ZBA Minutes 2006 04-19-06 Page 1 of 4
PPROVED 06/06/06
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
Wednesday,April 19, 2006, 7PM
City Council Chambers
Board Members in Attendance
Bill Davis Harold Feltz
Mike Skinner Ben Moe
Other City Staff in Attendance
Anna Kurtzman, ICCI
Travis Miller, Community Development Director
Guests:
Harold Oliver, HRM Mason Oliver, FIRM
Steve Hornik,HRM
The meeting was called to order at 7:15pm by Chairman Bill Davis. Roll call was taken
and a quorum was established.
Previous Meeting Minutes:
The minutes of January 10, 2006 were approved on a motion and second by Mr. Feltz and
Mr. Moe respectively. Passed unanimously.
Public Hearing:
On a motion by Ben Moe and second by Mike Skinner,the Zoning Board entered into
Public Hearing. Approved unanimously.
The petitioner is requesting a variance to the Building Regulations Section 8-11-4C-2
Permitted Signs in Business Districts increasing the number of signs to three, from two.
The property in question is located at the southeast corner of Route 47 and Route 126.
Chairman Davis asked the petitioners to further explain their zoning request. Harold
Oliver stated he had received a letter from Joe Wywrot that recommended approval of the
request. He said he is requesting a third sign since the corner of Rte. 47 and 126 is not a
right angle and he desires more visibility. He also said he had no difficulty with moving
the location of the signs outside the easements on the property. An illustration of the
Page 2 of 4
proposed sign was shown by Mr. Oliver and he explained that it would be constructed of
Renaissance stone.
The proposed building would be 15,000 square foot with the possibility of 15 tenants,
however, 8 tenants are more likely. There was a brief discussion of the sign height and
actual signage area.
Since there was no further public comment, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion
by Mike Skinner and second by Harold Feltz. Approved unanimously.
A motion was then made by Mr. Feltz with a second by Mr. Moe to enter into New
Business. Carried unanimously.
New Business:
Mr. Feltz summarized the request and noted the request for three signs. He said he
approved of this request in view of the fact that this is a 3-corner piece of property and
this would allow a sign to be visible from each direction.
When asked if these would be the only signs, Mr. Oliver replied that he envisioned only
three signs and that they were trying to stay away from banks. He is currently working
with a couple of national franchises that would place signs on their buildings. Mr. Davis
expressed concern that more signs might be erected if part of the parcel was broken off.
He asked Mr. Oliver is he would be willing to restrict the number of signs.
Mr. Skinner said he would like to eliminate the overabundance of signs and added that
this Board must respect the City guidelines. He also felt there would not be an economic
hardship if the property only had two signs.
When asked about the enforceability of a contract limiting the signs, Travis Miller said
the property is not likely to be sub-divided and said covenants could be put into place to
restrict any future division. He added that a variance could also be requested in that case.
Ms. Kurtzman interjected that covenants are private issues that the City could not
enforce. A note must be put on the plat to address these concerns. If a re-subdivision
would occur, that note can be brought forward and the City could vacate the note. If
there is an ordinance with a variance, that would carry more influence and she
recommended an ordinance to limit the number of signs.
At this time,the development will only have one building and the requested three signs
according to Mr. Oliver. It is considered three parcels at this time. Ms. Kurtzman said
that if a caveat is put on the property now,the City would be legally bound to honor it
and no more signs would be allowed. If it were subdivided at this time, four signs could
be allowed. Mr. Oliver purchased the property as three parcels, but he said he is
consolidating it to one parcel.
Page 3 of 4
Ms. Kurtzman said the minimum lot size in a B-3 zoned district, is 10,000 square feet.
She further explained the following: Parcel #2 is just under an acre and theoretically four
lots could be divided from that. The way the engineering is being designed for this
property and if it were divided again, she said the most practical number would be two
lots. The City has before it a proposal to consolidate the three existing lots, however,
two of those lots will be dedicated for right-of-way purposes leaving one buildable lot.
Even though one buildable lot will be left, Mr. Oliver could divide it into multiple parcels
needing more signage.
After this discussion Ms. Kurtzman continued the meeting with the Finding of Facts
(paraphrased) and prefaced it with the "Standards for Granting a Variance" as follows:
1. Any unique physical property of the land involved
Comments: Mr. Feltz said it was unique because it is a triangular piece of land and Mr.
Moe added that is has a sharper than 90° degree angle.
2. The available locations for adequate signing on the property
Comments: If two buildings are constructed on the property, Mr. Davis said he agreed
with two signs. It was also suggested that perhaps the signs would distract drivers from
watching the traffic signal and that one sign should be moved farther to the cast.
3. The effect of the proposed sign on pedestrian and motor traffic
Comments: The appropriateness of the sign on the corner was questioned and Ms.
Kurtzman said she knew IDOT would be making improvements along Rte. 47. It was
noted that Mr. Wywrot's memo indicates the proposed location of the signs needs to be
changed to be in compliance with IDOT.
A. the cost to the applicant of complying with this chapter as opposed to the detriment,
if any
Comments: Cost is not a factor
5. to the public from the granting of the variance (what is the public impact)
Comments: A safety issue would be created. Also, the sign will not visible when
approaching from the north. When Rte. 47 becomes 4-lane, turning into the development
will more difficult. The sign on Rte. 126 should be located before one must make a turn.
6. general intent of this chapter
Comments: Chairman Davis said some good questions had been raised in this discussion.
He posed the question if the ordinance needs to be reviewed and updated and that Mr.
Oliver could have more signs if he sold part of the property. If that were to happen,
another sign could be granted based on a hardship. Mr. Skinner said that the City
Council has asked the Zoning Board to abide by the ordinance and added that there was
plenty of frontage on both sides. He reiterated his opposition to more signs.
Page 4 of 4
Board Member Moe added the following comments to this point. He felt that not
granting the variance would result in a hardship for the petitioner. He went on to state
that the owner could have divided the property into two parcels right away and then each
of those could have had two signs. Mr. Moe said the property owner is losing a potential
of four signs.
Mr. Oliver said that signage is important to tenants and that he had consolidated the
property into one parcel thinking it would streamline the process. He suggested tabling
the proposal for further review. On a motion by Ben Moe and Mike Skinner, the matter
was tabled until the June 6th meeting. Unanimous approval.
A motion was made by Mike Skinner and seconded by Harold Feltz to close New
Business. Carried.
Additional Business:
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05pm.
Respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young, Minute Taker