Loading...
ZBA Minutes 2006 12-06-06 Page I of �l! V �L/ 2/7/07� UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Wednesday, December 6, 2006, 7pm Council Chambers Board Members in Attendance: Bill Davis, Chairman Ben Moe Ryan Woods Chris Funkhauser Other City Staff In Attendance: Anna Kurtzman Travis Miller Charles Wunder Guests: Scott & Leslie Hart The meeting was called to order at 7:07pm by Chairman Bill Davis. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Previous Meeting Minutes The minutes of October 4, 2006 were approved as read on a motion and second by Ben Moe and Ryan Woods respectively, Since there was no quorum at the November 1, 2006 meeting, the November minutes will not be formally reviewed. Public Hearin Es On a motion and second by Woods and Moe, the committee entered into Public Hearing 2006-88, Petitioners Scott and Leslie Hart of 210 W, Kendall Drive, were present to explain their request. Mr.. Hart said their property only has a one-car garage and they wish to add space for another vehicle. The current sideyard setback, which is next to green space, is 10 feet and they wish to reduce that to 8 feet to accommodate the additional garage space. This is a variance of Ordinance 10-6C-4B, They plan to use the same siding on their addition. Board Member Moe noted that this project would be a positive addition and make the property more appealing. All neighbors have been notified of this proposed request and some have personally conveyed their approval. Page 2 of Ms. Kurtzman then reviewed the Finding of Fact: 1. ...Hardship to owner— Comments:Comments: This would be a hardship, partly due to an irregular shaped lot. There are also no issues of safety to the property. 2.... Unique to property... Comments: Yes, property is unique and comments from #1 also apply. 3,...Hardship caused by title and not by person interested in property_. Comments: Present owner did not build house, thereby not creating the problem. 4....Not detrimental to public welfare... Comments: No one is present to oppose the project. 5... Project will not impair light and air—or diminish property values.,. Comments: Will not impair. Since there was no further discussion, Moe and Woods respectively moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Approved unanimously on a voice vote, New Business On a motion and second by Moe and Woods, the Board opened New Business. A motion was made by Mr. Moe to approve the variance request, PC 2006-88. Mr. Woods seconded that motion and it was approved unanimously on a roll call vote. Ms. Kurtzman noted that this decision was final since it was within the Board's limits and that Mr. and Mrs. Hart can now request their permit. Old Business The committee continued their discussion of the proposed Sign Ordinance, Mr. Wunder said there were minimal changes since the prior meeting and that any future changes will be noted with strikeouts. Mr. Miller said that highlights of the document had been pointed out to Economic Development. He also said he will approach the Chamber of Commerce for input in January if ZBA approves. He summarized the proposed timeline of actions for the proposed ordinance and said continuous refinements will be made and eventually the ordinance will be brought forward for a Public Hearing. He also said he had discussed the suggested sign sizes with the Chamber and focused on new businesses coming into town. An incentive package will be needed for current businesses to replace old signs. Page 3 of 4 The discussion turned to the square footage of signs reviewed at the previous meeting. Photos from the last meeting showed signs that were mostly at the maximum size, It was determined that some Board members wished to see more samples. Mr'. Woods said he would like to see signs less than 80 sq. foot in size (excluding the base) and if a petitioner wants a larger sign, they should appear before the board. It was noted that Culver's sign is 74 sq. ft. and their readerboard and oval sign together is about 100 sq. ft. Walgreen's sign is approximately 100 sq. ft. Mr. Wunder said that Bolingbrook allows pole signs,but if the property falls on 2 lots, only one sign is allowed. That town uses 50 sq. ft. signs. Mr. Woods again suggested talking with other municipalities and Ms. Kurtzman said that regulations for other towns could also be gathered for the next meeting. It was generally agreed that the committee could start low on the square footage and increase the size depending on feedback. Mr'. Woods' opinion was 40 square foot. The final general consensus of the sign size was 40 sq, ft. Examples from other communities will be needed to defend that size. Mr. Miller said he personally felt 40 sq. ft. might be too small, however', he said it could be introduced and the size can increase if necessary. Mr. Davis suggested that perhaps the lot size should determine the sign size, however, it was noted that stipulation was removed from the ordinance after the last meeting.. Bigger businesses will want bigger signs suggested Mr. Funkhouser and most big businesses have signs on their buildings. When dealing with "big box" stores, Mr. Miller noted that the comprehensive plan must be considered also. Another factor is that in the future, developments may have PUD's in place that would already have a sign program for the entire complex. Mr. Wunder said 1.3 acres is a common outlot size and cited McDonald's, Shell station and Walgreen's as examples. It was determined that the"trigger" factors the committee previously suggested for sign size were 50,000 square feet or 3 acres. The committee agreed that in a multi-tenant development, each tenant would have signs on their shops and there would be one large monument sign with the shopping center name,. The following guidelines were agreed upon: 1. Lot size of 3 acres or more, 60 sq. ft sign allowed 2. Lot size under 3 acres, 40 sq. ft. sign allowed 3. Corner lots—if on 2 major streets, business will need to request more than 1 sign 4. Eight feet height will be the maximum sign height (measured from crown of road) Page 4 of 4 Special uses would go before Plan Commission. Existing businesses with non-conforming signs need to be addressed as well. About 100 signs will be impacted due to their non-conformance. City staff will make this draft of the ordinance public in March or April, There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 8:20pm on a motion by Ben Moe and second by Ryan Woods.. Carried unanimously on a voice vote. Minutes by Marlys Young