Village of Tinley Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 9.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL
Zoning Board Members:
Absent Zoning Board Members:
Robert Paszczyk
James Gaskill Sr.
Donald Bettenhausen Kellie Schuch
Steven Sepessy, Chairman
Jennifer Vargas James Fritts
Village Officials and Staff:
Dan Ritter, Senior Planner
Kimberly Clarke, Planning Manager
Barbara Bennett, Commission Secretary
Guest:
John & Kim Kamphuis, Kevin Bingham
CALL TO ORDER
STEVEN SEPESSY, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman called to order the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 9, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
COMMUNICATIONS
None at this time.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the June 14, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting was presented for approval. A Motion was made by ZONING BOARD MEMBER GASKILL, seconded by ZONING BOARD MEMBER PASZCZYK, to approve the Minutes as presented. The Motion was approved by voice call. CHAIRMAN SEPESSY declared the Minutes approved.
Item #1 PUBLIC HEARING: KAMPHUIS, 16300 EVERGREEN DRIVE FENCE VARIATION
1. Consider recommending that the Village Board grant the Petitioner, John Kamphuis, a ten foot (10’) fence Variation from Section III.J. (Fence Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit a six foot (6’) tall privacy fence to extend ten feet (10’) into the required secondary front yard where a fence encroachment is not permitted on the property located at 16300 Evergreen Drive.
The Variation would allow the Petitioner to install a six-foot (6’) high privacy fence to encroach ten feet (10’) into their secondary front yard at 16300 Evergreen Drive in the R-4 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district.
A Motion was made by ZONING BOARD MEMBER BETTENHAUSEN, seconded by ZONING BOARD
MEMBER GASKILL, to open the Public Hearing of Kamphuis, 16300 Evergreen Drive, Fence Variation. The Motion was approved by voice call. CHAIRMAN SEPESSY declared the Motion approved.
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY noted that Village Staff provided confirmation that appropriate notice regarding the Public Hearing was published in the local newspaper in accordance with State law and Village requirements.
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY requested anyone present in the audience, who wished to give testimony, comment, engage in cross-examination or ask questions during the Public Hearing stand and be sworn in.
Dan Ritter, Senior Planner, gave a brief summary of why corner lot fence regulations exist, the aesthetic and safety issues that corner lot fences can cause, what the Village’s regulations are and the timeline in which the code was recently revised.
Mr. Ritter stated the Petitioner is requesting a ten foot (10’) fence Variation of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit a six foot (6’) tall privacy fence to extend ten feet (10’) into the required secondary front yard where a fence encroachment is not permitted. The Petitioner has requested the Variation due to existing landscaping and a sump pump ejector pipe being in the way of the allowable fence line and for increased security. The lot is in the R-4 zoning district. The lot exceeds the required corner lot size requirements and allows for adequate backyard space to meet the corner lot setback requirements.
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY asked the Petitioner to give a summary of his request.
Mr. John Kamphuis, Petitioner noted he was trying to avoid digging up some of the existing landscaping as well as the sump pump ejector. The larger issue is the security of the property. There is a door on the side of the house that he would like to enclose with the fence to provide added security to the home. He would like to have a six foot (6’) high fence due to the coyotes in the neighborhood being able to jump a smaller fence. He would like to get a small dog which could be in danger of a coyote getting into the yard if the fence was only four foot (4’).
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY noted the coyotes could jump over a six foot (6’) fence.
Mr. Ritter noted the site is 14,859 square feet located in the Tinley Meadows Subdivision on the southwest corner of Evergreen Drive and 163rd Street. This property meets the zoning requirements for lot width and size of a corner lot in the zoning district. It is a newer subdivision that was built between 1988 and 1990, the lot sizes were given additional lot width and size to help with the restrictions on corner lots. This prevents them from building any fences in the secondary front yard. This allows them to have the same size backyard as everyone else. The minimum lot size in the R-4 zoning is 10,000 square feet so this lot is 4,859 larger. The property previously had a six foot (6’) lattice fence that ran about one foot (1’) from the setback line of the house. The majority of properties in the subdivision do not have fences and this is especially true with the existing corner lot properties. There is one property to the west of this property that does have a Variation for a fence that backed up to a ComEd easement. If this fence is allowed it will likely cause the neighbor to request the same fence in the future.
Mr. Ritter noted there are two alternative options that would not require a variation. One would be to construct a four foot (4’) open style fence with an administrative approval. The second option would be a six (6’) fence at the setback line and move the landscaping and adjust the sump pump line if they are in the way. If these recommendations are not acceptable staff would recommend that any Variation should be reduced as much as possible. The landscaping and the pipe could be avoided with only a two foot (2’) encroachment into the secondary front yard. The side door and adding a sidewalk could be done with as little as three feet (3’).
COMMISSIONER GASKILL noted the side door being less visible behind a six foot (6’) fence could actually be a higher security risk because there is no visibility and a criminal could hide there.
Mr. Kamphuis noted he would like added privacy for his family due to the fact that they live on a busy street.
COMMISSIONER GASKILL noted the ordinance is in place because of the busy street and it having the possibility of causing a site line issue. Mr. Kamphuis replied this would not be an issue with his house due to the fact that the house sits back far enough and the road curves. There would still be at least ten feet (10’) between where the fence would sit and the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER BETTENHAUSEN noted that driveways would not be an issue because no nearby driveways are located on 163rd Street. There would be no issue with site line issues while backing out of the driveway.
Mr. Ritter noted the purpose of the open design fence code would be for the visibility and site line issue but also for the aesthetically looks better due to the consistent setbacks common along the street. The open design fence would have to be 50% open to light and air.
Kimberly Clarke, Planning Manager noted that there are other options provided by staff that can comply with the code. Staff was trying as much as possible to provide those options. It may not always be 100% to the liking of the owner but there are available code compliant options. The personal desire to have a dog is not a hardship. A four foot (4’) fence could still work and a six foot (6’) fence setback to the property line. Corner lots do have their own special requirements. Staff feels there are options available that the Petitioner can comply with.
COMMISSIONER BETTENHAUSEN asked if there was something that was modified that would be acceptable to staff and the Petitioner.
Ms. Clarke noted getting as close to the code requirement as possible would be ideal if the code could not be met.
Mr. Kamphuis noted there is a stoop that comes off the side of the house that is three (3’) feet and if he wanted to put a gate on Evergreen Drive so that is the reason he wanted the ten feet (10’).
Mr. Ritter noted maybe four feet (4’) or a maximum of five feet (5’) could work and the gate could be put further down on 163rd Street frontage. that would also leave enough room for a walkway from the stoop.
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY asked about the distance between the proposed fence and the sidewalk. Mr. Ritter replied it is fifteen (15’) and gets a few feet further away as it goes to the west. The required setback is twenty-five feet (25’).
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY asked if there was any interest in a compromise. Would he consider five foot (5’) tall semi-private fence at the requested line? Mr. Kamphuis replied that would be a compromise they could accept if it meant they would get approval. We are school teachers working in this area and the privacy is very important.
Mr. Ritter asked CHAIRMAN SEPESSY to clarify if “semi-private” meant “50% open design”. CHAIRMAN SEPESSY agreed that was what they meant.
Mr. Ritter noted landscaping could be used for additional privacy in combination with the semi-private open design fence.
A Motion was made by ZONING BOARD MEMBER PASZCZYK, seconded by ZONING BOARD MEMBER GASKILL, to close the Public Hearing. The Motion was approved by voice vote. ACTING CHAIRMAN SEPESSY, declared the Motion approved.
COMMISSIONER PASZCZYK made a motion, seconded by COMMISSIONER GASKILL to recommend that the Village Board grant a ten foot (10’) Variation to the Petitioner, John Kamphuis, from Section III.J. (Fence Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit a five foot (5’) tall 50% open design fence to extend ten feet (10’) into the required secondary front yard where a fence encroachment is not permitted at 16300 Evergreen Drive in the R-4 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district, consistent with the List of Submitted Plans as attached herein and adopt Findings of Fact as proposed by Village Staff, and as may be amended by the Zoning Board of Appeals at this meeting.”
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY asked for a vote.
AYES: PASZCZYK, BETTENHAUSEN, GASKILL, SCHUCH, CHAIRMAN SEPESSY NAYS: NONE
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY declared the Motion unanimously approved.
This will go to the Village Board on August 21, 2018.
Item #2 PUBLIC HEARING: EDW ARDS REAL TY CO., CORNERSTONE CENTRE UNIFIED SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT
1. Consider recommending that the Village Board grant the Petitioner, Kevin Bingham on behalf Edwards Realty Company, an amendment to ordinance 2001-O-023 to remove the font style and font color requirements for tenant wall and ground signage at the Cornerstone Centre properties located at 7130-7164 183rd Street and 18201-18299 Harlem Avenue.
The sign plan amendment would remove the requirements for specific font style (Rockwell) and font color (copper) to be used for tenant wall signs and ground sign panels at the Cornerstone Centre properties located at 7130-7164 183rd Street and 18201-18299 Harlem Avenue in B-3 (General Business and Commercial) and B-4 PD (Office and Service Business) zoning districts.
A Motion was made by ZONING BOARD MEMBER PASZCZYK, seconded by ZONING BOARD MEMBER GASKILL, to open the Public Hearing of Kevin Bingham, on behalf of Edwards Realty Company, Cornerstone Centre Unified Sign Plan Amendment. The Motion was approved by voice call. CHAIRMAN SEPESSY declared the Motion approved.
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY noted that Village Staff provided confirmation that appropriate notice regarding the Public Hearing was published in the local newspaper in accordance with State law and Village requirements.
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY requested anyone present in the audience, who wished to give testimony, comment, engage in cross-examination or ask questions during the Public Hearing stand and be sworn in.
Dan Ritter, Senior Planner noted this is a Unified Sign Plan amendment for Cornerstone Centre located at the northeast corner of 183rd Street and Harlem Avenue. The amendment request would remove the requirements for specific font style and font color to be used for tenant wall signs and tenant ground sign panels. All other Sign Plan requirements would remain including ground sign size and location and prohibiting box-style wall sign.
The portion of the site along Harlem Avenue was developed in 2000 and is B-4 PD (Office and Service Business, Glen Swilly/Cornerstone Centre PUD). The properties along 183rd Street which was developed in 2001 & 2002 are zoned B3 (General Business and Commercial). There is a high-quality uniform design to the shopping center with the copper on the roofs, the signage and lights. The signs at the time were required to be the same font style and same color. The only exception that was granted was that if there was a federally trademarked logo, then it could be used instead of the Rockwell font. A Unified Sign Plan is essentially a large Variation. Instead of granting many Variations with conditions, a Unified Sign Plan is drawn up that compliments the Zoning Code to regulate signage on a property. There is flexibility given, but typically there are tradeoffs to get higher quality signs with uniform design in the signs in exchange for that flexibility.
The Petitioner is the property owner/manager of the property. A tenant came in that wanted to put up a wall sign that was not out of line with what was already there. The sign plan was hidden and has not enforced since 2007. Since that time there has been tenant turnover and the plan has not been enforced. There are a couple of existing signs that are the original signs, but the majority of existing signs do not comply with the existing Sign Plan regulations. With the new tenants going forward, the knowledge that the zoning requirements are in place would hurt the property’s marketability. Tenants are looking to put up their sign with their own colors and branding, not wanting to do the copper color or Rockwell font. The Petitioner has requested removing those requirements. The sign plan will still be in effect to regulate the ground sign locations and matching background on the sign panels as required by the Zoning Code. Going forward the Petitioner has agreed to use white panel backgrounds. Eventually, the ground signs panels will all have a uniform background.
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY asked the Petitioner for his comments.
Mr. Bingham noted the sign code has not been enforced since 2007 and his company took over management in 2011 and purchased it from the Bank in 2012. At that time the center was 70% vacant. With the sign restrictions, most of the tenants would not have moved in. because the color blends in with the building facade. Moving forward he cannot ask the tenants to change their signs. In the future, they will make sure there are high quality signs with individual letters that are flush mounted. Raceways and box signs will not be used. The ground signs will be a uniform white panel background with their tenant branding. With the neighboring properties not having similar sign restrictions puts them at a disadvantage. To stay competitive in a difficult retail market they stay competitive on lease rates, which is hard because other properties are mixed-use, and his taxes are at least two times higher than those properties. If he tells them they cannot use their colors and branding, they will not want to move in to their center.
COMMISSIONER GASKILL asked if there have been any complaints about the signs. Mr. Ritter replied there have been no known complaints with the signage or shopping center condition.
A Motion was made by ZONING BOARD MEMBER GASKILL, seconded by ZONING BOARD MEMBER PASZCZYK, to close the Public Hearing. The Motion was approved by voice vote. CHAIRMAN SEPESSY, declared the Motion approved.
COMMISSIONER PASZCZYK made a motion, seconded by COMMISSIONER GASKILL to recommend that the Village Board grant the Petitioner, Kevin Bingham on behalf Edwards Realty Company, an amendment to ordinance 2001-O-023, to remove the font style and font color requirements for wall and ground signage, found in sign plan Sections 4.C, 4.D, 5.E, 6.B, 6.D, at the Cornerstone Centre properties located at 7130-7164 183rd Street and 18201-18299 Harlem Avenue, consistent with the List of Submitted Plans as attached herein and adopt Findings of Fact submitted by the Applicant and as proposed by Village Staff, and as may be amended by the Zoning Board of Appeals at this meeting.”
STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION
Section X.G.4. of the Zoning Ordinance states the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not recommend a Variation of the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance unless it shall have made Findings of Fact, based upon the evidence presented for each of the Standards for Variations listed below. The Zoning Board of Appeals must provide findings for the first three standards; the remaining standards are provided to help the Zoning Board of Appeals further analyze the request. Staff prepared draft responses for the Findings of Fact below.
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the district in which it is located.
a. The amended Unified Sign Plan will allow more freedom for tenants to use their logos and branding similar to other commercial properties within the Village. Without these allowances, tenants may go to other properties or outside of the Village. The Plan still holds the property to a high aesthetic and quality standards.
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
a. The font style and color requirements have rarely been required by the Village in other developments. The subject property’s Unified Sign Plan has not been enforced recently and many of the existing signs are not compliant with the plan.
3. The Variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
a. Staff could not find any other commercial centers in the area with requirements for font style and color associated with their properties. Wall signs and ground sign panels will have the same requirements as other commercial properties throughout the Village. All other sign and aesthetic regulations will remain in place on the property.
4. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall also, in making its determination whether there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, take into consideration the extent to which the following facts favorable to the Petitioner have been established by the evidence:
a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out;
b. The conditions upon which the petition for a Variation is based would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification;
c. The purpose of the Variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property;
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by the owner of the property, or by a previous owner;
e. 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; and
f. The proposed Variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY asked for a vote.
AYES: PASZCZYK, BETTENHAUSEN, GASKILL, SCHUCH, CHAIRMAN SEPESSY NAYS: NONE
CHAIRMAN SEPESSY declared the Motion unanimously approved.
This will go to the Village Board on August 21, 2018.
GOOD OF THE ORDER:
Ms. Clarke noted:
1. The Boulevard at Central Station (South Street) will go before the Plan Commission for a workshop on August 16, 2018.
2. The former Kia has been approved for a Land Rover/Jaguar dealership.
3. There will be a Public Hearing at Plan Commission on the SIP Wine Bar in the old attic door building on August 16, 2018.
4. Working on the coordination of the North Street Plaza and hopefully putting shovels in the ground in spring 2019.
5. Welcome and thank you to the new Commissioner Kellie Schuch.
6. The next ZBA Meeting will be on August 23, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. and has an item.
RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
None at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, a Motion was made by ZONING BOARD MEMBER BETTENHAUSEN, seconded by ZONING BOARD MEMBER GASKILL, to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of August 9, 2018 at 8:19 p.m. The Motion was unanimously approved by voice call. CHAIRMAN STEVEN SEPESSY declared the meeting adjourned.
file:///Users/socimoabella/Downloads/ZBA%20Minutes%2020180809%20-%20Final%20Approved.pdf
Alerts Sign-up