Loading...
2008-01-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes AppArM REGULAR MEETING a5 5Lke0 (Tr Eb /i 9 Jdg' BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 15, 2008 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:31 P.M. on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Sandler Also Present: Edward Schar, Building Commissioner Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 16, 2007 minutes: Corn. Shapiro made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, October 16, 2007. Corn Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Lesser, Entman NAY —None ABSTAIN— Windecker, Shapiro Motion Passed 4 to 0, 2 Abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. December 18, 2007 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro NAY — None ABSTAIN — Dunn, Entman Motion Passed 4 to 0, 2 Abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 9 — JANUARY 15, 2008 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 Mr. Tarek Ismail, 1113 Old Barn Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on November 1, 2007 was read at the December 18, 2007 meeting. Mr. Ismail explained that the house sits at the end of the block. There has been recent police activity of burglaries where entry is gained through patio doors. There was also a suspicious vehicle that attempted to make contact with a child. They are looking for added security beyond what a three (3) foot fence could provide. Five (5) foot fences are not rare in the Village. He took photographs of properties where five (5) foot fences are located close to the sidewalk. The Village Engineer had no objections to the fence and there were no other objections from neighbors. The photographs were submitted and marked as Group Exhibit "F". Mr. Ismail added that the specific police reports were published in the Police Blotter on November 15, 2007 (forced entry into homes) and September 26, 2007 (suspicious vehicle attempted to contact child). Ch. Entman confirmed that the proposed fence is a wood privacy fence. He added that the Village Engineer's report does not mean that the Village Engineer has no objection; it means that he has no comment. He asked if the Petitioner has spoken to his neighbors about the proposed fence. Mr. Ismail responded that he has spoken to his neighbors to the east and to the south. The neighbors had no objections. Also the public hearing sign has been located on his property since October 31, 2007 and there had been no objections. Ch. Entman explained that he understands the request but the fence located on the building setback line could provide that security. He does not see the need for the fence to extend to the sidewalk. Mr. Ismail replied that the building line is close to the house and would bisect the rear yard. Ch. Entman responded that this is a common situation on corner lots. Com. Lesser agrees with Ch. Entman and added that the criteria to demonstrate hardship has not been met. Corn. Shapiro agrees with the other Commissioners and added that the request for security purposes does not apply if the other side of the yard is not fenced. Corn. Windecker added that the Police Blotter reports on the entire Village and that fencing only one side of the lot renders the security issue mute. He would support allowing the fence to the building line only. He also noted that the reasons for the application stated in the documentation submitted with the application was for safety. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 9 — JANUARY 15, 2008 Corn. Dunn agrees with the comments from the other Commissioners. She advised that other methods can provide for safety and security such as landscaping. Other requests for fencing on this type of lot have been turned down. Com. Stein agrees with the comments from the other Commissioners and is concerned about a line-of-sight issue around the curve of the road. Mr. Ismail responded that landscaping can pose a greater line-of-sight issue when trees and shrubs can grow up to twenty (20) feet. A fence is at a fixed height. Village ordinances would allow him to plant landscaping up to the property line. The Village Engineer did not raise any line-of-sign concerns and the location of the proposed fence would be two hundred (200) feet from the curve of the road. The side they are requesting to fence is the side that faces the roadway that exits the subdivision. He is willing to fence the other side of the lot in order for the variance to be approved. The Police Blotter listing concerning the suspicious vehicle that attempted to contact a child happened in his neighborhood. Precedent has been set by granting variances for other fences in the Village. Ch. Entman responded that the area of the lot in question is not a rear yard, but a side yard. The Petitioner chose to purchase this lot with the limitations set forth. Each application is taken on a case by case basis. With the sloping nature of the side yard, it would be better to install the fence closer to the house rather than further since the fence would appear to be lower the closer to the property line it is. Mr. Ismail replied that he pays property taxes on the entire lot and that the Village has a legal obligation to grant the variance. Ch. Entman replied that everyone in the Village pays property taxes. Com. Lesser added that he previously owned a corner lot and was not allowed a fence and he still paid property taxes. Corn. Shapiro advised that he currently lives on a corner lot and his fence is installed along the building setback line. He also pays property taxes. Mr. Raysa inquired about a fence shown on the Plat of Survey that appears to be along the east property line. Mr. Ismail advised that the fence is his neighbors. Corn. Windecker added that a previous variance was granted for that fence. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 9—JANUARY 15, 2008 constructing a five foot (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". Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated November 1, 2007. 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. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—None NAY—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was notified of the right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 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 at the December 18, 2007 meeting. Mr. Grunwald advised that he replaced the porch for his Aunt. They applied for a permit to enlarge the porch but were advised that the permit was not approved. They were under the impression that they could replace the porch as it was. They moved the stairs to the front to allow for more space on the porch. Revised plans were submitted to the Building Department to show that the porch will be repaired to comply with the building codes. Com. Stein stated that the porch stands out since it does not match the color of the house. Corn. Lesser confirmed that the porch was replaced larger than the previous non-conforming porch. Mr. Grunwald added that they thought they could replace it so long as they did not bring it out any closer the sidewalk. They did not make it larger. Corn. Lesser explained that the porch was enlarged by moving the stairs and adding more area to the porch. Mr. Grunwald agreed. Mr. Schar explained that Exhibit"E4" shows the added area to the porch. Com. Windecker asked if the porch will be stained to match the color of the house. Mr. Grunwald stated that it would be stained, not painted, and would closely match the color of the house. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 9—JANUARY 15, 2008 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant 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. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated December 3, 2007. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The existing porch would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Dunn, Windecker, Entman NAY—Stein, Lesser, Shapiro ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied 3 to 3. Findings of Fact attached. Petitioner was notified of the right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. NEW BUSINESS 301 NORTH RIVERWALK DRIVE, HAMILTON PARTNERS — REVIEW OF THE EXISTING TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR "RIVERWALK PLACE", 301 NORTH RIVERWALK DRIVE Mr. Kirk Hamilton, Hamilton Partners, 1130 Lake Cook Road, Suite 190, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089,was present and sworn in. Ch. Entman advised that he is a tenant in a Hamilton Partners building,but that will not affect his decision. Mr. Hamilton explained that since the last review, they have leased ten (10) additional units which brings the total to seventy (70) of the ninety (90) units leased. They replaced the copy on the sign located on Milwaukee Avenue at the Lake Cook Road overpass. The response to the newly refaced sign has been good. The sign located along Milwaukee Avenue near Cy's Crabhouse has been removed. The feedback from the signs has been good. They are requesting that the four(4) existing temporary signs be allowed to remain for an additional six (6)months. Ch. Entman stated that the signs are not obtrusive. Corn. Lesser asked at what level of occupancy the signs would be removed. Mr. Hamilton replied that when they are ninety-five(95)percent leased,the signs would be removed. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 9—JANUARY 15, 2008 Corn. Stein advised that he works in the Riverwalk office building, but that will not affect his decision. He is concerned about the number signs to remain at this point. In addition to the four (4) existing signs, there is a billboard sign, two (2) A-frame signs, a series of signs along Riverwalk Drive, and a large sign on the building itself. Only seventy-eight percent (78%) of the units are rented despite all the signage. He believes that part of the issue is the cost of the units. Hamilton Partners testified previously that they are not in competition with AMLI, but they are in competition with The Glen in Glenview. He suggested that signs be placed at the Metra Station in Glenview. He is glad to see that the sign on Milwaukee Avenue across from Chevy Chase Drive has been removed. Ch. Entman stated that the project has gone from little occupancy to seventy-eight percent (78%) occupancy. He does not have any issues with allowing the signs to remain now but wants to keep tabs on them. He believes a review should be conducted in four(4)to six (6)months. Corn. Lesser suggested that the signs should be reviewed in June, 2008. Corn. Dunn asked if one (1) had to be removed, which sign would it be. Mr. Hamilton replied that they would remove the sign at Riverwalk Drive and North Riverwalk Drive. Corn. Shapiro stated that the refaced sign looks good and he would be supportive of allowing the signs to remain through June and to have them reviewed again at the July 2008 meeting. Com. Stein added that he would be supportive of allowing the signs to remain and to review the status at the July 2008 meeting. He does not want to see anymore non-compliant signs like the A-frame signs. Corn. Lesser made a motion to allow the four (4) existing temporary signs to remain. Hamilton Partners shall appear at the July 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to review the status of the temporary signs. Com. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the July, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for review of status. 1650 LEIDER LANE, PEERLESS BRIDGE, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.050 AND SECTION 14.20.080, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT DOES NOT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1700 LEIDER LANE, PEERLESS BRIDGE, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.050 AND SECTION 14.20.070, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A GROUND SIGN THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN 250' OF AN EXISTING GROUND SIGN ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 9—JANUARY 15, 2008 1701 LEIDER LANE, PEERLESS BRIDGE, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.050; SECTION 14.40.025 AND SECTION 14.40.145, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING AN OFF-PREMISES GROUND SIGN WITH CHANGEABLE COPY Danielle Meltzer Cassel, DLA Piper, 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900, Chicago, Illinois 60601, Taylor Hammond, DLA Piper, 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900, Chicago, Illinois 60601, Dave Nelson, Branch Manager, PrimeSource, 1650 Leider Lane, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, Anthony Pricco, Principal, Bridge Development Partners, LLC, 700 Commerce Drive, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523, Steve Groetsema, Bridge Development Partners, LLC, 700 Commerce Drive, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523, Jeremy Foss, Project Manager, Manhard Consulting, 900 Woodlands Parkway, Vernon Hills, Illinois 60061 and Andy Mola, Cornerstone Architects, 1152 Spring Lake Drive, Itasca, Illinois 60143 were present and sworn in. The public hearing notices published in the Daily Herald on December 29, 2007 was read. Ms. Cassel gave an overview of the Peerless Bridge project. The project is located on the former Leider Greenhouse property. 1650 Leider Lane is an existing building that was previously occupied by Peerless of America. PrimeSource Building Products will be the new occupant of the building. Leider Lane extends south beyond Leider Greenhouse and provides access to the Terrico property. Mr. Hammond explained that the proposed signs would comply with all other Sign Code sections. The Leider Greenhouse sign needs to be relocated based on improvements to Aptakisic Road. The Leider Greenhouse sign is necessary to direct customers to the business. The proposed Aptakisic Creek Corporate Park sign will be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the Leider Greenhouse sign along Aptakisic Road. They are proposing two (2) painted wall signs on the PrimeSource building at 1650 Leider Lane. One (1) sign to be on the north face of the building and one(1) sign to be on the east face of the building. Revised site plans dated January 8, 2008 were submitted and marked as Revised Exhibit "F" for the 1700 Leider Lane and 1701 Leider Lane applications to replace the previously submitted site plans dated December 18, 2007. The site plans dated December 18, 2007 did not show the correct public right-of-way along Aptakisic Road. Ch. Entman advised that there were no Village Engineer's memorandums received for these applications. Corn. Lesser advised that he knows Mr. Anthony Pricco, but that will not affect his decision. He asked why the proposed wall signs at 1650 Leider Lane are to be painted. Mr. Nelson responded that his company is a daytime distributor and they do not have a need for an illuminated sign. They incorporated the corporate color into the painted stripe on the building and felt that the signs would be more compatible to match the painted stripe. Corn. Lesser is concerned about the maintenance aspect of a painted sign. Mr. Schar advised that code requires signs to be maintained. Ms. Cassel added that the Declaration for the corporate park also requires that signs be maintained. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 9—JANUARY 15,2008 Corn. Windecker is also concerned about the maintenance of a painted sign. What would happen if the tenant moves out. Mr. Nelson advised that they have signed a twelve (12) year lease. They take great pride in the exterior appearance of the building. They have recently installed a cedar fence to enhance the appearance. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Peerless Bridge, LLC, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 375, Chicago, Illinois 60606, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.050, pertaining Industrial Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the building located at 1650 Leider Lane, for the purpose of allowing an additional wall sign on the north elevation of the building that does not face the public right-of-way. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub-section B. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein,Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—Windecker ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 5 to 1. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the February 4, 2008 Village Board agenda. Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Peerless Bridge, LLC, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 375, Chicago, Illinois 60606, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.050, pertaining to Industrial Districts; and Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs, for the building located at 1700 Leider Lane, for the purpose of allowing a ground sign that would be located within two hundred fifty feet(250') of an existing ground sign on the same side of the street. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub-section B. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the February 4, 2008 Village Board agenda. Com. Stein made the following motion: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 9—JANUARY 15, 2008 I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Peerless Bridge, LLC, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 375, Chicago, Illinois 60606, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.050, pertaining to Industrial Districts; Section 14.40.025, pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs; and Section 14.40.145, pertaining to Off-Premises Signs, for the building located at 1701 Leider Lane, for the purpose of allowing an off-premises ground sign with changeable copy. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub-section B. Com. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Item to appear on the February 4, 2008 Village Board agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Schar clarified that the property at 1113 Old Barn Road is not a corner lot. A fence would be restricted to the front line of the building. Ms. Kamka announced that the regular February 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held in the Council Chambers. Discussion took place amongst the Commissioners concerning representation at Village Board meetings for appeals. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Stein and seconded by Corn. Lesser. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:18 P.M. Submitted by, J ie Kamka ecording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 9—JANUARY 15, 2008