REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 16, 2010

Transcription

1 REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Shapiro Commissioner Au Chairman Entman None Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney Steve Trilling, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 19, 2010 minutes: Com. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, October 19, Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman ABSTAIN Lesser Motion Passed 5 to 0, 1 abstention. Minutes approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS 1200 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD, CIRCLE K - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS ; ; AND , TO INSTALL TWO (2) ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING ONE (1) OF WHICH WILL BE A CHANGEABLE COPY WALL SIGN; 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 PAGE 1 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

2 Ch. Entman explained that the requested approval from McDonald s has not been received. This item will be Tabled to the next regular meeting. Com. Lesser made a motion to Table the request made by Corporate Identification Solutions, 5308 N. Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois on behalf of RDK Ventures, LLC d/b/a Circle K, 1200 Arlington Heights Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section , pertaining to Business Districts; Section , pertaining to Grounds Signs; Section , pertaining to Wall Signs; and Section , pertaining to Changeable Copy Signs, for the purpose of installing two (2) additional wall signs on the north elevation of the building one (1) of which will be a changeable copy wall sign; 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 to the December 21, 2010 meeting. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Au, Entman Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the December 21, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 600 BUFFALO GROVE ROAD, INDECK ENERGY SERVICES SIGN CODE, SECTION , TO ALLOW THE EXISTING FOR RENT, SALE, LEASE TO REMAIN BEYOND THE PERMITTED TIME PERIOD Mr. Dick McCarty, Imperial Realty Company, 4747 W. Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60646, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 26, 2010 was read. Mr. McCarty explained that he is with the leasing company for Indeck Energy Services. They recently signed a lease for a little over three thousand (3,000) square feet. They are looking to continue to have the leasing sign on the property because they know from experience that a good sixty (60) to sixty five (65) percent of all prospects come from leasing signs. They are requesting to change the writer at the bottom to reflect the new square footage available. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer s memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated November 8, 2010 which states: I have no comments. Ch. Entman advised that the Zoning Board likes to review the status of occupancy on a six (6) month basis. When returning in six (6) months, please provide the current occupancy rates. There were no additional questions or comments. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Stein made the following motion: PAGE 2 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

3 I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Indeck Energy Services, Inc., 600 Buffalo Grove Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section , pertaining to For Rent, Sale, Lease Signs, for the purpose of allowing the existing for rent, sale, lease sign to remain beyond the permitted time period pursuant to Exhibit E with the copy change depicted on Exhibit G. Subject to the Village Engineer s memorandum dated November 8, 2010 and the ART Minutes dated October 6, Pursuant to Sign Code, Section , Subsection B. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the December 20, 2010 Village Board agenda. The Ordinance for this temporary sign extension shall be prepared similar to the existing extensions so that if approved by the Village Board the Petitioner shall be required to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a review of status in six (6) months to determine the necessity of allowing the sign to remain based upon occupancy. 322 CHATEAU DRIVE, JEFF AND JUDY PODLASEK - FENCE CODE, SECTION , TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE (5) FOOT CEDAR ARCH BOARD ON BOARD WOOD FENCE THAT WOULD BE LOCATED BEYOND THE THIRTY (30) FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE ALONG VINTAGE LANE. THE FENCE WOULD ENCROACH A TOTAL DISTANCE OF NINETEEN (19) FEET FIVE (5) INCHES BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE AND WOULD LINE UP WITH THE NEIGHBOR S FENCE TO THE NORTH Mr. Jeff Podlasek, 322 Chateau Drive, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 28, 2010 was read. Mr. Podlasek explained they are requesting to move the fence for several reasons. They would like to align their fence with the neighbor s fence for a more uniform look. They have landscaping within their lot. They are a corner lot and this would allow them to block out some of the traffic and lights into the yard. They would also like to provide more useable level ground within their yard. Pictures and drawings submitted with the application show the pitch of the yard. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer s memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated October 29, 2010 which states: I have no comments on the proposal. There is no abutting driveway. Ch. Entman stated that he knows that the Petitioner wants to align with the neighbor s fence. There is also information in the packet regarding the previous fence variance granted for this property. PAGE 3 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

4 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Jeff and Judy Podlasek, 322 Chateau Drive, for variance of Fence Code, Section , pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of constructing a five (5) foot cedar arch board on board wood fence that would be located beyond the thirty (30) foot building setback line along Vintage Lane. The fence would encroach a total distance of nineteen (19) feet five (5) inches beyond the building setback line and would line up with the neighbor s fence to the north. Subject to the Village Engineer s memorandum dated October 29, 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. Com. Lesser seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. The permit may be issued in fifteen days December 2, ABBOTT COURT, TWIN RINKS ICE PAVILION - SIGN CODE, SECTION , TO REPLACE THE EXISTING MANUAL CHANGEABLE COPY PORTION OF THE GROUND SIGN WITH AN LED DIGITAL DISPLAY Ms. Denice Bronis, White Way Sign Company, 451 Kingston Court, Mount Prospect, Illinois and Mr. Gary Pivar, President, Twin Rinks Ice Pavilion, 1500 Abbott Court, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on October 26, 2010 was read. Ms. Bronis explained that they are requesting to remove the existing manual reader board and replace it with a full color message center. The sign would be three (3) foot four (4) inches by twelve (12) foot. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer s memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated November 8, 2010 which states: I have no comments. Ch. Entman also read the ART Minutes dated November 3, Ch. Entman confirmed that the size of the sign will not be changed. PAGE 4 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

5 Com. Windecker asked why the Petitioner feels that they need to change from the present reader board to a digital display since there are forty (40) other ice rinks in the area. Mr. Pivar stated that the need is to communicate more information to the public about the programs they have and things that are going on during weekends. For example, last weekend it would have been great to be able to welcome the Starlights Skating Team that was there for an exhibition on Sunday, which was a big event for them. They had a birthday party on Saturday and it would have been nice to say happy birthday to the birthday party participant. They had one (1) of their skaters at regionals who took first place in Juniors. It would have been wonderful to congratulate him on taking first place as well as posting a picture of him smiling or actually showing a movie of him doing the moves that he did that won him first place. They had a Mites player who scored his first goal over the weekend. For their figure skating classes he would like to show an axel or double axel. They have a lot of information to convey and it is very difficult to do so on the current sign. Com. Windecker asked if Mr. Pivar cannot convey happy birthday on the current the sign. He also stated that if he were approve a sign it would be without motion. That would mean no movement on the sign. He also stated that a lot of Petitioners testify that they need a sign because they have to increase business and he noticed that a lot of times this business is closed. He asked if there is a lot of open time at the ice rink. Mr. Pivar stated that they are open a lot during their season. Com. Windecker asked about the season. Mr. Pivar stated that the season runs from September through March. Com. Windecker stated that one of his concerns is that the sign is just across the street from a residential area. Mr. Pivar stated that from a lighting standpoint they would not produce any more light than the current sign. Com. Windecker stated that the Petitioner will be changing the colors from just a plain white light. There are also trees that grow in the summer that would block the sign. He is not supportive of the request. Mr. Pivar stated that he heard a comment about the tree blocking the sign. Com. Windecker stated that the tree is not blocking the sign now because the leaves are off it. Mr. Pivar stated that he put that tree there on purpose. Com. Windecker stated that the Petitioner s season is in the winter and that is when the sign would serve the most purpose with the colored lights and the changing copy. Mr. Pivar stated that he is open all year round. Com. Windecker reiterated that the main season is in the winter. Mr. Pivar agreed that the main season is September through March. That is when most of the new hockey players sign up. Com. Windecker asked what time the rink closes at night. Mr. Pivar stated that the last rental will be there until about 1:30 a.m. and then they open back up at 5:30 a.m. Com. Lesser asked about the hours of illumination of the proposed sign. Mr. Pivar stated that he wants the sign illuminated twenty four (24) hours. Com. Lesser stated that he would not be supportive of that. Mr. Pivar asked what Com. Lesser would support. Com. Lesser stated that there is an adjacent residential neighborhood so he would like to limit the hours of the sign being illuminated to approximately 10:00 p.m. Mr. Pivar stated that the current sign is on until 1:00 a.m. Com. Lesser stated that the proposed sign would be much more visible with regard to the changeable copy on the signage. Com. Stein asked the Petitioner, if he were limited to just putting text messages regarding the rink, the hours and activities at the rink on the sign, would he still want the sign. Mr. Pivar stated that he would not still want the sign. The sign s capabilities are incredible; it s ability to do graphics and pictures. To display a picture versus just words regarding an activity he believes would be more interesting when passing by and would be a much better sign. Com. Stein stated PAGE 5 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

6 that the Sign Code does not permit for moving pictures on signs. The proposed changes to the Sign Code would allow this type of sign with the limitation that the message, picture, or whatever, could not change more frequently that once every thirty (30) seconds. If this limitation was placed on this sign would the Petitioner look at a different sign or would the Petitioner still want the same sign knowing that it could do a lot more but were not permitted to do so. Mr. Pivar stated that he would not get this sign if he had to change the sign every thirty (30) seconds. Com. Stein stated that he is not in favor of the sign as proposed. Ch. Entman stated that he is not convinced concerning the need for this sign. He stated that there are some ART recommendations which the Zoning Board would like to adhere to such as three (3) lines of text, with the changing of the message being not more than once every thirty (30) seconds. They do not want a flashing board of very quick messages. He is not convinced that this sign is necessary under the circumstances. He understands that business owners want to try and attract attention, want to advertise and/or give information to the public of the services offered, hours of operations, and so forth. He asked if there is a website. Mr. Pivar stated that there is a website. Ch. Entman asked if both Ms. Bronis and Mr. Pivar were at the Appearance Review Team (ART) meeting. Ms. Bronis was there, Mr. Pivar was not there. Ch. Entman asked if the Petitioner s are aware of the recommendations of the ART. Ms. Bronis stated that she was made aware of the recommendations on this date. Ms. Bronis stated that at one point the illumination of the sign was in question. She also stated that Mr. Pivar may not be in favor of the proposed restrictions on the sign. She asked that if at a later point Mr. Pivar changes his mind, could the sign be approved with the conditions. Ch. Entman stated that what is presented to the Zoning Board will be reviewed. If there is an amendment to what is proposed, the Zoning Board will vote on it. Sometimes there will be compromised suggestions. For the Zoning Board to create the request, they typically will not do that. Ms. Bronis stated that she is asking for the Zoning Board to vote on the sign with the conditions just in case down the road they would like to move forward with that type of sign. Ch. Entman stated that he would not want to handle it that way. Com. Shapiro stated that he is in favor of the sign request since the size of the sign is not changing. The Zoning Board has put restrictions on other signs that are not adjacent to residential areas. The Zoning Board would want to have restrictions on the sign so that it is not on all night to avoid complaints from the residential neighbors concerning the lighting of the sign. Also the messaging has to be about the Petitioner s facility. It cannot be for other organizations or other advertisements. Com. Stein suggested Tabling the request to look at other signs that are not as state of the art but could work within the realm of what the Zoning Board can allow the Petitioner to do. Mr. Pivar asked about the current screen change limitations. Com. Stein stated that the proposed minimum time between screen changes is thirty (30) seconds. Mr. Pivar asked if the JCC down the street from him that has five (5) second screen changes has special exceptions. Com. Stein stated that the JCC sign was approved before the current recommendations were made. Ch. Entman explained the options available to the Petitioners. PAGE 6 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

7 The Petitioner requested to Table this request to the December 21, 2010 Zoning Board meeting. 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 the request made by White Way Sign & Maintenance Company, 451 Kinston Court, Mount Prospect, Illinois on behalf of Twin Rinks Ice Pavilion, 1500 Abbott Court, for variance of Sign Code, Section , 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. Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item Tabled to the December 21, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 434 THORNDALE COURT, EMMANUIL FREMDERMAN - FENCE CODE, SECTION , TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED THAT ENCLOSES THE REAR YARD AND RANGES FROM 5.33 FEET TO 6 FEET IN HEIGHT Mr. Emmanuil Fremderman and Galina Dolitskaya, 434 Thorndale Court, were present and sworn in. Ch. Entman explained that this request was remanded back to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Village Board. The Petitioner s were previously before the Zoning Board seeking a variance for the fence that was already installed. The request went before the Village Board on appeal and the Village Board suggested that the Petitioner return to the Zoning Board. Ch. Entman also read a memorandum addressed to the Zoning Board from Brian Sheehan dated November 16, 2010 that states that an inspection was conducted on November 15, 2010 and found the fence to be in compliance with the exception of the rear lot line fence which is between five (5) feet and five (5) feet eight (8) inches in height. 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 amended request made by Emmanuil Fremderman, 434 Thorndale Court, for variance of Fence Code, Section , pertaining to Residential Districts, for the purpose of allowing the fence to remain as installed along the rear property line only that ranges from five (5) feet to five (5) feet eight (8) inches in height. Subject to the Village Engineer s memorandum dated October 4, 2010 and Brian Sheehan s memorandum dated November 16, The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique PAGE 7 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

8 circumstances. The fence will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman Motion Passed 6 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days December 2, BARCLAY BOULEVARD, ROI-NORTH AMERICA - SIGN CODE, SECTIONS AND , TO REPLACE THE EXISTING GROUND SIGN. THE NEW SIGN WOULD BE WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF THE EXISTING ARBOR CREEK BUSINESS CENTRE GROUND SIGN AND WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET OF THE EXISTING BARCLAY BOULEVARD GROUND SIGN, BOTH BEING LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET Ms. Tina Kamptner and Mr. David Danzig, ROI-North America, 1250 Barclay Boulevard, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on November 1, 2010 was read. Mr. Danzig explained that they currently have a ground sign that is eight (8) foot two (2) inches in height. The have decided that the sign in outdated. They also have multiple companies working out of the building and would like for them to be identified on a sign. They went out and looked at multiple signs in the business park and chose a design that compliments the other signs in the park. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer s memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated November 8, 2010 which states: I have no comments. He also read the ART Minutes dated November 3, 2010 into the record. Ch. Entman confirmed that they are requesting to replace an existing sign. He asked if the proposed sign would be larger than what exists. Mr. Danzig replied that the proposed sign would be two (2) feet lower in height and one (1) foot wider. Ch. Entman agrees with the ART recommendation to have black lettering and blue logos. Mr. Danzig would prefer the black lettering with blue logos as well. Com. Au asked if the Petitioner owns the tenant companies. Mr. Danzig stated that the tenants are all owned by one (1) owner, they are all subsidiaries of ROI-North America. Mr. Danzig is the President of each of the subsidiaries. They do not sublet to outside companies. Ch. Entman stated that a condition could be put on the variance that the tenant panels have to be of companies that are owned by ROI-North America. PAGE 8 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

9 Com. Lesser confirmed that the background of the tenant panels will be white. He asked if the sign would be internally illuminated. Mr. Danzig stated that sign would not be illuminated, either internally or externally. Com. Lesser asked about landscaping around the sign. Mr. Danzig stated that there are bushes around the current sign and they intend to reuse them. Ch. Entman confirmed that Exhibit J depicts the sign with the black lettering and blue logos. Mr. Raysa stated that pursuant to the landlord approval letter the landlord approves the sign dated May 27, He does not see a date on the color renderings. The owner will need to approve Exhibit J. Mr. Raysa stated that the owner, The Realty Associates Fund VIII, L.P., has given authority to International Profit Associates. Mr. Danzig stated that ROI-North America is a name change from International Profit Associates. Mr. Raysa also recommended to make the variance subject to ROI-North America so long as there is an existing lease for the subject premises. Mr. Danzig stated that they just recently signed a ten (10) year lease that became effective approximately six (6) weeks ago. 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 recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by ROI-North America, Inc., 1250 Barclay Boulevard, for variance of Sign Code, Section , pertaining to Industrial Districts; and Section , pertaining to Ground Signs, for the purpose of replacing the existing ground sign. The new sign would be within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the existing Arbor Creek Business Centre ground sign and within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the existing Barclay Boulevard ground sign, both being located on the same side of the street pursuant to Exhibit J depicting black lettering and blue logos. The variance is subject to the following: 1. The Village Engineer s memorandum dated November 8, 2010; 2. The ART Minutes dated November 3, 2010; 3. The landlord approval of Exhibit J ; 4. The sign is to be landscaped around the base; 5. The tenant panels are limited to affiliates of ROI-North America. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section , Subsection B. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Prior to voting Trustee Trilling inquired about the condition concerning the tenant panels being limited to affiliates of ROI-North America. Ch. Entman stated that he is recommending the sign based on what the Petitioner has testified to. If the Petitioner has a situation, where they needed to get sub-tenants or the landlord wanted to add sub-tenants, they could easily come back to the PAGE 9 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

10 Zoning Board. Trustee Trilling does not believe that the Petitioner came to the Zoning Board asking for that restriction. The Zoning Board has imposed it and the Petitioner has agreed to it. He believes that the variance should be consistent with other centers. If there was a shopping center with a ground sign that has tenants panels, we would not have to approve each tenant panel as long as it met the copy requirements. He is just trying to give this Petitioner the same opportunities as long as he met the requirements. Ch. Entman stated that he understands Trustee Trillings standpoint. He does not see the variance as recommended as preventing that from taking place in the future. He is looking at the circumstances as they exist now. If things change in ten (10) years, then it can be addressed at that time. After further discussion it was decided to vote on the motion as presented. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman Motion Passed 6 to 0. Item to appear on the December 20, 2010 Village Board agenda. 100 MCHENRY ROAD, VERSAILLES RESTAURANT - DEVIATION TO THE TOWN CENTER SHOPPING CENTER SIGN CRITERIA TO ALLOW A WALL SIGN TO BE FIFTY SIX (56) INCHES IN HEIGHT AND TO ALLOW THE SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON A RACEWAY Mr. Alex Field, Versailles, 100 McHenry Road, was present and sworn in. Mr. Field explained that the space located in the Town Center is hidden behind the Burger King and the entire shopping center is set back from McHenry Road. This end unit has a unique location because the landscaping on Lake Cook Road makes it difficult to see any signage. They are asking for a deviation to allow the sign to be visible from McHenry Road. They have been in Buffalo Grove for eight (8) years in the Country Court Shopping Center and their customers will need to find them. They will be requesting additional signs in the future but they need this sign right away as they will be opening very soon. Ch. Entman read the ART Minutes dated November 15, Com. Lesser confirmed that the proposed sign would be installed on a raceway. He asked if the Petitioner considered individual channel letters. Mr. Field stated that the landlord wants all the signs to be installed on a raceways to reduce the number of penetrations in the wall. Com. Lesser asked if the color of the raceway will match the brick color. Mr. Field confirmed that the raceway will match the brick as closely as possible. Com. Windecker asked if this is a restaurant or a banquet hall. Mr. Field stated that it is both a restaurant and a banquet hall. It has two (2) rooms; one (1) room is open six (6) days a week. The other room is strictly for banquets, bar mitzvahs, weddings, etc. The entrance to the smaller room, the restaurant, will be on the side of the building next to the movie theater in the corner. They will be asking for a sign over that entrance. It is one (1) business but has two (2) dining rooms. Com. Windecker asked if they are opening the restaurant or opening the banquet hall. Mr. PAGE 10 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

11 Field stated that the banquet hall is booked and has been for a while. The business as a whole will be open. They will only have one (1) sign until they apply for and receive variances for the other signs. Ch. Entman read the landlord approval included in the packet. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Com. Shapiro made a motion to approve the request made by Versailles, 100 McHenry Road, for Deviation to the Town Center Shopping Center Sign Criteria to allow a wall sign to be fifty six (56) inches in height and to allow the sign to be installed on a raceway pursuant to rendering number dated October 29, Com. Windecker seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE Stein, Windecker, Lesser, Shapiro, Au, Entman Motion Passed 6 to 0. FRONT YARD FENCING PERMITS Mr. Sheehan summarized the request. A resident has requested that the Village look at the process for issuing permits for fences in the front yard. Historically the Village allowed front yard fencing up to a height of three (3) feet. It appears that this fencing was allowed based on a section of the Fence Code that deals with ornamental fencing. He has provided the section in his memorandum dated November 2, He has also discussed the issue with Mr. Raysa. The current Fence Code section , Residential Districts, does not allow a fence in the front yard. It states No fence shall be located nearer to the street than the front line of the building. The section pertaining to ornamental fencing states in part no permit shall be issued for construction of an ornamental fence greater than three (3) feet in height and more than thirty (30) feet of continual length. This has allowed fencing that had gaps to meet the no more than thirty (30) foot requirement. He believes that the photographs provided depicts the original intent of that section. Basically it is a section of fence, no more than thirty (30) feet and stands alone. It really is not a fence; it is an ornament, to give some kind of definition to a corner or something in the front of a home. That was the reason no permit would be issued. He is asking the Zoning Board to discuss the issue and provide direction that the Zoning Board would like to go. It would eventually go back the Village Board as a recommendation. Com. Stein agrees with Mr. Sheehan. When he thinks of ornamental fences, the photographs are what he pictures. A few years ago there was a petitioner who eventually managed to put up a three (3) foot fence completely around his front yard so long as he put gaps in. He agrees that was not the intention. Ch. Entman recalls that for years people were advised that they could put up a three (3) foot fence so long as there was a break in the fence of one (1) foot every thirty (30) feet. Very few PAGE 11 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

12 people did it but they could. He agrees that this is a good time to address that ornamental fencing needs to be defined so it is clear. Com. Lesser believes that the first thing that needs to be addressed is does the Zoning Board want to see continuous fencing in front yards. If so, then it would make sense to define what type of ornament structures would be allowed. He has seen white picket fences in front yards that look nice, not in a community setting like Buffalo Grove and subdivisions. You cannot argue that in the right place with the right circumstances it is appropriate. For our community in general he would say that it is not appropriate. In the event the Zoning Board would consider a fence in a front yard, it should be dealt with like any variation. Com. Shapiro agrees that we need to provide a clear definition of what ornamental fencing is. Any fencing that is installed along the sidewalk would not be appropriate, even in small sections. Mr. Sheehan stated that our current law requires that there is a setback off the sidewalk of twelve (12) inches. His recommendation going forward would be to issue a permit for them. There is no other way to control the distance off the sidewalk. His other recommendation would be to conduct an inventory of all the existing front yard fencing. There are a number of fences that were installed under permit in front yards and corner side yards at three (3) feet. Those would have to be looked at as legal non-conforming. When any changes or modification are made, that property owner would need to apply for a variance. Ms. Judy Samuels, 1220 Lockwood Drive, Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089, was present and sworn in. Ms. Samuels stated that she has a neighbor that has fencing in the front yard. Pretty much the entire front yard is fenced in and the fencing goes up to the side property line. This is causing problems with the homeowner not be able to access their property to keep it maintained. There is also trespassing issues. The landscaper has to go onto her property in order to access the neighbor s property. There are just a lot of things that are negative about having a fence right up to the property line. When you look around the neighborhood with the leaves blowing, the leaves just blow. With a fence in the front yard, the leaves get caught. Sometimes there are bushes either in front of or behind the fence and the bushes can trap garbage and other debris. She just wants the Zoning Board to consider fencing up to the side property line in the front and the affect it can have on neighboring properties. Ch. Entman stated that it makes sense to codify what people can do with their front yards. Ms. Samuels added that when considering fencing along the side lot line, it makes it very difficult for the property owner to maintain that area. She found that out when it was very difficult for her neighbor who admitted that she was having difficulty maintaining her vegetation. The neighbor was expecting to be able to come onto their property every week to maintain hers. Ch. Entman stated that are some times when fences in front yard may look good but for the most part in the neighborhoods of Buffalo Grove it looks better without a lot of fencing in front yards. A minimal ornamental fence could be allowed by definition for the purpose of protecting the corner of a property from people walking across. However, fencing itself in a front yard is not a good idea. PAGE 12 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010

13 Mr. Sheehan advised that he would put together some recommended language to forward to the Village Board with. The proposed language will be provided to the Zoning Board at the December 21, 2010 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Com. Lesser and seconded by Com. Stein. Voice Vote AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 P.M. Submitted by, Julie Kamka Recording Secretary PAGE 13 of 13 NOVEMBER 16, 2010