5 years ago

9.07.2010 - Village of Deerfield

9.07.2010 - Village of Deerfield


Board of Trustees Meeting August 16, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Street noted the petitioner would need to have specific information on the fencing before the Second Reading of the Ordinance. Trustee Oppenheim noted much of the site line impact to Coromandel is not from the restaurant; rather, it is the fire department. She believes any fencing, along with the trees, will be more than sufficient. ROSEBUD MARKET AND PIZZERIA The Appearance Review Commission reviewed the APPEAL OF THE APPERANCE exterior improvements for Rosebud Market and REVIEW COMMISSION VOTE ON THE Pizzeria on June 28, 2010 and July 26, 2010. The PROPOSED MARQUEE LIGHTING Appearance Review Commission was not in favor of the proposed marquee lighting with exposed bulbs. Some ARC members believed the marquee lights to be a form of signage, helping to identify the business. To illuminate a sign in the Village, the light source must be concealed, with no glare or exposed light source. The ARC believes the proposed use of marquee lights is not in keeping with the established character of Deerfield’s Village Center. The Appearance Review Commission voted 7-0 against the use of the marquee lighting. ARC member Howard Shachter reported that the Commission had three reservations. First, there is an ordinance prohibiting exposed lighting on signs. Technically, the name Rosebud on the awning is adjacent to the lights, making it appear as an extension of the signage. Second is the maintenance issue. Burned out lighting does not look good. Third is the precedent that will be set with other businesses that want to use exposed lighting in a similar fashion. The Commission did not have a problem with the building aesthetics. The building and lighting is very tasteful. From a literal interpretation, the Commission asked for the Board’s opinion, so they have direction on how to handle the potential precedent. Mayor Rosenthal noted the Plan Commission and the VCDC voted to recommend approval of the lighting and the ARC recommends against it. Trustee Oppenheim made a motion to approve the reports and recommendations of the Plan Commission and the Village Center Development Commission for the Special Use for Rosebud Restaurant and Pizzeria at 560 Waukegan Road, including the marquee lighting, as proposed. Trustee Farkas seconded the motion. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Farkas, Jester, Oppenheim, Seiden, Struthers (5) NAYS: None (0) Mr. Knauer thanked the Board and asked if the First Reading of the Ordinance could be waived, acknowledging that several details still need to be resolved. Trustee Farkas noted that Mr. Knauer is experienced in this process, and the Village is excited that Rosebud is coming to this site. He hopes the details come together quickly. Mayor Rosenthal agreed that the Village welcomes Rosebud, but there is a process that needs to be followed, as the Board needs to give the public the opportunity to react to things. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Mr. Street reported that at the request of the OF THE BOARD OF ZONING petitioner and at the director of the Mayor and APPEALS RE: COMBINED SIDE YARD Board of Trustees, the Board of Zoning Appeals VARIATION FOR 444 HERMITAGE reconvened a Public Hearing on July 13, 2010 to

Board of Trustees Meeting August 16, 2010 Page 4 of 6 reconsider the request of Dr. William Miller for a combined side yard variation for the property located at 444 Hermitage. The Plan Commission voted 5-2 in favor of recommending the variation be granted, with the restriction that the existing garage and proposed addition be limited to one story. Bob Speckmann, Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, explained that the majority of the BZA members felt the standards for the variation have been met, as there was a new ordinance imposed on something that was previously allowed. Trustee Struthers noted that when the Residential Redevelopment Task Force discussed this, they found that non-conforming lots should be made conforming with any new construction. She does not view this as a hardship case. There is a legal, reasonable solution. Trustee Struthers noted the problem is temporary. Children will have vehicles there for a short time and then will move out after a time. The garage, however, will be there for as long as the house stands. Because there is no hardship, and it is a temporary situation and permanent solution, she would not support the petition. Ch. Speckmann noted the BZA felt there was a hardship, and there would still be enough separation for light and ventilation. He noted the petitioner could build a separate, two-car garage that would have substantial impact to both the property and neighbors, without a variance. Ch. Speckmann noted that the proposed addition could have a positive effect on drainage while the separate garage may have a negative effect. Trustee Seiden thanked the BZA members for their hard work, but he does not agree with their conclusion. The existing zoning restrictions should have been considered when the property was purchased. Most residents are more than satisfied with the results from the Task Force. Residents of Poets Corner did petition for no change, and the Task Force took that into consideration, adding that the changes were put in place for all residents. Trustee Seiden believes the governing consideration is whether the garage can be built on an alternate site on the property. The ordinance is clear, and a neighbor is asking for the ordinance to be upheld. A two-car garage can be put on an alternate location on the property, and in his view, this particular case is a personal hardship, not a hardship. If the variation is granted, the Board is not being fair to Dr. Miller’s neighbor. Trustee Farkas believes both Trustee Struthers and Trustee Seiden made some good points, but Ch. Speckmann and the Board of Zoning Appeals have a well articulated position as well. Based on the criteria, he believes there is justification for the variance. Trustee Farkas believes the rules need to be interpreted in ways that make sense. He does not want to do something less desirable for the property and the trees and feels the variation request should be supported. Trustee Jester stated this property is not a tear down; rather, it is an improvement to a home that would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Tear Down Task Force wanted to keep things consistent to the way things are. He believes that the impact of the request on the surrounding properties, trees and character of neighborhood would be less if the variation were granted. Trustee Oppenheim believes Poets Corner is a unique neighborhood. She believes granting the variance would be beneficial to the petitioner and to the character of the neighborhood. Marv Ehlers, 1650 Tall Tree, spoke on behalf of the occupant of 450 Hermitage, Lorrraine Larson, who will be most affected by the variation. He said that Trustees Struthers and Seiden described his

Residents And Businesses - Deerfield Township, Ohio
A park and recreation plan for the village of Steger, Illinois
April/May Edition - Deerfield Township, Ohio
Deerfield Glencoe Glenview Highland Park Highwood ... - NSSRA
DLL_Jordan Springs Village Centre Concept Plan.indd - Penrith City ...
Deerfield Point -- Digital Tour Collateral - Stream Realty Partners
Downtown Revitalization Plan - Village of Saukville
handbook draft - Village of Olympia Fields
Open cafes and eateries beside the Eastlakes ... - Eastlakes Village
12 Codicote Road, Welwyn Village, Welwyn, AL6 9NQ ... - Vebra
Village of Spencerport Eastern Village Corridor Concept Study
Village Capacity in Maintaining Infrastructure -
Freight Villages in the NYMTC Region
Abetenim Arts Village (The UBUNTU Village) - NKA Foundation
BIKE METRA - the Village of Oak Park
TETON VILLAGE MIX - Summer 2012- Guide to Teton Village ...
Issue 125 - the Pembury Village Website
Palos Senior Club… - Village of Palos Park, Illinois
Westgate Partners LLC - the Village of Oak Park
Village of Shorewood Comprehensive Bicycle Study
Download Village Design Statements: The Way Forward?
June 2012 - Village of Palos Park, Illinois
Issue 131 - the Pembury Village Website
Winter/Spring - Village of Brown Deer
Grant Proposal for Project Name - Biddestone Village