Loading...
2007-12-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes p [miE REGULAR MEETING SU$0c tE BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS \k 151 ag DECEMBER 18, 2007 Acting Chairman Windecker called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:31 P.M. on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Lesser Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Sandler Chairman Entman Commissioner Dunn Also Present: Edward Schar, Building Commissioner Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 16, 2007 minutes: Com. Lesser made a motion to Table the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, October 16, 2007. Corn Stein seconded the motion. Voice Vote — AYE was unanimous. OLD BUSINESS 1250 RADCLIFFE ROAD, LORD'S LOVE COMMUNITY CHURCH — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.010, TO INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND, IN TOTAL, WOULD EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR ALL SIGNS BY 18 SQUARE FEET Reverend Jeom Kim, Lord's Love Community Church, 1250 Radcliffe Road, was present and advised that he was still under oath. Ms. Jo Yu, Cosmos Signs, 3630 Wolf Road, Franklin Park, Illinois 60131, was present and sworn in. Acting Ch. Windecker reviewed the revised sign drawings submitted by the Petitioner and marked as Exhibit "G" and Exhibit "H". DRAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 9 — DEC EMBER 18, 2007 Ms. Yu explained that the English lettering was increased from six (6) inches to ten (10) inches in height. If the lettering is enlarged more than ten (10) inches, it will enlarge the overall sign area. The congregation is mostly Korean. She had traveled to the church for the first time and it was dark. It was difficult to see the building with no signage. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the English lettering will be on the top or the bottom. Ms. Yu advised that the Korean lettering will be on the top and the English lettering on the bottom. It would look better that way. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the English lettering is not illuminated and will not be seen at night. He suggested that the English lettering be illuminated as well. Ms. Yu stated that they can illuminate the English lettering. Corn. Lesser believes that Alternate 3, which is the Korean language in sixteen (16) inch letters and the English language in ten (10) inch letters, would be the best signage and agrees with Acting Ch. Windecker concerning the illumination. Corn. Shapiro and Corn. Stein agree with the other Commissioners. Alternate 3 is the sign represented on Zoning Board of Appeals Exhibit "G". The Petitioner amended their request to install the Alternate 3 sign with all lettering to be illuminated. 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 recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Lord's Love Community Church, 1250 Radcliffe Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.010, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing an additional identification wall sign on the west elevation of the building and, in total, would exceed the allowable square footage for all signs by eighteen (18) square feet. Subject to the condition that the new sign is installed as shown in the Zoning Board of Appeals Exhibit "G" marked as Alternate 3 and the entire sign is to be illuminated. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Corn. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Lesser, Shapiro, Windecker NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the January 7, 2008 Village Board agenda. DRA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 9 — DECEMBE R 18, 2007 CHEVY CHASE BUSINESS PARK, HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF THE EXISTING LEASING SIGNS AT 1001 JOHNSON DRIVE, 1080-1098 JOHNSON DRIVE AND AT LAKE COOK ROAD AND MILWAUKEE AVENUE Mr. Jim Lang, Hamilton Partners, 300 Park Boulevard, Itasca, Illinois 60143, was present and sworn in. Mr. Lang reviewed the current sign and leasing information for 1001 Johnson Drive. There is still a vacancy of 4,023 square feet at this location. The occupied rate is 86.5%. The available space at the 1400 Lake Cook Road building is also on this sign. There is currently a 4,015 square foot vacancy that can be divided down at 1400 Lake Cook Road. Acting Ch. Windecker advised that when the occupied rate reached 90%, the temporary sign will come down. Mr. Lang reviewed the sign at 1080-1098 Johnson Drive. The square footage listed on the sign as vacant remains and there is an additional vacancy of approximately 4,000 square feet. There are three (3) vacant spaces in this building. This is a multi-tenant building. They have not had much activity on any of these spaces. Mr. Lang also reviewed the sign at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. This sign is generating activity. They are talking with an existing tenant that is looking for a 31,000 square foot, two-story office building for that site. They are currently in the design and layout phase. This sign has generated calls for two different hotels, residential housing, and a medical office building. They also received a lot of calls interested in purchasing the property. Hamilton Partners is not interested in selling the property. Most calls that are received on this property are through the brokerage community. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that if the deal has been made for the site, the sign is no longer needed. Mr. Lang advised that they do not have the deal yet. It is in the negotiation stages. Corn. Stein stated that he does not have any issues with the leasing signs at 1001 Johnson Drive and 1080-1098 Johnson Drive. He does have an issue with the sign at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Two years ago he opposed the sign and the request went before the Village Board on appeal. The Village Board commented at that time that temporary signs are temporary. They did grant a one year extension. Com. Stein did not oppose the request last year. This sign has been approved for almost eleven(11) years. He is glad to hear that there is a potential tenant. He believes that this sign should go back before the Village Board for their interpretation of a temporary sign. Corn. Lesser agrees with Com. Stein's statement. However, he recognizes the importance of the signs as tools concerning leasing. He believes that the sign placement is adequate along Lake Cook Road. The sign at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee was repainted last year. He is supportive of the extension request. Corn. Shapiro agrees with Corn. Lesser. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFT PAGE 3 of 9—DECEMBER 18,2007 Corn. Stein inquired about any road blocks for the site at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Mr. Lang responded that a Mercedes dealership was interested but was they would have been too close to another Mercedes dealer in the area. There was interest in a land-lease for townhomes but the Village did not want that for this site. The real estate market is still struggling. Corn. Stein mentioned that the issue with the townhome development was access to the property. Mr. Lang responded that there is no problem with access to this site. Corn. Lesser recommended a six (6)month extension for the signs. Com. Stein could support a six (6)month extension. Com. Lesser made a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for Chevy Chase Business Park, Hamilton Partners, for the for rent, sale, lease signs located at 1001 Johnson Drive, 1080-1098 Johnson Drive and at Lake Cook Road and Milwaukee Avenue. Petitioner to appear at the June, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a status review of the signs. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Lesser, Shapiro, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item to appear on the June, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. 385 S. BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, EXODUS COMMUNITY CHURCH — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.010, TO INSTALL A GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD EXCEED 5' IN HEIGHT; WOULD EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR ALL SIGNS BY 32 SQUARE FEET; AND WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK AREA Jeremiah Yi, Senior Pastor, Exodus Community Church. 385 S. Buffalo Grove Road, was present and advised that he was still under oath. Mr. Yi explained that he has submitted revised Exhibits, marked as Zoning Board of Appeals Exhibits "B" and "F", depicting two (2) alternate sign locations. One location, Alternate #1, would be in front of the building located on the south side of the driveway. Alternate #2 would be located north of the driveway. Alternate#2 is the preferred sign location. Acting Ch. Windecker read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated November 12, 2007 which states: "I have no comments on either of the proposed sign locations." Mr. Yi clarified that the sign renderings are the same sign,just in different proposed locations. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. DRAF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 9—DECEMBER 18, 2007 Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made byExodus q Community Church, 385 S. Buffalo Grove Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.010, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of installing a ground sign that would exceed five(5) feet in height, would exceed the allowable square footage for all signs by thirty-two (32) square feet and would encroach into the required building setback area. Subject to the sign being installed pursuant to the sign specifications on Zoning Board of Appeals Exhibit "F" in the Alternate #2 location as shown on Zoning Board of Appeals Exhibit "B". Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandums dated October 1, 2007 and November 12, 2007. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Lesser, Shapiro, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the January 7, 2008 Village Board agenda. 1113 OLD BARN ROAD, SCOTT BYRON AND COMPANY ON BEHALF OF TAREK AND PATRICIA ISMAIL —FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO CONSTRUCT A 5' FENCE THAT WOULD EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT LINE OF THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG OLD BARN ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SURVEY SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT «A"" Mr. Andrew Otting, Scott Byron Company, 30088 North Skokie Highway, Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on November 1, 2007 was read. Mr. Offing explained that their client would like to construct a five (5) foot fence along the property line to the north of the property for privacy and safety reasons. They have three (3) young children. There is a three (3) foot slope to the property. There is a lot of foot and vehicle traffic along the side of the property. His company has generated a plan that includes landscaping and a fence. The building setback line is only about nine(9) feet off the back corner of the house. Their request is to construct a five (5) foot fence that would come off the northeast corner of the house and run to the property line, then along the property line to the rear property line where it would meet with an existing cyclone fence. The Fence Code allows for a three(3) foot fence, but a five (5) foot fence is requested. This property is not classified as a corner lot even though it appears as one. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the proposed fence appears to go out to the sidewalk. Mr. Oiling stated that the fence would be setback three(3) feet from the sidewalk but would go to the property line. There is an extreme amount of grade change on the property. There is eighty-one ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFT PAGE 5 of 9—DECEMBER 18, 2007 (81) feet from the corner of the proposed fence to the center of the curve which would allow for line of sight. There is also a slope to the road that raises safety issues as well. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if the fence would connect to a fence at the rear property line. Mr. Otting replied that the fence would connect to the existing cyclone fence at the rear of the property. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the Board does not normally allow a fence to extend the distance to the sidewalk. Com. Stein commented that the safety concerns of the slope and keeping the children in the yard can be accomplished by constructing the fence according to the regulations of the Fence Code. He believes that the Petitioner is looking to enclose as much of the yard as possible. He has concerns regarding the line-of-sight of vehicular traffic and feels a five (5) foot solid fence extending out to the property line would create safety issues. He also does not believe that the traffic is heavy on this road. When he went to the site it took a half hour for a car to go by. Mr. Otting replied that the fence could not be constructed at the front corner of the house and there is only nine (9) feet from the rear corner of the house to the building setback line. Approximately one-third(1/3) of the yard is lost. He also does not see the difference of planting twenty(20) foot spruce trees compared to a five (5) foot fence that does not grow. The traffic patterns in the morning when there are children and buses are fairly intense. Com. Lesser recognizes that this property is not a corner lot. He agrees with Acting Ch. Windecker in that the Board has not permitted fences to run to the property line. He cannot be supportive of the request and believes that it has not met the criteria for a variance which includes unique circumstances and hardship. The Petitioner will have a backyard that is smaller than they would like to have. Mr. Raysa inquired about the chain link fence on the east. He does not see it in any of the photographs or Exhibits. Mr. Otting stated that the existing chain link fence is a neighbor's fence. Acting Ch. Windecker advised that the existing chain link fence was granted a variance. Mr. Otting clarified the requirements for a three (3) foot fence to be constructed in the side yard and requested to Table the hearing in order for him to discuss the options available with his client. Com. Stein made a motion to Table the request made by Scott Byron and Company, 30088 North Skokie Highway, Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044 on behalf of Tarek and Patricia Ismail, 1113 Old Barn Road, for variance of Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a five (5) foot fence that would extend beyond the front line of building to the property line along Old Barn Road as shown on the Plat of Survey submitted with the application and marked as Exhibit "A", to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Lesser, Shapiro, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN—None DRAFT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 9 DECEMBER 18, 2007 Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item Tabled to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals scheduled for January 15,2008. 1227 W. DUNDEE ROAD, MEN'S WEARHOUSE TUX—DEVIATION TO THE PLAZA VERDE SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW THE COLORS BLACK AND WHITE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT BY 2.25" Acting Ch. Windecker read a letter dated December 4, 2007 sent by Kim Fischer, Permit Coordinator, Bright Light Sign, 310 Telser Road, Lake Zurich, Illinois 60047 which states: "Following this cover letter is the new drawings for Men's Wearhouse at 1227 W. Dundee Rd. The new drawings show the new signs to be with in the shopping malls code of 24" letters and red plex color. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or inquire any further information." This item has been withdrawn from the agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2 CRESTVIEW TERRACE, JEAN DEAL — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING OPEN PORCH TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD Ms. Jean Deal, 2 Crestview Terrace, and Mr. Bob Grunwald, 1361 W. Anthony Road, Wheeling, Illinois 60090, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on November 30, 2007 was read. Ms. Deal explained that she had an elevated porch on the front of her house. The porch was rotted and needed to be repaired. She applied for a permit to enlarge the porch, but the plan review was denied due to the distance of the proposed porch to the property line. They removed the old porch and constructed a new porch at the same size as the old porch. The old porch was three (3) feet from the house and there was a four (4) by four (4) metal landing with stairs. The total width of the porch was seven (7) feet from the house. They had raised the house several years ago. The old porch was very small and if you sat on the porch, you would have to climb over someone to get to an area where you could put a chair. Instead of replacing the porch, they constructed a new porch that ran the length of the house. The porch and the landing were two separate units. The landing and stairs were metal and the porch was wood. Mr. Grunwald added that the porch was approximately eighteen (18) feet in length and three (3) feet wide. The steps came out further, away from the house. The total width, including the landing, was a little over seven(7) feet. They moved the stairs forward and squared off the porch to allow for more room on the porch. Ms. Deal has a hard time getting up and down stairs and there was no room to sit on the porch. They were told that they could rebuild the porch so long as the porch did not extend any further that it previously did. Acting Ch. Windecker read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Edward Schar dated December 3, 2007 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." DRAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAE G 7 of 9 DEC EMBER 18, 2007 Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the Petitioners' were told that they could repair the porch which would not require a variance. The Petitioner's constructed a new porch, changed the design and did not follow code. Ms. Deal asked what "code" is. She stated that the porch is the same distance from the house to the sidewalk. Acting Ch. Windecker replied that certain details of the construction need to be corrected to be compliant with code requirements. Also, a variation is required concerning the distance of the porch from the property line. He would like to see the plans of the porch compliant with all codes prior to considering approving the variation request. He suggested to the Petitioner to speak with the Building Department to obtain the information necessary to show the porch in compliance. Mr. Schar explained that if the Petitioner repaired the old porch, only a permit would have been required. According to the drawings submitted with the variation application, the porch was increased in size. Ms. Deal stated that the original request was to increase the size to ten (10) feet in width, which was denied. Mr. Schar clarified that the porch was increased to seven and one half(7-1/2) feet whereas the original porch was four(4) feet wide with forty-one (41) inch stairs on the outside of it. The porch has been squared off to be seven and one half(7-1/2) feet with the stairs put at one end. Mr. Grunwald stated that they were under the impression that with the stairs the porch was seven and one-half(7-1/2) feet and they could not go out any further than that. Mr. Schar replied that the porch overall is larger than what it was before by going out further from the house. Acting Ch. Windecker suggested that the Petitioner resolve the code compliance issues and submit drawings that show the code compliance. The Petitioner requested to Table the public hearing until the next regular meeting in order to address the code compliance issues. Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Jean Deal, 2 Crestview Terrace, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.20.030, pertaining to Building height, bulk and lot coverage, for the purpose of allowing the open porch to remain as constructed in the front yard to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Corn. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Lesser, Shapiro, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item Tabled to the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals scheduled for January 15, 2008. ANNOUNCEMENTS Com. Stein asked that a schedule be established for Commissioners to attend Village Board meetings for appeals to the Village Board. DRAFTZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 9 DECEMBER 18, 2007 Mr. Schar wished everyone a Happy Holiday. He also introduced Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner — Operations and advised that Mr. Sheehan will be attending the monthly meetings. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Lesser and seconded by Com. Stein. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Acting Ch. Windecker adjourned the meeting at 8:50 P.M. Submitted by, hilaik J a Kamka Recording Secretary Li DRAFR T ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 9 DECEMBER 18,2007