Loading...
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