and signs vary slightly. The
Buffalo Grove restaurant will have 62 to 65 parking spaces
with overflow parking to the north. He does not know the
exact seating capacity. but estimated it is over 100 and added
that it is a family restaurant .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com. Windecker : No problem with variance .
Com. Kearns : No problem.
Com. Entman: No problem. He stated that his office is
located in the 750 Lake Cook Road building , but this will not •
affect his decision. He . commented that has been observing
Winberie ' s sign and it looks very high. He asked if the
sign is illuminated.
Mr . Pradun repeated his statement about the height of the
signs in relation to the grade and added that only the
Steakhouse peak will be fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) high. The letters
are backlit with a non-flashing neon band around top of the
sign. It remains on all the time .
There were no comments from the audience .
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board that the
Outback Steakhouse , located at 720 W. Lake Cook Road .
be granted a variance of Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 .070
pertaining to Ground Signs for the purpose of
constructing a ground sign that would be within
250 feet of an existing ground sign, per the exhibits
submitted with the application.
Petitioner has complied with the Village Engineer ' s
Line-of-Sight recommendation regarding the fifteen
foot ( 15 ' ) setback.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roil Call Vote : AYE - Entman. Kearns . Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Sign will be on the Consent Agenda of the June 6 , 1994
Village Board meeting . Permit may be issued after that
date .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17 . 1994 - Page Twelve
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Com. Kearns made a motion to adjourn.
Com. Entman seconded the motion.
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
)2)-
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
sb
`./ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 17, 1994 - Page Thirteen