Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet 2006 08-08-06 car o United City of Yorkville J H '" 800 Game Farm Road EST. „` : 1936 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 oil,° Fax: 630-553-7575 9m p KTm6 Count' <CE AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, August 8, 2006 . 7:00 P.M. City Council Conference Room REVISED 8/4/06 Meeting called to order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Previous Meeting Minutes (Corrections/Approval): July 5, 2005 Public Hearings: Old Business: 1. ZBA 2006-41 - Atwell-Hicks, petitioner and Don and Carol Hamman as owners, have filed an application with the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois requesting a variance from Yorkville City Code. The real property's address is generally located at the northeast corner US Route 34 (Veterans Parkway) and Countryside Parkway. The petitioner is requesting a variance to Zoning Ordinance. 10-7D-6 for a request to increase the height of a building from 35 feet to 41 feet 8 inches, a variance to the Zoning Ordinance 10-11-3:E to request in increase the maximum width of a curb cut from 25 foot to 36 feet, a variance to the Zoning Ordinance 10-11-3:C to request for a variance to the parking space size to allow a stall length of 18 feet for both 60 degrees and 90 degrees and variations to the Zoning Ordinance 8-11, variations to the sign code. Additional Business: 1. Sign Ordinance Update - Verbal presentation by Ms. Kurtzman Adjournment: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DRAFT YORKVILLE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006 Chairman Bill Davis called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Board Members in Attendance Bill Davis, Harold Feltz, Dean Bromann, Ryan Woods and Ben Moe. City Staff in Attendance Anna Kurtzman, ICCI and Community Development Director Travis Miller. Guests Chris Kalischefski, Vitas Macwkevicwz and Carissa Benedik, BP. Minutes Minutes from the June 6, 2006 were unanimously approved by voice vote. Ryan Woods made the motion to approve the minutes and Harold Feltz seconded the motion. Public Hearings Feltz made a motion to go to public hearing. Dean Bromann seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote. 1. PC 2006-38 ZBA—Steven McCleary, petitioner, and BP Product North America. The property is located at 1402 N. Bridge Street. The variances requested for the property are as follows: • Request to allow for five Point of Sale signs to be considered permanent signage. • Request to allow for an additional 71.31 square feet of signage. • Request to allow for two additional wall signs. • Request to allow for nine additional square feet of signage for the car wash instructional sign. • Request to allow for a sign to be placed on the south fagade of the car wash building. Chris Kalischefski, vice president of Corporate Design and Development Group, LLC, outlined the changes proposed to the existing BP at the location. He said the proposed changes should create an overall improvement to the corner as well as enhance public safety and surrounding property values. There are three elements to the proposal. One is to have an auto fuel area under a 151- foot canopy. Currently there is 154 feet in that space. Because the Illinois Department of Transportation intends to widen Route 47, some of the property will be taken, making it a smaller parcel to work with. from the street, Kalischefski said. If the signs were posted in the window, BP wouldn't need a variance,he said. But the business is trying to make the facility look better and therefore would need a variance to make the POS signs permanent. Kalischefski said that the variances requested still meet the intent of the city's code. The type of use is unique in terms of signage, he said. Also, because there is no road located near the planned car wash, a variance is needed for the intended signage. Kalischefski said the business is not seeking to impose its own will by requesting the variances. Davis asked what would happen to the Sunfield restaurant. Kalischefski said if the owners find another property to relocate to,then BP can either sell a portion of the property or it could keep the property and remove the buildings. Either way, any changes would have to come back to the city for approval. Davis asked if there is a setback issue between the Sunfield restaurant and the car wash. Kalischefski said the car wash would be legal and meet city codes. Davis also asked how this BP would differ from the one at Orchard Road. Kalischefski said it would be similar but with a few changes. For instance the size of the signage towers would be reduced and would be symmetrical. The building materials used also would be more user friendly. Bromann made a motion to close the public hearing. Ben Moe seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote. New Business Bromann made a motion to go to new business Feltz seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote. 1. PC 2006-38 ZBA—Steven McCleary,petitioner, and BP Product North America. Davis commented that the plan looks nice. He said he'd like the monopole signs to have a brick base. There was some discussion about the brick base possibly blocking the view for customers exiting onto the roadway. But in the end, Vitas Macwkevicwz,with BP, said he would make sure the bases were brick. He asked that the sign on Route 47, however, be bricked after the Illinois Department of Transportation has completed the widening of the road. That would prevent him from constructing the sign and then having to move it. Macwkevicwz added the company would like to begin construction this year. He said the company continues to put safety first and is a leader in the industry regarding safety. As to the variances requested, Macwkevicwz said he doesn't believe the requests are obnoxious. Leading the board in the findings of fact, Kurtzman went over the standards for granting a variance. 1. Is there any unique physical property of the land involved? The board determined the answer is yes because three small buildings would be constructed. Also, it is a redevelopment of property. 2. Are there available locations for adequate signing on the property? The board determined yes. 3. What is the effect of the proposed sign on pedestrian and motor traffic? The board determined the signage would positively effect traffic because it is done with safety in mind. 4. What is the cost to the applicant of complying with this chapter as opposed to the detriment, if any? The board determined cost isn't a factor. 5. Is there any impact to the public? The board determined no. 6. Does the request meet the general intent of the chapter of the municipal code? The board determined it does meet the general intent. Bromann made a motion to grant the variance for PC 2006-38 as requested with the condition that pole signs have a base matching the brick on the building. The brick should go around the pole from the ground to the bottom of the sign. Moe seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by roll call vote. Bromann, Davis,Feltz,Moe and Ryan Woods voted yes. Macwkevicwz said the company plans to begin the property redevelopment in August. Public Hearings Feltz made a motion to go to public hearing. Moe seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote. 2. PC 2006-41 ZBA—Atwell-Hicks,petitioner and Don and Carol Hamman as owners. The property is located at the northeast comer of Route 34 and Countryside Parkway. Kurtzman said the petitioner was not at the meeting. She said the petitioners presented the city with requested information on proposed signage just that morning. She hadn't had an opportunity to review the plan. She suggested opening the hearing and then continuing it so that the petitioner doesn't have to re-advertise for the public hearing. The next ZBA meeting is Aug. 2. However, the petitioners requested that the ZBA consider holding a special meeting in July so that the request could go on the Aug. 1 Committee of the Whole agenda. Davis said that if the petitioner didn't get the requested material in on time, then it shouldn't be up to the board to have a special meeting. He said the matter would be placed on the Aug. 2 ZBA meeting agenda. Moe made a motion to continue the public hearing to the Aug. 2 meeting. Woods seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote. Moe then made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Woods seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Dina Gipe. 0 o United City of Yorkville J AN County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road esr , = yeas Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 0 Al Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us <CE w TO: Zoning Board of Appeals July 14, 2006 FROM: Anna B. Kurtzman, AICP SUBJECT: Request for Zoning Variances PC 2006-41 (ZBA) NEC US Route 34 & Countryside Pkwy - Walmart HEARING DATE: A public hearing to consider the merits of the applicant's request was scheduled for July 5, 2006, at 7:00 PM at the City Hall (800 Game Farm Road). Due to the timing of submittals the ZBA at this meeting elected to continue the hearing to August 2, 2006. REQUEST: The applicant, Atwell-Hicks, and the owner, Don and Carol Hamman,have filed an application to: 1. Increase the maximum height of a principal building from 35 feet to 41 feet 8 inches (Section 10-7D-6), 2. Increase the maximum width of a curb cut from 25 feet to 36 feet (Section 10-11- 3:E), 3. Reduce the length of a parking stall from 18.5 feet for 90 degree parking stalls and from 19 feet for 60 degree parking stalls to 18 feet (Section 10-11-3:C), 4. Have a free standing sign located interior to the lot (Section 8-11-4-C2 stipulates that signage is to be located along the perimeter of the property), 5. Increase the maximum height of a free standing sign from the allowable 20 feet to 30 feet for two signs (one at the southeast corner of the property [adjacent to Route 34] and one along Countryside Parkway)(Section 8-11-4-C2), 6. Increase the maximum allowable area of a free standing sign from 100 sq ft to 140.5 feet for two free standing signs (Section 8-11-4-C2), 7. Increase the number of signs located on a fagade from the maximum allowable of 2 per fagade (total maximum of 4) to 19 along the south fagade, 5 along the east fagade and 8 along the west fagade (Section 8-11-4-0a). Zoning Board of Appeals PC 2006-41 (ZBA) July 14, 2006 Page 2 of 2 CONDITIONS: This unimproved property is approximately 25 acres and is zoned B-3 with approximately 6 acres in the northeast corner zoned R-2. The applicant has filed with the City an application to rezone these 6 acres from R-2 to B-3. The rezoning request is processed through the Plan Commission and will be sent to the City Council for final determination. The variance requests will be presented to the City Council after the request for rezoning has been presented. As the only variance request that is specifically tied to a zoning designation is the height variance, and as the building itself is not being impacted by the requested rezoning the rezoning request should not impact the ZBA's decision making. The surrounding properties are zoned and used as indicated below: Zoning Use North R2 Undeveloped, and Single-family detached residences South Incorporated Single-family detached residences East B3 Undeveloped West B3 Undeveloped NEXT STEPS: After closing the public hearing no further testimony or information is to be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board should review the Findings of Facts for each requested variance (see attached) and then motions can be made. As a reminder—variances from both the zoning code and the sign code are being requested. As a result, there are two different Findings of Fact sheets attached. The Board can make separate motions for each requested variance or combine them. Given the number of variances and the variety in the types of variances being requested staff is recommending that separate motions be made for each variance being requested. The Board's motion(s) can be to accept the variance(s), deny the variance(s) or to accept the variance(s) with conditions. In regards to the variances to the zoning code: Section 10-14-51) of the Zoning Code outlines the occasions when the ZBA has final decision making authority. None of the requested variances fall within the criteria outlined in Section 10-14-5D, therefore the Board's decision will NOT be final and will be considered to be a recommendation that will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. In regards to the variances to the sign code: the ZBA is strictly a recommending body and your recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Assuming a recommendation is made at the August 2, 2006, ZBA meeting, the recommendation will be forwarded to the Committee of a Whole at their August 22, 2006 meeting. /abk Attachments C: T.Miller,W.Dettmer Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\Anna\My Documents\ZBA\Walmart\Walmart ZBA 7-14-06.doc �? United City of Yorkville Zoning Code esr. �� _' 11836 County Seat of Kendall County 800 Game Farm Road co Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 � r ` 0 Telephone: 630-553-4350 �. ,: �� KwgMfgq ` Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us Case: Variance: STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE: Section 10-14-5(C) of the Municipal Code indicates that the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not vary (or make a recommendation to vary) the regulations of the Zoning Code unless it has made findings based upon the evidence presented to them for each specific case based upon the following: 1. Because the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations was carried out. 2. The conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are .unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. 4. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 5. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger to the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.