Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 2009 01-07-09 Page 1 of APPROVED 8/5/09
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 7pm
City Hall Conference Room
Board Members in Attendance:
Jeff Baker, Chairman
Dean Bromann
Chris Funkhouser
Sam Clementz
Mike Skinner
Ryan Woods (arr. 7:08pm)
Absent: Ben Moe
Other City Officials In Attendance:
Anna Kurtzman
Guests:
Susan Kritzberg
Randy Burggraf, Pearle Vision
Art Prochaska
Maria Fisher
Verne Henne
Andrew Kolb, Bazos, Freeman, Kramer, Schuster, Vanek, & Kolb
Meeting Called to Order:
At 7:00pm the meeting was called to order by Chairman Jeff Baker.
Roll Call:
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
Previous Meeting Minutes: December 3, 2008
The minutes were approved as read on a motion and second by Bromann and Skinner
respectively. Unanimous voice vote.
Public Hearings:
1. ZBA 2008-09 Randall Burggraf,filed a petition with the City requesting relief
from Municipal Code, Sections 8-11-09, Items A-2 a&b, to allow business signs
on the rear side of a business. The address of the property is 620 and 624 W.
Veterans Parkway.
The Hearing was opened on a motion by Skinner and second by Bromann. Unanimous
voice vote.
Page 2 of 4
Chairman Baker swore in those who would speak at the Hearings.
Randy Burggraf of Pearle Vision was present and gave information for the petition. He
asked for signs on the east side of the building and said his business depended on drive-
by traffic. He stated that customers tell him they cannot find Pearle Vision and the
business has suffered as a result.
Mr. Burggraf said other Yorkville businesses have signs that are visible from major roads
and the sides of the building. The Pearle Vision property is located on an unnamed
access road, he said. The wall that faces the right-of-way is all glass and not appropriate
for a sign. Free-standing signs are not allowed due to an existing sign for other
businesses located farther down the road. He said he has not found any other businesses
with these unique circumstances. During questioning, it was noted that Burggraf wants
an illuminated sign on the east wall, however, the exact size was unknown.
When Pearle Vision began renting their offices, Mr. Burggraf said he spoke with the
building owner, Jim Ratos, who stated signs could be placed on the front and back of the
building. Since that time, Mr. Ratos told Mr. Burggraf no more signs could be erected
on the property, but suggested perhaps one could be installed to the east near some
existing pine trees. However, the trees are not on Mr. Rates' property. Chairman Baker
said he did not think a sign to the east would be appropriate or helpful as traffic would
not see it. Skinner added that the sun could actually prevent drivers from seeing the sign
and drivers would have to look far back off the road creating a dangerous situation.
Susan Kritzberg, resident to the east at 1217 Game Farm Road, read a statement opposing
any further signage. Her property is bordered on the west by the property being
discussed. The area consists of 4 acres with natural wooded and wetland areas, fishing
ponds and Blackberry Creek. It is registered as a wildlife habitat. As a property owner
and Comprehensive Plan Committee member, she is concerned with the negative impact
on the view and effect of the bright lights. She said the developers were aware of the
signage rules and the existing sign is very visible. To grant this variance would be setting
a precedent, she said. She stated later that she is totally opposed to illumination and east
wall signs, especially in view of the valuable green space.
Resident Verne Henne then spoke and presented a handout of photos and a written
objection (both to become part of minutes). In his photos, he pointed out that some of the
signs may be actually placed incorrectly on another piece of property. He said the
building is turned with its end facing Rte. 34 to be able to call it a side yard. He said
Brenart Eye Clinic and Club 47 are set this way also for maximum usage of land. He
also cited the new ordinance that does not allow signs to be illuminated after 11 pm and
said some of the signs being discussed are lit after that time. Burggraf will speak with
Ratos about turning off the lights
Mr. Henne also pointed out another Pearle Vision sign he said was clearly visible,
however, Dr. Burggraf said it was obscured by trees. He said Jim Ratos had been talking
Page 3 of 4
with the tree property owner about trimming the trees, moving them or possibly planting
others.
Resident Art Prochaska said this is the second time this petition has been presented and
the signage hardship was already present when the building was leased. He also objected
to the illumination of the east illuminated sign which is inside the building in a light-box.
Mr. Burggraf said this sign was placed inside as a stop-loss measure and was placed prior
to the revised ordinance. He stated he did not know this would become such an issue.
Maria Fisher, the owner of the property with the trees, said she and other neighbors
objected to further illumination. She has had some discussions with Ratos and offered to
talk with Burggraf also to try and reach a solution.
Chairman Baker said the Zoning Board is a recommending body only and that would
allow time for Ms. Fisher and Dr. Burggraf to talk with one another prior to the Council
meeting. He added that the issue of illumination is not in the petition; it is a request for a
sign.
The Public Hearing was then closed on a motion by Skinner and second by Bromann.
Motion approved by a unanimous voice vote.
Ms. Kurtzman reviewed the Finding of Fact and Sign Code Provisions with the Board.
Discussion:
The general consensus of the Board members was that the signage was adequate for
Pearle Vision and that safety was a concern if an east sign were to be allowed. Also
brought up was the fact that the Pearle Vision sign is the largest and that this matter is a
self-imposed hardship. In addition, Pearle Vision is the only business asking for an
additional sign.
A motion was then made by Woods to approve ZBA 2008-09 and Funkhouser seconded
the motion.
Roll call vote: Woods-nay; Bromann-nay; Skinner-nay; Clementz-nay; Funkhouser-nay;
Baker-nay. Motion failed unanimously.
This matter will move forward to the City Council meeting January 27th at 7pm.
Old Business: (Continued from December 7, 2008 meeting)
1. ZBA 2008-06 Petitioner(CVS Pharmacy)filed a petition requesting relief from
several sections of the Sign Code. The property is located at the southeast
corner of Rt. 34 and Eldamain Road.
Attorney Andrew Kolb stated that the petitioner has withdrawn the last three variance
requests. He also stated that the developer will not be moving ahead with the CVS
Page 4 of 4
Pharmacy project at this time, however, he will proceed to City Council on the requests
already recommended by ZBA. Until necessary fees are paid to the City, Mr. Kolb said
the City will not put this petition on the Council agenda.
Additional Business:
Ms. Kurtzman pointed out that her report regarding Pearle Vision was only 2 pages,
however, the information in the packet appeared lengthier. She said the additional pages
were a City Council amendment to the code regarding wind feathers.
Wind feathers were previously discussed and some of the requirements were noted by
Ms. Kurtzman. Since the Board members had additional questions, she will report back
to the committee.
There was some concern about the newly passed sign ordinance due to the Zoning Board
not being asked for input or recommendations regarding wind feathers.
Motion
Woods and Funkhouser made a joint motion to advise the City Council that ZBA is
reviewing the revised sign ordinance due to reservations and concerns regarding the
language pertaining to wind feathers, specifically: setback and height requirements,
color, size, quantity allowed. These concerns are pending a report from Ms. Kurtzman.
Bromann seconded this motion.
Roll call vote: Bromann-aye; Skinner-aye; Clementz-aye; Funkhouser-aye; Woods-aye;
Baker-aye. Unanimous approval.
In another matter, Skinner asked for City Council results of matters that have come
before ZBA and said he would like to track all petitions. Ms. Kurtzman recapped the
most recent cases.
There was no further business and a motion was made and seconded by Woods and
Skinner respectively, to adjourn the meeting.
Adjourned at 8:34pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by
Marlys Young, Minute Taker
From: Dr. Randy Burggraf Page 1 of 8
+t..- a tl (Prntl [Close]
From: "Dr. Randy Burggraf" <DrBurggraf@pvfeyecare.com>
To: <randyburg @att.net>
Subject: Variance for slgnage at 620
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 4:15:51 PM
Variance for signage at 620-624 W. Veterans
Pkwy.
Thank you for the opportunity of addressing the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
N yS iJ ( ) rec��P�in9 Fru ct� r�f� 1 /s u7 dri 7X tata�`ht�
We are requesting a variance to allow business identification
signs on the east side of our buildings at 620 and 624 W.
Veterans Pkwy.
All of our businesses depend on drive-by traffic. People need to
know who we are and where we are located. But we receive
reports all the time from people telling us that they couldn't find
us or didn't even know we were in town, even though they drive
httn://webmaii.att.net/wme/en-i 1S/v/wm/4965337B000DOBI A000070D222243429029BOA... 1/7/2009
From: Dr. Randy Burggraf Page 2 of 8
past our businesses regularly. Our businesses have suffered
greatly as a result of people being unable to locate us or know
that we're here to do business in Yorkville.
We all understand that it is imperative that businesses are readily
visible to the public. In fact, one of the 3 principles of the
Yorkville Sign Ordinance states that: The provisions of this
article recognize that: "The reasonable display of signs is
NECESSARY as a public service and NECESSARY to the
conduct of competitive commerce and industry."
The ordinance also states that: the regulation of signs by this
Article is intended to promote the public health, safety and
welfare by enhancing the economic condition of the City by
promoting reasonable, orderly and effective use and display of
signs.
We understand that any Sign Ordinance cannot take all
possible situations into consideration, and I trust that we will
provide you with valid reasons for allowing us a variation that is
reasonable and consistent with the guidelines for allowing a
variance, is consistent with the current signage already allowed to
other businesses in Yorkville, AND is consistent with the spirit of
the Sign Ordinance.
The item in the code that precludes us from automatically being
granted permits for our business identification signs is essentially
http://webmail.att.net/wmc/en-US/v/wm/4965337BOOODOElA000070D222243429029BOA... 1/7/2009
From: Dr. Randy Burggraf Page 3 of 8
the following: If you want an identification sign on a wall of
your business, that wall needs to have a public entrance.
But we have some rather unique conditions that relate to the
frontages of our buildings, and the layout of the buildings upon
the property, and I will address these as we go through the:
SPECIFIC ITEMS UNDER THE STANDARDS FOR
GRANTING A VARIANCE-
First, under Sectionl0-14-5(Zoning Code), item 1): It states
(relative to the granting of a variance):
"Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a
particular hardship to the owner (or tenants in our case) would
result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict
letter of the regulation was carried out."
IN RESPONSE TO THIS POINT-
Business on Bridge street and Veterans Pkwy, our major
thoroughfares through town, have signs on the front of their
buildings, as their entrances face the road. Many of them also
have signs on the walls that lie perpendicular to the public right-
http://webmail.att.net/wmc/en-US/v/wm/4965337BOOODOEl A000070D222243429029BOA... 1/7/2009
From: Dr. Randy Burggraf Page 4 of 8
of-way. (I've brought along pictures of a dozen examples.) But
OUR businesses, whose addresses are 600 and 624 Veterans
Pkwy, don't FACE Veterans Pkwy but face a street or access
road with no name! As it is laid out, our property runs deep
rather than wide as it extends south from Veterans Pkwy, and this
depth does not allow for any degree of front entrance visibility
except for Legends, the business that occupies the north end of
the building along Veterans Pkwy. And unlike most all other
businesses on these major roads, we can't in any reasonable or
effective way, put a sign for our businesses on the wall facing the
right-of-way for a number of reasons: First, that particular wall
is almost all glass, and there is no room to put up a building
directory sign. And as only one tenant occupies that whole side
of the building facing Veterans Pkwy, the other businesses in the
building can't have entrances on that wall and therefore are
prohibited from placing signage on Veterans Pkwy. Even if that
requirement were waived for this wall, putting up our individual
business signs there across the top of Legend's windows would
only be confusing to the public and distracting to their business.
The required landscaping trees that are there also block any
significant viewr mere is another factor that has created a
real hardship. We were not allowed to put up a free-standing
business sign at the front corner of the property by the turn-in to
our businesses because there is an existing one already there for
other businesses that are located down the access road to our
west. So we were forced to put our directory sign farther down
the hill, away from the turn-in to our businesses. And,
unfortunately, the City required so much setback to its location
that it is stuck behind large pine trees and has been rendered
totally ineffective.
http://webmail.att.net/wme/en-US/V/wm/4965337BOOODOE 1 A000070D222243429029BOA... 1/7/2009
From: Dr. Randy Burggraf Page 5 of 8
All these factors have combined to have a disastrous effect on our
businesses' exposure to the public. Yet the primary hardship is
that we cannot have our business identification signs located on
the wall of our building that faces Veterans Pkwy, and that's the
street address of our businesses.
For these reasons, we ask you to waive the public entrance
requirement and allow us to place our identification signs on our
east walls perpendicular to the right-of-way. This is consistent
with existing business all across Yorkville, who have signs
perpendicular to the�roadway and do not ye public entrances on
their walls either. ` "allow
our businesses to get reasonable exposure and VW substitute for
our inability to put building mounted identification signage on
the right-of way.
(The rest of our responses will be short!)
Item 2) The conditions upon which the petition for a variance 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.
RESPONSE-
I have driven around town numerous times looking at businesses
and their utilization of signs. I have NOT found any other
property in Yorkville with our unique layout and circumstances.
httn://webmaii.att.net/wmc/en-iJS/v/wm/4965337B000DORI AO0007OD222243429029BOA... 1/7/2009
From: Dr. Randy Burggraf Page 6 of 8
The remaining items (3,4, and 5) appear to not require a specific
response. (Item 3 was not created by Jim Ratos, our Landlord:
the CITY approved the design, layout and construction of the
property AND specified the address of the property on Veterans
Pkwy.)
In addressing Section 8-11-13 of the Variance process:
Item:
1) We are happy to comply with all the other
terms of the sign code in getting sign permits.
2) Regarding unique physical characteristics of the
property: I have already addressed the key
issues.
3) Regarding limited available locations for
signage on the property: The east side of our
buildings is the only appropriate place for our
signage.
4) The cost to the applicant in complying with the
Sign Ordinance requirements- We can't
physically make the changes necessary to put
public entrances on the east side of the
buildings. I have spoken to Mr. Dettmer about
httn://webmail.att.net/wme/en-iJS/v/wm/4965337B000DOF.1 A000070D222243429029BOA... 1/7/2009
From: Dr. Randy Burggraf Page 7 of 8
this, and he said that our current entrances on
the east side cannot qualify as public
entrances.
5) Not applicable, as the speed limit is 35mph at
our location, not 40 or higher.
6) Not applicable, as the traffic count is 17,700, or
just under 20,000 vehicle trips per day.
7) Regarding required landscaping : We do not
believe that our proposal for signage on the
east side of our buildings will be impaired by
required landscaping .
8) Our request does not include a sign that faces
the right-of-way because it is unfeasible. In its
place, we request the use of signage at the
most feasible location on our property.
Use only if needed -
(((((There are a dozen or more businesses in Yorkville that do
not meet the criteria of the sign code and yet enjoy signage on
their buildings in a manner similar or almost identical to our
request. PICTURES AND NAMES))))
http://webmail.aft.net/wmc/en-US/v/wm/4965337B000DOEIA00007OD222243429029BOA... 1/7/2009
From: Dr. Randy Burggraf Page 8 of 8
CONCLUSION-
We believe that our request for a variation to allow signage on
the east side of our buildings is consistent with the spirit of the
sign ordinance and with usages already afforded many other
businesses in Yorkville. We believe it to be a reasonable
allowance due to all the factors stated today, and we respectfully
call for your favorable decision to our request.
9) The costs that we have incurred relate to our
inability to have adequate exposure of our
businesses to the public with identification
signage. In 2008, our businesses suffered
tremendous financial hardship, with a lack of
visibility of our businesses as a key factor as a
result of the entrance requirement of the Sign
Ordinance that we are asking relief from.
((Note: I went through this process over a year
ago, trying to get the relief that we desperately
needed. ))
http://webmail.att.net/wmc/en-US/v/wm/4965337B000DOElA000070D222243429029BOA... 1/7/2009
United City of Yorkville City Clerk
City Hall ZBA 2008-09
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560 PETITIONERS:
Randall Burggraf
Jeri Antoinette
Dick Johnston
John Pappas
Kim Karras
LEGAL OBJECTION
This is a written notice of protest against the proposed sign
variance seeking identification signs on the rear of a building.
According to the Public Notice, the real property is located at
620 and 624 West Veterans Parkway, Yorkville, IL 60560.
The undersigned states that according to the Illinois Compiled
Statutes, he is the member/manager of Esmer Capital Management
Enterprises, LLC, Harvest Property Management, LLC and Pepperblend
Property Management, LLC, which constitutes more than 20% of the
frontage and is requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the United
City of Yorkville deny the variance.
—Ci
Verne L. Henric, Mcmber/Manager for
Esmer Capital Mgmt. Enterprises, LLC
Harvest Property Management, LLC
Pepperblend Property Management, LLC
Mailing Address:
PO Box 51
Yorkville, IL 60560
/' a�rE4riav
Fri
VI
r > -_
_ nuue ems. ••� . ,
�i�niCi�mou�re
It
}
C�Pt�'piVr><ALI, PRflPE551O
G2.� P1•A`LA �'FSI.
n laa.l
� OFFICE SPACE
630-269.8385
} wsrak uw�,ewc�wm
Allstate.
LffflC�l/S� '
op
ki
+crn•voy��.; fi301553-iZ00
Yark►�ikei)E1T.11, AiShling DBlGYN
® ;1�roll[ijsil 1'ml;!its Spn
-+ TQ
�
1
'57 0 �-
b
� pAtg_aouapuadepu
a
\ J nC
�'Ca C
CWT,C ] C°
I\ .N'
� CN
iS-uyo
00 mrhA m > m
D
IIr T T -�
A A °Tt 11
+ �Lc�i
f
I
r Ir n � n 0 'p +� +� AArnO1 � rn rn
D o
� A A A
1 � � am -n m
v
� 111
7 �
N
United City of Yorkville City Clerk
City Hall ZBA 2008-09
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, IL 60560 PETITIONERS:
RandallBurggrof
Jeri Antoinette
Dick Johnston
John Pappas
Kim Karras
LEGAL OBJECTION
This is a written notice of protest against the proposed sign
variance seeking identification signs on the rear of a building.
According to the Public Notice, the real property is located at
620 and 624 West Veterans Parkway, Yorkville, IL 60560.
The undersigned states that according to the Illinois Compiled
Statutes, he is the member/mana`tcr of Esorer Capital Management
Iaiterprises, LLC, Harvest Properly Management, LLC and Pepperblend
Property Management, LLC, which constitutes more than 20% of the
frontage and is requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the United
Ci(y of Yorkville deny the variance.
Verne L. Ilenne, Member/Mana`rer for
Esmer Capital Mgmt. Enterprises, LLC
Harvest Property Management I,L,C
Pepperblend Property 1♦Ianagement, LLC
Mailijw Address:
PO Box 51
Yorkville, IL 60560