Loading...
1983-06-21 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, IL Tuesday , June 21 , 1983 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 :20 P.M. on Tuesday, June 21 , 1983 at the Village Hall. II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: H . Hefler, M. Kearns , J . Quick and R. Heinrich . QUORUM Commissioners Absent: D. Stolman , M. Perlman and F. Manzo. Building Dept. Liaison : Mr. Ray Henning , Housing and Zoning Inspector Village Attorney: Mr. William Raysa Village Board Liaison : Mr. John Marienthal , Trustee III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 17, 1983 - Minutes were deferred. IV. BUSINESS A. Lexington Development Corp. - Ville Verde Apartments Section 15. 36.040 of Municipal Code pertaining to Fences Section 14.20.010 of Municipal Code pertaining to Signs Entrance Monuments at Ville Verde on Arlington Heights Road. Mr. Jim Freiberg , Operations Manager of Lexington Development Corp. The Public Hearing Notice was read and Mr. Freiberg was sworn in . Mr. Freiberg presented the proposed entrance monument plans and said that without that type of signage , it would be very difficult to identify the project. The monuments will be permanent and will serve for market- ing purposes as well as for identification of the property when the owners have guests . Ch. Heinrich questioned the need for permanent signage , since when the project was apartments there was only a temporary type sign . The proposed monuments are very close to the intersection of Ville Verde Drive and Arlington Heights Road. A report from Engineering Technician Keith L. Mac Intyre was reviewed and it was noted that Mr. Mac Intyre felt that the 10 foot setback was to be considered an absolute minimum and bushes should be kept to a maxi - mum height of 36 inches with trees trimmed to a height of 5 feet from the ground to the lowest limbs. Mr. Mac Intyre ' s report is attached. It was determined that the 10 foot measurement was on an angle and the closest point would be approximately 2-1 /2 feet from the roadway. Mr. Henning reported that he had checked the line-of-sight and found the distance to the North was the most difficult because of the transformer and the bus stop shelter. Landscaping will have to be kept trimmed. Ch. Heinrich repeated his opinion that since Ville Verde is now Condo, there is less need for such identification because there will be less turnover of tenants. The sight plan was reviewed and the Commissioners agreed that the 10 foot minimum was too close to the intersection. In response to the suggestion to move them back, Mr. Freiberg said this would be difficult because of the location of the pond. Also they did not want to have to move any of the landscaping. He felt that people would not have a problem with line- of-sight because they would be pulling out slowly onto Arlington Heights Road. There is no sidewalk and Mr. Freiberg said there is little foot traffic. The Zoning District was reviewed. It is R-9 but it reverts to R-6 which requires a 25 foot setback. Variations of both the Fence and Sign Codes are required. Both structures will need variances. This is different from Chatham whose monuments only required a variation for one because of dis- tance. C's monument is actually 15 feet on a direct line from the closest point to Dundee Road. Need for a variation of the Zoning Ord. was discussed. Mr. Raysa said he felt that the request is for four variations of the size and setback requirements. The Sign Code specifies that signage is to be flat against building, or not project into any setback; Com. Hefler felt that the location was a problem and he also felt that the ZBA should know what the signage will be. He added for the record that Sonnenschein represented his company. It will not affect his opinion. The Commissioners agreed that the location would be dangerous and would create a hazard in the winter when the roads are icy. Com. Kearns commented that there would be sufficient room along the drive- way to put a permanent sign. There is now .a marketing sign on Arlington Heights Road. He noted the speed limit of 35 MPH and on icy roads, it would take 2% car lengths to stop. Cars could very possibly miss the turn and hit the monument which would only be 2% feet from Ville Verde Dr. Com. Quick agreed that if there was an accident, the bus stop would break away but the monuments would not give. It could definitely be a hazard. Com. Kearns added that the ZBA does not consider marketing a factor, for hardship, and it must take into consideration Health, Safety and Welfare. The variations were outlined by Mr. Raysa: 1 . Sign Code - #14.20.010 B - Size exceeds 32 sq. ft. 2. Two signs would need a variation. 3. Sub-section E requires that signs are to be flat against building, or not project into setback. 4. Fence Code - #15.36.040 - Required set back. Ch. Heinrich asked about any signage being put up from the Plaza. Verde Shopping Center entrance to the project? Mr. Freiberg said that to his knowledge none are to be proposed. He felt that Arlington Heights Road is primarily the "front door" and only residents will be using the other entrance. Trustee Marienthal commented that he shares the views of the Commissioners. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 21 , 1983 - Page Two The discussion continued, and it was decided that the best solution was to Table the request until a further study can be made. Mr. Freiberg agreed to review the site and bring in photographs. Since there is a temporary sign, time would not be a factor. A "topo" is needed also. Com. Kearns made a motion to Table the request of Lexington Development Corp. for entrance monuments at Villa Verde Condominiums until July 19, 1983. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Voice Vote: Aye Unanimously. A distance of at least 12' from the corner to the curb line was advised. Measurement to be perpendicular to curb. B. Michael T. and Gail R. Hundley 1200 Lockwood Drive Section 14.36.040 of Municipal Code pertaining to Fences The Public Hearing notice was read. Mr. and Mrs. Hundley were sworn in. Mr. Hundley submitted a copy of the letter they were given by the Village of Buffalo Grove when they purchased their home. It does not specify dog runs are required to have a permit, therefore they constructed an 8' by 16' cedar stockade fence at the side of their house. Since they are on a corner (Lockwood and Larraway) they felt the best location for the benefit of their neighbors would be on the Larraway side. The Hundleys are among the first buyers at Suffield Place and not all the homes are occupied. They do not want to be a nuisance to any future neighbors. Com. Quick said that a better location would be at the rear of the lot where there are trees to screen the structure. The person building on Larraway across the street would definitely be affected. Com. Quick said he would object if he lived there. He commented that to put the enclosure in the rear yard would detract from the Hundleys view of the park and the pond. The Hundleys dog is large and stays outside all the time. It does bark, as do other dogs in the area, and they felt that the location they chose was the best for all concerned. Com. Quick and the other Commissioners agreed that there could be future problems because other people would want to put dog runs in side yards. Mr. Hundley repeated that he did not realize the need for a permit when he built the structure and that to relocate it would be quite expensive. He said they used Cedar and it is an attractive enclosure. • Com. Kearns felt there is a problem because it is already up. He recalled other instances on Rt. 83 where fences were allowed that go out to the street and up to the front of house. He doesn't have a problem with it. Ch.. Heinrich said these were different situations and the people needed privacy when using their yard. Com. Hefler said in general he doesn't take a hard line in matters like this; but this is really the wrong thing to do because as the area develops others could request similiar variations. This is something that should not have been allowed to happen. Mr. Hundley expressed his feeling that the letter from the Village did not specifically state "dog runs" needed permits. He visualized a fence as a yard enclosure. Ch. Heinrich agreed that dog runs should be included in the reference to fences, but that "ignorance of the law is no excuse. " ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 21 , 1983 - Page Three (Mr. Hundley said he had been to law school . ) Com. Quick agreed with Mr. Hundley's comments, that he has chosen the best location for a dog run. He suggested in back near the sump pump would be another possible location. A smaller one would necessary, unless they wanted to put it in the back. He cannot approve it in the side yard. Com. Kearns suggested a screen of shrubs from the street might satisfy the problem of visual location. Only the gate entrance would be seen. The Hundleys view across the back yard would not be broken up and the neighbors view would be improved. This has been done in other situations. The question of use is involved, not unlike situations where fences are allowed and dogs are enclosed within the yard. Mr. Hundley said he is not finished with his yard and did plan to land- scape around the enclosure. A straw poll indicated that Commissioners Quick and Hefler are opposed. Ch. Heinrich said that if a vote is taken at this time with only four Commissioners present, since four votes are necessary to obtain a varia- tion, the petition would be denied. It was noted that the noise of a barking dog would be heard no matter where the dog run is located. Mr. Hundley repeated that there are other large dogs in the area that bark. There was concern that other similiar re- quests would be made if this was allowed. Com. Quick made the following motion: I move we DENY the request of Michael T. Hundley and Gail R. Hundley, 1200 Lockwood Drive for a variation for the purpose of constructing a dog run in the side yard of their house; under Sec. 15.36.040 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Fences. Com. Hefler seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Hefler Quick Heinrich Nay - Kearns Motion to DENY request passed by vote: 3 to 1 . Findings of Fact attached. Ch. Heinrich informed the petitioners of the procedure to follow should they wish to appeal the decision to the Village Board. C. 1108 Greenridge Road - Ronald and Mary Hawes Article X, Section 6.4-A pertaining to Rear Yard Requirements The Public hearing Notice was read. Mr. and Mrs. Hawes were sworn in. Mr. Hawes explained their need for a room addition in order to better accomodate their family when they have overnight visitors. They now have a patio, and wish to enclose this area with a screened porch. Only one neighbor would be affected visually and that neighbor was present to give approval . She was Mrs. Kacsh at 1124 Greenridge Rd. The variation requested is for 2 ft. 6 inches. The Commissioners had no questions or comments. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 21 , 1983 - Page Four Com. Quick made the following motion: I move we approve the request for a variation of Article X, Section 6.4-A made by Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Hawes, 1108 Greenridge Road for the purpose of constructing a patio cover at the rear of their home that will extend 22' into the rear yard requirement. Hardship having been demonstrated. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Hefler Kearns Quick Heinrich Nay - None Motion Passed - 4 to O. Findings of Fact Attached. Ch. Heinrich told the Hawes' that they could pick up the permit in 15 days. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Com. Hefler made a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss personel . Com. Kearns seconded the motion. All Commissioners voted Aye upon Roll Call . VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION In Executive Session, the Zoning Board Commissioners discussed attendance policies. Com. Kearns made a motion to teminate the Executive Session. Com. Quick seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Hefler Kearns Quick Heinrich Motion Passed - 4 to O. Nay - None VII. ADJOURNMENT Com. Hefler made a motion to adjourn. Com. Kearns seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ag221Z- Shirley Bates ecretary Zoning Board of Appeals sb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 2!, 1983 - Page Five