ZBA Minutes 2007 06-06-07 Page 1 of 6 APPROVED 9/5/2007
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Wednesday, June 6, 2007, 7pm
Council Chambers
Board Members in Attendance:
Jeff Baker, Chairman
Chris Funkhouser
Dean Bromann
Ben Moe
Others In Attendance:
Anna Kurtzman
Darrel Zarate, Yorkville Congregational Church
James Drew, Yorkville Congregational Church
Nick Swingler, Parvin-Clauss Sign Co.
Gracie Villescas, Saratoga Homes
At 7:00 the meeting was called to order by newly appointed Chairman Jeff Baker.
Roll Call:
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
Previous Meeting Minutes (Corrections/Approvals): February 7, 2007 & May 2, 2007
Ben Moe moved and Dean Bromann seconded to approve both sets of minutes as read.
Motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearings:
A motion was made by Dean Bromann and seconded by Chris Funkhouser to open the
Public Hearings. Passed unanimously.
The first public hearing was as follows:
1. PC2007-13 ZBA Yorkville Congregational Church filed an application requesting a
variance to allow an electric message board that would replace their existing sign. The
property is at the northwest corner of Center Parkway and Countryside Parkway.
Darrel Zarate and James Drew were present on behalf of this petition. The sign they are
requesting is low-key and the same size as the present sign, but it is lighted. Ben Moe
asked them to describe the electronic properties. Mr. Zarate said the sign is similar to the
Page 2 of 6
one at the high school. It is programmable, allowing it to be turned off at a given time
and it also has a dimmer. The message area is 2'6"x 8'. It would be low to the ground
and have shrubbery around it with the top half being lighted
Ms. Kurtzman noted that the current sign ordinance specifically prohibits electronic
message boards. Some of the current moving message boards in Yorkville, (such as
Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell),pre-date the code or a variance was granted. It
was noted that the high school sign is controlled by the State and the school's governing
body rather than the City.
An illustration of the requested sign was shown by Mr. Zarate and he said the electronic
program allows the message to scroll or remain stationary. At this time, the church
intends to only use the stationery portion. However, Mr. Baker said that a new pastor
could be appointed who wants to use the moving message and then it would be non-
compliant.
It was noted by Ms. Kurtzman that no one was in attendance at this meeting who opposed
the sign, however, there was opposition at the May meeting that was ultimately cancelled.
It was thought the opposition was that the sign would shine in the resident's window.
There was no further discussion and Chairman Baker asked the Board if they approved of
reviewing the Finding of Fact before closing the Public Hearing. All were in agreement.
Ms. Kurtzman conducted the Finding of Fact:
1. ...unique physical properties involved?
Response: no
2. ...adequate location on property for signage?
Response: yes
3. ...effect of proposed sign on pedestrian or motor traffic
Response: non-scrolling sign OK
4. ...cost to applicant as opposed to detriment to public
Response: no detriment
5. ...impact and general intent of chapter, meet general intent of sign code?
Response: Does not address code, does not meet general intent of code
Chairman Baker commented that although Countryside Center is vacant now, there will
be new business. He does not want to set a precedent with a scrolling or animated sign.
Page 3 of 6
There was no further discussion and Chairman Baker entertained a motion to close the
Public Hearing. Ben Moe moved and Chris Funkhouser seconded that motion. Carried
unanimously.
The committee discussed placing restrictions on the time between message changes and
the amount of time the sign can be on. There was also discussion of the size of the letters
on the sign, how many words and how many light bulbs should be allowed.
Chris Funkhouser made a motion to approve the variance request with the following
conditions:
1. Sign shall not be illuminated between l Opm—ham
2. Two changes of message allowed per day
3. Sign will not have an animated or scrolling message
Dean Bromann seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken as follows: Funkhouser-yes, Bromann-yes, Baker-no. Ben Moe
abstained since he is a member of that church. The motion carried 2-1. This matter will
move to City Council on June 26th and Anna Kurtzman will forward a report to the
Council and the Church.
2. PC 2007-18 ZBA Saratoga Homes
A motion was made by Ben Moe and seconded by Dean Bromann to enter into Public
Hearing PC2007-18. The petitioner requested a variation to allow an off-site marketing
sign to be placed within a 1/4 mile from another such sign and to allow the size of the sign
to be 128 square feet instead of 64 square feet. (Code 8-11-4B2 and Code 8-11-71)). The
property is at 3600 N. Bridge St., Yorkville at the northeast corner of Rt. 47 and Corneils
Rd.
Gracie Villescas of Saratoga Homes and Nick Swingler of Parvin-Clauss Sign Co.
presented the information for this petition. They were seeking permission to place a
double-faced sign at Rt. 47 and Corneils Road for the Caledonia development. She said
there are three other signs there already for other developments. One of those is 12 x 16
feet and was part of the annexation agreement. She said there is one sign for Caledonia
at that intersection now, however, Saratoga is not represented on that sign. Ms.
Kurtzman stated that the code allows for a sign to be only 5' from the property line and
Mr. Bromann commented that this could be a safety concern.
Ms. Villescas said Saratoga Homes owns lots in Caledonia and expects the build out time
to be two years. That is the length of time the sign would be displayed.
Page 4 of 6
Finding of Fact for first variance request: decrease distance between off-site residential
marketing signs:
1. ...unique physical property involved?
Response: no, not unique. Ms. Villescas said her company wishes the sign location to be
as close as possible to subdivision entrance.
1. ...adequate location for signage on this property...
Response: no, not adequate land
3. ...effect of sign on motor/pedestrian traffic?
Response: potentially adverse due to size and location,possible safety issue
4. ...cost to applicant as opposed to detriment to public?
Response: there is already a sign for the development as a whole
5. ...meet general intent of this Chapter?
Response: No
Finding of Fact for second variance request to increase size of off-site marketing sign to
128 square feet:
1. ...unique physical properties?
Response: no
2. ...available location for adequate signage?
Response: Does not apply
3. ...effect on pedestrian/motor traffic?
Response: size could affect safety
4. ...cost to applicant as opposed to detriment to public?
Response: if sign is 64 square feet, then no detriment
5. ...meet general intent of this Chapter?
Response: No
A motion was made and seconded by Dean Bromann and Ben Moe, respectively, to close
the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
The committee then further discussed this request. It was felt the sign was too large for
the space and would be a hazard because of the heavily traveled road. The curve in the
road could also obscure signs. There was also a placement issue because of the small
distance off Rt. 47. Ms. Kurtzman asked for a suggestion of distance between the
existing signs and said that could be a condition in a motion. Ms. Villescas said the sign
Page 5 of 6
could be placed farther north on the property and it was suggested that the placement
must also be fair to the existing signs.
At this time the Board viewed the large aerial map in the back of the Council chambers.
For the record, Ms. Kurtzman summarized the Board's comments while viewing the map:
1. Discussed placement of sign
2. Discussed traffic issue if sign is placed as far north as possible to meet code
requirements
3. If 64 square feet, then would not be hazard at that location
A motion was then made by Chris Funkhouser to approve PC 2007-18 with the condition
that the sign be maintained at 64 square feet and be located as far north of subject site as
possible, and subject to the setback ordinance. Dean Bromann seconded motion. A roll
call vote was taken: Baker-no; Bromann-yes; Funkhouser-no; Moe-yes. The vote ended
in a tie, therefore, it failed. No new motion was introduced. This matter will proceed to
the June 26th City Council for appeal.
Old Business:
There was none.
Additional Business:
1. Discuss Paperless Distribution
Ms. Kurtzman said the City staff is working with various Boards to determine the interest
of applicants in the paperless submittal of presentations. The applicants are being asked
to submit electronic forms. Then emails or disks would be provided to Board members,
but a determination needs to be made of the computer capabilities of all Board members.
Chris Funkhouser commented that the intereet is OK, but discs are more reliable. Ms.
Kurtzman will forward these comments to City staff.
In additional business, Chairman Baker said that in one of the sets of minutes, there was a
lack of a quorum. He stated that it is important that all Board members are present.
However, he added that only 3-4 meetings in the last few years were not held due to lack
of a quorum. He asked Board members to call him if they could not be present. He feels
it is very important to hold the meetings since lawyers and petitioners have expenses
associated with the petitions.
Mr. Baker also said he would like to keep the meetings to 2.5 —3 hours at the maximum.
It was noted that there are currently no items scheduled for the July meeting, but Ms.
Kurtzman said if paperwork was submitted on this date, there was a possibility of one
item for a potential meeting. Since the July 4th holiday falls on the regular meeting date,
July 37d was discussed as an alternative.
Page 6 of 6
There was no further business and a motion was made to adjourn by Ben Moe and
seconded by Chris Funkhouser. Meeting adjourned at 8:20pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young, Minute Taker