ZBA Minutes 2006 01-10-06 Page 1 of 5
PPROVED 04/19/06
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
Tuesday, January 10, 2006, 7PM
City Conference Room
Board Members in Attendance
Bill Davis Harold Feltz
Mike Skinner Ryan Woods (arr. 7:15pm)
Ben Moe
Other City Staff in Attendance
Anna Kurtzman, ICCI
Guests:
Sam Saravanos, Saravanos Properties Cheryl Grate, Grate Signs
Larry Saravanos, Saravanos Properties Lynn Dubajic,
Yorkville Economic Development Director
The meeting was called to order at 7:05pm by Chairman Bill Davis. Roll call was taken
and a quorum was established.
Previous Meeting Minutes:
September 8, 2005 minutes unanimously approved on a motion and second by Harold
Feltz and Ben Moe.
October 17, 2005 minutes unanimously approved on a motion and second by Ben Moe
and Mike Skinner.
January 8, 2004 minutes: it was noted by Ms. Kurtzman that these minutes were only
informally approved on March 24, 2004 because there was no quorum at that time. On a
motion by Mike Skinner and second by Harold Feltz, these were unanimously approved.
Public Hearing:
Chairman Davis asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Mr. Feltz moved and
Mr. Moe seconded a motion to open this hearing. Motion approved by all.
Page 2 of 5
The request for a variance was filed by Larry Saravanos of Saravanos Properties. He
requested to install a freestanding sign (at 7131 Route 47)that is larger than the current
ordinance allows.
Cheryl Grate introduced herself as a representative of Grate Signs. She said the sign
being requested is 216 square feet and a height of 27 feet. She noted the current
ordinance allows for a 100 square foot sign with a height of 20 feet. The larger sign is
being requested because of the overall size of the development. The sign is also being
requested on behalf of the tenants who are in the back portion of the development to
allow them maximum exposure for their businesses.
For reference and comparison purposes, Ms. Grate produced 2 photos of 100 square foot
signs,those being the signs for Pro Golf and Hair Cuttery on Rt. 47. She also showed a
photo of the Menard's sign that is 340 square feet and a height of 35 feet. She said that
each of the tenants in the Saravanos development would receive 9 square feet of space on
the sign. The development being discussed is named Stagecoach Crossing.
She described their sign as having a roof that mimics the roof of the shopping plaza and
brick pylons would be used rather than sheet metal poles. Ms. Grate noted that the
developer was spending extra money to make this sign aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Feltz
asked if there was a drawing to illustrate what the plaza would look like. Though there
was no drawing, Sam Saravanos gave a brief overview of the number of units and square
footage in the plaza. It was noted that the outlots would have their own signage. There
will also be signs on each unit as well.
There was no further discussion and Chairman Davis asked for a motion to close the
Public Hearing. So moved by Mike Skinner and seconded by Ben Moe. Carried.
New Business:
Mr. Feltz moved and Mr. Moe seconded to enter into New Business. Carried.
Discussion was begun with Mr. Skinner stating that this request is beyond the scope of
authority of this Board because it exceeds 35% of the allowable height. Because of this,
the Board could only make a recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Kurtzman stated that each lot on this property would be allowed a sign and a sign
above each door. It was noted that the entire property is owned by one person, but there
are five buildings.
Mr. Skinner stated that he felt the sign was just too large and is almost double the
maximum allowed. However, he added that it is a hardship because the property is
landlocked. He also commented that this property could theoretically be subdivided. He
concluded by saying the sign was too big and would be contrary to the codes adopted by
Page 3 of 5
the City. Mr. Feltz said he thought the sign would be OK, however, he added that if the
property were divided,the process would need to start again for signage. In further
discussion,Ms. Grate said that the businesses in this development would not be national
chains with extensive advertising and their signage is very important.
Ms. Dubajic then spoke and said the Council is directing her to entice small businesses as
well as the big retailers. She said this area in question is in great need of the type of
businesses that will be tenants there. Due to the configuration of the property, the tenants
will be at a disadvantage. These things should be considered in the decision the Board
makes.
Mr. Skinner felt that the building was built without thought given to the signage. He
said the City needs to address such situations so that the City does not allow unlimited
signs.
It was suggested by Mr. Woods,that there might not be 20 tenants,therefore eliminating
the need for so many names on the sign. The divider bars on the sign can be moved to
adjust to the number of tenants.
Mr. Skinner asked if signage was discussed at Plan Commission meetings. It is not
discussed there. Since similar situations might arise in the future,he suggested that such
large signs should be discussed as part of the PUD or pre-annexation agreements. He
also suggested that the size of the sign should be proportionate to the square footage of
retail space. Finally, he recommended that the Council should address the sign
ordinance to reflect the needs of each individual parcel and the sign should be approved
at the time of the permit.
Mr. Moe felt this was a hardship for the property owner and that the current codes do not
accommodate the various situations that might arise. He also said it discourages a larger
number of stores and that the sign ordinance should be tied to the number of stores or
square footage. Mr. Davis concurred with this assessment and also asked if the white
background could be muted with an ivory background. He also suggested using ground
lights to illuminate the sign. Ms. Grate did not feel floodlights would be a good
application and she indicated inside lighting would be a more viable solution.
Other sign configurations were also briefly discussed to reduce the overall height. Mr.
Davis said he was concerned about setting a precedent if larger developments came in
and requested even larger signs based on the number of tenants.
The Jewel sign was also discussed and it was noted that the smaller businesses are not
advertised on this sign,however,they are thriving. Ms. Dubajic also agreed that the sign
ordinance needs to be revisited.
Page 4 of 5
The committee then entered into the Finding of Fact.
1. The committee agreed that there were unique physical characteristics of this
property: the shape of the lot,units are set back.
2. They also agreed that the available locations for signage were limited due to
the number of buildings, the buildings being set back and the fact that there is
only one entrance.
3. Effects on motor and pedestrian traffic: It was noted the sign will be on
private property, not on the right-of-way, will need to be lit and would not
impede traffic, sign will be visible to roadway. The committee decided that the
sign would not pose any danger to foot or motor traffic.
4. How much more cost will the applicant incur if they comply with the wishes of
the committee? The committee said the applicant could potentially have 20
small signs and no real exposure for the shopping plaza causing a business to
potentially fail.
5. Would the granting of the variance cause a public nuisance? The Board said
that no harm would come to the public with the proposed sign.
6. Does this variance request meet the intent of the signage code? It was thought
that this does not meet the general intent and that the code needs to be reviewed.
The Board then discussed how to restrict additional signs for this property if it were ever
to be split. They considered the language needed in a recommendation to prevent this.
The recommended motion as suggested by Ms. Kurtzman was to approve the two
variances regarding the height and size subject to no further ground or pole signs on the
property regardless of any future division of the land. Mr. Davis suggested amending it
to use ivory background instead of white. Ms. Grate said it can be done, but the tenants
are not known at this time and an ivory color may not go well with some color schemes.
However, she said that a"Lexan"plastic could be used to provide the desired muted
effect. She also offered that a separate disconnect switch could be installed so that all
panels do not need to be lit until there is a tenant listed.
After the above discussion,the motion was formally stated: Ben Moe moved and Harold
Feltz seconded a motion to recommend approval of the two variances regarding the
height and size, subject to no further ground or pole signs on the property regardless of
any future division of land. Also, the background color will be amended to "Lexan"
plastic and a disconnect switch will be installed to only fight the top half of the sign until
the tenants are all in place. A roll call was then taken and it was passed unanimously.
This matter now moves to the C.O.W on February 7`h with a vote on February 14a'.
Page 5 of 5
A second motion was made by Ryan Woods and seconded by Ben Moe to recommend to
the City Council,that a task force/ad hoc committee be formed to review the sign
ordinance before any further sign variances are processed to reflect the growth in
Yorkville and technological advances occurring
This motion was then discussed. Ms. Dubajic said that any nearby future development
may be at a disadvantage if they are not allowed a similar size sign. She added that
smaller businesses will be hurt if they are not allowed signage and that big businesses are
granted signs through their PUD's. The committee recognized that national retailers
already have name recognition and do not necessarily require larger signs.
This matter will be discussed at a future C.O.W. Ms. Kurtzman will provide a report to
the Council regarding the approved variance and the recommendation to form a task
force. Bill Davis added that he is not sure if the ordinance actually needs revision, but he
said that two of the Zoning Board members should be part of the committee. Mr. Woods
said he recommends that the multi-tenant type of sign not be allowed.
A vote was then taken on the above motion regarding the task force. The motion carried
unanimously on a roll call vote.
Additional Business:
Mr. Skinner asked if the new code books for the 2006 building code were available. Ms.
Kurtzman said the books had not been adopted yet by the City Council.
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 9:28pm on a motion by
Ben Moe and Harold Feltz. Carried.
Minutes submitted by
Marlys Young, Minute Taker