Loading...
2014-05-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes fp 0 rrIED As SIT co(rib►i-/- REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 20, 2014 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:31 P.M. on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Also Present: William Raysa, Village Attorney Brian Sheehan, Building Commissioner APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 29, 2014 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals special meeting held on Tuesday, April 29, 2014. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN —Lesser, Entman Minutes will be Tabled to the June 17, 2014 regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. OLD BUSINESS 251 MILWAUKEE AVENUE, BERKSON & SONS FOR ATRIUM REALTY I - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT,SALE, LEASE SIGN Ch. Entman stated that the Village received information that the property is under new ownership. The Zoning Board of Appeals will not take any further action on this item as the variation is null and void. New ownership will need to proceed with permitting procedures for the sign. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20, 2014 PAGE 1 of 7 301 MILWAUKEE AVENUE, GRILL ON THE ROCK - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.16.030; 14.16.060; 14.16.070 AND 14.20.070 — FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING TWO (2) ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS WITH THE PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION WALL SIGN NOT FACING THE PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY; AND TO ALLOW AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE GROUND SIGN. SAID ELECTRONIC MESSAGE GROUND SIGN WOULD BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN PERMITTED Mr. Rafael Plazola, Signtronix, 15 Spinning Wheel Road, Suite 316, Hinsdale, IL 60521, and Mr. Isaac Yoon, Grill on the Rock, 301 Milwaukee Avenue, were present and sworn in. Ch. Entman stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) received additional information this evening. He asked the Petitioner to provide an overview of this new information. Mr. Plazola explained that based on the comments from the last meeting, they have removed the request for any wall signage on the south elevation of the building. They have also made changes to the proposed ground sign; the ground sign would remain the same height but would be increased in width; the message board would be one (1) color; and they would like to retain the "BiBimBap" rear west elevation wall sign. Proposed building elevations were also included in the revised submittal which was also provided to the Building Department. Ch. Entman summarized the changes. The Petitioner will remove the south wall sign from the request; retain the "BiBimBap" with "Take Out" wall sign over the take out entrance; and the ground sign would be eight (8) feet wide instead of six (6) feet wide. Mr. Plazola explained that since they are removing the south elevation wall sign they need to increase the size of the ground sign to provide more visibility to traffic driving along Milwaukee Avenue in order to allow time to pull in. Ch. Entman stated that the original submittal was marked as Exhibit E. The revised submittal is marked as Exhibit F and was attached to an email addressed to Julie Kamka and submitted by Signtronixart@aol.com dated May 20, 2014. Exhibit F consists of seven (7) pages with a reference on Page 1 to fifty six (56) square feet. The new proposed ground sign would remain at the same height of ten (10) feet but would now be eight (8) feet wide with the same proposed setback of five (5) feet. Exhibit A, Alta Plat of Survey, remains unchanged. Com. Windecker asked if the entrance is being moved to the northwest elevation of the building and the entrance at the canopy will be closed off. Mr. Plazola stated that is correct. Ch. Entman also asked if the exterior staircase will be removed. Mr. Plazola stated yes. Com. Lesser asked if the letters "Take Out" will be included under the "BiBimBap" wall sign and if so, how will it be installed. Mr. Plazola stated that the letters "Take Out" will be located under the "BiBimBap" wall sign. The "Take Out" letters will be non-illuminated plastic letters. Com. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20, 2014 PAGE 2of7 Lesser asked what size the letters will be since there are no dimensions included in the packet. Ch. Entman suggested that the "Take Out" letters be proportionate to the "BiBimBap" letters as depicted in the exhibit. Mr. Sheehan stated that on page 2 of Exhibit F, the monochrome display is measured at two (2) feet in height but the lines do not match up with the display area. Mr. Plazola confirmed that the monochrome display will be two (2) feet in height and the dimensions shown on the rendering that do not line up is a mistake. Mr. Tom Hughes, 251 Milwaukee Avenue, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089, was present and advised that his objection as stated in his letter dated May 14, 2014 addressed to Mr. Brian Sheehan is withdrawn since the south elevation wall sign has been removed from the request. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Grill on the Rock, 301 Milwaukee Avenue, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.16.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.16.060 pertaining to Ground Signs; Section 14.16.070, pertaining to Wall Signs; and Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Electronic Message Signs, for the purpose of allowing one (1) wall sign to be located on the rear west elevation of the building; and to allow an electronic message ground sign. Said electronic message ground sign would be located closer to the property line than permitted subject to the following conditions: 1. The signs are to be installed pursuant to Exhibit F submitted with the email dated May 20, 2014 from Signtronixart@aol.com; 2. The "BiBimBap" wall sign located on the rear west elevation will include non- illuminated plastic "Take out" letters over the doorway that will be proportionate as depicted on Page 3 of Exhibit F; 3. The electronic message ground will be 10 foot high by 8 foot wide with a 2 foot high 3-line red monochrome display on a black ground; 4. The ground sign will be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the property; 5. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated March 28, 2014; and 6. Subject to the Appearance Review Team minutes dated April 4, 2014 and subsequent comments received on April 14, 2014, April 15, 2014, April 17, 2014 and April 18, 2014. Pursuant to Sign Code,Section 14.40.010, Subsection B. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20, 2014 PAGE 3of7 Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold,Windecker,Lesser,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the June 16, 2014 Village Board Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 1339 MADISON COURT SOUTH,BRIAN AND DAWN COSTIN-FENCE CODE,SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE CONSTRUCTING A FIVE (5) FOOT HIGH BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG MADISON DRIVE. SAID FENCE BEGINNING AT THE NORTH REAR CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING NORTH A DISTANCE OF TWENTY SIX(26)FEET TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE;THEN TURNING NORTHEAST AND RUNNING PARALLEL TO MADISON DRIVE MAINTAINING A MINIMUM 5 FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE UNTIL IT REACHES A POINT OF 2.37 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE; THEN TURNING SOUTHEAST AND RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE MAINTAINING A DISTANCE OF 2.37 FEET AND RETURNING TO THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE Mr.Brian Costin and Mrs.Dawn Costin,1339 Madison Court South,were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on May 1,2014 was read. Mr.Costin explained that they had received the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 5, 2014.They understand the concern of the Village Engineer with the fence being 2.37 feet off the rear property line.They would like to amend their request to place the fence along the rear property in lieu of 2.37 feet from the rear property line.They also understand the concern by the Village Engineer about the proposed location of the fence to be five (5) feet from the property line along Madison Drive. They would also like to amend their request to place the proposed fence a distance of one(1)foot from the property line along Madison Drive and install a removal fence panel over the water line so the Village can access it if needed.The reason for their variance request is to maximize the usable space in their yard and to provide security for their family. They have one child and another on the way. They have also had issues with people trespassing on their property to get the park located nearby. Ch.Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated May 5, 2014 which states: "Brian, while I do not have any issues with the fence type or height, I am concerned about the 5'distance from the property line for this fence along Madison Drive and then the 2.37' distance off of the east property line. While it is typical for the village to give homeowners permission to put up fences in or across public utility easements, this fence location along Madison Drive seems to put the fence directly over the village water main in that easement and the water valve vault I can see in google street view which is not shown on the plat of survey.Any water main break would require removal of the fence,where a fence located ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20,2014 PAGE 4 of 7 either on the property line or at the easement line would allow someone to dig and possibly avoid damaging in the fence. It does not guarantee that the fence will not be damaged but it greatly reduces the possibility of fence damage if the fence was not right over the water main. I would agree with the fence being moved to the lot line or 10' off of the property line at the easement line. Also, for the fence located 2.37' off of the east property line, there is the same issue with the 7' easement, there is a village street light cable as well as I assume power cables in that easement (as I can see ComEd pedestals on the aerial photo) and the fence would be better either on the lot line or at the easement line for the same reasons as above. The power cables should be verified with a JULIE locate though before this is decided. In addition, the 2.37' would seem to create an alley for people to still cut through these yards to reach the park, moving it closer to the neighboring fence would force people to use the correct path which is only one house over." Com. Lesser asked Mr. Costin if they are making any changes to fence along the south property line. Mr. Costin stated they will not make any changes but just close off the small opening at the southeast corner. Com. Lesser asked for clarification on where the fence would be located along the east property line. Mr. Costin stated that the fence would be located along the east (rear) property and would be back to back with the neighboring fence. There would no longer be a gap between the fences. Com. Lesser stated that he could not approve the fence to located one (1) foot from the property along Madison Drive. He would only be amenable to a fence location that does not encroach into the easement. Mr. Costin stated that they are amenable to locating the fence at the ten (10)foot easement line along Madison Drive. Com. Windecker asked if Mr. Costin is concerned with the people that are walking to the park. Mr. Costin stated yes. Com. Windecker stated that with this lot being a corner lot he normally would not agree with locating a fence that close to the property line, even at the easement line. The photographs provided by the Petitioner depict corner lot fencing in which each circumstance was different. Deerfield Parkway is a high traffic roadway. Madison Drive is not. The property on Witney had a variance approved back in 1992 based on their circumstances. He asked if Mr. Costin has spoken with the neighbor to the east whose front yard would be affected. Mr. Costin stated that they have spoken with their neighbor and they understand. They amend their petition to request the fence to be located at the ten (10) foot easement line along Madison Drive.That would still give them twenty one (21)feet. Ch. Entman advised Mr. Costin that each request is based upon its own unique circumstances. The ZBA also needs to look at the needs of Petitioner and the surrounding properties. If the variance request is based upon the concern for safety, that can be accomplished with the fence being located along the building line. When it comes to security, any fence will do. The ZBA has to take into account what affect the variance would have if granted. The neighbor to the east has their front yard adjacent to this corner side yard. The fence style being requested also plays a role in the decision. The fence being requested is open and would provide visibility.The size of the yard is also a consideration. This is a fairly good sized yard would continue to be even if the fence was placed along the building line. He would be more amenable to approve the fence to ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20, 2014 PAGE 5 of 7 be located ten (10)feet beyond the building line. That would provide more room and would not interfere with the utilities. Li Ch. Entman advised Mr. Costin that the ZBA consists of seven (7) members. There are only four (4) members present. A majority of the quorum, three (3) members, would need to vote in favor of the request in order for the request to be approved. He also explained the Petitioner's option to Table the request to the next meeting in order to allow for more Commissioners to be present. Mr. Costin stated that they would like to amend their request to locate the proposed fence a maximum of ten (10) feet beyond the building setback line along Madison Drive and to locate the fence along the rear property line in lieu of 2.37 feet inside the rear property line. Mr. Sheehan suggested adding language to the motion that the fence would be located a maximum of ten (10) feet beyond the building setback, then turning northeast and running parallel to Madison Drive to the rear property line. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the amended request made by Brian and Dawn Costin, 1339 Madison Court South, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a five (5) foot high black aluminum fence beyond the building setback line along Madison Drive. Said fence beginning at the north rear corner of the house and extending north a distance of ten (10) feet beyond the building setback line to a point approximately 20 feet from the property line; then turning northeast and running parallel to Madison Drive maintaining a minimum of 20 foot distance from the property line until it reaches the rear property line; then turning southeast along the rear property line and returning to the building setback line. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated May 5, 2014. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique and circumstances. The proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Steingold seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Steingold, Windecker, Lesser, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20, 2014 PAGE 6 of 7 Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of fact attached. Permit can be issued in fifteen (15) days — June 5, 2014. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Sheehan stated that the recommendation to combine the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals to create a Planning and Zoning Commission is schedule for the June 16, 2014 Village Board meeting. If approved, the anticipated first meeting will be held in July. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Lesser and seconded by Com. Windecker. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:32 P.M. Submitted by, h6e e Julie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20, 2014 PAGE 7 of 7