ZBA Minutes 2006 09-06-06 Page 1 of 4
PPROVED 10/4/0
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 7PM
Council Chambers
Board Members in Attendance
Bill Davis Mike Skinner(left 8:23pm)
Dean Bromann Ryan Woods (=.7:12pm)
Ben Moe
Other City Staff in Attendance
Anna Kurtzman, ICCI
Travis Miller, Community Development Director
Guests:
Paul & Susan O'Brien, 207 W. Ridge St.,Yorkville
The meeting was called to order at 7:06pm by Chairman Bill Davis. Roll call was taken
and a quorum was established.
Previous Meeting Minutes:
The minutes of August 2 and August 8, 2006 were approved as read on a motion by Dean
Bromann and Ben Moe. Carried unanimously.
Public Hearing:
It was moved and seconded respectively by Skinner and Bromann to open the Public
Hearing. Carried.
Public Hearing ZBA 2006-58 was opened with the petitioners, Paul and Susan O'Brien,
summarizing their request. They are asking the City for a variance to reduce the
minimum side yard setback on their home at 207 W. Ridge St., from ten feet to three feet.
This variance is being requested so they can reconstruct a porch that was originally
attached to the house. This would protect the front door from rain damage. Ms. O'Brien
said the unenclosed porch would be behind the fence line with the present stoop
remaining. Mr. Skinner complimented the petitioners on the proposed improvement to
their home.
Page 2 of 4
FINDING OF FACT:
Ms. Kurtzman reviewed the Finding of Fact paraphrased below:
1. ...due to the physical surroundings...a physical hardship would result...
Comments: A hardship would result if the petitioners were not allowed to construct the
porch.
2. ...conditions are..unique to the property
Comments: Yes, they are unique. Some of the older homes were built close to the road.
and setbacks were possibly not in place at that time.
3. ...difficulty...not caused by any person having interest in the property..
Comments: Not created by homeowner as home foundation is from the 1840's.
4. ...granting of variation not detrimental to public welfare...
Comments: No one from the public is present at the meeting opposing the request.
5. ...proposed variation will not impair adequate supply of light and air..
Comments: The structure will be back from the sidewalk and will not create a safety
issue.
A motion was made and seconded by Moe and Skinner to close the Public Hearing.
Carried on voice vote.
New Business:
Skinner and Bromann moved and seconded to open New Business. Carried on voice
vote.
The Board agreed this project would be an asset to the City. There was no further
discussion.
Skinner moved and Moe seconded to approve the request for this variance. Roll call was
taken and the motion passed unanimously. This matter will move to C.O.W. on
September 19th.
Additional Business:
A draft of the proposed Sign Code was then discussed. It was noted by Ms. Kurtzman
that if a sign is less than 8 square feet, a permit is not required. Rolling signs are
prohibited under this proposed policy,however, Ms. Kurtzman said this is open for
discussion. An example of a portable sign is the Parkview Academy sign.
Subdivision signs (snipe signs) were also discussed and they are already prohibited. It
was questioned how fines were assessed for this violation. Ms. Kurtzman said a penalty
for these infractions needs to be addressed with a possible penalty of$500 minimum.
Page 3 of 4
The person who places these signs would be the one who is penalized and a follow-up
call should be made to the builder. Since the developer is the driving force, it was felt
they should be the one cited. Another suggestion was to put this stipulation in the pre-
annexation agreement, however, that would not resolve existing violations.
Monument signs were addressed and Mr. Skinner asked if the code prohibited lighting of
those signs. The current ordinance states the lighting must be aimed at the sign and
lighting is at the discretion of the owner.
Pod storage trailers are becoming more popular and are not currently addressed in the
sign ordinance. It was suggested that these be controlled too, since there is signage on
them and they are often parked for lengthy amounts of time. Limiting the duration or
obtaining a permit for pods and also dumpsters was suggested. Mr. Miller said this could
also be addressed as a property maintenance issue.
Discussion turned to the Non-Conforming Section and Chairman Davis speculated on the
number of signs that would be non-compliant. Mr. Miller said an inventory would need
to be done. Some specific non-compliant signs were discussed and it was noted that this
could be a `hot button' for the City. To become compliant, Travis Miller suggested it
could be tied to a possible tax rebate. A 50150 cost share similar to the fagade ordinance
was also suggested. Because of the coming big businesses, Mr. Skinner said the City
could help those with the non-compliant signs. Variances could also be granted with the
filing fees waived. Ms. Kurtzman cautioned the Board that many businesses could apply
for a variance, knowing there was no cost and then expect to receive the incentives if they
failed at their variance request. The level of incentives would need to be reduced due to a
possible influx of requests.
The current cost of filing for a variance is $85 and it does not even cover the advertising
according to Ms. Kurtzman. Mr. Skinner thought the filing fee should not be a
determination for a petitioner to come forth with his request since a sign would cost
considerably more. Chairman Davis said $85 is not too expensive if the owner thinks his
sign is unique and has a pleasing appearance in the City. He added there could be
hundreds of requests and time could become an issue for the City.
The issue of enforcing this sign code was discussed. Questions such as how to govern
this ordinance,how business owners would be notified, among others, were considered
briefly. According to Ms. Kurtzman,the code officer would notify the violator and
suggested a possible time of one year to become compliant. Mr. Davis said it would be
helpful to see a random sample of non-compliant signs. Mr. Miller will present samples
at a future date. Talking with Montgomery about their sign replacement process was
suggested by Mr. Skinner. When making a determination about a variance request, Mr.
Miller said the Finding of Fact could be used as a guideline. If signage was included in
the PUD or annexation agreement and was not agreeable to all parties, a variance request
could be filed through ZBA.
Page 4 of 4
Multi-tenant and strip mall signs were also briefly considered.
Mr. Miller said this sign code would not need a public hearing,however, the public needs
to be aware. It was also suggested it should go through Plan Commission and also be
coordinated with the Chamber. If approved, the sign code would become part of the
zoning code. Ms. Kurtzman explained the following. There are 2 different sign codes in
the code at this time. When the present sign code in the Building Regulations was
adopted, it missed being deleted from the zoning code and as a result there are 2 codes.
Mr. Davis thought this proposed code should not be attached to the present zoning code
so if changes needed to be made in the early stages, they could be done so without going
through public hearings.
Other points made were:
1. Possibly tie size of plot of land to the size of sign
2. Erect signs specified distance from driveways
3. How to limit number of signs for large developments
4. Number of signs within a large development
5. Board members like monument signs and they should be measured from the
"crown of the road"
At this time, Mr. Miller summarized the City Council action on Wal-Mart signs to Board
Member Skinner. He said that the Council followed the ZBA recommendations and
allowed one additional monument sign to direct customers to the lube center. Mr.
Skinner pointed out that Menard's does not have signs directing customers to distinct
areas of their business and specifically to the pickup area. He said the pickup area
accounts for a large share of the Menard's business.
This ended the discussion of the proposed sign code. Chairman Davis asked for a revised
code, samples of non-conforming signs along with photos and definitions of sign types
prior to the next meeting. It was noted that agenda packets are sent out two weeks in
advance.
The next meeting will be October 4a'.
A motion to adjorn was made and seconded by Moe and Bromann.
Adjourned at 8:25pm
Minutes respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young, Minute Taker
I c)—✓� �L�7 Gv i�; �c S�
is
i
i'
ii
f,
I
I
j
i
i