Loading...
2010-07-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes AppiliWED /1-s Su Iv)ICE C))a,) )1 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 20, 2010 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Windecker Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 18, 2010 minutes: Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, May 18, 2010. Corn. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY —None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Minutes Tabled to the August 17, 2010 meeting. June 15, 2010 minutes: Com. Lesser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, June 15, 2010. Corn. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Lesser, Shapiro, Entman NAY —None ABSTAIN — Dunn, Au Motion Passed 4 to 0, 2 abstentions. Minutes approved as submitted. BUSINESS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 13 — JULY 20, 2010 `.J 1300 ROSE BOULEVARD, ADOLFO MARTINEZ — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.32.020, TO ALLOW A SHED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CORNER SIDE YARD ALONG NICHOLS ROAD Mr. Adolfo Martinez, 1300 Rose Boulevard, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on July 1, 2010 was read. Mr. Martinez explained that he would like to build a shed. If he were to built it in the back yard it will interfere with the yard. Their yard is wide and narrow and it would be an eye sore to his neighbors. They can see across three (3) neighboring yards and two (2) on the side. They feel that the side yard would be the best spot because they do not use it for anything. The side yard is shielded from the street. There are trees, bushes and a five (5) foot fence along Nichols Road. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 6, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman confirmed that the shed would be located inside the wood fence. He also confirmed with the Petitioner that there is a ten (10) foot easement along Nichols Road. Mr. Martinez submitted photographs of the area where the shed is proposed. These photographs were accepted and marked as Group Exhibit "F". Com. Dunn asked about the types of materials that the shed would be constructed of. Mr. Martinez stated that the shed will be constructed of weather-resistant wood. Corn. Dunn asked if the shed will be the exact design that was submitted with the variation application. Mr. Martinez stated that it is a kit that is put together and will not change from what was submitted. Ch. Entman asked about the color of the proposed shed. Mr. Martinez advised that he has not yet chosen the color yet but he would like the color to match the house. Com. Dunn asked if the shed would have a floor. Mr. Martinez stated that the shed will be placed on a four (4) inch slab. Ch. Entman advised that if the variance is granted the shed cannot encroach over into the easement. Corn. Au asked about the height of the proposed shed. Mr. Martinez stated that the side walls will be seven (7) feet and the gable will be nine (9) feet in height. Corn. Au asked about the height of the fence. Mr. Martinez stated that the fence is five (5) feet in the height. He also advised that the bushes are a couple of feet taller than the fence. There are also some evergreens that are still growing. Right now the evergreens are taller than the fence by about two (2) to four (4) feet. Com. Au asked how visible the shed would be to someone that was driving down Rose Boulevard. Mr. Martinez stated that the shed would not be visible because there is an iron fence that is five (5) feet in height. There is also some ivy that is growing on the fence. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 13 — JULY 20, 2010 Corn. Shapiro asked if the shed will be constructed as depicted in Exhibit "E" with the window. Mr. Martinez stated that the shed will be constructed as it is depicted. The side with the door and the window would be facing Mr. Martinez's house. Corn. Shapiro asked if there is a reason why the shed would not be right up against the house. Mr. Martinez stated that he was told by the Village that he had to leave three (3) or five (5) feet between the house and the shed. Corn. Shapiro asked if the shed will be up against the fence. Mr. Martinez stated that it would not. Corn. Lesser asked if there will be any electrical in the shed. Mr. Martinez stated that he may put in a solar light but he is not running any electrical. Corn. Lesser confirmed that the shed will be used just for storage. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Dunn made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Adolfo Martinez, 1300 Rose Boulevard, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.32.020, pertaining to Location of accessory buildings and structures, for the purpose of allowing a shed to be constructed in the corner side yard along Nichols Road. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 6, 2010. The shed is to be constructed pursuant to Exhibit "E" and the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the Village. The proposed shed will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein,Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit can be issued in fifteen (15) days — August 5, 2010. 200 LAKE BOULEVARD, CAMBRIDGE ON THE LAKE — FENCE CODE, SECTION 15.20.040, TO REPLACE THE EXISTING SIX (6) FOOT FENCE WITH A NEW SIX (6) FENCE AROUND THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST PERIMETERS OF THE PROPERTY Mr. Daniel Wolf, Attorney at Law, Schwartz Wolf & Bernstein, 314 McHenry Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089; Mr. Sherwin Chapman, President of Homeowners Association, 200 Lake Boulevard; Ms. Kieren Irali, Lieberman Management, 355 W. Dundee Road, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089; and Mr. John Belli, Tru-Link Fence, 5440 W. Touhy, Skokie, Illinois 60077,were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on July 1, 2010 was read. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 of 13—JULY 20, 2010 Mr. Wolf is the Attorney representing Cambridge on the Lake Condominium Association. He explained that the public hearing notice published in the newspaper is correct, but that the letter sent to Mr. Chapman, Cambridge on the Lake, identified the fence as being a wood fence. The proposed fence is not a wood fence, it is a vinyl fence. He explained that Cambridge on the Lake is made up of six (6)buildings, each of which has its' own Association. There are a total of three hundred ninety two (392) units in the six (6) buildings, approximately five hundred fifty (550) total residents, and is comprised of approximately twenty six (26) acres of land. There is a one (1)mile perimeter road called Lake Boulevard that runs along the east, south and west perimeters within the property. For the past thirty (30) plus years there has been approximately four thousand (4,000) lineal feet of six (6) foot wooden fence running continuously around the three (3) borders of the property and separating Lake Boulevard from approximately fifty (50) residences in the neighboring homes along Cambridge Drive, Saxon Place, Anthony Road and Harvard Lane. The fence also separates the commercial property to the west and Cambridge Park. After thirty five (35) years the fence needs to be replaced. There is an area of fence next to Rogan Shoes that was knocked down by a car that has yet to be replaced. The Association applied for the permit to replace the fence and learned that Village Ordinance has a five (5) foot restriction. The four thousand (4,000) lineal feet of fence are interior to Dundee Road and abut exclusively residential property, except for the west side. None of the fence being requested is visible to Dundee Road. The fence would be four thousand(4,000) continuous feet of fence. The Association is not going to create any type of jigsaw effect or modeled look. This will be a very lengthy run of uniform and beautiful fence. Mr. Wolf submitted a booklet which depicts the type of fence being requested. This booklet was accepted and marked as Exhibit "F". Mr. Wolf also submitted a Google map printout. This map was accepted and marked as Exhibit"E". Mr. Wolf continued that the proposed fence would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. They are replacing a six (6) foot fence with another six (6) foot fence. The proposed fence will enhance the character of the neighborhood because it is a much more attractive and durable fence as opposed to the current worn wood stockade fence. The fence is faced on both sides so that the residents on the other side of the fence will have an attractive fence as well. The standard manufacturing of this fence is six (6) feet in height. To get a five (5) foot fence from this manufacturer would require a custom order and would require the six (6) foot fence to be manually cut down section by section to five (5) feet. The expensive of that would be extraordinary compared to the expense of the project which is eighty seven thousand (87,000) dollars. It would materially affect the cost of the project to the Association and would impact all five hundred fifty (550) unit owners who would ultimately absorb the cost. This variance would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare. This will benefit the public health, safety and welfare. The six (6) foot fence not only protects the residents of Cambridge on the Lake from intruders but also protects the children of residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. The Cambridge on the Lake property has a very large retaining pond at its center. The fence would maintain privacy for Cambridge on the Lake residents and the surrounding neighbors. Many people are at eye level above five (5) feet but not many are at eye level above six (6) feet. All the residents that have enjoyed their privacy for all these years would continue to enjoy their privacy. The neighboring residents would be looking into the parking lot if the fence was at five(5) feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 13 —JULY 20, 2010 Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 7, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman confirmed with Mr. Wolf that the proposed fence is exactly as submitted in Exhibit "F". He asked if the fence would be six (6) feet to the top rail or the top of the posts. Mr. Wolf stated that the fence would be six (6) feet to the top of the rail. Ms. Jenny Spallone, 324 Anthony Road, was present and sworn in. She stated that she is excited about the fence. Last year a neighbor broke through the fence. She has three (3) small dogs that keep getting through the fence. Her only concern is that in a letter sent by Cambridge on the Lake they advised to watch children or pets. Having three (3) small dogs across from the complex and the dogs love to sneak out she is concerned. It is a busy area on Lake Boulevard. She is concerned that it will be too long a period of time for the fence to be built. She wants to know what the time frame is for the work to be done and what can be done temporarily to provide some kind of barrier. Mr. Wolf stated that it is his understanding that the entire project from start to end will be approximately thirty(30) days. How each individual homeowner is affected will depend on what conditions are there on the particular day or when they get to that section. He does not know if temporary fencing is part of the project. Ms. Spallone asked if the project will affect her for only one (1) day. Ch. Entman responded that the project was stated to be thirty (30) days from the day it starts. Ms. Spallone replied that Mr. Wolf stated, "on that particular day." Mr. Belli explained that this is a large construction project. The first phase is to tear down the entire existing fence. The second phase will start at a determined point and install the fence. The installation is a post and panel installation. They will not install all of the posts and then come back and put the panels in. They have to install a post, then a panel,then a post, then a panel. As the fence project is moving along people's security will be back in place. Total duration is approximately thirty (30) days. Ms. Spallone asked how long will it take for each house. Mr. Belli stated that it depends on where you live. Com. Stein asked Mr. Belli if five (5) years from now someone were to drive a car through the fence would the same material be available. Mr. Belli explained that this product is made by a company called CertainTeed. CertainTeed is one of the biggest manufacturers of asphalt shingles for homes and they provide approximately eight (80) percent of the vinyl siding in the United States. They are the biggest vinyl extruder in the country. This is not an imported product. They are located in Buffalo,New York. Mr. Larry Arends, 344 Anthony Road, was present and sworn in. Mr. Arends stated that his backyard abuts the subject property. The fence would be in his backyard. For the thirty(30) years he has lived as a neighbor to Cambridge he has appreciated the way they do keep up their property. Their maintenance is impeccable and they have been wonderful neighbors. This would be the third fence since he has lived here. They have all been six (6) foot stockade fences. He understands a wood fence has deterioration problems. He understands the advantages of vinyl fences. His concern is not the height of the fence but the white plastic wall that will be in his ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 13 —JULY 20, 2010 backyard. For thirty(30) years he has seen the stockade fence back there. He has added stockade on his sides. Now there will be this white, stark, plastic, institutional looking fence going across their backyards. He believes that the fence will detract from the appearance of the yards. He realizes that not everyone driving by on the street is going to see it, but the fifty(50) people that live in the neighborhood will see it everyday. A lot of the neighbors have already discussed what option may be available to them. If they have no other option than the white fence going up, can the individual homeowners put up a stockade fence in front of the white fence as a visual barrier. The proposed fence looks more like a sound barrier off an expressway than a neighborhood fence to him. Mr. Jay Mills, 987 Harvard Lane,was present and sworn in. Mr. Mills explained that he has lived here sixteen (16), or seventeen (17) years. When he bought the house he was concerned about having a condominium complex behind him, but they have not been a problem. There are trees and shrubbery. One of the best things they have is the wooden fence. He has no objections to the height. That wooden fence to them is part of their property. He understands that it is a wood fence and it has to be replaced from time to time. But to replace that fence with a piece of white plastic is not acceptable. He likes living here and likes everything about this community. He likes where he lives. This is not the type of fence that they want. He was hoping more neighbors would have been here to voice their opinions. He agrees with everything except the type of fence. He does not believe that this fence would enhance anyone's property. It may be beneficial for the condominiums but certainly not for the surrounding homeowners. Ms. Mary Alton, 1070 Cambridge Drive, was present and sworn in. Ms. Alton stated that she also objects to the plastic fence on two counts. She does not believe that it will look as natural as what is there now. The proposed fence is a petroleum product and will be around for the next millennium. She also objects to the appearance. She thinks that what is there is very natural looking wood fence and she would prefer to see that continue. Mr. Wiley Miller, 977 Harvard Lane, was present and sworn in. Mr. Miller agrees with the concept of a six (6) foot fence. Like the others he disagrees with the material being used, a white plastic fence will look exactly like a white plastic fence. It may or may not last longer than a stockade fence. He has been in his house for forty two (42) years and that stockade fence has been there for more than thirty five (35) years. He would highly recommend a wooden fence rather than a plastic fence. He would like to know what alternatives they have if they are stuck with a white fence. He asked if they could paint or stain it. He asked if they could cover their side with a stockade fence. Ms.Nancy Pawelski, 352 Anthony Road,was present and sworn in. Ms. Pawelski agrees the six (6) foot fence is great. She also objects to the white fence. She asked if they could keep their portion of the stockade fence so they could lean it against the white fence in their yards to hide the white plastic. If not,they would like to keep the stockade as it is. Her house backs up to the park area of the complex which has been maintained wonderfully. Ms. Dawn Kowynia, 999 Harvard Lane,was present and sworn in. Ms. Kowynia has lived in her home sixteen(16)years. She lives next door the Mills. She does not own any of the fencing on her property. There is the stockade fence in the rear, a stockade fence to the left, and a cyclone ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 13—JULY 20, 2010 fence to the right. So now she will have a cyclone fence, a white fence and a stockade fence. There will be three(3)different kinds of fencing in her yard. She approves the height of six (6) feet. But the white is bothersome. She asked if the white fence would fade, or stain if there is vegetation growth on it, or warp at all. Ch. Entman asked about the cost difference between a wood fence and a vinyl fence. Mr. Belli stated that he does not recall. Ch. Entman asked if it would be twice as much for a wood fence as opposed to vinyl. Mr. Belli stated that it would be a little bit cheaper. That is why they chose the vinyl instead of wood. Woods life span is only one third(1/3)the life span of vinyl. Ch. Entman explained the variance request and the neighbor's rights. The Petitioner's are seeking a variance for a six (6) foot fence. If they wanted to replace the six (6) foot fence with a five(5) foot fence, they would not need a variance. At five(5) feet they could place the fence on the perimeter of their property just as anyone else could. It could be a five(5) foot white vinyl fence. He explained that the neighbor's have the ability to put up a five(5) foot fence along the perimeter of their property, similar to the complex,without a variance. He also explained that if the individual homeowners wanted to put up a six (6) foot fence along their rear property lines they would need to request a variance. Corn. Shapiro asked if there are any options for the coloring of the fence. He asked if they can they get one that looks like natural wood. Mr. Belli stated that there are color options. Corn. Shapiro stated that the color seems to be biggest objection. Mr. Belli stated that there are options for everything but it would escalate the cost to get to those options. Corn. Shapiro asked if white is the least expensive option. Mr. Belli stated that white is the most popular and therefore the least expensive. Ch. Entman stated that the booklet submitted as Exhibit"F" shows white and tan. He asked if tan is more expensive than the white. Mr. Belli stated that the tan is more expensive but he is not sure by how much, somewhere around ten thousand(10,000) dollars more. Corn. Lesser stated that the Board has to balance the interests of the community. Based upon some of the objections he would look at the proposed fence as altering the character of the neighborhood and may be detrimental to the welfare of the neighborhood. Hopefully a compromise can be reached to address the concerns of the neighbors. Com. Shapiro asked about the reasoning behind choosing the white fence. Ms. Irali stated that the tan fence does not match the buildings. The white fencing matches the exterior of the buildings. The buildings are red brick and white stucco. They are English style buildings. White fencing would match them. Mr. Wolf added that they respect the comments of the neighbors. They know that they cannot please everyone all of the time. They do acknowledge the importance of the aesthetics of their homes and yards. The factors that are set forth in the Ordinance question whether the proposed variation would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The variation being sought is the height. The Association could have come in and put up a five (5) foot fence with no problem. There is nothing in the Ordinance that dictates material. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 13 —JULY 20, 2010 Corn. Shapiro asked Mr. Wolf if he would agree that the neighbor's believe that the fence would alter the characteristic of the neighborhood. Mr. Wolf stated that all of the neighbors have testified consistently that they do not have an objection to the height. Of the fifty (50) adjacent homeowners, only seven (7) or eight (8) do not like the white. There are fifty (50) neighboring owners that are affected. There about five hundred fifty (550) residents in the complex. Their Board of Directors has selected this fence on behalf of those five hundred fifty(550)residents. Corn. Stein asked Mr. Belli if there is a salvage value to the wood fence that will be removed. Mr. Belli responded that they bring in recycle dumpsters where the wood gets turned into chips and mulch. They pay for those. Com. Stein asked if Mr. Belli would be willing to make available portions of the wood fence for the neighbor's that are asking to keep sections that are reusable to block the view of the white fence. He understands that those neighbors' would have to request a variation for a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Belli stated that is not his decision. The posts would not be reusable. Mr. Belli explained that there would be a certain amount of liability. There would be nails popping out, this would not be a clean product that someone could just take. The fence is literally fall apart. Ms. Spallone stated that there is a six (6) foot fence now. They would have to take a monetary cut if they have to buy new posts,put them up and go through the variance process. She wants to know why they should have to go through all of that. Also in this day and age people are trying to do things that are more environmentally friendly. Vinyl is something that will stay in the atmosphere for years to come as opposed to wood. Ch. Entman confirmed that the thickness of the vinyl fence would be five eights (5/8) of an inch. Mr. Wolf submitted a sample material of the proposed vinyl fence. This was accepted and marked as Exhibit "G". Ch. Entman asked staff if the vinyl fence could be placed up against the wood fence on the condo side so that the existing wood fence stays up. Mr. Sheehan explained that if the condominium received approval to install a six foot(6) fence inside of the fence that is currently in place, they would then have two (2) fences to maintain, with no easy access to the outside fencing. The existing wood fence has been under continual repair over the last several years. There have been numerous complaints regarding the condition. The condo association has been putting a lot of money and upkeep into that fence for the last couple of years. It would probably not be practical for them to do so. However, there is nothing is in the Code that precludes installing two fences. Mr. Wolf stated that he would advise his clients against doing that because of the liability factor. Now there would be a decaying fence that they cannot even see or effectively monitor in someone else's yard. If a child or a dog or someone rubs up against a rusty nail or a broken piece of wood there could be a big problem. He also addressed the concern of Ms. Spallone that if this fence is approved and individual property owners want to erect a stockade fence on their side to mask the vinyl fence he believes that would be a unique circumstance. They would incur a cost in doing so. The complex has no obligation to have a fence at all. They could take the existing fence down and not replace it. Ch. Entman asked how the fence will be paid for. Ms. Irali stated that the fence would be paid for out of the reserve fund and that money has been saved up to replace the fence. Ch. Entman stated that a question was made by one of the Commissioners concerning the color and that it was testified that it would increase the cost by about ten thousand (10,000) dollars. He stated that if ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 13—JULY 20, 2010 there are five hundred fifty(550) units owners that would be approximately eighteen(18)dollars per unit additional. Mr. Wolf responded that this color was chosen to be consistent with the character of the complex buildings. The other colors, in addition to being more expensive, were not as desirable to the unit owners. Ms. Pawelski stated that the complex has a wrought iron fence in front of the building along Dundee Road. She asked why they do not put up a wrought iron fence to match. Mr. Wolf stated that the concept was considered but they wanted more privacy and security. Mr. Craig Freeman, 910 Saxon Place, was present and sworn in. He stated that he would like to replace his fence with a white vinyl fence. He believes that the existing fence is ugly. He asked if there is a reason why the residents could not paint their side of the fence if they do not like white. Ms. Irali stated that it is not their fence. Mr. Belli added that the fencing material is made not to take paint well so as to make it easier to clean and protect against graffiti. Corn. Stein asked if the Board of Directors would consider a tan color. Mr. Chapman explained that they looked at the tan color and it appeared to look washed out or yellowish in color. It is not a dark tan. Mr. Mills asked if the Board would grant a variation for a six foot fence on his property. Ch. Entman stated that he could not answer that question. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no more questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Cambridge on the Lake Homeowners Association, 200 Lake Boulevard, for variance for Fence Code, Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of replacing the existing six (6) foot wood fence with a six (6) foot white vinyl fence around the east, south and west perimeters of the property. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 7, 2010. 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. Dunn seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Shapiro,Au NAY—Lesser, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 2. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — August 5,2010. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 13 —JULY 20, 2010 1410 ROSE BOULEVARD, JAMES DUVEL — ZONING ORIDNANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO BRING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE INTO CONFORMANCE CONCERNING A THREE (3) INCH DEFICIENCY INTO THE REQUIRED THIRTY FIVE (35) FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AND TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF THREE (3) INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED THIRTY FIVE (35) FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK • Mr. James Duvel, 1410 Rose Boulevard, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on July 1, 2010 was read. Ch. Entman noted that the public hearing notice was published in error indicating a thirty (30) foot rear yard setback. The actual setback is thirty five(35) feet. Mr. Duvel explained that they are asking for a three (3) inch variation. Apparently the home was built that way. Now they want to construct a second story addition over the existing part of the home that encroaches. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated July 7, 2010 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal." Ch. Entman read the ART minutes dated July 6, 2010 into the record. Ch. Entman confirmed that this is a non-conforming issue of three(3) inches. Com. Dunn asked if the materials for the additional would match the existing construction. Mr. Duvel stated that it will. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Lesser made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by James Duvel, 1410 Rose Boulevard, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of bringing the existing structure into conformance concerning a three (3) inch deficiency into the required thirty five (35) foot rear yard setback and to construct a second story addition that would encroach a distance of three (3) inches into the required thirty five (35) foot rear yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated July 7, 2010 and the ART minutes dated July 6, 2010. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The existing deficiency and proposed addition will not be detrimental the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 13 —JULY 20,2010 Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — August 5, 2010. 197 MCHENRY ROAD, AMERICAN MATTRESS — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030 AND 14.20.080, TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING Mr. Donald Meyers, Vital Signs USA, 791 Industrial Drive, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on July 1, 2010 was read. Mr. Meyers explained that they are requesting to install a wall sign along McHenry Road. They have a wall sign on the south elevation over the front door. Although there is no visibility to southbound traffic and visibility is limited for northbound traffic. The space is five thousand (5,000) square feet. The proposed sign fits with other properties in the area. The previous tenant, Block Buster Video, also had a wall sign on the west elevation of the building. Ch. Entman read the ART Minutes of July 6, 2010 into the record. Mr. Raysa stated that on the color rendering submitted with the application there is a line through the dimensions. Mr. Meyers stated the correct dimensions are listed two lines below that. The wall sign will be twenty (20) inches tall by two hundred nineteen (219) inches wide. This sign will be smaller than the wall sign on the south elevation which is twenty four(24) inches tall. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Shapiro made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Vital Signs USA, 791 Industrial Drive, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 on behalf of American Mattress, 197 McHenry Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; and Section 14.20.080, pertaining to Wall Signs, for the purpose of allowing an additional wall sign on the west elevation of the building. Subject to the ART minutes date July 6, 2010. Pursuant to Exhibit "E" submitted with the application. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Corn. Lesser seconded the motion. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 13 —JULY 20, 2010 Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro,Au, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the August 9, 2010 Village Board agenda. 245 MCHENRY ROAD, WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030, 14.20.070 AND 14.40.025, TO REPLACE TWO (2) GROUND SIGNS (MENU BOARDS) ON THE PROPERTY; TO ALLOW THE MENU BOARD GROUND SIGNS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF EXISTING GROUND SIGNS LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET; AND TO ALLOW THE TWO (2) MENU BOARD GROUND SIGNS TO BE CHANGEABLE COPY Ch. Entman read the email addressed to Nancy Raeside, Q.T. Signs, dated July 19, 2010 which states: "This is to inform you that your application for Sign Code variations scheduled to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday,July 20, 2010,has been removed from the agenda. We have not received the additional information that was requested at the July 6, 2010 ART Meeting. We will continue this application for one month, until the August 17, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. If the requested information has not been received prior to the August 17, 2010 meeting,your application will be closed and you will need to go through the application process again. Please advise if you have any questions." Corn. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by QT Signs, Inc., 1391 Wright Boulevard, Schaumburg, Illinois 60193 on behalf of Wendy's International, 245 McHenry Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030,pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.20.070,pertaining to Ground Signs; and Section 14.40.025,pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs. Corn Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein,Dunn, Lesser, Shapiro,Au,Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the August 17, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Corn. Stein discussed the outcome of the recommendation for Quality Car Center-Car Wash at the July 12, 2010 Village Board meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Stein and seconded by Corn. Lesser. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 P.M. Submitted by, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 of 13 —JULY 20, 2010 Julie Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 of 13 —JULY 20,2010