Loading...
1996-02-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes PiPPJ rriN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -.,,F EB VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE , ILLINOIS ROOM 34 - ALCOTT COMMUNITY CENTER 530 BERNARD DRIVE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20 , 1996 I . CALL TQ ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing to order at 7 : 34 P . M . , Tuesday, February 20 , 1996 , Room 34 , Alcott Community Center, 530 Bernard Drive . II . RQLL CALL Commissioners Present : J . Paul , B . Entman, L . Windecker, H . Hefler and R . Heinrich . QUORUM Commissioners Absent : L . Arbus Bldg . Dept . Liaison : Edward Scharf Deputy Building Commissioner Village Attorney : Richard Skelton III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 17 , 1995 - Com. Windecker made a motion to approve as submitted . Com. Paul seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Entman, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Hefler Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention . Minutes of October 17 , 1995 were approved . B . November 21 , 1995 - Com . Windecker made a motion to approve as submitted . Com . Windecker seconded the motion . Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul , Windecker, Hefler, and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Entman Motion Passed - 4 to 0 , 1 abstention . Minutes of November 21 , 1995 were approved . *ft./ APAITED C. January 16, 1996 - Correction: Com. Arbus was absent (B. Entman was present . ) Com. Windecker made a motion to approve as corrected. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Windecker, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None ABSTAIN - Paul Motion Passed - 4 to 0, 1 abstention. Minutes of January 16, 1996 were approved. IV. BUSINESS A. 425 St . Mary' s Parkway, Jacqueline Miller Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 . 32 . 020 Construction of a Three-Season Room - Five feet (5 ' ) From Existing Garage Ms . Jacqueline Miller was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. Ms . Miller summarized the reasons for requesting a variance to permit construc- tion of a three-season room that would be a distance of five feet (5 ' ) from the existing garage . Variance is permitted by ordinance, pursuant to Zoning Ordin- ance, Section 17 . 52 . 050 : 1 . A three season room would increase their living space during the spring and summer months . The addition would not be heated. 2 . The 12 ' x 12 ' room would be constructed on six (6) concrete piers and the siding would match the house. 3 . To construct the room at the rear of the house would require power lines to be moved and this would be costly. Ms. Miller said she has discussed the proposed room with her neighbors and there were no objections . Mr. James Koppe, 265 Rosewood (directly behind the subject property) was present and did not object . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `„/ FEBRUARY 20, 19919 - PAGE TWO AP) PA The Village Engineer' s (second) Drainage Review, dated February 5, 1996, states: "It is our understanding that the improvement will be built on columns and at an elevation level with the existing structure no problems are anticipated. " Commissioners Hefler, Entman, Paul and Windecker had no questions or objections . Com. Paul made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board that the request of Ms. Jacqueline Miller, 425 St . Mary' s Parkway, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .32 . 020, pertaining to Accessory Buildings and Structures, be granted to permit construction of a Three-Season Room that would be a distance of five feet (5 ' ) from the existing garage. Materials of said addition will be consistent with the existing construction. Plight of the owner is due to unique circum- stances . The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Item will be on the March 4, 1996 Village Board Consent Agenda. B. 40 Carlyle, Jay and Lauren Josephson Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40 . 020 Construction of Garage Addition Three Feet (3 ' ) into Required Side Yard Setback Mr. Jay Josephson was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE THREE 8j))'Th.P.Tg Mr. Josephson summarized the reasons for requesting a variance for the purpose of adding a constructing a third garage that would encroach a distance of three feet (3 ' ) into the required nine foot (9 ' ) side yard setback: 1 . They have three (3) cars and three (3) drivers, so it is difficult to maneuver cars around in the driveway. 2 . They do not want the cars exposed to the elements. 3 . They also have swimming pool equipment that has been kept outside that could be stored inside the garage. 4 . Three car garages are common in the area. Mr. Josephson presented a photograph of the house at 47 Carlyle Lane with a similar three (3) car garage. He has discussed the proposal with his neighbors and there have been no objections . The addition will match the existing construction. The Village Engineer Review, dated February 5, 1996, states : "The proposed addition need not affect the existing drainage in the area. " Questions from Commissioners: Com. Windecker asked if the driveway was going to be extended? Mr. Josephson said he would like to widen the driveway and he would meet the code requirements. Mr. Schar said the maximum curb cut is twenty-seven feet (27 ' ) . Commissioners Paul, Entman and Hefler had no questions or objections. There were no questions from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE FOUR APPLIT6E1 Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the variance requested by Jay and Lauren Josephson, 40 Carlyle Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk, and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a garage addition that would encroach a distance of three feet (3 ' ) into the required nine foot (9 ' ) side yard setback. Materials are to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. Addition to be con- structed in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the Village of Buffalo Grove. Petitioner having exhibited hardship and unique circumstances, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood Com. Paul seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Entman, Hefler, Paul, Windecker and Heinrich - NAY None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - 3/7/96 . C. 12 Newtown Court West, Bruce and Marla Sundh Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 .40 . 020 - Permit construction of addition 10 ' into required 30 ' rear yard setback; Section 17 . 32 . 020 - Permit rear yard coverage to exceed 20% Mr. Bruce Sundh was sworn in and the public hearing notice was read. He summarized the reasons for re- questing a variance for the purpose of constructing an addition that would encroach a distance of ten feet (10 ' ) into the required thirty foot (30 ' ) rear yard setback and permit the rear yard coverage to be more than 20% : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `./ FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE FIVE EDIDIngElf 1 . They have lived in the raised ranch house for 8-1/2 years. The family room/office and playroom are on the lower level . 2 . The lower level is impossible to heat three quarters (3/4) of the year and this winter the temperature was never above 60 degrees. 3 . After considering different ways to improve the heating conditions, they decided to build the family room upstairs behind the existing kitchen. They also plan to modernize the kitchen. 4 . The lower patio level will be converted into a screened-in porch. Mr. Sundh said the variance is needed because the children are growing and the family is living ina very small area of the house. The lower level is unim- habitable. Mr. Sundh has consulted heating people and architects regarding alternatives : 1 . Install another heating system, but there is no space for it . 2 . Install radiant floor heaters, consisting of hot water hoses under the floor, but the cost for this would be very high. 3 . Reinsulation of the lower level . Mr. Sundh said that no-one could guarantee that the lower level would be any warmer. Ch. Heinrich observed that a lot of the rear yard is already covered by the pool and deck. Mr. Sundh said his house is located on a cul-de-sac and most of the residents do not use the rear yards. They sit in the front yard or they are in his yard using the pool . He presented photographs of the area. There is a fifty foot (50 ' ) bike path to the rear and the next house to the rear is at least thirty feet (30 ' ) from the bike path The screened-in area will permit them to eat out in the summer away from the insects, etc. They do enjoy the use of the house . They plan to match the existing construction, color and roof . Another problem having the family room downstairs and the kitchen upstairs is that the children are playing farther away from the parents . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 20, 1996 -PAGE SIX ANDIngElf The Village Engineer' s Review, dated February 5, 1996, \.J states : "The proposed addition need not affect the existing drainage in the area. " Rebecca Groves (Mrs . Mark Groves) , 721 Aberdeen, was present . Her house is on the other side of the bike path directly to the rear of the Sundh property. She said her family does not get much use out of their yard because of the Sundh' s above ground swimming pool . They put up two (2) trees to block out the pool and a row of bushes that will grow higher than the fence. The Sundhs can look directly into the Groves' yard from the deck around the pool and from the upper level deck off of their kitchen. Mrs . Groves express- ed concern that the addition will further invade their privacy. Mr. Sundh responded that he saw Mr. Groves on Sunday, and he did not express any objections . The addition will extend about ten feet (10 ' ) past the existing upstairs deck. Mrs. Groves said the houses in the area are close together and they purchased the house next to the bike path because it gave them additional space . They did not see the pool when they purchased the house and the Sundhs have a lot of activity going on. The proposed addition will decrease the distance between the houses . Ch. Heinrich observed that the addition will not be any closer than the existing patio and will not be any closer to the pool . Comments from Commissioners : Com. Hefler: Not pleased with the coverage of the existing pool and deck. The request is for about 30% coverage. He understands the neighbors' concern and he' s not comfortable permitting any more coverage. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE SEVEN TIN '11 Com. Entman: Confirmed that there is no coverage limi- tation that can be recommended for variance. Mr. Sundh said the pool and deck were there when they purchased the property. He estimated that they were installed approximately ten (10) years ago. Com. Paul : Asked how the addition would be heated. If the existing furnace is not adequate, they may need second furnace. Mr. Sundh replied that the problem was created by the original design. He has no plan for heating the new family room and the furnace they have gives them the heat they need upstairs. The house is on a slab with a fireplace in the family room. The only heat ducts are next to the sliding glass door. Com. Paul had no objection to the addition, but he observed that the addition would be over open space, so he could have the same situation and it could possibly be colder. Ch. Heinrich added that the size of the furnace could be increased, but all of the duct work cannot be replaced. Com. Paul asked Mr. Sundh if he has onsidered adding a small furnace room to the house just to heat the downstairs . This would be cheaper and more efficient . Mr. Sundh said they have not considered building an addition for a furnace but heat is only one aspect of the situation. They also want an upstairs family room that is nearer to the kitchen and living area. They would use the lower level as a basement . Com. Hefler said he is not as concerned about the heating aspect as allowing the variance because it may not serve the best interests of the neighbors now and in the future. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE EIGHT EDVIBEll Com. Windecker observed that the Groves have more of a view of the pool than of the proposed addition. He asked if the neighbors at 731 Aberdeen were contacted? Mr. Sundh said Mr. Kass (731) does not object . The house is a raised ranch and, with or without the addition, the living area is higher. Com. Windecker' s concern was with the heating method. He would like to see a proposed heating plan. Mr. David Shepherd, 1109 N. Dundee, Arlington Heights, the architect for the Sundh addition, was sworn in. He said the lower level of the house is really a basement and more suitable for a shop, utility room or storage. He described a method of installing new heat- ing ducts in the lower level by dropping the ceiling height . A plan was not developed before the ZBA hear- ing because of the cost involved. They will evaluate the existing furnace capacity. If the furnace needs to be replaced, they will work this alternative into the budget . Ch. Heinrich: Shared the concern about the lot cov- erage of the pool and deck and asked Mr. Sundh if he ever considered cutting down the size of the deck? Mr. Sundh said he could cut off the deck next to the bike path but this would expose the side of the pool . Ch. Heinrich said the pool is very visible and is going to remain the most visible. The house is always going to be higher. He hasn' t decided if the addition is going to have any more visual impact on the Groves property. The bike path does increase the distance between the two houses . He proposed screening the pool with evergreens along the fence. Mr. Sundh presented pictures of the area and said he no objection to planting a row of evergreen bushes . Mrs. Groves said that bushes would help the view. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE NINE w ran Ch. Heinrich and Com. Paul observed that the addition would be beneficial because the sliding door would be on the side with the windows facing the rear. Com. Entman questioned whether the pool and deck were granted a variance for rear yard coverage? Mr. Schar said he had considered this. The pool and deck were constructed before the 20% limitation was put into the Zoning Ordinance. After the situation was discussed, the Commissioners were polled and they agreed it would be beneficial to Table the proposal until the heating method and land- scaping plan are submitted for review. Com. Entman made a motion to Table until March 19, 1996 . Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Mr. Sundh and Mrs. Groves were advised that the March 19, 1996 meeting will be held at the Village Hall . D. 871 Belmar Lane, Ms. Sheila Buckman Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040 - 8 ' Fence Ms. Sheila Buckman and Mr. John Neuber, Sr. were sworn in. The public hearing notice was read. Mr. Schar clarified a notation on the plat that reads "New 8 ' fence to be installed adjacent to current 6 ' tall fence on Rt . 83 . Note: Fence is 1-1/2" thick. Mr. Neuber said the existing fence has been braced with new posts and new stringers, so the new fence will be solidly constructed. Ch. Heinrich questioned the advisability of putting the new fence next to the existing fence because of the effect of moisture that collects on the inside of the fences . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `./ FEBRUARY 8, 1996 - PAGE TEN {• ,- _d i1 JJ\ Mr. Schar confirmed that the area between two (2) wood fences has no ventilation and gets no sunshine to absorb water, so the wood will start to rot . There is a drainage easement along the rear lot line and there would be excess moisture. Mr. Neuber agreed to remove the old fence. They can use the new posts and rails for the new fence . Com. Windecker said he noted new rails facing Rt . 83 . He informed Ms. Buckman that the new fence should be installed with the rails inside the yard and the fence should not be on state property. Ms. Buckman said the fence is a necessity to block the increased traffic noise on Rt . 83 . The fence will be cedar dog-eared solid stockade. The Commissioners had no questions or objections . Com. Entman made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Sheila Buckman, 871 Belmar Lane, for variance of Municipal Code, Section 15 .20 . 040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing an eight foot (8 ' ) wood fence along Route 83 . Fence to be located per the plat of survey and constructed according to plans submitted to and approved by the Village. Proposed variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote : AYE - Paul, Windecker, Entman, Hefler and Heinrich NAY - None Motion Passed - 5 to 0 . Findings of Fact Attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days - 3/7/96 . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `./ FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE ELEVEN p FT7,- NA/ ,;\ VI . ANNOUNCEMENTS None. VII . ADJOURNMENT Com. Entman made a motion to adjourn. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Ch. Heinrich adjourned the meeting at 8 : 50 P.M. Voice Vote - AYE Unanimously Respectfully submitted, 76;2Z2_. Shirley Bates Recording Secretary sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 20, 1996 - PAGE TWELVE