1994-11-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes 944
PPAG \ilEt
'
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 15 , 1994
I . CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Jay Paul called the Zoning Board of Appeals public
hearing to order at 7 : 37 P . M . on Tuesday , November 15 , 1994 in the
Council Chambers of the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Boulevard .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : J . Paul , L . Windecker , L . Arbus and
H . Hef l er QUORUM .
Ch . Heinrich arrived at 7 : 45 P . M .
Com . Entman arrived at 8 : 00 P . M .
Commissioners Absent : M . Kearns
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar , Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney : Richard Skelton
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
•
October 18 , 1994 - Motion to Table was made by Com . Windecker and
seconded by Com . Arbus . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
Minutes of September 20 , 1994 and August 16 , 1994 remain Tabled .
IV . OLD BUSINESS
Com . Paul announced that four ( 4 ) commissioners constitute a
quorum and it will take four ( 4 ) affirmative votes to grant a
variance . Should any petitioner choose to Table their hearing
until December 20 , 1994 , they may do so any time prior to a
vote . If a request is denied . petitioners may appeal to the
Village Board of Trustees .
A . 16 Newtown Court West , Yong Jun and Yong Ok Hwang
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Construction of Addition
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 - 20% Coverage Limitation
The addition was started without a permit . The hearing was
tabled on October 18 . 1994 because building plans had not been
submitted . It was also necessary to republish because the
existing deck , that was constructed by previous owners . covers
more than 20% of the rear yard .
Motion to remove from Table was made by Com . Windecker and
seconded by Com . Arbus . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously
Mr . and Mrs . Whang were present with their contractor .
Mr . Lech , Lech Construction . 5850 W . Higgins . Chicago , IL ,
( 312 ) 286- 1515 , was also present .
s ,
M#1. °;Hwang said they are requesting a variance because they
hav'¢� three (3) children and there is not enoug
h space for
'�..1 retation inside the house. The house has no basement, so
they do not have sufficient storage space. They want to
construct an unheated 3-Season room over the existing concrete
patio that will be will be used to store summer furniture.
Com. Paul asked if there is a foundation under the slab.
Mr. Lech thought there should be posts under the exisitng
deck. He said he did not know that a permit was necessary to
construct an enclosure over the patio. He does not consider
the structure an addition. He said he submitted some plans to
the Building Department.
Mr. Schar informed the Commissioners that a plan review has
not been completed, but a field inspection will be done to
determine exactly what is there. If any part of the deck is
on the easement, it will have to be removed.
Com. Windecker said he has a problem with the variance. He
questioned how the Zoning Board can act without adequate plans
and without knowing exactly what is existing. The Zoning
Board is being asked to approve something that may be in
violation for the law. He asked if the addition will match
the rest of the house?
Mr. Lech said the siding for the enclosure will match the
house siding.
Com. Arbus is acquainted with the adjacent neighbors and they
have informed him that they do not object to the proposed
addition if it matches the house and is built in accordance
with the building codes. The property backs up to a bike path
so there are no other neighbors that will be affected.
Com. Paul said this property is unique because it is very
visible from Newtown Drive. He is concerned that without a
proper foundation, the structure will become distorted because
of the movement of the ground. It could become an eyesore and
be detrimental to the neighborhood. This is a serious problem
but there ways of correcting the lack of a foundation.
Ch. Heinrich had arrived at 7:45 P.M. and chaired remainder
the meeting. He observed that one pier is shown on the
diagram.
Mr. Lech affirmed this and said the other side should be on
the existing foundation.
Mr. Schar said that the building plans must comply with the
codes and the construction work must comply with the plans.
Footings are necessary and changes to what has been started
will be required.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 15. 1994 - Page Two
Com. Hefler said the final dimensions of the structure could
be different depending on what is actually done about the
foundation. He suggesting Tabling until the plans have been
approved.
The plans Mr . Lech submitted are not building plans . They
are only sketches stamped by Kenneth F. Brandeis , a licensed
architect .
Com. Arbus was satisfied that the Building Department would be
responsible not to issue a permit until satisfactory plans
have been submitted and all code requirements met during con-
struction. Variances have been granted without a full set of
building plans.
After more discussion, a poll was taken to determine if the
Zoning Board should Table or Act on the Variance?
The vote was 5 to 1 to Table . (Com. Arbus would act now. )
Com. Windecker made a motion to Table until December 20 , 1994 .
Com. Entman seconded the motion. Voice Vote - Aye Unanimously
Ch. Heinrich advised Mr . and Mrs . Whang and Mr . Lech to submit
more complete drawings that indicate whether the deck is
encroaching on the easement and how the foundation will be
shored up. Their architect should contact Mr . Schar .
B. The Woodlands - Ground Signs at Five (5) Entrances
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20. 010 - Residential Districts
�./ Sign Code , Section 14 . 20. 070 - Ground Signs
Purpose of Variance: Number of ground signs , location within
setbacks and permit signs to be closer together than 250 feet .
On October 18 , 1994 , The Woodlands ' representative . Mr . Edward
Garfield , Vice-President of the Woodlands of Fiore Homeowners
Association, 2514 Live Oak Lane . B.G. (634-4742) requested the
item be Tabled after he had been informed that the Zoning
Board could not deviate from the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-
Sight Review, dated October 13 . 1994 , which states : "The
signs should not encroach within twenty-five feet ( 25 ' ) of the
corner property. " Mr . Garfield was advised to meet with
Mr . Richard Kuenkler and discuss the situation.
Motion to remove from Table was made by Com. Windecker and
seconded by Com. Paul . Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously.
Mr . George Rothermel , President of the Woodlands of Fiore
Homeowners Association, 141 Willow Parkway . ( 913-9851 ) was
sworn in and described The Woodlands site which is located
on both sides of the Arboretum Golf Course . Signs had been
requested for each of the five entrances to the subcuivision
and variances were sought for the number of signs being
requested . placement within the required setback and. permit
some to have less than the required 250 foot separation.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 15 . 1994 - Page Three
Mr . Rothermel stated that after meeting with Dick Kuenkler ,
an agreement was reached to install the signs at four (4)
of the entrances in compliance with the required setback of
twenty-five feet (25 ' ) . He requested a variance for the two
(2) signs at the intersection of Route 22 and Willow Parkway
to be closer than twenty-five feet (25 ' ) from the corner
property and separated by less than less than 250 feet .
Mr . Kuenkler revised recommendation. dated November 4 . 1994 .
states : "The petitioner has requested that we reconsider our
recommendation for the proposed signage at the Willow Parkway
location at the above project . The current fence is approx-
imately fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the corner property. This
reduced setback (normally 25 feet ) is possible due to the
curve alignment of Route 22 at this location. As long as the
sign is placed immediately adjacent to the existing fence , it
poses no additional restriction to the line-of-sight . "
Mr . Rothermel described the brick and wrought iron fence that
was installed in 1988 . He agreed to install the two ( 2) signs
on either side of the entrance to The Woodlands at Fiore flush
against the brick fence . The signs at ail the other entrances
will all be installed beyond the twenty-five foot ( 25 ' ) set-
back lines . Some of the bushes will have to be repositioned .
and flowers will be planted below the signs in the spring.
These signs are needed to identify the entrances because they
are at three different locations that are not connected. Once
a person has entered . the only way out is to return to Buffalo
Grove Road or Route 22 and go around .
Ch. Heinrich had no objections .
Com. Paul : Verified that the two ( 2 ) signs at the Route 22/
Willow Parkway entrance that will be installed on the existing
fence and will be less than two hundred fifty feet ( 250 ' )
apart . All the other signs will meet the twenty-five foot
(25 ' ) setback as required by Mr . luenkier : and the two ( 2 )
signs at Banyan Tree Lane/Buffalo Grove Road wiii be closer
than two hundred fifty feet ( 250 ' ) apart . He had no problems
with the request .
Com . Windecker , Com. Arbus . Com. Entman. and Com. Helier had
no objections .
There were no questions or comments from the audience .
Corn. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of ru s tees
that the variances requested by The woodlands for
variance of Sign Code . Section 14 . 20 . 010 . pertaining to
Residential Districts . be granted that would permit the
installation of identical 2 ' x 5 ' signs at the following
locations :
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 15 . 1994 - Page Four
. i
1 . Two ( 2 ) signs installed 18 "
above grade level to be
located on each side of the intersection at Route 22 and
Willow Parkway , approximately fifteen ( 15 ' ) back from the
corner property pursuant Mr . Kuenkler ' s recommendation .
2 . One ( 1 ) double sided sign on the north side of the
entrance at Willow Parkway and Prairie .
3 . One ( 1 ) ground sign on each side of the intersection
at Banyan Tree and Buffalo Grove Road .
4 . One ( 1 ) ground sign on the north side of the entrance
at SatinwoodCourt and Buffalo Grove Road .
5 . One ( 1 ) ground sign on the east side of the entrance
of Satinwood Court and Brandywyn Lane .
Signs #2 , #3 , #4 and #5 are to be installed two feet
( 2 ' ) above grade and in compliance with Mr . Kuenkler ' s
recommended setback of twenty- five feet ( 25 ' ) from the
corner property .
Signs are to be constructed in conformance with the
plans and specifications submitted to and approved by
the Village , as recommended by the Appearance Commis-
sion , October 27 , 1994 , ( i . e . posts are to be cedar
stained to match the signs ) and pursuant to the Village
Engineer ' s reviews dated October 13 and November 4 , 1944 .
Variance recommended pursuant to Sign Code ,
Section 14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section A .
Com . Hefler seconded the motion .
Roll Cali Vote : AYE - Paul , Entman , Windecker . Arbus ,
Hefler and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
An ordinance will be prepared and the signs will be sent
to the Village Board of Trustees for approval on Monday ,
December 5 , 1994 . Permits may be issued thereafter .
V . NEW BUSINESS
A . Lot 70 in Rolling Hills , 1901 Twin Oaks Court
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Construction of House
Mr . John Green , Systems Design Group , Inc . . 1051 Perimeter
Drive . Suite 1110 Schaumburg . IL 60173 ( 413-0300 ) was sworn
in as representative of Scarsdale Homes . The public hearing
notice was read .
Mr . Green described the location of the Roiling Hills sub-
division , east of Buffalo Grove Road , and said it includes
various zoning districts with varying setbacks .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 15 . 1994 - Page Five
Lot 70 was' sold and plans were submitted with a permit
application. The zoning review indicated that the current
definition would place the rear yard on the east side of the
lot, rather than on the north side of the lot, due to the odd
shape of the lot. As a result, there is only approximately
30' to 35' of buildable depth in the rear yard. Mr. Green
requested a variance of twelve feet (12') that would permit a
rear yard of twenty-eight (28') instead of the required forty
feet (40').
After Scarsdale was informed that a variance would be required
they offered the contract purchasers of Lot 70 a different lot
so they would not be penalized by a delay in time. The same
situation will occur when the lot is sold again and had they
realized this problem while the subdivision was platted, they
would have included the variation request in the PUD approval
process. Adjacent lots #67, #68. and #69 are 150 feet deep so
the proposed models will not be impacting any of these buyers.
Lot 68 would probably be the most affected.
Two possible site plans were submitted showing the Possible
configurations of two models: the 100 series which is the
deepest house and the 200 series, which is the longest house.
They represent the two most extreme conditions that would ever
exist. There is a total of nine (9) different models that
will fit into these configurations and each would require a
similar variation.
Looking at the configuration of the two houses as laid out on
the plats. Ch. Heinrich commented that the g200 series appears
to be better than the #100 series in terms of usanie space.
He would like to know specifically which house would be built.
Mr. Green responded that he could not agree to such a stipula-
tion because many of the models have the same configuration
and he requested a variance to permit a rear yard of not less
than twenty-eight feet (28'). He has shown both extremes.
Com. Arbus disclosed that he owns a p200 series model but that
will have no effect upon his decision. The ZBA has dealt with
similar issues in the past and has required developers to give
written notice to affected contract purchasers informing them
that their lot, or a neighboring lot. required a variance. If
this is made a condition, he would not object to the variance.
Mr. Green agreed to such a condition and added that any
variance would be part of the purcnaser's contract including
the new plat of survey. Lot 67 was recently solo.
It was determined that written notices were only sent to two
banks and none went directly to individuals.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 15, 1994 - Page Six
Mr . Joe Affrunti , purchaser of Lot 71 at 1911 Twin Oaks Drive
was present and said he became aware of the public hearing
because of the sign that was posted on the lot . He said that
when he purchased his house , he was told that Lot 70 would
front farther down on the street . not the cul-de-sac , so the
rear yard would be next to his side yard . The front of his
house is not parallel to the street . It was constructed with
the front window facing the property line of Lot 70 . He asked
what part of the house will be seen from his front window.
Mr . Green responded that he would be looking at the side of
of the garage. If the house was reversed , the impact would be
greater because there are no windows on the side of the house
and the neighbors would be looking at a 35 to 40 foot 2-story
wall . The garage on Lot 70 would typically be set back 30
feet and the front wall of the 1202 model is approximately
40 feet from the property line . Scarsdale has the right to
develop this lot and a side to side condition would be better
than the side to rear . The Monotony Code would be met .
Ch. Heinrich informed Mr . Green that any variance would also
have a condition that no fence will be permitted on the lot
line between lots 70 and 71 .
There was more discussion concerning which model could be
constructed and what impact they would have on Lot 71 and the
other surrounding lots . There was also concern about the
notification that was given. The Commissioners agreed that
the Zoning Board should protect the rights of the current as
well as future property owners . They were ail reluctant to
grant a variance without knowing exactly what house would be
constructed. The #100 series model was preferred . Conditions
for variance include unique conditions and construction that
will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood .
Com. Hefter made a motion to Table until December 20 , 1994
with written notification be given to all property owners
and/or contract purchasers within 250 feet of Lot 70 .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously
B. Concord Place - Sign Code . Section 14 . 20 .010 - Ground Sign.
Southwest corner of Fremont Way and Arlington Heights Road
Mr . Mike Bednarek , representative of Concord Place Limited
Partnership. 1540 E. Dundee Road . Suite 350 . Palatine , IL
60067 (776-0350) was sworn in. The public hearing notice
was published in the Buffalo Grove/Long Grove Heraid on
October 28 . 1994 .
Z.ONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 15 , 1994 - Page Seven
Mr . Bednarek described the proposed identification sign that
they would like to install on the southwest corner of Fremont
Way and Arlington Heights Road to identify Concord Place. It
will be a ground sign, 3 ' 10" to the top of the sign within a
cedar frame, making a total height of 4 ' 10" and it will be
installed within the landscaped berm. If they meet the
required twenty-five foot (25 ' ) setback , the sign would be
located in the rear yard of a building. The existing land-
scaping would obstruct the view of the sign and the sign would
be below grade because of the slope .
They would like to install the sign a distance of seventeen
feet ( 17 ' ) from the property line .
The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign and recommended
approval of the variance of October 27 . 1994 .
The Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review, dated
November 4. 1994 , states : "The proposed sign will not
affect the line-of-sight .
Ch. Heinrich had no problem with the proposed variance.
Com. Paul , Com. Windecker . Com. Arbus . Com. Hefler and
Com. Entman had no objections .
There were no questions or comments from the audience .
Com. Hefler made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that
the request made by Concord Place Limited Partnership for
variance of Sign Code . Section 14 . 20 . 010 . pertaining to
Residential Districts , be granted . Variance would permit
installation of a ground sign within the required twenty-
five foot (25 ' ) setback at the southwest corner of
Fremont Way and Arlington Heights Road . per the site plan
and sign specification drawings . Sign to be setback a
distance of seventeen feet ( 17 ' ) from property line .
pursuant to the recommendations of the Appearance Commis-
sion and the Village Engineer .
Sign recommended pursuant to Sign Code . Section
14 . 44 . 010 , Sub-section A.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul . Windecker . Arbus . Entman .
Helier and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 6 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
An ordinance will be prepared and the sign will be sent to
the Village Board of Trustees for approval on Monday .
December 5 , 1994 . Permit may be issued thereafter .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 15 , 1994 - Page Eight
VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr . Schar informed the Commissioners that the proposal made at the
Sign Code Workshop to combine the Subdivision Development Sign
section with the For Sale , Lease or Development section has been
reevalated . Combining the sections would effectively put all these
signs in the same category and permit them to be twelve feet ( 12 ' )
in height with sixty-four square feet (64 sf . ) of copy. This was
never intended. Leasing agents or landlords who do not want to use
window signs would be permitted to apply for a variance .
VII . ADJOURNMENT
Com. Paul made a motion to adjourn.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 9 : 55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted ,
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
sb •
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
November 9 . 1994 - ?age Nine