Zoning Board of Appeals

1 APPROVED 2 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 4 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 5 August 25, 2014 6 7 1. Call To Order 8 Chairman Decker called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the Board room of Village Hall. 9 Members Craig, Geslicki, Lown, Schofield, Sussholz and Wolfmark were present. A quorum was 10 present. 11 12 Village Staff present included Tom Poupard, Director Development and Planning Services, 13 Village of Northbrook; Michael Strong, Management Analyst, Village of Northbrook 14 15 2. Review of Minutes 16 Member Craig, seconded by Member Geslicki, motioned to approve the minutes of the July 28, 17 2014 meeting, as presented. On a voice vote, the minutes carried unanimously. 18 19 3. General Public Comments 20 There were no comments from the public. 21 22 4. Public Hearing and Consideration of the Following Petitions: 23 Chairman Decker stated that four positive votes from Members would be required to pass any 24 of the requests proposed this evening. 25 26 Chairman Decker announced that the dockets would first be heard in the public hearing portion 27 of the meeting. ZBA deliberation and decision regarding the dockets would occur immediately 28 following the hearing, during the regular meeting. If members of the audience are not able to 29 stay for the regular meeting, they can contact the Zoning Administrator for results. Petitioners 30 will be sworn in and should address the Board. Neighbors within 250 ft. were notified of each 31 petition. As required by state statute, the hearing notice for all dockets was properly published 32 in the Northbrook Star on August 7, 2014. 33 34 A. DOCKET NO. 14-Z-9 (215 REVERE DRIVE - SIGN) – Petition by Cancer Wellness Center, as 35 property owners, for a Zoning Code variation to reduce the required front setback for a 36 ground sign from 15 feet to 10 feet. The Property is commonly known as 215 Revere Drive 37 (PREI No. 04-02-101-016-0000) and is located in the I-1, Restricted Industrial, zoning district. 38 The variation has been requested to allow the construction of a new sign in front of the 39 Property. 40 41 Petitioner Nancy Raymond was sworn in. Petitioner was asked if notice to the neighbors 42 was provided. The Petitioner advised that it had been. 43 44 Regarding the standards for variation, Ms. Raymond requested that the Cancer Wellness 45 Center be allowed to reduce the required front setback for a ground sign from 15 feet to 10 46 feet to allow for a new sign in front of the property. 47 48 Chairman Decker asked if there was a perceived safety issue with the current standards and 49 in relation to the visibility of the sign. The Petitioner responded that those were two 50 reasons why they were seeking the variation this evening. 51 52 Chairman Decker asked if the Petitioner had received any objection from the abutting 53 neighbors. The Petitioner responded that they had not received any objection. 54 55 Chairman Decker asked if there were any other comments from the audience. There being 56 none, Chairman Decker asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 57 58 Member Sussholz, seconded by Member Craig, moved to close the public hearing. On voice 59 vote, the motion carried unanimously. 60 61 Member Craig, seconded by Member Sussholz, moved to accept the petition by Cancer 62 Wellness Center, as property owners, for a Zoning Code variation to reduce the required 63 front setback from 15 feet to 10 feet to allow the construction of a ground sign on the 64 property commonly known as 215 Revere Drive, subject to the following condition: 65 66  That the new sign be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans reviewed 67 by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 25, 2104. 68 69 On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 70 71 B. DOCKET NO. 14-Z-10 (2045 LAVIGNE DRIVE – FIRST FLOOR ROOM ADDITION) – Petition by 72 Envy Home Services of Arlington Heights, Illinois on behalf of the property owners, Robert 73 Duan and Ling Wang, for a Zoning Code variation to reduce the required rear setback for a 74 building in the R-3, Single Family Zoning District from 40 fee to 31 feet. The Property is 75 commonly known as 2045 Lavigne Drive (PREI No. 04-17-300-017-0000). The variation has 76 been requested to allow the construction of a first floor room addition on the back of the 77 existing home on the Property. 78 79 Petitioners Adam Kingen and Robert Duan were sworn in. Petitioners were asked if notice 80 to the neighbors was provided, they advised that it was. 81 82 Regarding the request, Mr. Kingen described the variations that were being sought by the 83 Petitioner. Mr. Kingen explained that the homeowner was hoping to construct a first floor 84 addition on the back of the existing home at the property. The Petitioner requested that a 85 variation be approved to reduce the required rear setback from 40 feet to 31 feet to allow 86 for the construction of the addition. 87 2  88 Chairman Decker asked if there would be any impact on the property owners abutting the 89 rear of the property. The Petitioner advised that there would not be as the lot is very 90 narrow and deep. 91 92 Chairman Decker asked if the Petitioner had received any objection from the adjacent 93 neighbors regarding the request. The Petitioner stated that they had not received any 94 objections. 95 96 Chairman Decker asked Tom Poupard if the Zoning Code had been changed to increase the 97 required setbacks for this district. Mr. Poupard responded that it was formerly 35 feet in 98 the R-3 District, but had been increased to 40 feet. 99 100 Member Schofield asked the Petitioner if they had considered constructing the addition on 101 the south side of the home, which would appear to have room to construct the addition 102 within the setback requirements and without needing a variation. Mr. Duan responded that 103 there is a bathroom, bedroom and living room along that side of the house, and that 104 constructing the addition in that location would require the removal of several trees on the 105 property. 106 107 General discussion took place regarding the application materials and plans submitted for 108 the proposed addition and the amount of space that it would occupy on the property. 109 110 Member Geslicki stated that he appreciated the presentation but felt that the plans and the 111 pictures did not adequately address his concerns regarding the proposed size in relation to 112 the location of the trees on the property. Member Geslicki stated that perhaps the design 113 of the addition could be modified or adjusted to meet the requirements of the site. 114 115 Chairman Decker asked if it would be better for the Petitioner to present more photographs 116 of the east elevation so that there could be a better understanding of how much space 117 exists in relation to the location of the trees that the Petitioner states exist in the area. 118 Member Geslicki stated that it might be helpful to have more information regarding the site 119 dimensions along with an accurate survey of where the trees are located on the property. 120 121 Chairman Decker stated to the Petitioner that the request could be continued to a future 122 meeting so that additional materials, photographs and information could be prepared and 123 presented to the Board. 124 125 Member Lown asked if continuing the hearing would impede construction. Mr. Kingen 126 responded that it depends on the weather and when the ground freezes, and that the 127 property owner has already spent a couple months on the process awaiting approval to 128 construct the addition. 129 3 130 Member Lown stated that placing the addition in the location that has been proposed 131 would impede less upon the property owners to the south than it would on the property 132 owners to the east, if it were relocated to the east side of the home. 133 134 Member Geslicki stated that he would like to see a more precise diagram, as there is 135 inconsistency in what is described in the application and what is outlined in the addition 136 schematics. 137 138 The petitioner asked the ZBA to continue the public hearing to September 22 so they can 139 address the questions and concerns raised by the Board. 140 141 Member Schofield, seconded by Member Craig, moved to continue the public hearing to 142 September 22, 2014. On a voice vote, motion carried unanimously. 143 144 C. DOCKET NO. 14-Z-11 (3435 LAKE KNOLL DRIVE) – Petition by Kuktai and Sunhee Kim, as 145 property owners, for a Zoning Code variation to reduce the required rear setback for a 146 building in the R-4, Single Family Residential District from 40 feet to 30’ 1 ½”. The Property 147 is commonly known as 3435 Lake Knoll Drive (PREI No. 04-17-305-003-0000). The variation 148 has been requested to allow the construction of a first floor sunroom addition on the back 149 of the existing home on the Property. 150 151 Petitioner Josh Delpierre was sworn in. Petitioner was asked if notice to the neighbors was 152 provided. Petitioner advised – yes. 153 154 Petitioner described the variations and discussed the proposed addition for the home as it 155 was described to members in their packet. Mr. Delpierre explained that once the sunroom 156 is built in its proposed location it will not be visible by adjacent property owners due to 157 privacy fencing and landscaping that currently exists on the site. 158 159 The Petitioner explained that the property owner has received letters from adjacent 160 property owners stating that they do not object to the project. Mr. Delpierre explained that 161 with a 40 foot setback requirement per the current zoning standards, it would only allow 162 three (3) feet for an addition. Previous zoning standards for this district would have allowed 163 for 10 additional feet of buildable area, which would not have prohibited the proposed 164 addition in its current design. 165 166 Member Schofield stated that because of the unique shape of the lot, you might not have 167 room to fit it in the other corner toward the east. The Petitioner concurred. 168 169 Member Sussholz inquired if the light and ventilation requirements of the addition would 170 impede the requirements for any abutting rooms that it would be adjoining. Mr. Poupard 171 stated that all building code requirements must still be met, regardless of any action taken 172 by the ZBA, and that the permit has not been issued. 4 173 Member Craig, seconded by Member Geslicki, moved to close the public hearing. On a 174 voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 175 176 Chairman Decker noted that the irregularity of the lot provided a compelling argument for 177 the request. 178 179 Member Craig, seconded by Member Lown, moved to approve the petition by Kuktai and 180 Sunhee Kim, as property owners, for a Zoning Code variation to reduce the required rear 181 setback from 40 feet to 30’ 1 ½” to allow the construction of a rear building addition on the 182 property commonly known as 3435 Lake Knoll Drive, subject to the following condition: 183 184  That the proposed addition be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans 185 reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 25, 2014. 186 187 On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 188 189 D. DOCKET NO. 14-Z-12 (3050 FLORAL DRIVE – PRIVACY FENCE) – Petition by Arpen and 190 Mansi Patel, as property owners, for an exception to increase the height of a fence in the 191 required front yard (along Clover Road) for a Property in the R-2, Single Family Residential 192 from 3 feet to up to 6 feet. The property is commonly known as 3050 Floral Drive (04-17- 193 404-001-0000). The exception is requested to allow the construction of a privacy fence. 194 195 Petitioners Arpen and Mansi Patel were sworn in. The Petitioners was asked if notice to the 196 neighbors was provided. Petitioner advised – yes. 197 198 Mr. Patel discussed the request that was before the Board. Petitioner stated that they 199 recently purchased the property and were led to believe they would be allowed to 200 construct a six (6) foot fence on the property, but have been informed otherwise. 201 202 Mr. Patel continued by stating that the intersection at Clover Road and Floral Drive is a high 203 traffic area, and Clover Road terminates into a park. Mr. Patel stated that with pedestrian 204 traffic along Clover Road a three (3) foot fence would not provide much privacy or security 205 for their children or pets in the backyard. 206 207 Mr. Patel would like to install a six (6) foot white vinyl board-on-board fence. He does not 208 want people to be able to see his children or dog playing outside. Both for safety and 209 privacy he would like a solid fence; and proposed that the white fence would match the 210 trim of the home. 211 212 Member Sussholz asked the Petitioner if they considered installing landscaping, such as 213 arbor vitae and a three- (3) foot tall fence. This would meet the code and may achieve the 214 outcome they desire. Mr. Patel responded that this would not restrain the dog from 215 barking at patrons that pass along Clover Road. 216 5 217 Chairman Decker advised the Petitioner that he understands the family issue; however, the 218 ZBA’s decision is specific to the site, not the resident’s unique needs. Chairman Decker 219 asked if the Petitioner had considered an alternative fence design, such as a see-thru picket 220 or aluminum fence. Mr. Patel stated that they had not due to their interest in maximizing 221 privacy on the site. Chairman Decker advised the Petitioner that the ZBA typically tries to 222 avoid placing six (6) foot fence sections adjacent to sidewalks which can negatively impact 223 the neighborhood by reducing sight lines and character. 224 225 Chairman Decker continued by stating that the Petitioner is also proposing a PVC fence 226 which has been disfavored by the Board in the past. Mr. Patel stated that PVC is a more 227 expensive option, but requires less maintenance. 228 229 Member Lown stated that a similar request was made by another property owner regarding 230 the fence height on a corner lot, and asked what the requirements were for this property. 231 Mr. Poupard stated that for corner lots fence height is limited to three (3) feet within the 232 40’ setback for both the front and corner side yards in the R-2 Residential District. Mr. 233 Poupard described the exception approved for a property on Walters, where the fence was 234 required to be setback from the sidewalk. 235 236 Member Sussholz suggested that the property owner move the location of the fence toward 237 the building line. 238 239 Member Lown agreed and stated that they could consider a compromise with the Petitioner 240 regarding the fence height or location; perhaps a four (4) foot fence could be appropriate 241 and still achieve the desired safety for the lot. 242 243 Chairman Decker added that the Petitioner could also change or amend the request 244 regarding the architectural style of the fence; perhaps a semi-private or wrought iron fence 245 would be more amendable to the Board. 246 247 The Petitioner stated that he was open to changing the style and location of the fence if it 248 would appease the Board. 249 250 Chairman Decker stated that the staff distributed an email from property owner Fred Paul, 251 3039 White Pine Drive, stating that he feels a six-foot tall fence would be in conflict with 252 other properties in the area and out of character with the streetscaping in the 253 neighborhood. 254 255 Chairman Decker asked about neighbors present at the meeting who wished to speak about 256 this request; one audience member raised a hand. 257 258 Property Owner Robert Resis, 2154 Clover Road, stated that he believes a six- (6) foot tall 259 fence that is five (5) feet off the sidewalk would not be consistent with the neighborhood. 260 Mr. Resis stated that when the fence was erected across the street it cut into the openness 6 261 of the neighborhood and said that he thinks this would impede it further. Mr. Resis 262 continued, stating that he understands the concerns that the property owners are sharing, 263 but does not believe that the fence meets the requirements necessary to approve an 264 exception. 265 266 The Petitioner stated that based upon the concerns raised by the Board, they were 267 prepared to modify their variation request. Specifically, Mr. Patel stated that they would be 268 willing to move the fence closer toward the home and install a semi-private white fence 269 that would be six (6) foot height. 270 271 Member Geslicki asked the Petitioner if he would be willing to move it to the edge of the 272 tree that is in the corner side yard of the property along Clover Road. The Petitioner 273 responded that they would agree to that. 274 275 Member Craig, seconded by Member Sussholz, moved to close the public hearing. On a 276 voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. 277 278 Member Geslicki stated that the concession to move the fence location toward the 40’ line 279 and semi-private construction would not provide the same character as a picket fence. 280 281 Member Schofield stated that if the Petitioner desires a privacy fence, it would be better 282 suited to be installed at the 40’ building line rather than what is being proposed. 283 284 Member Sussholz stated that the Petitioner has made some substantial concessions in 285 regard to the material and location of the fence, but questioned how they would determine 286 the exact location of where it would be located. 287 288 Chairman Decker stated that a condition stating the location and materials should be 289 included in whatever decision the Board makes in regard to the request. 290 291 Member Geslicki, seconded by Lown, moved to approve the petition by Arpen and Mansi 292 Patel, as property owners, for an exception to construct a fence in excess of three feet in 293 the required front yard on the property commonly known as 3050 Floral Drive, subject to 294 the following conditions: 295 296  That the new fence be construct of a white PVC material of a semi-private design; 297  That the fence be installed with a setback of at least 20 feet to the east side of the 298 tree in the front yard, at an appropriate location approved by the Village Forester; 299  That the bricks being stored on the property be relocated; and 300  That landscaping of an appropriate size and scale be located between the fence and 301 sidewalk. 302 303 On a voice vote, the motion carried by a vote of 5-2 (members Craig and Schofield, voting 304 no). 7 305 306 E. DOCKET NO. 14-Z-13 (995 WILDWOOD LANE – DECORATIVE FENCE) – Petition by Lisa and 307 Javier Rubinstein, as property owners for an exception to increase the height of a fence in 308 the required front yard (along Grant Road) for a Property in the R-2, Single Family 309 Residential from 3 feet to up to 6 feet. The property is commonly known as 995 Wildwood 310 Lane (04-11-301-016-0000). The exception is requested to allow the construction of a 311 decorative security fence. 312 313 Petitioner Javier Rubinstein was sworn in. Petitioner was asked if notice to the adjacent 314 neighbors was provided. Petitioner advised – yes. 315 316 Mr. Rubinstein introduced the request to the Board stating that the property currently has 317 six (6) foot fences along the south and east property lines, but does not have a fence along 318 the west property line. The Petitioner stated that it is his desire to install a fence along that 319 property line to improve the safety and security of the property. 320 321 Mr. Rubinstein is proposing that a six- (6) foot tall black aluminum “open” design fence be 322 installed to serve this purpose. Mr. Rubinstein added that due to high traffic volume and 323 speeds along Grant Road, a three (3) foot fence would not provide the security and safety 324 he desires for the property. 325 326 Chairman Decker reiterated that the proposed fence would be a see through decorative 327 aluminum fence. 328 329 Chairman Decker asked the Petitioner if he has noticed animals entering his property, and 330 how prevalent wildlife was in the area. The Petitioner advised that wildlife travel the area 331 frequently due to large forest preserve space along Grant Road and Lee Road just north of 332 his neighborhood. 333 334 Member Schofield asked what the dimensions of the fence would be and if they would be 335 complaint with Village building codes and requirements. The Petitioner advised that they 336 would be. 337 338 Chairman Decker stated that the Village had received a letter of support for the request 339 from an adjacent property owner and asked for any additional questions of the Petitioner. 340 341 Member Craig, seconded by Member Sussholz, moved to close the public hearing. On a 342 voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 343 344 Member Craig, seconded by Member Wolfmark, moved to approve the petition by Lisa and 345 Javier Rubinstein, as property owners, for an exception to construct a fence in excess of 346 three feet in the required front yard on the property commonly known as 995 Wildwood 347 Lane, subject to the following condition: 8 348  That the new fence be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans 349 reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 25, 2014. 350 351 On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 352 353 5. Old Business 354 There was no old business. 355 356 6. New Business 357 There was no new business. 358 359 7. Adjournment 360 There being no further business, Member Craig moved, seconded by Member Geslicki, to 361 adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 362 363 Respectfully submitted, 364 365 Michael Strong 366 Management Analyst 9