1994-09-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS
TUESDAY, SEFEEMBER 20, 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.
on Tuesday, September 20. 1994 in the Council Chambers of the Village
Hall , 50 Baupp Blvd.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: M. Kearns, J. Paul , L. Arbus,
H. Hefler and R. Heinrich QUORUM.
Commissioners Absent: B. Eastman and L. Windecker
Bldg. Dept. Liaison: Mr. Edward Schar,
Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney: Richard Skelton
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
•
August 16, 1994 - Motion to Table was made by Com. Kearns and
seconded by Com. Hefler. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. 305 Windsor Drive, Robert and Caroline Felton
Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020 - Addition
Mr. Robert Felton was present. Motion to remove from Table was
made by Com. Kearns and seconded by Com. Hefler.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously
The item was Tabled August 16. 1994 because plans with definite
dimensions had not been submitted. A sketch, drawn by an
architect , has been submitted. Ch. Heinrich reviewed the original
request which was to construct an addition that would be the same
size as the existing deck, twelve by thirty four feet (12'x 34' ) .
According to the new sketch, the size of the addition has been
increased to 14' x 44 ' because a sunroom has been added. The total -:�,,.
11
square footage now exceeds the rear yard coverage limitation of 20%. `t
Mr. Felton said he had been concerned about staying within the ` '�:
SK
required rear yard setback and did not know about the rear yard
coverage limitation. He asked how long the addition can be?
3:22
Com. Hefler explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals does not a111■�
give advice. It is the petitioner ' s responsibility to decide r
what they want , consider the cost . etc. and then request a Ems!
variance, if necessary to meet their needs.
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr. Felton that if the sunroom was eliminated 4:11)
the request would fall within the original publication, but with
the sunroom. republication and notification of neighboring property 4::::)
owners would be required and the fee to refile would be $55.00.
There is existing shrubbery along the deck and since the size of
the addition is substantial , Ch. Heinrich asked Mr. Felton if he
would be willing to replace the shrubs?
Mr. Felton said this is his intention and asked if the Zoning
Board would grant the variance if he chooses to reapply?
After informing Mr. Felton that he could not promise a variance
if there be objections from neighbors, a poll was taken:
Com. Paul said he would not object to a variance, but advised
Mr. Felton to inform his neighbors of the increased size.
Com. Arbus, Com. Kearns and Com. Hefler agreed that they liked
the proposed plan and that some landscaping would be required.
Com. Kearns made a motion to Table.
Com. Arbus seconded the motion.
Voice Vote was AYE Unanimously.
B. Outlot 15-D, Vernon Township, 3050 N. Main Street, Prairie View
Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040 - Construction of an 8' fence
Mr. Thomas Smoker, Attorney for Vernon Township, was sworn in.
Item was Tabled on August 16, 1994 to permit the applicants to
consult with the Village Engineer regarding the height vs.
setback of the proposed fence. The Village Engineer's revised
recommendation, dated September 8, 1994, is attached. He has
no objection to an eight foot (8' ) fence beginning at 25 feet
without a taper. Since Mr. Schrems is not present it was
assumed that he is in agreement with the proposal.
Com. Kearns made a motion to remove from Table.
Com. Arbus seconded the motion.
Voice Vote: AYE - Unanimously.
Com. Hefler. Cosa. Kearns. Com. Paul and Com. Arbus had no
questions and no objections.
Com. Paul made the following motion: 4
I move that we grant the petition of Vernon Township
for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15.20.040,
pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose
of constructing an eight foot (8' ) wood fence along3:22
the south property line of Outlot 15 - D that would
begin 25 feet from the east property line, pursuant 111.7111
to the Village Engineer's revised review, dated
IINNE #
September 8, 1994. including the trimming of the
trees as indicated on Exhibit E-2 excluding the
taper.
4:1711:
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 20. 1994 - Page Two ,, :V
The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns, Paul , Arbus,
Hefler and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days - October 6, 1994.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. 37 East Fabish Drive, Mark and Debbie Hildenbrand
Zoning Ordinance. Section 17.40.020 - Sun Room
Mark and Debbie Hildenbrand were sworn in. The public hearing
notice was read. Mr. Hildenbrand summarized their reasons for
requesting a variance:
1. They would like to construct a sun room on the
existing deck to be used in the summer, spring
and fall , to provide more living space and let
them enjoy the outdoors without mosquitoes, etc.
2. They have spoken with ail their neighbors and
there have been no objections. Some offered
to come to this hearing. There is a bike path
abutting the rear lot line.
The materials will consist of aluminum with thermal windows.
The Commissioners had no questions or objections.
There were no questions from the audience.
The Village Engineer's Review, dated September 6, 1994,
states: The proposed addition will not affect the existing
drainage.
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move we grant the variance. requested by Mark and
Debbie Hildenbrand, 37 East Fabish Drive. for
variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020.
pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement
Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a 323
sunroom that would encroach a distance of ten feet
(10') into the required thirty foot (30' ) rear 291111
yard setback, per documents submitted with the
application. moms!
The proposed construction will not alter the .4.17)
essential character of the neighborhood. �� •
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 20, 1994 - Page Three
E
aattg:
Cam. Arbus seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Hefler, Kearns, Paul ,
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0. Findings of Fact Attached.
Permit may be issued in 15 days - October 6, 1994.
B. 3025 Roslyn Lane, Marc and Pamela Kaplan
Fence Code, Section 15.20.040 - Fence past the building line
C. 3040 Roslyn Lane, David and Elissa Nisson
Fence code. Section 15.20.040 - Fence past the building line
NOTE: Items B and C were discussed together because they pertain
to the same unique circumstance.
Mr. Marc Kaplan and Mr. David Nisson were sworn in.
Mr. Kaplan summarized their reasons for requesting the variance:
1. The Village Board has amended the Roslyn Woods Tree
Conservatory requirement of a chain link fence to
permit construction of a wood fence along Prairie Road.
2. All the fences have been constructed with the
exception of these two (2) which would have to be
setback thirty feet (30') and aesthetically destroy
the uniformity of the fence line.
3. The ur p pose of the fences is for the safety of
children.
The Village Engineer's reviews dated September 6. 1994.
state: "We recommend that the fence be set back two feet (2' )
from the sidewalk on Prairie Road. "
Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Nisson agreed. The other fences also meet
this requirement.
Com. Hefler, Com. Kearns and Com. 7Arbus had no comments or
objections. 20 ;
Com. Paul commented that it would be tricky to get the fence
through the trees on Mr. Nisson's lot. The fence may have to
be moved in order to maintain the line. The trees are small
and there is a swaie with a drop of 4 to 5 feet. !
After discussion, it was decided that the fence should not
extend past the front building line. The fence may be con-
structed north of the tree line. 4:1111mil
T 1�+
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS f,
September 20. 1994 - Page Four
Com. Arbus made the following motions:
I move we grant the request made by Marc and
Pamela Kaplan, 3025 Roslyn Lane, of Municipal
Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential
Districts , for the purpose of constructing a
five foot (5' ) wood fence that would extend
the building line along Prairie Road, per the
drawing submitted and attached to the application.
Petitioners have demonstrated unique circumstances.
The proposed variance will not alter the essential
characteristics of the neighborhood and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
Also, move that we grant the request made by
David and Elissa Nisson. 3040 Roslyn Lane,
for variance of Municipal Code. Section 15.20.040 .
pertaining to Residential Districts, for the
purpose of constructing a five foot (5 ' ) wood
fence that would extend past the building line
along Prairie Road, per the drawing submitted.
except that the petitioner may pivot the fence
north a reasonable amount in order to avoid the
trees.
Petitioners having demonstrated unique circumstances ,
the proposed variance will not alter the essential
character of the .neighborhood and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
Com. Hefler seconded the two (2) motions.
Roll Call Vote (3025 Roslyn Lane) : AYE - Hefler , Kearns . Paul
Arbus and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0.
Roll Call Vote (3040 Roslyn Lane) : AYE - Ref1er . Kearns . Paui
Arbus and Heinrich4 ::v.
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0. NME�y -z::
Findings of Fact Attached.0101‘.
Permits may be issued in 15 days - October 6, 1994. {
k
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None _.
VII . ADJOURNMENT .
Com. He f 1 er made a motion to ad j ourn.
Com. Arbus seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimous 1 y
Chairman He i nr i ch adjourned the meeting at 8 :30 P.M. ,-,: •
1.`
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .. ..
September 20. 1994 - Page Five .-
•
SIGN CODE REVIEW WOR1S$OP
The Trustees have asked for a review of Sign Code, Section 14.20.070 -
Ground Signs, and requested a change of language that would incorporate
the size of copy area into the structure of the sign. As an example,
the Rose Glen sign, at Checker Road and Checker Drive, meets the size
requirements of the Sign Code, but it was installed between twelve inch
(12") columns making the sign look larger and higher.
Can. Hefler recalled discussing this aspect when the Sign Code was
originally drafted. Other communities have established the concept
that a sign is measured from one end to the other, not just the face.
For instance, a sign could be 4' x 6' and only 2/3 of it could be
above the ground. Some towns have said a sign could only be twelve feet
(12') high. Another restriction for shopping center signs limits the
sign area to 25% of the fascia. Many villages are shrinking the space
within which to work and lowering the height of pylon signs. A sign
in Mt. Prospect that is 10' x 10' could only be 2' off the ground.
Ch. Heinrich suggested having a joint workshop meeting between the
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Appearance Commission.
Com. Hefler commented that putting constraints upon signs does not
affect business. Everyone would be at the same economic disadvantage.
Some villages are requiring that when a business changes hands, a new
sign must be installed that conforms with the new requirements. Colors
are also being limited. Same shopping center signs must all be the
same color and, from a cosmetic standpoint, the effect is good.
It was noted that many signs would become non-conforming if signs had
to be smaller, and the intent would not be to amortize them out over
the next several years, but to primarily restrict temporary construc-
• tion signs that are only up for six months to a year and a half.
Ch. Heinrich suggesting wording the revision so that existing signs
are exempt and takes into consideration only new signs. The ZBA has
always tried to make signs less obtrusive.
One area of the Sign Code that is being changed are the fees which
will go up 30% and Buffalo Grove will still be lower that other areas.
References to temporary signs should be clarified because there are
several different sections that apply and same can be misinterpreted. _
Section 14.20.160 - Embellishments. This section implies that the 3:12
Appearance Commission can capriciously and arbitrarily approve almost
anything, including advertising. If the section is eliminated, will
it be possible to put something objectionable on a sign? The name
and nature limitation includes advertising, even t hough it is generic. a�i.
Com. Kearns pointed out that Section 14.08.440,.the definition of sign, ►`:
purposely does not say anything about advertising and suggested adding ` '
10;
a reference to this section under Embellishments.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
September 20, 1994 - Page Six
•
Sign packages for shopping centers lave been benef i cial. Same atrocious
looking signs have been permitted. Making the Sign Code more powerful
and constraining would be preferable. Signs for a business are for
destination purposes, not for advertising. -
� Chapter 14.36.010 - B. F1 "one"
Flags. The proposed revision specifies one
flag. It is meant to limit flags to one of each category: nation,
political subdivision and/or corporation.
Chapter 14.20.070 - Ground sign. The two hundred fifty foot (250')
distance between signs relates to corners because the Village can
maintain better control and can require more extensive landscaping
• etc. when a variance is necessary. Better, more tasteful signs can
be negotiated for Buffalo Grove. This section should not be revised.
The discussion ended at 9:00 P.M. Mr. Schar will set a date for a
joint meeting with the Appearance Commission and inform all parties.
Respectfully submitted,
• G94116"s`•
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
sb
"Tml
co.)
101:11
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS mmcp
September 20, 1994 -Page Seven