1980-10-09 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes sib rq
•
+•,`
•
2. Lights on front parking area.
Mr. Stavin explained that the cars in front of the buildi ne are di ffi cult
to See at night. When avorai sers come to look at the cars, they cannot
really tell much about them. He proposed 3 lights to be placed on the ton
of the facade to light uo an area of 40 ft. by 70 ft. They would only be
on during business hours from about 6:00 to 9:00 P.M. The lights would not
shine out on to Dundee Road. The light poles that they have are not sufficient.
Com. Gibbs made the following motion:
I move we approve no more than 3 lights. shielded. so that
they do not extend over the area. approximately 401 x 701
• which g the paved parking surface at Buffalo Grove Datsun
That these lights are shut off at the end of ' the business
• day about 9:00 P.M./ -wh€n the business is closed.
The lights ghts are to be located on the front of the building.
The light. fixtures are to be submitted to the Commission.
Some discussion followed and instead of a formal vote. a straw pole was
taken so that Mr. Stavin would know Whether-to go to the expense of getting
estimates. He mentioned that the cars do not look the same inside as they
do out side.
Ch. Hardt took a straw poll — OK: Irby, Paolillo, Holland, Gibbs.
No: Hardt
Mr. Stavin asked about the procedure for going to .the ZBA for the temporary sign.
He was informed that the next meeting would be the third Tuesday in Nov. and the
cost would be t125.00 — He should see Mr. Griffin-for getting on the Agenda.
Since Tony of Italy and Lieberman Realty were not present, some discussion was
held concerning the temporary si en at Northwest Community Hospital. Com. Kirby
asked if it were reviewed and autroved by the Appearance Commission.
Mr. Griffin explained that the ZBA had given the sign a variation of the Sign Coile
Sec. 6.7 — Banners. oeni•3nts. etc. and curb signs are permitted for the opening of
a business. It vas granted for a period of 120 days. (Aug. 19. 1980)
Ch. Hardt noted that this section should be Thoroughly .reviewed .when the Sign Code
is codified and that it. should be clearly stated that ALL signs come to the AC.
Section 6.7 .actually refered to prohibited signs. He noted Sec. 12.1 (d). - -
** d) Tony of Italy — Tony Boccia — Revision of Landscaping.
Mr. Boccie. extlained that he requested a review of the tree in front of his
Shop. It wag blocking his sign but the Village trimmed the tree this week and
no longer is offensive. If the tree is kept trimmed, Mr. Boccia is satisfied-
but if it ever does block the signs Mr. Boccia would like to have it replaced
with low shrubbery.
Ch. Hardt explained that the Commission would prefer to keep the tree and said
that if it should become a hardship, Mr. Boccia should come in and the AC
can give approval for its_removal. He suggested that Mr. Boccia get a letter
from Mr. Conrardy giving him proper permission to have the tree removed and
replaced with shrubbery. This would be for the protection of Mr. Boccia.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Ch. Hardt presented his proposal for a Monotony Code: for Detached Single Family
Homes and copies of the correspondence pertaining to the situation that developed
with the Anden Corp. in Northwood.
The Commissioners expressed their feelings concerning how residents respond to
Changes of models_ sizes. etc. after nurchas;r,g lots. It was noted that it i g
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
•
,,.^ I. _
• a problem because of the present economy. It was also noted that zoning
, . . �` be' °0changed so that it is not possible to say that no changes will can
,5,f;
.-:, be made.
Mr. Griffin said that some buildings are too small for some lots and some
.1i. lots
are too small for some buildings.
It was noted that the Commission went with the builder because he was allowed
to increase the number of models-under .the Annexation Agreement and did so.
tweed that15 . •; - ie .hired.
Mr. Hrubv said that he and Jim Trusdell have presented a p
revising the Zoning Ordinance. This should take a period of Plan to
t Ballingfor
The present procedures for bringing _ two years
arss.
�g in new developments was reviewed. The Plan
Commission reviews site plans. narking area and building ulacement for
and single family homes. commercial
Future changes in the Zoning Ordinance will better control the square footsrees
Developments are brought in at the highest and best use for property but th
Plans can be changed. The Village tries to follow the Master Plan, ese
The Commission agreed that people should be informed of Doasibilitie of future
use of surrounding Properties at the time of purchase. " -
Ch. Hardt explained his reasons for bringing all this UD is two-•fo
ld. '"
• 1 — in dealing ng with minimums of square footage. it is good•:
in theory to require homes with 11.000 sq. feet or greater;
but tie idea Is also good to have further deliniation ni ation and
say in certain areas homes of 11.000 to 18.000 sq. ft. homes
will be approved - .other areas ; would have higher-•sq. footages.
This could be seen as segregation; but if the buyers were well
informed it would not be seen as such a uroblem.,
a builder builds a certain percentage of certain sized. homes
and then the economy koes down; or suppose smaller size homes •
are in style - wouldn't a person rather have a house next to him
than a vacant lot? Even if it were slower cost home.
Mr. Griffin said he didn't think that could be guaranteed because of
bility of variations being granted. - - -- the possi-
Mr. Hruby explained that in Buffalo Grove we have Zoning Districts R-1
R - 1 is the most restrictive and we are now approving developments in to RR .
• . .'and R-6 Zones. Building for R_1 and R_2 are being sought but it is thei Rl
He has been with many organizations and economy is dictating doffhouses
t1ng the size of houses.
The various Buffalo Grove builders were discussed and reasons liven for
t
of a "Truth in Building Law" to be considered. Mr. Hruby was asked to xe need
the feelings of the Appearance Commission to the Plan Commission. He express
Buffalo Grove can be a leader in establishing a Zoningr agreed that
hensive and covers manysituations. Ordinance that i s conpre-
He believes that the check and balance system '
is eooa.-The Appearance Commission does approve all homes. '
It was noted that in ,the case of Anden the Commission had no choic
PUD agreement. It could not turn down the model. a because of the
Ch. Hardt thanked Mr. Hruby for his interest and his help in expressing the
of the Appearance Commission to the Plan Commission; and offered to attendconcerx
public hearing When the next PIlD comes un. the nextt
AL`./ he Commi very
ssion next discussed the Monotony Code. This Code is i m
should be made a part of the Ordinances. Several things should beincluded:nt and
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
Oct. 9. 1980 - Page Four
.i•
1 - Verbage pertaining to health. safety and welfare.
2 :. Cul-de-sacs need to be drawn with limitations.
3 - That it .pertains to all sub-divisions but there can .be some what
more lenient on cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets.
Mr. Hruby will help change the verbage. sent the proposal to Mr. Raysa who will
add legal language; then it will go before a Public hearing and finally be presented
to the Village Board.
• Quite some time was spent in discussion of T"T-Street&' and Cul-de-sac.
T-gtreets: When the houses face the intersecting street. St would not matter
what model is built. A and B could not be the same model - but
could be the same as across the street.
Ji A I (Some felt that A could not be on Lots 1 or 2 -
Ill and B could not be on Lots 3 or 4.)
T B
[1-4 I
!a
If the houses are built on a diagonal, then lines extended from
the building lines would determine what model could be across from it.
• • A could not be built on Lots 2 or 3.
1
B could not be built on Lots 2 or 3.
t.11D
♦ B
z
12S
c)"/
•
- 1
APPEARANCE COMMIISSION
Oct. 9. 1980 - Page Five
. .`.7:11
•
The Commission felt that the Code should be as restrictive as uossiblv,
then changes can be made when appropriate.
After much consideration of Possible situations, the Commissioners agreed
that usually 4 models can be used successfully. The general definiti on
would be:
Where lines drawn nerDendicular to the firm*
wall.• are extened; if it hits a lot line it is
considered to be across the streed from.it.
Builders can come in for variations of the Monotony Code.
Com. Kirby stressed that definitions are the most important factor in a Code.
To be considered a different elevation. there must be a structural change.
The Monotony Code can be made a Hart of the Zoning Text Amendment.
Another situation that could arise is with corners with houses facing
one another. Such as:
Each house should be a different elevation:
A (:•1811
•
•
lar D
40`1
Ch. Hardt said that the Code must be good, but not too cumbersome. The
Arcearance Commission will make the restrictions with reference to the
Monotony Code.
•
Other Village signage was-discussed:•
1. Buffalo Grove Mail — May be sold again.
2. Suffield Place — Lights on sign on tusch Road.
3. Outdoor Place letters do not conform to Sign Package.
6. ADJOURNMENT .
Com. Kirby made a motion to adiourn at 10 P.M. and Com. Holland seconded the
motion. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned. Next meeting Oct. 23. 3 980.
Respectfully submitted.
)3Q-Q
Shirley Bates ecretary
Appearance Co i.ssion
•
APPEARANCE COMMISSION
sb Oct. 9. 1980 — Page Six