Loading...
2010-12-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ` D plowER AS st_kfbM Treb ► I 1 $ 1 1 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 Acting Chairman Windecker called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, December 21 , 2010 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Lesser Chairman Entman Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16, 2010 minutes: Com. Stein made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, November 16, 2010. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Shapiro, Au, Windecker NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS 1200 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD, CIRCLE K - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.030; 14.20.070; 14.20.080 AND 14.40.025, TO INSTALL ONE (1) ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING; TO INSTALL TWO (2) ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING; INSTALLING TWO (2) WALL SIGNS ON THE CAR WASH BUILDING; AND TO REFACE THE THREE (3) EXISTING CHANGEABLE COPY GROUND SIGNS THAT ARE ALL WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF EACH OTHER AND ON THE SAME PARCEL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21 , 2010 PAGE 1 of 14 V V Ms. Auna Foote, Corporate Identification Solutions, 5308 N. Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois 60630,was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 4, 2010 was read at the October 19, 2010 public hearing. Ms. Foote explained that Circle K and Shell are merging. Circle K will be responsible for all the food and car wash revenues at the locations and Shell will only be maintaining the gas revenues. Circle K is looking to add branding signage. They are also looking to upgrade the manual gas price signs to LED signs. Acting Ch. Windecker confirmed that Circle K is looking to add Circle K panels on the ground signs. He asked if the ground signs are illuminated. Ms. Foote stated that the ground signs are currently internally lit with existing lighting. They will not be adding any new electric. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that he noticed that the V-Power panels were not illuminated. Ms. Foote stated that there will not be any additional electrical. Acting Ch. Windecker confirmed that Circle K is looking to add three (3) five (5) foot by five (5) foot illuminated wall signs on the building. Ms. Foote stated that one (1) wall sign would be added on each elevation due to the structure of the building. Ms. Foote submitted some photographs of the building depicting the unique elevations. They would like the Circle K logo to be visible from every side of the road when driving around the building. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that he would have a problem with six (6) signs. That is a lot of Circle K signs as opposed to the original foot mart sign that Shell had on the north elevation. Ms. Foote stated that she believes that Circle K is requesting the �, amount of signage that they feel will make it visible around the building to indicate that the building itself is Circle K. Especially in the Illinois region, not a lot of people are aware of what Circle K is so they are trying to identify on the building that they have building product as well. Com. Au stated that there is only one (1) entrance. So only one (1) sign will be over an entrance and the other signs will be over windows. Ms. Foote stated that there is an entrance both off of Route 83 and off Fremont Way from Arlington Heights Road. Mr. Sheehan confirmed that there is an entrance on the north side of the building and on the east side of the building. Com. Au asked if there was a reason why they wanted the two (2) Circle K wall signs right next to each other. Ms. Foote stated that the photographs she obtained and submitted that were marked as Exhibit "F" and Exhibit "G", show that the building elevation is a triangular shaped and one (1) elevation cannot be seen when entering from the east but can be seen from the north. It is to make the signs visible from all angles of the street. Corn. Au asked if was not feasible to put one (1) sign at one (1) entry way and the other signs at the other entry way. Ms. Foote stated that the elevations submitted show the triangular shape of the elevation. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that there are six (6) Circle K signs that are being proposed and there is one (1) at every corner of the gas station and one (1) in the middle. People should be able to notice that Circle K is present at this location without six (6) signs. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 2 of 14 Corn. Shapiro agrees that he believes that there is good coverage on the three (3) ground signs as well as on the building. The signs that he feels are unnecessary are the signs over the windows that face east. For vehicles traveling up Route 83 they have the sign that faces Route 83 over the door that faces Route 83 and the one (1) over the door that faces Arlington Heights Road. He feels that they would be covered with the Circle K signage. Plus there is signage on the car wash. Those are not illuminated. He believes that they would get the coverage they want to get the name recognition. Corn. Stein asked about why the signs on the car wash are necessary. Currently there are no enter and exit signs on the car wash. At this point, they are already in Circle K Shell. He does understand why the two (2) wall signs are being proposed for the east elevation. They are trying to get visibility from both frontages to the street, although they will be seen at the street level on the ground signs. He asked for an explanation regarding the signs on the care wash. Ms. Foote stated that the car wash is the same thing, to be able to identify that Circle K is responsible for the car wash revenues. It is informational. The Shell signs will still be there on the canopy and ground signs. It is just an indicator that the car wash revenues are Circle K, they are no longer Shell. They are trying to add the Circle K logos on the car washes in their typical signs package. Acting Ch. Windecker explained to Ms. Foote that she has heard the opinion of the Commissioners and advised her of her options at this time. Ms. Foote stated that she would have to go back to Circle K before removing any of the proposed wall signs from the request. She would like to have the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) vote on the request as previously amended to remove the changeable copy spanner board. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the Appearance Review Team (ART) did question the number of proposed wall signs as well. Ms. Foote stated that is why she provided the photographs showing the unique elevations of the building. She does not want have to wait another month. Either way she will be set back another month. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the ZBA can vote on what is proposed or it can be Tabled until the January meeting. Ms. Foote asked to have the ZBA vote on the current proposal. Corn. Stein stated that he is not sure why the car wash signs are necessary to let people know that the revenue goes to Circle K. He definitely does not understand why the Circle K sign on the exit side of the car wash is necessary. It appears that there is no signage on the car wash now. He does not know why that needs to be added. Corn. Au stated that the car wash signs are necessary in case there is damage during the car wash. It is to let people know who is responsible. Corn. Stein asked if she felt that it is necessary for both the entrance and exit. He could be amenable to just the entrance. Corn. Au stated that if something came off your vehicle when you pull out, you would probably look back to see. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 3 of 14 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 recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Corporate Identification Solutions,5308 N.Northwest Highway,Chicago,Illinois 60630 on behalf of RDK Ventures, LLC d/b/a Circle K, 1200 Arlington Heights Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts; Section 14.20.070,pertaining to Grounds Signs;Section 14.20.080,pertaining to Wall Signs;and Section 14.40.025,pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs,for the purpose of installing one (1) additional wall signs on the north elevation of the building; to install two (2) additional wall signs on the east elevation of the building;installing two(2)wall signs on the car wash building;and to reface the three(3)existing changeable copy ground signs that are all within two hundred fifty(250)feet of each other and on the same parcel. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated October 7,2010;the ART minutes dated October 6,2010;and Group Exhibit"E"submitted with the application. Pursuant to Sign Code,Section 14.44.010,Subsection B. Corn.Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—None NAY—Stein,Shapiro,Au,Windecker ABSTAIN—None Motion DENIED 4 to 0.Findings of Fact attached.Petitioner was advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 1500 ABBOTT COURT,TWIN RINKS ICE PAVILION-SIGN CODE,SECTION 14.40.025, TO REPLACE THE EXISTING MANUAL CHANGEABLE COPY PORTION OF THE GROUND SIGN WITH AN LED DIGITAL DISPLAY Acting Ch. Windecker read the email submitted by Tom Wood, White Way Sign & Maintenance Company, dated November 18,2010 requesting the hearing be Tabled to the January 2011 regular meeting. Corn. Stein made a motion Table the request made by White Way Sign&Maintenance Company,451 Kinston Court,Mount Prospect,Illinois 60056 on behalf of Twin Rinks Ice Pavilion,1500 Abbott Court,for variance of Sign Code,Section 14.40.025,pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs,for the purpose of replacing the existing manual changeable copy portion of the ground sign with a LED digital display, to the January 18, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.Com.Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:AYE—Stein,Shapiro,Au,Windecker NAY—None ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21,2010 PAGE 4 of 14 ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item Tabled to the January 18, 2011 regular meeting FRONT YARD FENCING PERMITS Acting Ch. Windecker asked to defer this matter until after New Business. NEW BUSINESS 702 S. BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, DAIRY QUEEN BUFFALO GROVE - SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.20.030, TO ALLOW A SECOND WALL SIGN 702 S. BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, DAIRY QUEEN BUFFALO GROVE - DEVIATION TO THE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA, TO ALLOW A BOX SIGN Mr. Michael Scherer, Dairy Queen, 702 S. Buffalo Grove Road, and Mr. Mark Kipnis, Sign A Rama, 889 S. Randall Road, Elgin, Illinois, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on December 3, 2010 was read. Mr. Scherer explained that he appeared before the ZBA in February, 2010. At that time, he requested a Deviation to the Sign Criteria to allow a logo box sign that would not be centered above the lease space. This was in anticipation of also becoming an Orange Julius franchise. They were requested to appear before the ZBA in December to provide a status of obtaining the Orange Julius franchise. They are moving forward with the Orange Julius. They are in the process and have a signed contract. The store is currently under construction for remodeling. The request is two part. At the time of the previous request, there was no requirement to install a sign on a raceway. They are requesting a logo box sign in lieu of channel letters. They have approval from the landlord. The intent of the logo box sign is to limit the damage to the façade of the building. They are also applying for the variation to allow the second wall sign. Acting Ch. Windecker confirmed that the proposed sign will match the Dairy Queen logo sign in construction. Mr. Kipnis confirmed that the sign is a UL listed illuminated box. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the proposed sign was reviewed by the ART and that there were no concerns. They asked for an electrical diagram, which was submitted to the Village. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Dairy Queen Buffalo Grove, 702 S. Buffalo Grove Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 5 of 14 14.20.030, pertaining to Business Districts, for the purpose of allowing a second wall sign. Subject to the ART minutes dated December 8, 2010. The sign is to be installed pursuant to Exhibit"E" submitted with the application. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Subsection B. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Shapiro, Au, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Finding of Fact attached. Item to appear on the January 17, 2011 Village Board agenda. Corn. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Dairy Queen Buffalo Grove, 702 S. Buffalo Grove Road, for Deviation to the Plaza Shopping Center Sign Criteria, to allow a box sign pursuant to Exhibit"E". Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Shapiro,Au, Windecker NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. OLD BUSINESS FRONT YARD FENCING PERMITS Mr. Sheehan stated that based on the discussion at the last meeting he had taken the comments and made some modifications to the current language. The first change concerns Section 15.20.040, pertaining to Residential Districts. Depending on which way the ZBA wishes to proceed, the current Code clearly states that no fence shall located nearer to the street than the front line of the building. If the ZBA chooses to go that route, then the ZBA needs to reaffirm that they wish to enforce this as Village Code and this recommendation would be forwarded to the Village Board for final approval. If the ZBA wishes to recommend that the Code be modified to allow front yard fencing, he has prepared the language modifications which have been distributed and contains the strikeouts and additions. These modifications would only be recommended if the ZBA wanted to approve three (3) foot front yard fencing as a right within the Code. The second issue is a stand alone issue. The definition of ornamental fencing, Section 15.20.070, needed to be modified because it is not clearly written. Sheehan's ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 6 of 14 recommendation is to strikeout Section 15.20.070 in its entirety and add a new Section 15.20.070 to clearly state that ornamental fencing 1.would require a permit;2. shall not exceed three(3) feet in height;4.will not exceed thirty(30)feet of continuous length; and 5.that ornamental fencing is designed to be decorative in nature as an accent piece and is not to enclose a yard or a portion of a yard. This would mean that the Village would not allow residents to abut the sections to each other and continue around a yard,basically putting up a three(3) foot fence,which is what happens currently. Mr.Sheen asked for the recommendation of the ZBA to incorporate the ornamental fence section and a recommendation to be forwarded on to the Village Board on whether the ZBA feels the Village should allow three(3)foot fences in the front yard or not.If the ZBA recommends to not allow them,then the Code could stand the way it is written and this would just need to be reaffirmed with the Village Board. Corn. Shapiro stated that concerning ornamental fencing,there should be a restriction to not allow more than one(1)ornamental fence per property.That way,residents could not put thirty(30)feet,then a five(5)foot gap and then another thirty(30)feet,to restrict the number of ornamental fences per parcel. Mr. Sheehan stated that he would suggest possibly limiting the fencing to the two(2)corners of the front yard.Corn.Shapiro stated that he would like something that would prevent the gap, gap, gap situations. Mr. Sheehan stated that he discussed that issue with Mr. Raysa. The idea was not to put a specific number limitation,but by requiring a permit the Village would be able to deny what he would see as basically using sections of fence to create a perimeter fence around a front yard.Com. Shapiro stated that his concerns are the cases where residents have a number of sections of ornamental fence strung together. But if the statement to not enclose the yard is sufficient then he is satisfied. Acting Ch.Windecker stated that he believes that thirty(30)feet of fencing is too long. Fencing comes in eight(8)foot sections.Maybe limit the length to twenty four(24)feet. South of Lake Cook Road,the front yards are fifty(50)to sixty(60)feet in width,how do you regulate that. Mr. Sheehan stated that the thirty(30)foot length is a carryover from the existing Code.He could change the language to make the length shorter at the recommendation of the ZBA. Acting Ch.Windecker suggested that the item be deferred until the other Commissioners are present and have an opportunity to comment on the matter. Mr. Raysa stated that he posed to Mr. Sheehan a hypothetical situation where a homeowner installs a fence pursuant to Section 15.20.040.He has that right and it is three (3)feet in height and no restriction on length or anything else.The fence is three(3)feet high.He then decides that he wants to install an ornamental fence.Mr. Sheehan's first question was why you would want to put up both.But according to both Code Sections, he would have a right to put up the first fence and then somehow add ornamental fencing. Mr.Raysa did not see that as being very aesthetic. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21,2010 PAGE 7 of 14 Mr. Sheehan stated that if you drive down Lake Cook Road and look to the south, you can see that there is a wood fence along a rear yard that is in front of a chain link fence on the same property. They just chose not to take the chain link fence down and put the wood fence in front of it. Mr. Sheehan stated that if the Commissioners had a recommendation concerning a different distance or dimension, he could make that change. Acting Ch. Windecker is concerned that if someone is allowed to put up two (2) corner fences and they have a fifty (50) foot wide lot, the fences could connect. Mr. Sheehan stated that would be what he is trying to prevent. Generally a continuous length on a corner would be fifteen (15) and fifteen(15) around the bend. But the current Code does not state that. Com. Shapiro asked if they could say that an ornamental fence could not abut a standard fence as well. So an ornamental fence could not go straight up against another fence. Mr. Sheehan stated that he could add the language that no ornamental fence could abut any other type of fence. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein made a motion to Table this item until the January 18, 2011 regular meeting. Com. Au seconded the motion. Voice Vote: AYE—was unanimous. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING SIX (6) FOOT FENCES Mr. Sheehan explained to the ZBA that the Village Board had directed staff to review the issue of fence heights and whether of not the maximum allowable height should be modified. This is based on several recent variation appeals that have recently been before the Village Board concerning six (6) foot fence heights, two (2) of which are currently pending decision. One (1) is concerning the fence variation at 910 Saxon Place and one (1) concerning 611 Silver Rock Lane. The Village Board wanted staff to take a look at what exists out there currently and what exists in other communities and come up with a recommendation. Various issues were brought up both at the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and the Village Board with regards to the unavailability of fencing at certain heights. That has not panned out as very truthful. Com. Windecker had done some research as well as Trustee Trilling and Mr. Sheehan. Mr. Sheehan contacted various department stores and spoke with fencing contractors. For the most part, with the bigger fencing contractors, they are custom building the fences on site. They buy the wood wholesale and put the fences together on the site. That is how the fence at Cambridge on the Lake was built. They can cut the fence to any size wanted. There is no reason or rationale for limited fencing to any height based upon availability. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 8 of 14 As far as a homeowner ordering pre-built sections, the standard heights that are available generally are four (4) and six (6) foot heights. That is basically because that is what is mostly requested. A five (5) foot height is available from every manufacturer. They may need some lead time, three (3) to seven (7) days to custom order or pre order the fences. There may be a special charge if you needed the fence rushed or something along those lines. Generally speaking it is a similar price you are just paying the different price on the size and there really is no cost incurred. Mr. Sheehan looked at a number of communities. Basically two (2) out of the twenty four (24) communities allow a fence that can only be four (4) feet in height. Those were Lincolnshire and Oakbrook. Five (5) of the twenty four (24) communities, Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Burr Ridge, Lake Zurich and Mount Prospect, do not allow fencing height to exceed five (5) feet. The remaining seventeen (17) communities allow heights of six (6) feet or greater. Out of other communities researched, the majority do allow six (6) feet. This is specific to interior side yard and rear yard fences. Mr. Sheehan has complied data from the last ten(10) years looking at the total number of fence permits issued and the total number of six (6) foot height variation requests. There are quite a few fence permits that were issued and a handful of variance requests. The ZBA should also take into account some people are just building fences to Code, or they will find out what the variance procedure is and decide they do not want to pursue it. He is not sure if the numbers provided are skewed one way or the other. Over the last ten (10) years there were sixty seven (67) variation petitions brought to the ZBA. Of those, the ZBA approved thirty (30) of the requests. Several of those not approved were appealed to the Village Board and approved at the Board level. It is approximately a fifty (50%)percent approval rate for variance requests. Based on that information and coupled with the fact that the Police, while they have some concerns that are created with a higher fence, they do not oppose six (6) foot fences. There are just some issues that they would need to take into account when responded to certain types of calls. Mr. Sheehan's recommendation is to allow six (6) foot fencing to accommodate the residents that are looking for privacy or security. That would put Buffalo Grove in line with most of the other communities with some exceptions. This recommendation coupled with the decision of the ZBA will be forwarded to the Village Board. He would like to have a full ZBA recommendation, but the Village Board would like to have this information at the next available Board meeting, which is scheduled for January 3, 2011. Mr. Sheehan explained that this was discussed at the ZBA and Board level back in July, 2007. At that time, the ZBA recommended 6 to 0 to keep the Ordinance at the five (5) foot height. At that time the Village Board had voted unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the ZBA. The current request is based on several recent requests made by residents. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 9 of 14 Acting Ch. Windecker is concerned with the current Code as it does not regulate the construction of fences. Fencing being installed by the resident is not constructed adequately. Posts are not being installed below the frost line. There is a new fence that went up along Route 83 between Arlington Heights Road and Deerfield Parkway. That fence is built up over old wood. How does the Village allow that to happen? He is not sure if there is anything that can be done to prevent that from happening. What the fence was replaced with will cause by the same problem they are currently having. He also does not like the fencing that is put together by staples. Those fences are horrible after a year or two. Acting Ch. Windecker commented that once the ordinance is changed to six (6) feet, that variances will be requested for eight (8) feet in height. People always want more. They will want more to beat out the neighbor down the street. It never fails, whether it is drugs, fences or cars, you can see it all around. Also, when you look at the variances that were approved for six (6) feet and the ones that were appealed, many of them that went before the Village Board did not present the same argument to the Board that was presented to the ZBA. They modify or change the original reason for the request that was heard at the ZBA. The stories changed or the requestor changed when before the Village Board. The minutes do not lie. He does not understand why the minutes are not read by the Trustees before they hear an appeal. It is very disheartening after all of these years. Mr. Sheehan stated that the minutes are provided as part of the packet to the Village Board. Acting Ch. Windecker believes that the minutes are included but he would like the Trustees to read them and understand how the ZBA reached its decision. Acting Ch. Windecker believes that if Village Board really wants to change the Ordinance, then they should change it, but do not revisit the issue every other year. He feels that five (5) feet makes a nice, decent looking fence. If the resident goes to a professional they can cut the fence to any size the resident wanted, they can curve it, they can arch it and it is built correctly. He has a neighbor that had a fence installed by a good contractor that did a good job. That fence has been there for approximately eight (8) to nine (9) years and you wouldn't know that the fence was put up that long ago. Then he has a neighbor up the street that put a fence up on a Sunday and you would like to go and rip it down. Same permit, same inspection, but totally different product in the end. Corn. Stein stated that he grew up in a time and a neighborhood where four (4) foot fences were the maximum height because people wanted to know who their neighbors were. They wanted to talk over the fence to the neighbor. Times have changed. Just talking to people, most do not even know who their next door neighbor is and they do not want to know. There was the resident a couple months ago that rather than deal with the problem wanted to put up a fence so he did not have to look at it. He wishes that the ZBA could go back and say the maximum fence height is four (4) feet like a few of the other communities. In reality, the attitude of the community is different. He realizes that the objections of the Police Department concerning six (6) foot fences are because of sight issues. If they are in their squad car they are not going see over a five (5) foot fence either. The open fence is a great idea. But in our community, residents want fences that are solid so they can keep people out of their business as opposed to keeping people in ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 10 of 14 like a four (4) foot fence would do. He would like to stay at the five (5) foot height but that is not what the community is asking for and it does not appear to be what the Village Board is looking for. He does not want to compare the Village to surrounding communities. We are at five (5) feet and our neighbors are at six (6) feet. He agrees with Acting Ch. Windecker with regards to if we go to six (6) feet we are going to see eight (8) foot requests. Maybe the ZBA needs to codify what qualifies for anything above six (6) feet rather than the unique circumstances of terrain and not for the sole reason of privacy. He would vote in favor of recommending the six (6) foot height. Com. Shapiro agrees that if you look at surrounding communities, six (6) feet is fairly prevalent. The ZBA does get a lot of requests for six (6) foot fences. He is not quite convinced that if the ZBA approves six (6) feet that residents would ask for eight (8) feet. Maybe residents that back up to Route 83, which are typically approved anyways. He does like the idea that if they approve a height over five (5) feet that there may be a requirement regarding an open type of fence. He is not sure if the board on board or shadow box fence style is considered an open type fence. Mr. Sheehan stated that it can be considered open but it would not meet a fifty (50) or forty (40) percent that other communities are enforcing. Corn. Shapiro confirmed that the openness is the spacing between the boards. Mr. Sheehan stated that the issue with open style fence, with the exception of the shadow box, is the picket type fence would not be found at a height over five (5) feet. You could find the shadow box, but not a picket or separated style of fence. They are generally board to board at that height. Com. Shapiro stated that he does understand why people ask for that because it is for privacy, but it also creates that fortress kind of look, which is what he believes the Village does not want to promote. He understands why the community is asking for this, but there is just something about a six (6) foot stockade fence that is a little imposing. He would be more amenable to recommending an open type of fence or a shadow box, something that is not board against board in heights above five(5) feet. Corn. Au kind of agrees and kind of does not agree with six (6) foot fences. She believes that six (6) foot fences deserve a purpose in certain situations. She does not believe that surrounding your house in a six (6) foot fence is a good idea. If you look at the chart prepared over the last ten (10) years, there has been an up and down trend in how many have applied for six (6) foot fence variances. It is not that many compared to the people asking for fence permits. She does not see a substantial increase or substantial decrease in any given time. It appears to be random people throughout the year that want to get a six (6) foot fence. She does not see that as a trend that more and more people are looking to get a six (6) foot fence. She thinks that certain people do need it for certain reasons and she feels that leaving it at the five (5) foot height and asking for a variance for certain reasons is the appropriate way to go. She just purchased a house this year in Buffalo Grove and her neighbor's have four (4) foot chain link fences. Based on that, she knows all of her neighbor's. The neighbor's have offered to help. One neighbor saw that they were doing tile work and dropped off some tile equipment. If she had six (6) foot fences surrounding her, she would not know her neighbors. She believes that this is one of those considerations that if the height is left at five(5) feet and, in unique circumstances grant a variance,then the Code is serving its' purpose. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 11 of 14 Com. Shapiro believes that the Village. Board hears the "squeaky wheel" which is why they are reacting to it. If you look at the majority of fence permits, fewer than ten (10) percent ever apply for a variance. So ninety(90) percent of the people who put up fences are alright with the five (5) foot height. Those kinds of statistics are what the Village Board really needs to see. They are hearing from the people that do not agree. Having two (2) appeals two (2) months in a row makes it seem like it is a big problem when it is really a very small problem. Mr. Sheehan added that over the past year there have only been six (6) people that have requested a variance and of the ones denied not all of them have appealed. Com. Shapiro stated that it is a very low number of people that are requesting a variance and the ones that actually have unique circumstances wind up getting approved. People that back up to busy streets or people that have some kind of unique circumstance is the criteria that the.ZBA goes by. It is not like the ZBA denies anything that ever comes before them. Some people just do not have a very good reason such as they do not like their neighbor. That is not the unique circumstance the ZBA looks for. He believes that the Village Board needs to understand the true scope of what the request is. The down side would be creating fortress type yards that make our community look like a bunch of rectangles of large fences. Acting Ch. Windecker asked Mr. Sheehan if he could include the totals at the bottom of the chart of the number of permits and number of variations. Mr. Sheehan stated that he doesn't know if he can add that to the chart, but he can add the totals into the narrative when he prepares the submittal for the Village Board. Acting Ch. Windecker asked if Mr. Sheehan would add a box that shows the number of six (6) foot fences that were installed without a permit or variance. Mr. Sheehan stated that he would not know how he could accurately get that number, as fences are not tracked that way. Com. Stein asked for a column with the number of variations denied. Mr. Sheehan stated that the chart includes the total number of variances requested. He could show the number of variances that were approved. Thirty (30) were approved so thirty seven (37) were denied. He does not have them broken down by year. Mr. Raysa stated that a question came up at the Village Board meeting about how the fence height is measured. If there is a five (5) foot fence and the posts have a cap, is the cap included in the five (5) foot height. Mr. Sheehan stated that is something that he would like to address as well. He is trying to tie both the fence height and front yard fencing into one (1) amendment of the Fence Code that will encompass all of the proposed changes. As alluded to earlier, Mr. Horwitch, 611 Silver Rock Lane, did not like his neighbor so he made the posts a foot higher than the fence then added that lattice to the top. The question came up as to whether we regulate the height of the posts. Currently we do not. Generally speaking fence posts are taller or exceed the height of the fence. Not to the extent of twelve inches or more, but he will look at what we have out there and he will suggest putting a limitation on what height the posts can be. If fence posts are of an ornamental nature,maybe they can exceed to a certain extent,but if it just a square type post it should be the height of the fence. He will put forth a recommendation so that we do not have that issue in the future. At that time, he would ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 12 of 14 like to create a standard for construction requirements at least as far as the posts are concerned. He did speak with the inspectors concerning the staples. If you hire a contractor that will build the fence on site, you will get a good solid fence built with wood screws. If you buy the fence at Menard's or Lowe's, if the fence is not vinyl, it is constructed with staples. They mass produce those products. Some of the staples are better than others. The worst are the stockade style fences. Those are put together with staples that are not very large and they do tend to fall apart. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that the posts vary above the fence from four(4)to eight(8) inches. It could be a foot or more if you have a scalloped type fence. The posts are as high as the center board plus four (4) inches. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Code would have to be specific because if you allow that distance then you have the twelve (12) inches that Mr. Horwitch had that he added his lattice to. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that Mr. Horwitch never intended not to put up a six (6) foot fence. If he had a contractor install the fence properly, the total height of the posts would have been nine and one half (9-1/2) feet because the posts would had to have been installed below the frost line. Com. Au does not believe that a contractor should be required to install a fence. Her boyfriend helped a friend, another Buffalo Grove resident, put up their fence and they went by the guidelines. They dug the holes into ground beyond the frost line. They live off Beechwood and Arlington Heights Road. That fence looks like a contractor installed it but they did it all themselves. She believes that there are certain guidelines that have to be adhered and if you get a permit, they should get a copy of the guidelines. If they do not follow the guidelines, the permit can be revoked. Mr. Sheehan stated that the guidelines or construction requirements would need to be codified to be enforced. Com. Au reiterated that she does not believe that a contractor has to be hired to install a fence. Corn. Stein stated that President Hartstein brought up a hypothetical situation at the Village Board meeting regarding how close fence posts can be placed. Hypothetically you can have fence posts six (6) inches apart and a foot higher than the fence. Corn. Stein asked if a requirement concerning a minimum distance of spacing between the posts can be built into the recommendation. Mr. Sheehan stated that he will have to look at that. Corn. Stein stated that he does not want someone to say that they do not have an eight(8) foot fence; they just have a six (6) foot fence with posts that are eight(8) feet tall. Acting Ch. Windecker stated that a fence section is typically six (6) to eight (8) feet in length. Mr. Raysa explained that the only motion to consider was the height of fences. Com. Shapiro stated that six (6) foot fences, if left unrestricted, he is not in favor of. But if it were six (6) foot but anything above five (5) feet there would be restrictions about the type of fence that can be installed, he would be more amenable. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 13 of 14 Mr. Sheehan stated that it would be beneficial to have the ZBA Commissioners present at the Village Board meeting to point out the discussion that took place concerning the issues. Then it would be on record and the Trustees will hear you. Com. Shapiro added that because the number of requests for six (6) foot fences is so low he does not feel the necessity to change the Code to appease less than ten (10)percent of residents. He will also attend the Village Board meeting to explain his point of view. Com. Stein stated that then there is the question of how many residents came in asking for a six (6) foot fence and were told that five (5) feet is the restriction and a variance is required then decided to install the fence at five (5) feet. He wonders how many people would have wanted six (6) feet if they could. We do not know that. Corn. Shapiro stated that at that point it is mission accomplished. They followed the Code. There were no additional comments from the Commissioners. Corn. Shapiro made a motion to modify the existing Fence Code which allows for a fence to be placed in either the rear or interior side yards to allow a height up to six (6) feet. Corn. Au seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein NAY—Shapiro,Au,Windecker ABSTAIN—None Motion DENIED 3 to 1. ANNOUCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Stein and seconded by Corn. Au. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Acting Ch. Windecker adjourned the meeting at 8:50 P.M. Submitted by, J ie Kamka ecording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 21, 2010 PAGE 14 of 14