Loading...
ZBA Minutes 2007 02-07-07 Page 1 of 6 PROVED 06/06/071 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Wednesday, February 7, 2007, 7pm Council Chambers Board Members in Attendance: Bill Davis, Chairman Ben Moe Chris Funkhauser Mike Skinner Dean Bromann Absent: Ryan Woods, Ralph Pfister Other City Staff In Attendance: Anna Kurtzman _Guests: Randy Bruggraf, Pearle Vision Eric Granrud, Smith Engineering Rose Ann Uitich, Pearle Vision Vince Rosanova, DBCW Ltd. Verne Henne, resident Lonnie Avery, resident Linda Corrington, resident The meeting was called to order at 7:04pm by Chairman Bill Davis, Roll call was taken and a quorum was established, Previous Meeting Minutes: January 3, 2007, December 6, 2006 Mike Skinner moved and Ben Moe seconded to approve the minutes of December 6, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. The January 3, 2007 minutes were approved unanimously on a motion and second by Dean Bromann and Ben Moe, respectively, Public Hearing#1 Mr. Skinner moved and Mr. Moe seconded to enter into Public Hearing PC 2006-90 Brighton Oaks II. This variance request pertains to property south of Route 71, adjacent to and north of Highpoint Road. Petitioner Fox Valley View, requested a variance to ordinance 10-6C-4B, a side yard setback, to allow for 7,5-foot setbacks in lieu of the required 10-foot setbacks to provide for units including a 3-car garage. Attorney Vince Rosanova presented the information regarding the request. This property consists of 37,5 acres and is north of East Highpoint Road and south of Legion. It is Page 2 of 6 designed for 53 lots with a 1.4 density that is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. R2 zoning actually allows 3.3 density. The petitioner is requesting this variance in order to enhance lots with 3-car garages and would only apply to those lots. Lot sizes will range from 12,000 to 18,000 square feet,. It was noted by Attorney Rosanova that the City had set a precedent by allowing similar setbacks in the Bristol Bay subdivision. However, it was noted that these setbacks were allowed as part of a PUD. Mr. Rosanova reviewed the Finding of Fact and presented information regarding each point: 1. ...physical surroundings...shape ofproperty, ..a hardship-would result Attorney opinion: Large portion of property is encumbered by wetlands, odd shape, bordered by Highpoint Rd that will be buffered, only a small number of lots will be affected, City would lose quality subdivision if not granted 2. ..uniquetoproperty...and not applicable to other properties in same zoning class Attorney opinion: constrained by wetlands, surrounding area is County subdivision, no other City development in area, shape is unique. 3. ...hardship by title..not created by person.. Attorney opinion: unusual shape of property and near Aux Sable Creek 4. ...not detrimental to public welfare... Attorney opinion: will have positive impact due to increased price and subsequent taxes. 5. ...will not impair light, increase congestion.. Attorney opinion: higher quality homes, 3 car garages, no increase in density, no increased congestion Mr. Rosanova said this request will go before the Council at the February 20°i COW and then to the February 27`h City Council. He requested a positive recommendation. Linda Carrington, a Highpoint Road resident, then presented information. She said she lives upstream from this property and already the creek overflows and soil has washed into the stream. The water does not drain very rapidly and she said a nearby culvert needs to be lowered. She also asked if a traffic study had been done because the subdivision will add 100 more cars on Highpoint Road. Ms. Covington was also concerned about who would maintain detention basins. Finally, she said this development could impact nearby property values. Page .33 of 6 Attorney Rosanova replied that he and Eric Granrud of Smith Engineering are working with Ms. Corrington to eliminate the negative impact. The lot sizes will also be reviewed by Mr. Wywrot since the development would be part of the City. The Board members then entered into their discussion of this request. This matter has gone before the Plan Commission with a unanimous recommendation, Mr.. Skinner asked if the Commission was aware that this variance request would follow. Ms. Kurtzman said that type of request would not be discussed at the Plan Commission (P.C.) meetings. Chairman Davis said he had spoken with the Chairman of the P.C. who said the minimum setback should be maintained at 10 feet for safety reasons. Mr, Rosanova argued that these homes would be quality, custom homes with low density. He said the plan will be reviewed again and he will discuss it with William Dettmer and the Fire Department. Chairman Davis said nothing less than 10 foot setbacks had been approved in the history of this Board. He commended the nicer architecture, but said safety comes first. Board member Skinner said that in the future, the City should consider making the sheets wider to accommodate an increasing number of cars per household. Mr. Moe questioned if the ordinance itself should be revised, but at this time safety is the primary concern. Elimination of some of the lots was suggested by Mr. Funkhouser, as a way to achieve the 10-foot setbacks. He added that the ordinance is in place for protection. Ms. Davis said that this Board would only make a recommendation to the City Council and that this property has not been annexed yet. He also stated that the Board would be willing to review the request again after the Fire Department is satisfied. In response to Ms. Conington's concerns, it was noted that the City has higher standards regarding grading [for water drainage] than does the County. The City would be liable if there were problems with the inflow and outflow. The Finding of Fact was then reviewed by Ms. Kurtzman: 1. ...because of physical surroundings..a hardship would result:. Response: this was self-created 1. ...conditions are...unique to the property... Response: no 3. ...hardship is caused by Title and not by any person... Response: No, not caused by Title Page 4 of'6 4. ...granting of variation not detrimental Response: no, not true 5. ...will not irupair adequate supply of light and air...or increase danger to public Response: no, not true A motion was then made and seconded by Dean Bromann and Chris Funkhouser, respectively, to allow the variance request. The motion failed on a 4-1 roll call vote. Public Hearing#2 ZBA 2006-99: Petitioner Randall Burggraf, Pearle Vision, filed an application requesting a variance on property at 620 W. Veterans Parkway. He is requesting a variance to Ordinance 8-11-4013 to place additional signage on the rear of the building facing westbound Route 34 traffic, The building in question is at the top of the hill at Cannonball Trail and Route 34. He said the sign ordinance allows a sign to face the street. He said there would be no impact on the south end of the property and the north side is undeveloped. There is presently a retail strip mall on the west side, Ms, Kurtzman noted that while Mr. Burggraf had filed the petition for Pearle Vision, the building owner, .Tim Ratos, wants the variance applied to the entire building since he will lease space on the north end to a restaurant,. A sign would be allowed on the north side, by ordinance, according to Mr. Funkhouser. A free-standing sign will be erected by Mr. Ratos at Rte. 34 and Big Oak Drive and it was noted there is a sign there at this time. Ms. Kurtzman also said there could be a potential sight distance triangle problem. Mr, Verne Herne, a nearby resident and property owner, then presented information opposing this request. He said this building was oriented to accommodate the depth of the building. There would be a potential for many signs for this building due to its orientation.. Mr. Lonnie Avery, who lives adjacent to this property in question, said that granting the variance would set a precedent. He is opposed to additional signs and especially if they are neon in nature, due to the nearby recreational pond. In conclusion, Chairman Davis said as part of the sign ordinance update, the trend is to reduce the number of signs due to negative visual impact. Page 5 of 6 Ms, Kurtzman then reviewed the Finding of Fact for this case: 1. ...because ofphysical surroundings..a hardship to the owner world result.. Response: The unique plan of this building was created by the building owner to maximize use of the building. 2. ...conditions are unique to property.. Response: has adequate signage on north side 3. ...effect on pedestrian and motor traffic Response: not applicable. 4. ...cost to applicant, as opposed to detriment Response: not applicable 5. ...general intent of this chapter Response: no There was no further discussion and Mike Skinner moved to accept this variance request. The motion was seconded by Ben Moe. On a roll call vote, the motion was defeated unanimously. A motion was then made and seconded by Mike Skinner and Dean Bromann to close Public Hearing.. Motion carried. Old Business: A motion to enter into Old Business was made and seconded by Ben Moe and Mike Skinner. Carried unanimously.. Chairman Davis said he had received the updated Sign Code and he said staff had obtained various sign height and size information from other towns. There was a brief discussion on some specific signs in the area and the Board members said they were comfortable with the guidelines they had set forth at the December, 2006 meeting. They noted they did not want "large" monument signs. (See December, 2006 minutes, page 3). Staff will be given direction from the guidelines in the minutes. Mr. Funkhouser said he was comfortable with the multi-tenant sign restrictions, Mike Skinner and Ben Moe moved and seconded to close Old Business. Carried unanimously Page 6of6 Additional Business: A motion was made by Mike Skinner and seconded by Ben Moe, to enter into Additional Business. Carried unanimously. Chairman Bill Davis announced that he will be stepping down as Chairman of this Board, as of March 201h since he is moving outside the City. Mr. Davis also paid remembrance for former Board Member Harold Feltz who recently passed away. Mr. Feltz served on the Board from 1976 to 2006 with integrity and devotion.. He was also instrumental in mentoring Mr. Davis for this Board. Mike Skinner suggested sending this remembrance to the City Council as well.. He noted that Mr. Feltz was also an avid backpacker and skier and ran marathons. He also spoke to the Boy Scouts at one time. He will be greatly missed. In other additional business, Mr. Skinner made a motion to direct City employees to park City vehicles in the back lot, rather than the front lot, on meeting nights. This will increase the parking spots available on those nights. Dean Bromann seconded this motion. Carried unanimously. There was no further business and Ben Moe moved and Chris Funkhouser seconded to adjourn. Adjourned at 8:35pm Minutes by Marlys Young, Minute Taker