Loading...
2012-06-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes EADO REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 Acting Chairman Windecker called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order 5 9 2012 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 0 at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, June 1 , Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Cesario Commissioner Steingold Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Commissioners Absent: Chairman Entman William Raysa, Village Attorney Also Present: a Trustee Steve Trilling, Village Lester Ottenheimer, Village Trustee Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 15, 2012 minutes: Board of Appeals Corn. regu made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board the motion. Lesser May 15, 2012. Corn. Cesario seconded regular meeting held on Tuesday, Roll Call Vote: AYE — Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Au, Windecker NAY — None ABSTAIN — Shapiro as submitted. Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 Abstention. Minutes approved OLD BUSINESS 1160 WINDBROOKE DRIVE, THE APARTMENTS AT WINDBROOKE CROSSING - SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.010 AND SE CTION 14.20.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING TW0 (2) GROUND SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE EXCEED FIVE (5) FEET IN HEIGHT; FOR THE PURPOSE OF TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 1of23 ALLOWING THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS EACH EXCEEDING THIRTY TWO (32) SQUARRE EET IN AREA; FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS F AND TO ALLOW THE GR OUND LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK A CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE SIGN ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER TO BE LOCATED THAN PERMITTED Mr. Michael Perrotta, Marquette Management, 401 S. Main Street, Suite 300, Naperville, Illinois 60540, was present and sworn in. Mr . Perrotta stated that he was pulled from the project but has recently been rre- assi ned to the project. He brought drawings with him to provide to the Zoning Boar d of g Appeals (ZBA). Acting Ch. Windecker advised Mr. Perrotta that the ZBA needs sufficient time to review the drawings.s. He suggested Tabling this request to the next meeting, July 17, 2012, in ord er for the drawings to be provided to Building Department for distribution to the ZBA. Th ere were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Cesario made a motion to Table the request made by The Apartments oat Corn. Section Windbrooke Crossing, 1160 Windbrooke Drive, for variance of Sign Code, Se to 14.20.010, pertaining to Residential Districts; and Section 14.20.070, pertaining o Ground Signs, for the purpose of allowing two (2) ground signs on the property; for the of allowingthe two (2) ground signs to exceed five (5) feet in height; for the purpose square feet of allowing the two (2) ground signs each exceeding thirty two (32) sq in the purpose round si signs to be located in area; for the purpose of allowing the two (2) g sign on the northwest corner to required building setback area; and to allow the ground s g 17, 2012 Zoning Board be located closer to the property line than permitted, to the July of Appeals meeting. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the July 17, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting. 2000 WRIGHT BOULEVARD, SCOTT GOLDTSEIN—FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FOUR (4) FOOT OPEN STYLE FENCE BEGINNING ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION AT THE REAR OF THE GARAGE EXTENDING SOUTH A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY THIRTY (30) FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 2 of 23 OLIVE HILL DRIVE STOPPING ABOUT TWELVE (12) INCHES NORTH OF THE SIDEWALK; THEN TURNING WEST TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE MAINTAINING A TWELVE (12) INCH SEPARATION FROM THE SIDEWALK; THEN TURNING NORTH A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHTEEN (18) FEET Mr. Scott Goldstein and Mrs. Jamie Goldstein, 2000 Wright Boulevard, were present and sworn in. Acting Ch. Windecker advised that the Petitioner had requested to Table at the last meeting in order to speak with the Village Engineer concerning his review. The Village Engineer has provided a subsequent review after speaking with the Petitioner. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if Mr. Goldstein has seen this subsequent review. Mr. Goldstein stated that he has not seen it writing but that he has spoken to Mr. Sheehan who informed him that the recommendation has been changed from a minimum of two (2) feet from the sidewalk to a minimum of eighteen (18) inches from the sidewalk. He believes that is a reasonable recommendation and agrees to amend his petition to locate the fence eighteen (18) inches from the sidewalk. Acting Ch. Windecker read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated June 1, 2012 which states: "We have reviewed the fence proposal at the above location. It does not appear that any of the existing landscaping is in direct conflict with the prior two (2') foot setback recommendation, however, a setback of 18 (18") inches from the sidewalk would be acceptable. It is noted that trimming of the existing landscaping is required as it obstructs the public walk." Mr. Goldstein advised that he has already spoken to a contractor that indicated that, as part of the project of constructing the fence, would additionally trim all the bushes and landscaping appropriately. Acting Ch. Windecker asked Mr. Goldstein about the additional photographs submitted to Mr. Sheehan prior to the ZBA meeting. Mr. Goldstein stated that he supplemented his prior submission with some additional photographs that he provided to Mr. Sheehan. Mr. Sheehan stated that the photographs were submitted via email. He received them and printed them out and provided the photographs to the ZBA in order for the ZBA to take a look at the situation as it exists with the landscaping along the sidewalk where the fence is proposed to be located within eighteen (18) inches of the sidewalk. Acting Ch. Windecker marked the photographs as Exhibits and had the Petitioner sign them. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 3 of 23 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we grant the amended request made by Scott and Jamie Goldstein, 2000 Wright Boulevard, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a four (4) foot open style fence beginning on the south elevation at the rear of the garage extending south a distance of approximately twenty nine (29) feet six (6) inches beyond the building setback line along Olive Hill Drive stopping about eighteen (18) inches north of the sidewalk; then turning west to the rear property line maintaining an eighteen (18) inch separation from the sidewalk; then turning north a distance of approximately eighteen (18) feet. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 1, 2012. The existing landscaping along Olive Hill Drive is to be trimmed back to not obstruct the public right- of-way. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique 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. Corn. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Shapiro, Au, Windecker NAY—Lesser ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days—July 5, 2012. NEW BUSINESS 600 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, INDECK ENERGY SERVICES - REVIEW OF STATUS OF THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE SIGN Mr. Richard McCarty, Imperial Realty Company, 4747 W. Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60646, was present and sworn in. Mr. McCarty advised that currently there is five thousand nine hundred thirty seven (5,937) square feet of vacant space available on the second floor. He requested an additional six (6) month extension. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 4 of 23 Corn. Lesser made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Indeck Energy Services, for the "For Rent, Sale or Lease" sign located at 600 Buffalo Grove Road. Petitioner to appear at the December 18, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the sign. Corn. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the December 18, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 2950 N. MAIN STREET, NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING ADDITIONAL NINE (9) FOOT HIGH VINYL COATED CHAIN LINK FENCING AROUND THE TOWER AND RADIO SYSTEM EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT 2950 N. MAIN STREET Ms. Cindy Barbera-Brella, Northwest Central Dispatch, 1975 Davis Street, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 1, 2012 was read. Ms. Barbera-Brella advised that approximately ten (10) years ago at the Vernon Township property, Northwest Central Dispatch received a variance for a nine (9) foot high fence around the tower that is at that location. They have made some improvements as they are changing out the radio system that serves the Police and Fire Department in Buffalo Grove and the other eleven (11) communities that they provide service to. They are looking to extend that nine (9) foot high fence so they can enclose the building and an ice bridge that they have that runs the feed line for the antennas from the structure to the tower. This would give them additional risk protection because there is a ball field to the north and they want to make sure that they keep any children off the tower for safety purposes. Acting Ch. Windecker read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated June 4, 2012 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Corn. Shapiro asked if there is anything at the top of the fence that would prevent someone from climbing over the fence. Ms. Barbera-Brella stated that it is just a regular chain link fence. There is no barbed wire or anything like that. The fence would be nine (9) feet to give additional height than the Ordinance allows. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 5 of 23 Corn. Cesario confirmed with Ms. Barbera-Brella that the proposed fence will be same style fence as the existing nine (9) foot chain link fence. Ms. Barbera-Brella added that they are adding a gate for access. They are working in conjunction with the Township on this project as there is some benefit to the Township to allow the Township to store some materials on the site. The fence will be the same, a black, vinyl coated, nine (9) foot high chain link fence. Mr. Raysa asked to explain what an ice bridge is. Ms. Ms. Barbera-Brella stated that an ice bridge is a cable tray from the shelter to the tower so they can run the feed line above ground. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Northwest Central Dispatch, 1975 Davis Street, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing additional nine (9) foot high vinyl coated chain link fencing around the tower and radio system equipment located at 2950 N. Main Street. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 4, 2012. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique 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. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN —None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days—July 5, 2012. 787 STONEBRIDGE LANE, COLLEEN PRAGALZ AND OSCAR RIVERA - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A FOUR (4) FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND EXTENDING EAST TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE ALONG STONEBRIDGE LANE, THEN TURNING SOUTH TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE MAINTAINING A DISTANCE OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES FROM THE SIDEWALK, THEN TURNING WEST AND RETURNING TO THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 6of23 Ms. Colleen Pragalz and Mr. Oscar Rivera, 787 Stonebridge Lane, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 1, 2012 was read. Mr. Rivera explained they created an outdoor living space in three (3) separate areas. They have a fire pit, a covered pergola and a patio on the side of the house. The areas are currently separated with the existing fence. They would like to incorporate the third outdoor living area into the backyard and make it one (1) unified space. They would like to use the rest of the yard for gardening and would like to protect the yard from dogs and human traffic. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that there is an existing fence that runs along the building line. The request is to extend the fence into the corner side yard which could interfere with the line of sight and safety of the public because of the turn in the road. To extend the fence could be a problem. The backyard is fairly large and has been improved. The reason to extend the fence for flower beds and vegetable gardens does not meet the hardship criteria as set forth in the Ordinance. He asked the Petitioner's if they have any animals. Mr. Rivera stated that they have two (2) dogs. Acting Ch. Windecker asked the Petitioner's about the size of their dogs. Mr. Rivera stated that one (1) dog weights sixty (60) pounds and the other weights eighty (80) pounds. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that a four (4) foot high fence is not very high to contain the dogs if the fence extended that far out. He cannot support the request as proposed. Com. Cesario asked if the intent is to remove the portion of the existing fence to enclose the yard. Mr. Rivera stated that is correct. Mr. Rivera asked the ZBA if the height of the fence is an issue. He understands that there are restrictions for certain dog breeds, which his dogs do not fall into. He stated that he would be willing to install a five (5) foot high fence and asked if that would make a difference. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that he believes that the concern revolves around safety and a corner side yard, which the ZBA normally looks at very carefully, because of line of sight issues. This particular street is very narrow when there are cars parked on both sides of the road. Corn. Lesser stated that he has lived on a corner lot so he can appreciate what the Petitioner's are looking to do. In order for the ZBA to grant a variance, there needs to be hardship or unique circumstances established. This property is a very nice sized corner lot. It appears to be a large backyard as well. He cannot support this request because he does not see the hardship or unique circumstances being established. The gardens and flower beds could be placed in the side yard;they just would not be fenced in. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 7 of 23 Ms. Pragalz stated that long term, the dogs are neither here nor there. Yards are yards whether they are fenced in or not. You will still tend to the yard. They will put in their gardens and do their thing. The issue is that as dog owners, they do not put there dogs on retractable leashes but those retractable leashes can run a dog onto someone's front porch. They have seen that. Also if they put any type of landscaping or garden in without a fence, it will get trampled by others. Some people are very respectful; while others are not. There has also been some past tension. The fence would be more for protection of their yard because they have gone to great lengths to establish themselves in the community and build a home. They cannot wait to have a family. As it is now, the dogs do not matter because in the long term it does not make a difference for them. The fence is for them and protection of their property. As far as a visibility issue, the proposed fence is chain link. She does not need the barrier or the privacy of a wooden fence as some corner lots on their block have. They just want to protect their property. They have already paid dearly for not having that area fenced in. The hardship is that their yard is not already fenced in. Corn. Lesser stated that the alternative would be to plant a natural barrier with a hedge or bush to give the Petitioner's that privacy. Mr. Rivera stated that then they would have a solid green fence which becomes a visual impairment which is exactly what the other ZBA member is against. Corn. Lesser stated that he is just explaining the options available to the Petitioner that do not require a variance. Ms. Pragalz rebutted that a natural barrier would be a visual problem and some of their neighbor's do have that. She agrees that hedges would be a nice idea and provide privacy and would block out some traffic but it would pose that visual danger that the Village is trying to avoid. Mr. Rivera added that a chain link fence would be easier to maintain and they would feel safer. Corn. Shapiro would like to hear what the neighbors have to say regarding the proposed fence. Corn. Cesario agrees with the Petitioners regarding the dog issue. He explained that the Village revised the Fence Code last year after a tremendous amount of debate. The Village has been enforcing the Fence Code for a number of reasons; the aesthetics, the common look about the Village, etc. Typically a variance is for safety issues. Hearing the testimony, the request is not for safety reasons. He would also like to hear from the neighbor's. Eugene O'Sullivan, 802 Stonebridge Lane, was present and sworn in. Mr. O'Sullivan has lived at his address for approximately thirty (30) years. He supports the fence request. He is very happy that this couple had moved into the house a couple of years ago. The house was previously run down and an eyesore in the neighborhood. The Petitioner's have taken the last couple of years to almost redo the entire property. He is behind the additional changes with the requested.fence. As far as visual impairment, which he ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 8 of 23 believes is the ZBA's biggest concern; this property is located on a turn in the road, not on a corner. The speed limit is twenty five (25) miles per hour. If anyone is going faster than that they might see the fence as a problem, but they shouldn't be going faster. This fence would be something that can be seen through. This fence would be a proper height for the location. As both the Petitioner's have stated, the fence would be to give them some protection. He asked for the ZBA to imagine everyone cutting across their yards because they do not want to take the sidewalk or dogs going wherever they want. Children running wherever they want. Talking about the fence and the dogs, he has heard that it is really not that important in the long term. However, children can run right up to the fence as it exists now if they want to. Acting Ch. Windecker asked Mr. O'Sullivan if the Petitioner's ever call the Police when someone is letting their dog run loose or people are cutting through the yard. Mr. O'Sullivan stated not to his knowledge. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the Village does have Ordinances regarding dogs running loose and dogs not on leashes. Mr. O'Sullivan responded that dogs have run loose in the neighborhood and the Police have been called. He is not referring to dogs running loose. He is referring to testimony by Mr. Rivera of dogs on retractable leashes that can extend up to thirty (30) feet going all the way up to a house. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that is a violation of the Ordinance. He believes that people walking their dogs are from that neighborhood and can be dealt with accordingly. If people are letting their dogs up to the front door because of the retractable leashes, then the Police should be notified right away and should take action right away. Mr. O'Sullivan stated that he has no argument with Acting Ch. Windecker's comments. Megan O'Sullivan, 802 Stonebridge Lane, was present and sworn in. She understands that dogs should not be running everywhere, but you cannot always see dogs running up onto the property. She understands why the Petitioner's want to protect their property from dogs that they do not know. She would also like to point out that parking is not allowed on both sides of the street. There is a No Parking sign posted on the Petitioner's side of the street. In terms of safety around the turn and the visibility of a chain link fence she believes that it should be fine. Acting Ch. Windecker replied that he happened to visit the property on a Saturday night and had a hard time getting through the street due to parking that was on both sides of the street. Ms. O'Sullivan responded that on normal occasions there should not be parking on that side of the street, but that there was a wedding that occurred on this past Saturday which had more cars than usual present on the street. Barb Weiss, 772 Stonebridge Lane, was present and sworn in. Ms. Weiss stated that she lives across the street from the Petitioner's but on the other side. She lives on the bend of the horseshoe. Her living room faces directly to the Petitioner's backyard. She sees people that feel they can walk up to the Petitioner's fence, which is quite a bit away from the sidewalk, and speak to them or pet their dogs at any time. People do trample ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 9 of 23 the Petitioner's yard. People do walk by with their dogs and the dogs do run into the yard when the Petitioner's are not home or at any given point. That fence is like a beacon inviting people to walk up to it. The Petitioner's have done beautiful things in their backyard and people are curious and walk up and look. Their side yard does get trampled quite a bit. Many times the Petitioner's are not there to see it. They work and are gone all day long. She understands the request for the variance. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the dogs are outside. Ms. Weiss replied no and added that people walk up when the Petitioner's are not home. If the dogs are outside, people or kids will come up to the fence to pet the dogs at the fence. One way or another, whether the fence is eighteen (18) inches from the sidewalk or where it is located now, people will walk up to the fence. She understands the need for the request. Rob Sherman, 778 Stonebridge Lane, was present and sworn in. He also lives directly across the street from the Petitioner's. He has lived in his home for twenty eight (28) years. He is not shy about letting anyone know if a project would be a problem, even if they are neighbors across the street. The side yard that the Petitioner's have is really a no mans land. It does not do anyone any good and they pay a large amount of money in property taxes for the property. As previously stated the street is a curve, not a corner, with a twenty five (25) miles per hour speed limit. It is very rare that people are parked on the street in violation of the street signs. The Petitioner's are proposing a four (4) foot chain link fence, you can see right through the fence. He has been there often, he has driven around that turn, both in his car and in his mobile home and visibility is not a problem. The neighbor directly behind the Petitioner's, on Boxwood, have bushes that come out all the way to the sidewalk. The fence would mirror the neighbor's bushes. Regarding calling the Police concerning issues with dogs, they are fortunate enough to live in a wonderful neighborhood where everyone gets along. If there is a problem with a dog, they would talk to the neighbor rather than talking to the Police. They would let the neighbor know about the concern and the concern is resolved. This project would not have any negative effect on his property value, it would not have any negative effect on the neighborhood, and it would not have any negative effect on the line of sight. Ms. Pragalz and Mr. Rivera have been perfect neighbors, the best neighbors. They have spent a lot of time and a lot of effort to upgrade what was a shabby property to what is now the crown jewel of the neighborhood. The only issue he has is that now he needs to keep up with them. The unique circumstance is that this is more of an extension of their backyard. At the southeast corner of Stonebridge and Radcliffe Road the fence comes all the way out to the sidewalk. That fence does not bother anybody. If the Petitioner's fence comes out as they have requested, it will not have any negative effect and will give them the use of what is now a no mans land and will not block visibility. Celeste Sherman, 778 Stonebridge Lane, was present and sworn in. She wanted to reiterate what Mr. Sherman had said. She agrees that the request for the fence should be approved. She does not have any issues with the request. The Petitioner's have been wonderful neighbors. She believes that they should have full use of their property. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 10 of 23 Mr. Sherman added that he strongly supports this request and urged the ZBA to support it too. These circumstances will not cause any negative impact. It will probably increase their property values because it shows that they were able to utilize their property without causing any negative impact. Katie Friedman, 730 Old Post Road, was present and sworn in. Ms. Friedman stated that she also has a corner lot. She had remodeled and landscaped. She understands that everyone wants to use their lots. They all wish that they were completely fenced and that people would not walk through the yards. She does not like retractable leashes and dogs on her property either, but that is the way it is. Those are the rules when you have a corner lot. Her concern is the dogs. She is a dog person, she works for a rescue, she has lots of dogs all the time, but when you do have dogs you have to be aware of that. With a four (4) foot fence being extended it is a concern. The dogs are jumpers; they are protective of their property, which is certainly their owner's prerogative. Her child has friends on that street and they have forbidden him from going on that side of the street. The dog's heads clear the fence now. They are dangerous. They have spoken to the Health Department, or the group that monitors dog registrations. The Village has had other calls about the dogs. If the fence comes to the sidewalk, she is concerned that the dog's heads will clear the fence even if the kids are on the sidewalk. She is also concerned that approving the request will give the dog's additional room to run and clear the fence. The dogs can clear a four (4) foot fence. If the dogs do not have any space to gather speed, then they cannot jump the fence. The further out the fence is the more concerned she will be. The biggest issue is that they cannot walk down the sidewalk without there being an issue with the dogs. She does not understand what the circumstances are that makes this different than any other corner lot in her neighborhood. Corn. Cesario asked Ms. Friedman if she would feel differently if the fence was located four (4) feet instead of eighteen (18) inches from the sidewalk or if there a distance she would be comfortable with. Ms. Friedman stated that she would feel more comfortable if the fence was further away from the sidewalk. The distance the fence is at now does not concern her as long as her child knows to stay away from that side of the street and if for some reason needs to be on that side of the street to stay on the sidewalk. She is not sure what an appropriate distance would be but she believes that the request needs to be looked at very carefully. The fence would need to be at a point where just by walking on the sidewalk minding your own business there would be no possibility to be in contact with the fence, or the dogs. Com. Cesario asked Ms. Friedman if the fence were located three (3) or four (4) feet away from the sidewalk would she feel significantly more comfortable. Ms. Friedman stated that at four (4) feet she would feel more comfortable. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 11 of 23 Corn. Shapiro asked Ms. Pragalz and Mr. Rivera if their dogs have ever jumped over the current fence. Ms. Pragalz and Mr. Rivera responded that the dogs have never jumped the current fence. Com. Shapiro asked the Petitioner's how long they have had the dogs. Mr. Rivera stated that they bought the property in October 2008 and they have had the dogs with them there since day one (1). The dogs have fifty (50) plus feet of runway to get a running start and clear the fence if they wanted to. One (1) dog jumps, the other dog does not. The dogs are not dangerous dogs. Kids do come up to the fence that is twenty five (25) feet back from the sidewalk and kids are at the fence all day long. They have neighbor's whose kids come to the fence when they are home and they have never had an issue with their dogs being dangerous. Ms. Pragalz stated that if she is taking trash out through the gate, their dogs are not the type of dogs that are eager to get out of the yard. The dogs do not try and push their way out of the yard and they are not fighting to keep them in. The dogs listen. They have worked very hard to make sure that the dogs listen because of the size of the dogs. Whether the dogs were twenty (20) pounds or eighty (80) pounds, they have taken great strides to ensure that the dogs are well behaved. Corn. Shapiro asked if there have been any citations issued because of the dogs. Mr. Rivera responded no. Corn. Shapiro asked if the dogs are registered with the Village. Ms. Pragalz responded yes. Acting Ch. Windecker asked the Petitioner's how old the dogs are. Mr. Rivera stated that the female is five (5) years old and the male is four (4) years old. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the dogs weigh between sixty (60) to eighty (80) pounds. Mr. Rivera stated that the female weighs eighty (80) pounds and the male is sixty (60) pounds. Acting Ch. Windecker asked how tall the dogs are if they stand up on the fence. Ms. Pragalz stated that the male maybe could reach the top of the fence. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the female would then be taller than the fence. Ms. Pragalz stated that the female is not the one that jumps. Mr. Rivera stated that their dogs are very obedient and there is hardly a time that they are outside without being unsupervised. That is one of the reasons for the request. When the weather is nice they spend as much time as they can outside. If the dogs do react to another animal they control them immediately. Acting Ch. Windecker asked about the breed of the dogs. Mr. Rivera responded that they are American Bull Dogs. Ms. Pragalz added that they had taken a permit out about a year to construct a dog run on the opposite side of the house so when there is a situation where the dogs would be unattended they would be contained. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if both the Petitioner's work. Ms. Pragalz advised that they are both in the field of education. Acting Ch. Windecker asked where the dogs are kept when the Petitioner's are not home. Ms. Pragalz and Mr. River both responded that the dogs are kept inside the house. Corn. Steingold asked what makes the Petitioner's lot unique compared to all other corner lots in Buffalo Grove. He also stated that the dogs the Petitioner's have today may be different from the dogs they may have tomorrow. Ms. Pragalz responded that they are not a corner lot; their property is located on a curve. It is a lot different. Mr. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 12 of 23 Rivera added that they are looking to utilize the space and they have that opportunity. They have a third outdoor living area and they would like to use the space in the back corner for landscaping and gardening, which they have already done on the other side of the yard. They would like to continue that look and continue to improve the look of their property. Ms. Pragalz added that they do not have a door that accesses that side of the house so they go out the front door and have to go all the way around. There is no gate on the side. It is about twenty five (25) by thirty (30) feet of land that they could do a lot with if it were inside the fence. They pay high property taxes and they maintain the area the best they can right now, but they do not even have a window on that side. They cannot always see what might be happening on that side of the house. They cannot protect their property from that angle. They do not have the visual ability to do so. What makes the property unique is that it is a space on a curve that will be utilized and will only add to everything that they have already done to revamp and renovate this house and property. Com. Au asked if the neighbor to the rear on Boxwood has a fence. Mr. Rivera stated that neighbor does not have a chain link fence. What the neighbor has is a full hedge that wraps around to the front of his house, which is about eight (8) feet deep abutting the sidewalk. Corn. Cesario stated that based on the testimony by the neighbors it appears that the Petitioners have been getting an excessive amount of trampling on the property and of people cutting through the yard. His understands that is part of the basis for the request. He asked the Petitioner's if they would be willing to amend their request to locate the fence a distance of four (4) feet away from the sidewalk instead of eighteen (18) inches. Ms. Pragalz responded no. She stated that they are very comfortable with the proposed distance of the fence at eighteen (18) inches. They would be willing to put in a small three (3) foot or four (4) foot tall hedge between the fence and the sidewalk. They have already considered a hedge to add that extra element of physical separation between their fence and the sidewalk. It is telltale of the types of dogs that they have that children in the neighborhood constantly come up to the fence to play with the dogs or come around to the other side to throw the ball. They are responsible dog owners and they take great strides to continue the dogs training, constantly. They do not feel that a four (4) foot separation would make any difference concerning the hardship that Ms. Friedman is claiming concerning the dogs being at the fence. No matter where the fence is located from the sidewalk, people will come to the fence to see the dogs. Brian Smaha, 792 Stonebridge Lane, was present and sworn in. Mr. Smaha stated that he was a Police Officer in a north shore suburb for nine (9) years and dog calls were primarily what they dealt with. He has a three (3) year old son that plays at the fence all the time and if he felt that the dogs were a problem he would not let his son near the fence or in the yard with the dogs. He does all the time. He knows what bad dogs are and knows what good dogs are and he knows how it is frustrating to property owners to ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 13 of 23 have their lawns walked on and defecated on because he has responded to those calls as well. He believes that the fence would add protection to their property to keep people off their lawn. He also believes it would help with the property value. As far as the dogs are concerned, there is no issue there. He would never let his three (3) year old face to face with a dog that he thought would harm his child. Mr. Sherman stated that the question was asked about what makes this property different from all other properties on a corner or a curve. He believes that the answer is that they live on a horseshoe, Stonebridge and Boxwood. There is another horseshoe at Lehigh and Saratoga. What makes this property different from the other three curves is that all those properties have something coming out all the way to the sidewalk or close to the sidewalk. What makes this property different is that it is the only one that does not have anything coming out. The variation would make the property consistent with the other properties and he has never heard of any accidents or line of sight issues. He also advised that he is afraid of dogs. He does not like dogs. The Petitioner's dogs are very nice even though they are big and look scary. Their dogs are very well behaved, obviously a sign of great parenting by the Petitioner's. Acting Ch. Windecker asked Mr. Sherman what the other properties had that were different from this property. Mr. Sherman responded the property on Boxwood has the hedges coming all the way to the sidewalk. He is not exactly sure what the differences are but he did notice that the fences come out to the sidewalk. This is the only property that does not have something coming out to the sidewalk. Acting Ch. Windecker advised Mr. Sherman that landscaping is allowed to be installed without a permit. Mr. Sherman stated that if the Petitioner's put hedges in, it will be a green fence instead of a metal fence. Hedges would block the view. The Petitioner's are talking about a chain link fence that would not block the view. So if the ZBA is concerned about blocking the view, he believes that a chain link fence would be preferred instead of tall hedges that would obscure the view. Karen Shoulder, 730 Old Post Road, was present and sworn in. Ms. Shoulder has a concern regarding hardship and a corner lot. She has a corner lot as well. She understands about the high property taxes for property that you cannot use. She also has a dog and would like to fence in to the sidewalk so that her dog can utilize the property and so she could use the property. Her understanding was that you could not do that. People walk by with dogs on retractable leashes and are on her property and they run up to the bushes. She believes that dogs run up on front lawns even if you do not have a corner lot. People walk dogs on retractable leashes and the dogs come up on people's property regardless of what kind of lot they have. She asked if it considered a hardship that dogs and people are walking on the grass because you cannot fence it in. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Petitioner made reference to planting landscaping between the proposed fence and the sidewalk. Anything planted within twelve (12) inches of the sidewalk will encroach on the sidewalk and is not allowed. If the fence is allowed to be ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 14 of 23 installed at eighteen (18) from the sidewalk, the Petitioner's should not plant anything toward the sidewalk. They would be better off planting hedges inside the fence. Mr. Sheehan also advised that the Village received an email dated June 18, 2012 that was distributed to the ZBA concerning this public hearing. This email will be included as an Exhibit to this application. Com. Shapiro stated that he understands everyone's feelings regarding this matter. It is a misunderstanding that if you do not have a fence you cannot use your property. He also has a corner lot and a side yard and it is not fenced in and they still use the side yard. He understands why the Petitioner's want the fence but it doesn't mean that you cannot use your yard or that people will not walk on the yard anyway. The lack of use of the property is not a reason. The key reason would be to keep people off your property. Ms. Pragalz responded that the request is for protection of their property which was stated in their letter submitted with the application. The number one (1) reason they are asking for the fence is to protect their property. The neighbor's have attested to people walking on and trampling their property and that is their hardship. Corn. Cesario stated that the protection argument is a concern in that every property owner in the Village can assert something similar; that dogs can walk on retractable leashes, whether you are on a corner or not. We all would like to protect what is ours. The Fence Code was written contemplating protection as well as openness and aesthetics and all the elements together. Corn. Cesario stated that the location of the fence is not a negotiation. Ms. Pragalz stated that they would be willing to install a five (5) foot high fence instead of a four (4) foot high fence if it would resolve the issue. If there was a preferred distance that the ZBA felt they would be more comfortable with they may consider it. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Cesario made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Colleen Pragalz and Oscar Rivera, 787 Stonebridge Lane, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a four (4) foot chain link fence beginning at the northeast corner of the house and extending east to the east property line along Stonebridge Lane, then turning south to the rear property line maintaining a distance of eighteen (18) inches from the sidewalk, then turning west and returning to the building setback line. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 15 of 23 Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June 4, 2012. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique 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. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Shapiro, Au NAY—Cesario, Steingold, Lesser, Windecker ABSTAIN —None Motion Denied 4 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. The Petitioner's were advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 1651 JOSEPH COURT, KALPANA AND SRINIVAS KOVVURI - FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A FOUR (4) FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HOUSE EXTENDING NORTH TO A POINT TWO (2) INCHES FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, THEN TURNING WEST ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE ALONG APTAKISIC ROAD TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE STOPPING AT A POINT APPROXIMATELY NINE (9) FEET EAST OF THE FENCE CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST Mr. Srinivas Kovvuri, 1651 Joseph Court, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on June 1, 2012 was read. Mr. Kovvuri explained that this is a new construction home. The property is located on the corner of Aptakisic Road and Joseph Court. He has small children and likes to play ball with the children in the yard. He wants to keep his children away from Aptakisic Road where traffic is at speeds of over forty five (45) miles per hour. They do not want their children to run onto the road. The request is for the safety of his children. Acting Ch. Windecker confirmed that the primary fence location would be along Aptakisic Road. Mr. Kovvuri stated yes. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the Plat of Survey submitted with the application shows the proposed to be located fourteen (14) inches south of the sidewalk. Mr. Kovvuri responded that they do not want to leave the front open. They want to put in a gate to stop the children from accidentally running out onto the road. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the proposed fence runs straight back whereas the sidewalk curves. Acting Ch. Windecker asked the Petitioner if the fence will be in line with the other fences along Aptakisic or if the fence will be located on the inside of the sidewalk. Mr. Kovvuri stated that the fence would be located inside the sidewalk. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that he does not understand what is meant by the fence will be located fourteen (14) inches south of the sidewalk. He asked if the fence will be straight. Mr. Kovvuri stated that the fence will go straight. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 16 of 23 Mr. Sheehan stated he believes the note should have read that the fence will be located fourteen (14) inches south of the property line. The fence would follow the property line in a straight line versus the sidewalk which curves away. The Village Forester and Village Engineer were at the property and looked at the berm that was installed with the landscaping. The fence would be installed parallel to the bushes located on the street side of the bushes. The fence would run north from the home stopping at a point eighteen (18) inches south of the sidewalk where it would turn west and run parallel to the sidewalk. As the fence goes further west, the fence would pull away from the sidewalk as the sidewalk moves north away from the property line. Corn. Lesser stated that he also lived on a corner lot and appreciates what the Petitioner is trying to do. However, he did not have a fence that captured the side yard. He also lived across from soccer fields so he had people walking over his property all the time and parking their cars in front of his driveway. The house is situated on a corner lot. If the Petitioner adheres to the requirements of the Fence Code he believes that the yard would be quite a nice size. He understands that the hardship is for the safety of the children. The safety issue can be accomplished and achieved with a fence on the building line. He does not see the hardship to grant a variance and he cannot support the request. Com. Au clarified with the Petitioner that the request is to place the fence two (2) inches from the property line which would be fourteen (14) inches from the straight part of the sidewalk. She asked if there is a fence that runs along the sidewalk on the west side along Aptakisic Road. Mr. Kovvuri advised that the neighbor behind him has a fence already. The proposed fence would be continuing the neighbor's fence along Aptakisic Road. Corn. Shapiro asked if the neighbor's fence is a wood fence. Mr. Kovvuri responded that the neighbor's have a wood fence. Corn. Cesario asked the Petitioner if there would be a gap between the neighbor's wood fence and the proposed fence. Mr. Kovvuri advised that is correct. His neighbor's fence is such a way that they left an opening approximately six (6) or seven (7) feet. He is asking the neighbor to fence in the gap or add a gate. Corn. Cesario stated that at this time it appears that section would remain open. He asked if that is the intention. Mr. Kovvuri responded that is correct. Corn. Cesario stated that for now there will still be the opening out to Aptakisic Road. Mr. Kovvuri stated yes. Corn. Cesario stated that applies to the concern of the children running that way. Mr. Kovvuri stated that he spoke to his neighbor and is negotiating with the neighbor to have something in place to enclose that gap. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 17 of 23 ' ner if that is the neighbor's property. Mr. Kovvuri Acting Ch. Windecker asked the Pe ert where the gap would be located. stated that it is the neighbor's property from the 14 h the fence would be located fourteen (14) inches stated that the Corn. Cesario asked why of eighteen (18) inches from the sidewalk. Mr. Kovvuri the distance would sidewalk in lieu g close to not a straight line; it is at a bit of a diagonal so that sewer line is very sidewalk is inches. Th befourteen (14) inches versus the eighteen (18)th e sidewalk. The Village Engineer spoke with the contractor and that is why the contractor proposed the fence location. ' eer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan Corn. Cesario read the Village Engineer's has "We recommend that the fence be set back eighteen ee dated June 11, 2012 which states: driveway." He asked if the Petition (18") from the sidewalk. There is no abutting that he was not aware of this recommendatiobne seen this report. Mr. Kovvuri stated There are evergreen bushes which are located on the Aptakisic side.The fence would located next to the evergreen bushes . Corn. Cesario stated that it is very difficult for the recommendation. He asked if the Petitioner ZBA to go against the Village Engineer's re uest to speak with Village staff about would be willing to Table th stated that the Village Engineer was onsite with him to recommendation. Mr. Sheehan placing the review this petition and based on the measurements taken, the busheshefencea h at inches from the sidewalk can be accomplished with the property line. eighteen (18) inches inside ey currently exist, which would place the fence six (6) curr Y the Village Engineer's recommendation for the safety advised the Petitioner that the ZBA does not againstgo ouat is not amended Corn. Au also of the public. If the request to comply with the Village Engineer's recommendation it is very likely that the request will be denied. Acting Ch. Windecker also advised tha t the ZBA will not go against the Engineer's recommendation. comply with the Village Engineer's recommendation Mr. Kovvuri amended his request to the north property line. to locate the fence six (6) inches inside There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were fom the audience. no questions or comments Corn. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we grant the amended made1 request by Kalpana and Srinivas Kovvuri, ti 1 Joseph Court, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertainingResidential to 165 constructing a four (4) foot wrought iron fence beginning ats Districts, for the purpose of const g inches extending north to a point no closer than six (6) the northeast corner of house ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 18 of 23 ro erty line along Aptakisic Road to the rear p west along the north p p nine (9) feet property line, then turning stopping at a point approximately from the northp property line located on the property to the west.p east of the fence currentlye 11, 2012. The Petitioner has Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated June proposed fence will not s Subj and unique circumstances. The i welfare and will not alter the essential demonstrated hardship health, safety and detrimental to thpublic character of theneighborhood. C om. Cesario seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: ein old,Shapiro, Au,Windecker AYE—Cesario, St g NAY—Lesser ABSTAIN—None be issued in fifteen days Permit may 1 Fine�ngs of Fact attached. Motion Passed 5 to 4.B (15)—July 5, 2012. AMEND ORDINANCE 2009-56 SECTION EX AMERICA - TO 170 TO LEIDER LANE,SIGNSY BE INSTALLED SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING TO _ B WITH A REVISION DATED OF TO READ "THE EXHIBIT "E" SHEET NUMBER P 4 BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 25,2012 Wauconda, Illinois 60084, Group, 1090 Brown Street, Holland Design were present and sworn in. The Mr. Tom Holland, America, 1701 Leider Lane, 2012w r s and Ed Drapatsky, SysmexHerald on June 1, •n notice published in the Daily at 1701 public hearing America is occupying the buildinglocated tenant panel Sysmexd. sign from a six ( ) LeiderMr. Lane explained hewish that round to modify the existing g sign would be refaced to a single ground Lane. They The sign to a single tenant identification sign. panel. that the request is being made stated that it is his understanding that stated that isi correct. Acting Ch. Windecker Mr. Holland has acquired the entire building. June 6, because Sysmex (ART) minutes dated the Appearance Review Team Acting Ch h Windecker record. read duringthe ART review that should He noted that it was discussed ould revert back to a multi Sys into the the entire building that the sign 5ysmex no longer occupy Mr. Holland stated that is correct. need to tenant panel sign panel sign M original Exhibit of the multi-tenant p Ino reverts would back to the remain in advisede that the if thepart of amended Ordinance for the proposition I;eves that would be the case. If in the approved sign. Acting Ch.Windecker be originally ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2012 PAGE 19 of 23 the sign part of the building, ZBA occupies if the new tenant occupMr. Raysa askedold need to d a nant panel sign owner C% esker vacant and multi-tenant t or the building ys Wind the building becomes back t new tenant a want Acting C as submitted cold need to revert mandate that the a of sign they approve the sign w require a rna A to prove up the BA could just p ary. would ZB or the Z necessary. come back before the that becomethe sign that the ZBA could do future as they that just stated changes in .sts and confirmed that in any already exists Com, lesser stated would and address the sign his ground sign al5ed that is by an correct. tenant, ded that that t Holland advised occupied by another responded Lesser stated r H occup Holland to Com• in replaced. M ' e building is other tenant. Mr' to be reconfigured cabinet�s being fi ion of the the oth needs ZgA. the event abl ed to accommodate if the sign cabinet come back before the fi urto need to be reconfigured. lesser advised that would needwere n then they ers•There is conceivable. C° tenant, from the Commissioners.accommodate anotherns or comments f r questions There were no additional gfrom the audience. questions or comments Sysnnex no q motion made by the following the request ad „The sign Corn. Lesser made a Board to grant to re 4.b 6 Section "E" the Village ce 2009-5 Appeals Exhibit Sheet we recommend to to amend Ordinan Board If App I omove be 01 leidll lan with Zoning Annerica, 17 accorda of April 25,2012' to Sign shall be in installed ision dated e 6, 2012, pursuant to be 4b with a rev dated dun Number P- Team minutes Appearance Review Subject to the App 010/Subsection B. Code,Section 14.40 seconded the motion. Com• Au decker Vote: Shapiro, Au,win Roll Call V Steingold,Lesser, agenda. AYE_CeSario, Village Board NAY—None on the July 9,2012 —None to appear SECTION 14.16.03 N ABSTAIN 0• Item SIGN CODE' SECTION Passed 6 to S COFFEE _ AND Motion BUCK' SECTION 14.20.070%p GROUND SIGN, D� STAR S BOARD EXCEED GROVE ROAD, 14.16.070% MENU BUFFALO GRO SECT REPLACING THE , Y AND WOULD EX SIGNS 1665REPS`ON THE PROPER WALL SECTION 14.16.060�THE PURPOSE OF S OR ND SIGN 3 GRAPHIC BOARD REPLACING .24.010•R� F ADDITIONAL GROUND TALL THREE � � PURPOSE OF 40) 14 ADDITl TO INSTALL AND FOR THE FORTY WHICH IS AN ARE FEET IN AREA; EXCEED THE 50�SQUARE ON OF THE BUILDING; THAT FIFTY ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION ON THE NORTH ON THE W GRAPHICS LIMITATION BOARD OF APPEALS THE WINDOW COVERAGE ZONING 2012 W IVNE 19� of 23 PERCENTPAGE 20 to Center, Suite Corpora West 3 Westbrook uck's Coffee, S50 \ The Company, Starb sworn& Comp elous� and sw Sparks d MS Fabians B resent Charles a o►s 60661' Were 2012 was read. W eisbrod, 6015k' an Mr, Stan Illinois Illinois Westchester, 2 Chicago'a►cY Herald °n dune filing of 235, W e earl Suite fished in the D prior to the on Street, as completed p Washington ubc►sh he work w comp public hearing notice p A that the � she designs the er adv►sed the ZB and he W indeck s at t Acting Ch. for Starbuck sow . nce request' n Manager ;t•There is the w►n is a beh►nd the e to see the var►s the ilea►gd for perm the that she is submitted store to t explained were to it. Inside the nice s exp a signs w he store bar• It is not era.The Ms. BelOu ought that the applied of the coffee place their ors old only thought has a graphic• eS the back le co stores'She that graphic h►d ere people through They five through ow grail menu board where board. T menu board• h drive w►nd is theb° them throng Wall.The Theremenu to drive back the equipment' aWall-mounted rough window have the was no Wall back of menu board wasdr►ve needed there w that 4� cars from the they moved Because menu board previous accommodate four l e successful and d was support the building was co od 's ar b the menu boar to dupe of the wanted this Starbuck ed a screen the brick wall andthat to So five l51 cars• a design t bean process modatt menu board to they thought that he of the coffee for permit•It accommodate Then they add photographs submitted She the feet• werew to mount 20� to a es Wage. No twenty ( decided these Chang eyed dig everything goes was moved tw at and they aS sure thatconsidered f •n to cork ce,She`N o raphs would be consi d• the signs were boring appearance. So d improve. the ape er that the r if he permits were taken care of• •ect changed e ►mil h vendor if t was occurred to ht it er for this project never asked the S►gn den So she thong Their intention was to WS• She anything construction manager fo on. kn° hears c Then the e OK she Weser want to correct t ed and ;nstalled• They earance• and made constructed confusion. They improve the ape d the situation is there was discovered fter the fact.There better 5erv►ce and Sheehan disci vals a Starbuck's provide be that fated that Mr•. a to legislate approvals stated •ndecker s does not l►k Grove. Md• miscommunication. Acting r l at e it.The ZBA uffalo.G overstand" and ck's away construction in just a misunderstanding ►su sed to Brian Starbu under was�u addressed her vocation and on well.This snot their less memorandum the proposal em Village Engineers emorans has yearned th he � one 6► read t have no dated 1 Windecker Which states: I ha T minutes Acting Ch. lone 4,2012 Team (p,R Sheehan datedAppearance Review decker read the p that show Ch. Win decker in the packet Act►ngnto the record. included 2012► that there are Exhibits •ndecker advised existing appearance. Ch. W► and the e BOARD OF APPEALS Acting Ch. appearance ZONING B 1UNE 19,2012 thee 21of23 PAGE t followed he likes what dur es were not buck,s 'This is a very he proper procedures is unique were to f sixteen e161 states. that while t this locate design in stated added that store anent. CO' • Lesser or fo gelous a is responsible for their o h pictures will stay orate has been d for them.S angel °r �{the p hey typically renovate successful store pictures will be changed be changed. T �ctu Will not asked if the p ictures m. Lesser a that the p new variance. Ms. �° stated t Ms. gelous es Would require a every ten (10)years. to the pictures d sign has changes t any board groan It is a m Au advised that is aware• the menu b illuminated. CO that sonly internally stated that Cesarii agree gelous with MS• gelous u board is in Com. w� m old menu board• one. confirmed added that the menu a5 the a5 very well d Com. Cesario MS gelous the same loo • ation exactly and believes it w rs.There were illurn�n aesthetics a he very well doCommissionne.t has exa the aesth newer sign but regarding from t Corn �e comments with l questions or corn additional from the audience. There were s or comments questions ado by Starbucks no q motion• grant the request made 14.16.030► made the following and to Bra w Code, S Section Com. Au ° Signs;to the Village B Sig Ground Sig d for variance of pertaining to tropic Message men Road, 0, pert to Electronic lacing I move we to Business Grove 14.16.06 fining purpose o{ rep Buffalo Section n 14.20.070► pertaining the p property and Coffee,.16. 16, p guff eg Districts;Nal . Section Signs, the Bunn Signs; Window on Signs Sing to wall S g pertaining to • al ground sign board wall signs pertaining ,16.070, pertaining O.R,pert additional graphic window 14.24.01 n a °{ replacing the ction which is a to install three �3 g coverage Se d sign, t Signs; and roan area; the purpose endow board ground square feet and for �40� percent w the menu °{ the building; {orty Id exceed fiftyt exceed the would elevation with the on the north north elevation that submitted"E6" Subject thesu graphics on „ES„ and2012. 4 Pursuant „E3„, „E4►,, random dated 1u Pursuant to Sign Code, limitation. E2 , „E1 a Engineer's memorandum 6, 2012. Exhibits the Village dated luneto minutes pursuant Subject ew Team ,min application. Revs to the Appearance Subsection A. Section 14•40•01 n. seconded the mono Com•Lesser Roll Call Vote: er • old,lesser'Shapiro, Aug Windeck Stung BOARD OF APPEALS AYE—Cesario, ZONING B NE 19,2012 NAY—Non_e JU of 23 ABSTAIN None PAGE 22 Village Board agenda' 6 to O.Item to appear on the lUIY9,2012 Motion Passed Grove, of Buffalo Culver s The Board pUCEMENTS the ZBA,s denial for18, 2012. Village ANNon dun eal ofe advised that the appeal Village Board Mr. Sheehan ad ad,Was heard by °f 5 to 1. 450 McHenry R° b a vote d the ZBA decision y COm. upheld b ADJOURNMENT made by Co Lesser and seconded Y rn the meeting was°us Motion to adjourn —AYE was unanimous. Voice Vote at9:17 P.M. Shapiro. meeting Acting Ch.W inde cker adjourned the Submitted by, Julie Kamka Recording Secretary BOARD OF APPEALS ZONING 1UNE 19,2012 PAGE 23 °f 23