1981-02-19 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes 1 R
a
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL.
Thurs.:- 4-FEB. 19, 1981
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8: 22 P.M. on Thursday,
Feb. 19, 1981 at the Village Hall.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: M. Schwartz, H. Hefler, M. Kearns, P. Schroeder and
R. Heinrich.
Commissioners Absent: J. Quick and J. Finfer.
Bldg. Department: James D. Griffin, Asst. Bldg. and Zoning Adm.
Village Attorney: William Raysa, Jr.
Trustee Liaison: Mrs. Bobbie O'Reilly
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Schwartz made a motion to approve the minutes of Jan. 20, 1981
as presented. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call: Aye - Kearns
Schwartz
Schroeder
Heinrich
Abstain - Hefler
Nay - None
Jan. 20, 1981 Minutes were approved and will be placed on file.
IV. BUSINESS
Levitt Homes - Request for a variation of Art.X, Sec. 8.1 based upon the
provisions of Article XIII , Section 4.1-1 (a)
Villas of Buffalo Creek - Building to be used for Corporate Offices. R - 7.
Representatives - Don Lauer, 840 Beverly, Arlington Heights. OfficeManager.
Mike Rhodes - Construction Manager of Northern Area.
Mr. Lauer summarized Levitt' s need to reduce the regional office staff from
35 people to 7 people because of the recession of the housing industry.
These 7 people are directly responsible for sales and servicing of the sub-
division. Because of this hardship, Mr. Lauer requested that the model
located at 613 Bordeaux Court East.be approved for use as their Chicago
regional office for five (5) divisional managers and their secretarial staff.
They have a group of models in Naperville that could be used, but they are
doing a significant amount of business in Buffalo Grove and prefer this loca-
tion because they can service the project better here. BY re-locating, they
can cut their rent and overhead considerably.
There are 150 lots to develop out of 172 in the Villas of Buffalo Creek and
an additional 18 lots to develop in Strathmore Grove East.
Ch. Heinrich indicated the provision of Art. XIII - Sec. 4.1-1 (a) is that
"the use is incidental to the development of that district, such permit to
be for a period of not more than one (1) year." He asked how Levitt' s use
would be incidental to the development of that district?
-.
1
Mr. Lauer described the operation of the office as being used for the five (5)
Department heads, 4 of which are generally out on the project; himself as
Office Manager and 2 secretaries. (Director of Construction; Mortgage and Clos—
ing; Servicing and Accounting Departments — One person each.) These people will
be working in this district.
The breakdown of the 172 lots is 22 — built and sold; 6 built and not sold, and
4 foundations built and not sold; and 140 to be developed.
Mr. Dave Esta, 1580 Brandwyn Lane; was present and asked for clarification of
the request. Ch. Heinrich explained the limitations that would be placed on the
permit if granted. Mr. Esta also wondered if the adjacent model could be sold
or if it would be used only as a model. The answer was that it could not be
sold as long as the corporate offices were located on the_.premises.
Ch. Heinrich asked Mr.Lauer about the marketing of the project. Collwell—Banker,
a Real Estate firm, actually markets the duplexes, but all sales offers are
brought to the proposed offices. They are reported to the base office in Boca
Raton, Florida for approval. The construction and servicing departments are
directly involved in the development of the project. Mr. Lauer, controller,
takes payments from purchasers and pays the trades''. managers.
Mr. Raysa indicated that the question he had about the "incidental use" of the
premises had been adequately explained. He asked, how-. the "hardship criteria"
would be met'
Mr. Lauer cited Economic Hardship — at present they MUST cut costs in order to
survive. In 1978, they had 65 people working. They cut to 30 and now to 7. If
the variation is not granted, they will have to foreclose and leave Chicagoland.
This would place an extreme hardship upon the purchasers who live in the project.
With regard to Sec. C — Criteria For Variations(Findings of Fact) 1 — 6, there
will be no violation of any stipulation listed.
Mr. Raysa asked if the time limit restriction, the agreement not;to sell the
adjacent unit during the time the corporate offices were used, and limitation
of the hours that the office could be open; would be difficult to meet?
Mr. Lauer said he understood the restrictions and that it would not be probable
that they would want to sell the duplex as long as they were there; but that he
often does start work at 6:30 A.M. and did not feel that any neighbors would be
bothered by any cars using the premises. The nearest occupied unit is more than
two blocks away.
Com. Schroeder asked how much would be saved if the Corporate Office is moved?
Mr. Lauer said the rent they are now paying is $100,000.00 per year for 8,000 sq.
feet of space. They no longer need that type of facility.
Com. Schroeder asked about the future product line.
Mr. Mike Rhodes, Construction Manager of the North Area said that he has met with
the Engineering Department and will be submitting in the near future a single—
family home with the market price of $110,000 up. In that event, they would need
a change in zoning to R — 5.
Com. Schroeder did not think there was a need for a limitation on office hours.
Com. Kearns asked when they would begin to market the new homes?
Mr. Rhodes said that it won't be until interest rates drop.
Com. Kearns commented that when and if additional activity does develop, much
more traffic could be generated. He felt that reasonable business hours should
be established. He also felt that there should be no signage on the unit.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Feb. 20, 1981 — Page Two.
Rroper tax assessment should be made. This is done when the C-0 is issued.
Com. Hefler commented that to restrict the number of people is quite binding and
noted that the Fire Department would be the agent to limit the number of users.
Com. Schwartz did not favor either a restriction of hours or number of persons.
Com. Schwartz made the following motion:
I make a motion that the variation requested to Art. X,
Sec. 8.1 based upon the provisions of Article XIII,
Sec. 4.1-1 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance; to permit the
use of Lot 87 in the Villas of Buffalo Creek as Corporate
Offices be granted, subject to the following stipulations:
1) that use of the building last no
longer than one year, or until
such time as the development is
sold out;
2) that neither unit of the duplex
building can be occupied by a
purchaser until such time as
the offices used by Levitt Bldrs.
is vacated;
3) that no signage be allowed;
4) occupancy parking and time usage
will be based on reasonable
standards.
Com. Schroeder seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Kearns
Hefler
Schroeder
Schwartz
Heinrich
Nay - None
MOTION PASSED. Findings of Fact Attached.
Ch. Heinrich said that this recommendation must be approved by the Village Board.
The next meeting will be held Monday, March 2, 1981.
V. DISCUSSION
A. Palo Alto Sign Code - Amortization Section
Mr. Don Hardt, Chairman of the Appearance Commission, was present and said he
had reviewed the Palo Alto Code and said he would like to see the non- conform-
ing signs in Buffalo Grove be modified according to Sec. 16.20.280. He noted
that the Appearance Commission is now in the process of codifying the Code.
He suggested that two members of the AC and the ZBA meet together and make
revisions to be submitted to the whole Commissions.
After some discussion of the Village signs that are non-conforming, it was
the general consensus that based on the present economic situation that it
would be best to not require non-conforming signs to be brought into conform-
ance unless they come in for a sign face change. There is a need to clarify
some sections of theSign Code because the intent is often misinterpreted.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Com. Hefler made a motion to adjourn at 10 P.M. and Com. Schwartz seconded. The
meeting adjourned by unanimous agreement.
Re pectfully submitted,
Shirleya Y
Bates ecretar ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Feb. 20, 1981 - Page Three
n
n.
1.1
• L r • of "' s.' T\ i �.
•
.:`- t i - HENDERSON AND _ ' £. ;
N BODWELL •• • y •, 10600 West Higgins Road Suite 408 --
_r • • :. Rosemont, Illinois 1 i nog s . " • - •t-•
.•� r • r 60018 ,• _
. • •.-
•
•
LOTS 87 �Bl . THE VI 'BUFFALO
_r ; . .. • _-- - , _� • i
VILLAS 8 F A q: ' • _•U F LO CREEK, UNIT. ONE, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN PART. --
OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 43 NORTN,f. RANGE• ] , EAST DF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL `�
LAKE BOUNTY, ILLINbIS ••` = • - - =' _ _ .:, • • MERIDIAN -
• , #•• •' ^ �.. .ts• �'.�'•�- _ • •
•, • -r R �1•'►.•I1, .,t••t j• _C ..Y r y. - �w t. .. ^r. •\•
T• • t •• . .4. ,:` "• • •*P.-••.. • • ;• .•. .- •,, • fir• 'of' !• r -G Se.•..• vI. 71f- •I. •',t't_t=1n• M a .-.• . '''.
:.�_• t • '• ♦. r j; ••t t �'..•`• ?..•••M e }.Y t. ).... %+`•` . .! .`i1••..Y _•; +` j' ' ♦ dry •i: t(S ; •'y fi•t ;'S«r =.
' •
.L.,
o •• . .2 �' \ . [t.. 3R •
w :j' •� 3 3 +j */I' � w ♦.�! • ` :.
' 1 ♦' •+ _ Q.';L•f.'�'••(ek• "t'i.. j�.,� r!'-1•�.. t.-} .t •t? oft-�� t.L f� X..- .L-L.4.1.0.f.
,••.4 t' �q` •• '''• _. w4.R•• .•. _7 'r •;..
•
• • • •.1. • •l•• •' :1 4 rj f ' '1♦ •�_ �''c .. '.-. . •,'�' 't _f F•� y �• • A�•�.•'.r r. r'•�: • •7 •,,j' ••�• -\ 'mil
L �• '-• :�' .•'. "• '.•'1t •!..'^ '.t. �.. , ,•: •s,• /J ♦•i' • .f,.I.• ) ,fr :. : T� ; ZtriQ ..• .t.�•� y �. .►. .i' _'1.' y_r -{ it;_ . -.i•
;11
•
r •• , `l,...• C.• • .'•t• r:•. .1..t• '• `t, • . • •''�• ,. �� 1-.• Ir _ • -y•..♦t f t�►qo: . ... r •�..• t•t�_•.1,`A►..-.-•••5.,'_:••r: . .. ▪I. ......01.7`• •�•"'..�.�:y .• ,=47 ,
•!� .�i v. •( • •�� • 1• • `' •-.. • .t•.-I. .ram• • • - 'w{`'....7 '.. -• • J'•�y1':'`i.- '•:.-- •r .L►:.. •.
4.
TM t i • • �i_�i• :-
._ •t ' • a..�ee�.a, •L•r.......�.• �.....L.a'+�L ��+�ras -. ��,� 1�,;,`_r▪� • `t ..' ..••
•
•
•
•
' ':• i�; •• t. - �y - •• "�•• r••• `' w i • ' , 't:- 0 1..`•..., :�• `• -'t v1r:'� rr• :T...gT • o-`.
• •
•
•
.�_ lords -..•
• a• J ."•, `' • < 7. �.r �j i:!L`a« .•4rrt.• i' *•• a+!�.i •� •�J►'' +-� j' •j'+ �, .p'
.. .- 2 • .T '.r �•�..,- •• • •�'f• • _ 'Z .•tj 4 •• v _4 • -. • L1 r: L ; -
j .♦
•
•
•
••• • ''•:^mot• - 1'; 'L - _ �•• - •„• J- . ,. . • 6 .�• _\. S•fl 4 it - %'•t •• �,t, ' - t. •�,' Imo▪' •= '; -
• '. .� • ,• • r.J' '•• •_• • it - -J _ `.1. - ."''•t •r • -.'• •. rF .• ` •
1`, '! ' -' .r• 1'.
•
•
•
•
-1717 ")... - `"0...' .envi* - -
. . .
• , .
. .
_ .
• •• ._ ,..,. .
" . .5.t1 . . ..
•
•
•
•
. gli/49/N6*- sh"... . 'a-. . _ ., . - ......,...
• .•'• ••• , • • . .• gb . Oir.,
•
.a,1,46.- • . „3.-.0,6,, ,,,,..... ..
. . .. .
.__: . •. . .. •... _. ,. ....,,_ • _.: . ,...___,.. ___„____,,______.... .
= •
.. •
. 7
•
•
•
• • . .t � �.._•_ s ;• _.
• • •• L . •....-a-
' • �•�- '`� - « • ms , ,• _ ••• •S .•- t .� . ..••• !'� • •
♦• , �� • ; • •• � .Vwr .► • • . ". ''' .•4 .'•' •., L. .. w. •i •�• -:ji'T • •, •• •(• `?'. a• , i!`-5;•r' . l - •'_� _• - s- • • • "'r - V � - .' .. . - • }. . • ; •� _'.�; -: _4. '• . -.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
� -. - L. 11/4 �.Jr-t' tL• •,t' .,..}. -.-•C['ci . • •. �� Q!•• .. !'"*r•. ..▪ •[ '♦.�Li.wZ. j•�r-..t,�•.{1 !-�4� ,'rr- •�.
•
•
•
•
dletio. ' . •' ••
. _ . . :.. . : APPROVED- :;
E ..
. �'i. ' - • <10) 404.�• 0A ZONING ��; , - -
•
. •
, APPEARANCE CONTROL
• • •
. • . . .
. . a - REVIEW •: D ' ..... - . • ..
�: :, " •
Vi1! 0e of Buffalo Grove .-- : - ;
•
. .... ,a f .''''''.. DATE, v7, .
e .... 41111110 •Or
. .t' • •` - - :. • - •,� 4., •+ •. -- • •• �.: •y.�. ' , '•. , •sue. . I' • '• ' •• • I
•
•
NOTE: P.U.E.=PUBLIC . • .. _ • , • ... l,,. ,,•, •
: ' _• '.
J ` UTILITY EASEMENT : . :; _ •' _ _ . -• ,• . . _ • • _.
•
•
•
DI STANCES ARE MARKED I N FEET AND' • :.DECIMAL PARTS' THEREOF, •► . •.•r'-_ _ •
•• COMPARE ALL POINTS BEFORE BUILDING BY SAME AND AT ONCE • , `' t .'-':•-:. - ' '•
•
REPORT ANY DIFFERENCE
' ' REFER TO- ABSTRACT; DEED b -LOCAL ORDINANCES FOR • - • -
' BUILDING L I V ��
t D NG RESTRICTIONS '• ' r . _ • .
State of Illinois)- S443'.
• • • ' . -= ._}• ._ • ` , . : •:
County of Lake. • - •r - _ • _•• _ -. 'L. l
• • *" ; `. -1....lL..:rj. - l �.' ~ •, ,. ♦ .. .. ._,t ln.•
w« • �,t• -y �•.•.% ••• .r_tip• .4.►�••'•_.'� •�/-y;•• •I....' •y
• We, Henderson •and Bodwo),l , hereby certify that- weave •s.urveyed ,h•e •aboi a • ;'�' "':rr':!�
••
described property and that the Int hereon raven is •a r'; :�`' -
r P coTre�t representat�on� of `
•. said survey corrected •.to a ;temperature p of ' "^ 'S -
4.
, 62. Fahrenheit . • •' ,,• - �'
, :.4 . "I; .- •• . -- .:. ..,;•'‘.P . - ,
. ussel S. 8odwel] -1902
Registered Iliinnis i And
tirrdovnr.
• 1
.
•
•
♦ !
/
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•' J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�•r
FINDINGS OF FACT
ON VARIATION
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL.
The Buffalo Grove Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings of
fact and conclusions:
1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY:
A. Address: 613 Bordeaux Court East, Lot 87 — Villas of Buffalo Creek.
B. Legal Description: As set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
C. Zoning District: R — 7, Transitional Dwelling District
D. Lot Size: Rear — 35.22 Feet, Sides — 138.52 Feet and 52.36 Feet;
(1) Characteristics of Lot: Front — 30.07 Ft.
Located on a Cul—de—sac and Lots 87 and 88 form
a Duplex.
(2) Characteristics of House: Duplex
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA:
A. Location: Bordeaux Court East near Brandywyn Lane,
B. Similiar Houses and Lots: 22 Lots built and sold;
6 Lots — built and not sold;
4 Lots — foundations in and not sold.
C. Similiar Variations: The Crossings
D. Public Rights of Way:
E. Adjacent Lots: Also used as models.
III. VARIATION SOUGHT:
A. Section 8.1 of Article X of the Zoning Ordinance based upon the
restrictions of Section 4.1-1 (a) of Article XIII of the Zon. Ord.
B. Description of Variation: Request to use premises for Corporate
Offices. It will be used by five (5)
Dept. Managers and two (2) secretaries.
C. Exhibits depicting variation: Survey — Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
I}. Variation Power:
(1) Section 4. 1-1 (a) Authorized Variations — Board of Trustees
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. After due notice, as required by law, a copy of said publication
notice being attached hereto as Exhibit "B" — the Zoning Board
of Appeals held a public hearing on the proposed variation on
Thursday, Feb. 19, 1981 in the Buffalo Grove Village Hall.
The applicant, Levitt Builders, representated by Don Lauer,
testified at the hearing and presented documentary evidence.
No objectors appeared at the hearing and no written objections
were filed to the proposed variation.
y1_
lam.
. V. FINDINGS:
A. The Board of Appeals recommends that the application be granted.
Specifically, the Board recommends that a variation be granted that
would permit Levitt Builders to use 1/2 of the duplex located at
613 Bordeaux Court East for Corporate Offices.
In support of its granting of this variation, the Board of Appeals
had made the following findings with respect to the application for
a variation:
B. Hardship Conditions :
(1) Economic: The property in question cannot yield a reasonable
return if permitted to be used only under the con—
ditions allowed by the regulations in that zoning
district.
(a) Economic Factors — Yearly rent for 8,000 square feet of
office space in Des Plaines is `p100,000.
and because of the recession in the hous—
ing industry, the office staff has been
cut from 65 in 1978 down to 7 people.
Without the variation, Levitt Bldrs.
would have to foreclose and leave-the
Chicago area.
(2) Uniqueness of Conditions: The plight of the owner is due to
(a) Cause of Hardship: Recession in Housing Industry
(b) Purpose of Variation: Relocate Corporate Offices
(3) Locality: The variation will not alter the essential character
of the locality.
C. Criteria For Variation: Section 4.5 of Article XIII
(1) Variation will not serve merely as a convenience to applicant.
(2) Will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adja—
cent property.
(3) Will not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.
The Villas court was designed to handle 8 units and there will
only be 4 to 5 cars using it.
(4) Will not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety.
The property will be safer because it will be occupied.
(5) Will not unreasonable diminish or impair established property
values within the surrounding area.
There will be no signage or exterior changes made.
(6) Will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals
and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village of Buffalo=Grove.
VI. CONCLUSION: Accordingly, by a vote of 5 to 0, the Buffalo Grove Zoning
Board of Appeals hereby recommends the variation be granted
subject to the following stipulations:
1. That use of the building last no longer than
one year or until such time as the development
is sold out;
2. That neither unit in the duplex building can be •
occupied by a purchaser until such time as the
unit being occupied by Levitt Builders is vacated;
3. That no signage be allowed;
4. That occupancy parking and time usage be based an '
reasonable standards.
DATED:
ZONING BOARD OF .APPEALS
VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILL.
BY:
Richard Heinrich/Chairman
•
sb