1994-12-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS
TUESDAY , DECEMBER 20 . 1994
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting of the Zoning Board of
Appeals to order at 8 : 00 P . M . on Tuesday . December 20 , 1994 at the
Village Hall . 50 Raupp Boulevard .
II . ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present : Kearns . Paul . Windecker and Heinrich
Com . Entman arrived at 8 : P . M .
Commissioners Absent : Arbus and Hefler
Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Schar . Deputy Building Commissioner
Village Attorney : Richard Skelton
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 15 , 1994 - Deferred until after the business meeting .
IV . OLD BUSINESS
A . 16 Newtown Court West . Yong Jun and Yong Ok Whang
Zoning Ordinance , Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Construction of Addition
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 32 . 020 - 20% Coverage Limitation
Item was Tabled because complete construction plans were not
submitted . Com . Kearns made a motion to remove from Table .
Com . Windecker seconded the motion .
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously .
Mr . Whang and the contractor . Mr . Lech were present . Three ( 3 )
copies of a revised construction plan were submitted . but
after review , it was noted that the only change was the
depiction of the south elevation .
Ch . Heinrich advised Mr . Whang that more adequate architec-
tural plans must be submitted before a permit could be issued .
The foundation issue has not been clarified . The one concrete
pier that is proposed will not support the addition and in
time the addition could shift . A cross section of the founda-
tion work must be submitted . The materials used will match
the existing house : the same siding and same roof shingles .
Comments from Commissioners :
Com . Paul - The plans must be approved by the Building Depart-
ment before a permit is issued . It should be
ftsd understood that some of the existing work may
have to be removed and reconstructed .
Com. Windecker - Agreed the footings must shown on the plans .
This item has been tabled numerous times for
the same reason and acceptable plans have
not been submitted. The addition must match
the existing structure.
Com. Kearns - Would agree with the above comments .
Mr . Schar said that gutters and downspouts are not required .
Com. Windecker made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Hong Jun and
Hong OK Whang , 16 Newtown Court West . for
variance of Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40. 020 ,
pertaining to Area , Height . Bulk and Placement
Regulations , for the purpose of constructing an
unheated sun room that would encroach a distance
of ten feet ( 10 ' ) into the required thirty foot
(30 ' ) rear yard setback : and variance of Zoning
Ordinance , Section 17 . 32 . 020 , pertaining to the
Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures ,
for the purpose of exceeding the 20% rear yard
coverage limitation.
Materials of the addition are to match the existing
construction in like kind and quality. Addition
will be constructed in accordance with complete
architectural plans , submitted to and approved by
the Village of Buffalo Grove .
Petitioner having exhibited hardship and unique
circumstances , the proposed addition will not be
detrimental to the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Paul . Windecker , Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in 15 days - January 5 , 1994 if the
necessary plans are submitted and approved .
B. 1901 Twin Oaks Court - Lot 70 . Rolling Hills
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 . 020 - Rear Yard Setback
Item was Tabled to permit written notification to be sent
to all contract purchasers of adjoining lots . Motion to
remove from Table was made by Com. Kearns and seconded by
Com. Windecker . Voice Vote : AYE - Unanimously.
Mr . John Green was present . He introduced Joseph and Susan
Affrunti , owners of Lot 71 ; Wendy Santini , owner of Lot 67 ;
Andrew and Laurie Alldredge . contract purchasers of Lot 68 :
and Philip and Marcella Rasky, contract purchasers of Lot 69 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 , 1994 - Page Two
Mr . Green reviewed the reason for requesting a variance of
twelve feet ( 12 ' ) into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear
yard setback of Lot 70 . 1901 Twin Oaks Court . The odd shaped
lot is located at the end of the cul-de-sac with the rear yard
located on the east side of the lot . The lot is sized and
designed to comply with R-3 zoning . The PUD includes three
(3) different zoning districts . The lots to the east are
zoned R-2 with a minimum lot size of 15 ,000 sq . ft . and the
rear yards are larger than required. The variance requested
would permit a rear yard of twenty-eight feet (28 ' ) and most
of the Rolling Hills models will fit on the lot . The 1200 and
1700 series would not fit . The garage will be constructed on
the north side of the house and the distance from the north
lot line will be from twelve feet ( 12 ' ) to twenty feet (20) .
Ch. Heinrich recalled that the Zoning Board Commissioners had
expressed concern about the construction of a 200 series house
because of the configuration.
Mr . Green said that the 100 series , 200 series or the 600
series would be equally suitable for the lot from a visual
standpoint and would not have any effect on the light and air
standpoint because of the way the rooms can be reoriented .
Comments from property owners and contract purchasers :
Mr . Affronti , Lot 71 , presented a copy of his plat of survey
and stated their concern about the visual impact from their
living room window.
Mr . Green explained that the house on Lot 70 would be setback
at least thirty-one feet (31 ' ) back and would be oriented
toward the north. The Affronti ' s view would not be affected.
Ms . Santini , Lot 67 , asked how far the proposed house would be
from her house?
Mr . Green responded that there should be a separation of from
98 to 100 feet at the closest point . The houses would be back
to back .
Mr . Alldredge , Lot 68 , expressed concern about the twenty-
eight foot (28 ' ) rear yard because anything that was added in
that area ( i . e . a deck or pool ) would be closer to his house .
The purchasers would be looking directly into his rear yard .
Mr . Green explained that there is a ten foot ( 10 ' ) easement
and nothing could be built over that area , but the owners
could construct something within the remaining eighteen feet
( 18 ' ) of rear yard space . It will be a condition of the
variance to inform the purchaser of the variance . Only one
corner of the 200 series would encroach the full twelve feet
( 12 ' ) into the setback but the designs of the other models
are more architecturally pleasing.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 , 1994 - Page Three
Com . Paul remarked that most people will feel the same way
about having privacy and there will probably be landscaping
on lots so both families will be looking at trees .
Mr . Green commented that this would have been the side yard
and the setback would have been about twelve feet ( 12 ' ) , but
with the Village ' s interpretation that this is a rear yard ,
there is actually an additional fourteen feet ( 14 ' ) of space .
Mr . Rasky , Lot 69 , said the 200 model would have the most
affect on his yard . He stated a preference for a smaller
house .
Mr . Green said the 200 , 1200 and 1700 models are 3 , 100 sq . ft .
The 100 model is approximately 2 , 900 sq . ft . and the other
models are also from 2 , 600 sq . ft . to 2 ,900 sq . ft . There are
three (3) versions of the 100 series and they are wider , not
deeper .
Mr . Rasky asked if the variance could be limited to a specific
footprint so that the purchaser could not fill in the space?
Ch. Heinrich had no objection to making this a condition of
the variance and notification would be given to the purchaser .
Mr . Green objected and said this would be putting an undue
burden upon the future rights of any purchaser .
Mr . Skelton recommended that the condition of the variance
would be the limitation to a specific model and purchasers
would have the right to come in for another variance.
Mr . Schar said that the property owners could construct a
deck or a gazebo or a shed in the rear yard as long as it
does not encroach over the easement .
Mr . Green expressed concern about the ability to customize a
house because of the time involved in obtaining a variance
for specific encroachments . A one-story bay window in the
breakfast room is a standard option. Mr . Green made a
proposal for this option to be included in the variance .
After farther discussion , Com. Entman said the Zoning Board
understands the need for a variance and wants to be accommo-
dating to both the developer and purchaser . The circumstances
are unique . He did not think it was unreasonable to require
the purchasers to request future variances if they want to
construct something.
Mr . Green said he wants to work with the Village and suggested
restricting the 200 , 1200 and the 1700 series because they are
the largest . This would permit construction of the 100 . 300 .
400 . 600 and 1100 series .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 , 1994 - Page Four
Com. Paul made the following motion:
I move we grant the request for variance made by
Scarsdale Development , Ltd . for Lot 70 in the Rolling
Hills subdivision ( 1901 Twin Oaks Court ) pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 40 .020 , pertaining to
Area . Height . Bulk and Placement Regulations , for the
purpose of permitting a twelve feet ( 12 ' ) encroachment
into the required forty foot (40 ' ) rear yard setback .
with the following restrictions :
1 . Construction of models 200 , 1200 and 1700 are
to be excluded.
2 . The houses for the remaining plans are
similar to that shown on Exhibit A-2 .
3 . This variance is limited to the footprints of
those remaining houses and the builder may
add the standard one-story bay option to the
breakfast room , but it cannot extend beyond
the twelve foot ( 12 ' ) encroachment line .
4. The contract purchaser is to be notified and
proof of this notification is to be submitted
to the Village prior to approval of the permit .
5 . The deed , including the terms of the variance ,
is to be recorded .
6 . With the exception of the bay window , no other
construction will be permitted without a specific
variance .
Unique circumstance having been demonstrated , the
variance will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood.
Com. Kearns seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Kearns , Paul . Entman.
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in fifteen days - January 5 . 1995 .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 . 1994 - Page Five
Roil Call Vote : AYE - Kearns . Entman . Paul .
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Permit may be issued in fifteen ( 15 ) days - Jan. 5 , 1995 .
B. Max ' s Deli & Restaurant - 228 to 230 McHenry Road . Town Center
Zoning Ordinance . Section 17 . 44 . 060 . e . 6 .a( ix) - Wall Sign
Mr . Randy Ziemann , representative of Speedy Sign-A-Rama .
80 W. Dundee Road . B.G. and Mr . Martin Segal , R. B. Deli
Corporation. representative of Melvin Simon & Associates .
were sworn in and the public hearing notice was read .
Mr . Ziemann described the proposed sign. The B-5 section of
the Zoning Ordinance permits a sign area of 75 square feet
but because the registered logo for Max ' s Deli is angled ,
the boxed measurement totals 117 square feet . If the letters
were straight , the sign would comply with the Village
standards .
Ch. Heinrich stated that the Speedy Sign-A-Rama company is
owned by Zoning Board Commissioner Herman Hefler .
There are two other Max ' s Delis : one in Highland Park and
one in Chicago .
The Commissioners had no questions or objections . Com. Entman
said that one of his relatives works at the Max ' s in Highland
Park , but this will not affect his decision.
Com. Kearns made the following motion:
I move that we recommend to the Village Board approval
of a variance on behalf of Max ' s Deii & Restaurant .
228 to 230 McHenry Road . for variance of Zoning
Ordinance , Section 17 . 44 . 060 . e . 6 . a( ix) pertaining to
Town Center signs . for the purpose of installing a wall
sign that would permit the allowable 75 square feet sign
area to be increased to 117 square feet .
The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign on
December 8 , 1994 and recommended a variance .
The variance is authorized pursuant to Sign Code ,
Section 14 . 44 . 010 . sub-section A.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman , Kearns . Paul .
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached .
Item will be on the January 9 . 1995 Village Board Agenda.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 . 1994 - Page Seven
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. 740 Woodhollow Lane . Steve and Andrea Nadulek
Zoning Ordinance , 17 . 40 . 020 - Construction of Addition
Steve Nadulek , 740 Woodhollow Lane . were sworn in and the
public hearing notice was read . Mr . Nadulek summarized their
reasons for requesting a variance :
I . The house (Buckingham model ) is small with no family room
or basement .
2 . They have two (2) daughters and need more living space .
3 . They considered the usual additions on similar houses
but they prefer the proposed design which will require
a variance of three feet ( 3 ' ) into the required thirty
foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback .
4 . They have made other improvements and want to remain in
this house because of the location. Their neighbors are
good friends .
5 . Moving to another house would cause a financial hardship.
6 . The materials of the addition will match the existing
house .
Chairman Heinrich observed that the property abuts Route 83 so
there are no neighbors directly to the rear . He had no
objection to the proposed variance .
Com. Entman. Com. Kearns . Com. Paul and Com. Windecker had no
objections .
Com. Entman made the following motion:
I move we grant the request of Steve and Andrea Nadulek .
740 Woodhollow Lane . for variance of Zoning Ordinance .
Section 17 . 40. 020 . pertaining to Area , Height , Bulk and
Placement Regulations . for the purpose of constructing an
addition that would encroach a distance of no more than
three feet (3 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear
yard setback.
The materials used for the 1-story addition will match
the existing house in like kind and quality. Addition
to be constructed in accordance with plans and specifi-
cations submitted to and approved by the Village .
Petitioner having exhibited unique circumstances . the
proposed variation will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood and . pursuant to the Village
Engineer ' s Drainage Review , dated December 19 . 1994 .
which states : "The proposed addition will not affect the
existing drainage pattern. "
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 , 1994 - Page Six
C. Town and Country Homes - Route 22
Sign Code . Section 14 . 20 .010 - Residential Districts
Sign Code , Section 14 . 20 .070 - Ground Signs
Sign Code , Section 14 . 32 .010 - Subdivision Development Signs
Sign Code , Section 14 . 36 .010 - Multiple Flags
Mr . Greg Crowther , Project Manager . Town and Country Homes .
3880 Salem Lake Drive . Long Grove . IL 60047 (726-1020) was
sworn in and the public hearing notice was read .
Ch. Heinrich commended Mr . Crowther for the booklet of docu-
ments and exhibits that was submitted with the application.
Mr . Crowther summarized the reasons for requesting variances
of the Sign Code for the purpose of installing a ground sign
within the required setback and to permit a row of flags to
identify the entrance to Town and Country Homes .
Mr . Crowther described the site plan that depicts the west
entrance on Route 22 which will lead to both Tenerife , the
multi-family community , and Mirielle . the single family
community. The row of temporary flags will be installed in
line with the parkway trees . Two other flag poles will flank
the main identification sign on Route 22 . The flags will
mark the entrance , tie the communities together and help the
marketing programs . Three other flag poles will be located
at the model parking area . The American flag pole will be
24 feet in height . with the Town and Country corporate flag
below the American flag , flanked with two other poles with the
community flags . This is a temporary flag program and all the
flags will be removed when the marketing program is completed .
The main identification sign on Route 22 is 120 square feet
and conforms with the size permitted by the Sign Code . When
the property was developed , a large parcel was dedicated to
the state highway department . giving a 77 foot from center
line right-of-way and with the additional required setback of
35 feet setback , the sign would be located 112 - 115 feet from
the street . It would be very difficult to see the sign set
back that far from Route 22 . They are requesting that the
sign be located at the property line , leaving a distance of 77
feet to the center line of Route 22 .
Ch. Heinrich expressed concern with the sign and flags being
close to Lincolnshire and said consideration should be given
to good neighbor relationship. He understood not going back
the full distance required by the ordinance , but he objected
to having the sign located at the property line . This is a
very open stretch along Route 22 so the sign will be seen.
Mr . Crowther asked what distance the Board would consider
appropriate? There are some existing trees and they want
to keep the sign visible .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 . 1994 - Page Eight
Based on the Sign Code requirement of setback equal to height .
the sign which is thirteen feet ( 13 ' ) in height plus a base of
two to four feet (2 ' - 4 ' ) . a setback of fifteen feet ( 15 ' )
from the property line was agreed upon.
Regarding the flags . Mr . Crowther said they were a very
important part of the marketing program and they have been
successfully used in other communities .
In response to the Village Engineer ' s Line-of-Sight Review.
dated December 13 . 1994 which states : "The sign location does
not affect the required line of sight . Regarding the flag
poles , these types of installations are not permitted in the
public right-of-way. They need to be relocated to the private
property , " Mr . Crowther asserted that the property is private
until the Village accepts the community which includes all the
improvements . This takes place after the sales program is
completed .
Ch. Heinrich asked Mr . Skelton' s advice regarding the time of
dedication of the streets? Is it upon completion of improve-
ments , such as sewer lines and sanitary lines , or upon accept-
ance by the Village?
Mr . Skelton indicated that the flag poles could interfere with
electrical lines . sanitary system, etc .
Mr . Crowther said Town and Country is responsible for all the
maintenance of improvements until the Village ' s final accept-
ance of the property. The land development department co-
ordinates the installation of the water main, sewers and
electrical lines . Some of these improvements are already in
place . The flag poles will not affect the gas or electric
companies .
Com. Entman asked how far from the entrance the first flag
would be located and where the flag poles would be located if
not in the right-of-way with the parkway trees?
Mr . Crowther said the first flag would be about 113 feet from
the highway and if the were moved back they would have to be
located within the area of the retention where the slope drops
off about 25 feet from the property line . The flags would not
be as effective if they were staggered with the trees .
The Appearance Commission reviewed the sign and flags on
September 8 . 1994 and recommended approval of the aesthetics .
Referring to the Village Engineer ' s Review , Mr . Skelton said
the right-of-way is the right-of-way whether it is dedicated
or not , and he does not want flags located within that area.
Ch. Heinrich said they would consider the road dedicated.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 . 1994 - Page Nine
After more discussion, a poll was taken:
Com. Windecker - Supported moving the flags back .
Com. Paul - No problem.
Com. Kearns - Would permit the sign to be setback 15 feet and
the flags to be moved back off the right-of-way.
Com. Entman - Suggested eliminating the first two flags in
deference to Lincolnshire .
Ch. Heinrich - Said forty feet (40 ' ) was far enough back for
the first flag , but they should be moved out of the right-of-
way. He disclosed that he is a friend of the Miller family
but this would have no influence on his deliberations .
Mr . Crowther agreed to move the flags out of the right-of-way.
Mr . Schar announced that the new Sign Code went into effect on
Monday, December 20 . 1994 . The proposed sign would require a
variance of Sign Code Section 14 . 32 . 010 to permit the size and
location of the subdivision development sign within the
required setback a distance equal to the height ; and the flags
would require a variance of Sign Code . Section 14 . 36 . 010 to
permit more than one flag .
Com. Entman made the following motion:
I move we recommend to the Village Board that Town
and Country Homes , be granted a variance of Municipal
Code , Section 14 . 32 . 010 , pertaining to Subdivision
Development Signs , pursuant to the newly adopted Sign
Code , to permit the ground sign on Route 22 to exceed
sixty-four square feet (64 sq . ft . ) and to permit the
setback to be fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the property line ;
and variance of Municipal Code , Section 14 . 36 . 010 ,
pertaining to Flags , to permit the installation of more
than one ( 1 ) flag, with the following conditions :
1 . The proposed ground sign (A) shall be set back
at least fifteen feet ( 15 ' ) from the property
line and the size , approximately 9 . 4 ' x 13 . 6 '
( 120 sq . ft . ) be permitted to exceed the
requirement of 8 ' x 8 ' (64 sq . ft . ) per the
exhibit submitted with the permit application.
2 . The number of flags to exceed the permitted
number of one ( 1 ) of each category: the total
number being eighteen ( 18) as depicted on the
site plan, Exhibit A. Location of the flag
poles to be amended as agreed : The flags shall
be moved laterally , out of the right-of-way .
pursuant to the Village Engineer ' s Review, dated
December 13 . 1994 . The eighteen foot ( 18 ' ) fiag
poles will be white fibergias .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 , 1994 - Page Ten
The variances are recommended pursuant to the criteria of Sign
Code . Section 14 . 44 . 010 . Subsection A.
Com . Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote : AYE - Kearns , Entman. Paul .
Windecker and Heinrich
NAY - None
Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached.
Item will be on the January 9 , 1995 Village Board Agenda .
VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 . Approval of Minutes - November 15 , 1994 :
1 . Page Three : Com. Paul asked for clarification of the poll
taken regarding the petition of Yung Jun and Yong OK Whang ,
16 Newtown Ct . W. The minutes will be revised as follows :
After more discussion. a poll was taken to determine if the
Zoning Board should Table - the variance until more complete
construction plans are submitted" or Act on the Variance
"at this time . " ( Insert phrases shown in quotes . )
Ch. Heinrich and Commissioners Paul . Entman, Windecker and
Hefler voted to Table until December 20 , 1994 .
Com. Arbus voted to Act now.
2 . Page Nine , Line 3 : Correct typo reevalated s/b reevaluated
Com. Entman made a motion to approve the minutes of
November 15 . 1994 as amended .
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: AYE - Paul . Entman, Windecker , Heinrich
NAY - None
ABSTAIN - Kearns
Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention.
Minutes of November 15 . 1994 approved with amendments .
VII . ADJOURNMENT
Com. Entman made a motion to adjourn.
Com. Windecker seconded the motion.
Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously.
Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 10 :00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted .
Shirley Bates
Recording Secretary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 20 . 1994 - Page Eleven