MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF COUNTRYSIDE
HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2003

Chairman Fullmer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Secretary Lube called the roll; the following members were

PRESENT: Chairman, Richard Fullmer, Jr., Secretary Robert Lube, Mr. Frank O’Brien,

Mr. Joe Jones, Mr. Fred Fahey, Mr. Daniel Moss

ABSENT: Mr. Edward Ziemba

ALSO PRESENT: Ald. Fajdich, Ald. Conrad, Bldg. Comm..Krautstrunk, City Attorney Erik Peck

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The first order of business was approval of the Minutes of March 4, 2003. Mr. Jones moved, seconded by Mr. O’Brien, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Fullmer read the Notice of Public Hearing to consider a re-subdivision of 60 feet of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 and 4 in LaGrange Terrace Subdivision into five lots as allowed by Section 9-2-3-4, Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code and a rezoning as allowed by Section 10-5D-1, Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code in order to re-zone property from R-1 family residence to R-4 two family residence on property commonly known as 5627-5659 Madison Avenue. Applicant is Jovic Builders, 7920 Deerview Court, Burr Ridge, IL 605127. The owner is M..J. Sweeney, P.O. Box 1002, LaGrange, IL 60525.

Applicant Bob Jovic stated that he seeks re-zoning from R-1 to R-4 on property at 57^th and Madison and re-subdivision of existing land into five lots in order to build five two-flats. Mr. Jovic provided a rendering of the proposed buildings. The area is question is 49,000 square feet, 360 feet wide by 138 feet deep. He believes that these buildings will provide a transitional buffer between the commercial property on LaGrange Road and residential area on Madison St. There are many examples of this buffer type throughout the City. The sale price of these units will be in the mid $400,000 with rental if desired, of $1,100. Mr. Jovic has built numerous homes in Countryside for the past 15 years which have increased the value of neighborhoods. The minimum requirement for R-4 zoning is 65 feet frontage; required set backs are 25 feet, these units will have 30 foot setbacks with 45 feet for the rear yards. Side yards will have at least ten feet between property lines and 36 feet between each building. They will have a full basement with total square footage of 3,100 on both floors with nine foot ceilings on the first and second floors. Utilities will be separate with masonry fire places. He believes this is the best possible use for this land. He has 25 people on a waiting list.

Chairman Fullmer asked why these could not be single family homes instead of two-flats. Mr. Jovic stated that the resale value of $450-480 is more conducive to two families living in the same unit; a mother and father with adult children. Mr. Lube noted that the area in question only has light business, not heavy business with truck deliveries, etc. Mr. Lube stated that there are two homes further north on Madison and continuation of single family homes would provide the best appearance.

Diane Jovic stated that these are only tentative blue prints; they will await approval before getting final prints. Commissioners are concerned about the basement being turned into a third apartment. Mr. Jovic will eliminate basement windows and put in window wells. Mr. Lube would like to see a continuation of single family homes on the block. Chairman Fullmer asked whether Mr. Jovic would consider R-3 zoning for single family, with square footage of 7,500 and 65 foot frontage. Mr. Jovic stated there is a 16 foot driveway and two-car garage; the buildings are 34 feet wide. Mr. Moss stated that the drawing looks like a single-family house. Mrs. Jovic stated that the value for a single home is less; two-flats will sell for more than single family homes.

Resident Karen Malik, 5713 Ashland, is opposed to the plan. She stated that renters on the upper floor have no investment in the community; they are transients who come and go in a year. Mr. Patrick Dumas, 5604 Madison, presented a petition to the Commissioners signed by residents who oppose the zoning change from R-1 to R-4. He stated that Jovic is an excellent builder and builds beautiful homes but residents would like to see single family homes on those lots. This area was never meant to be a buffer zone; having five buildings in there is not the same as having five homes there. Countryside has sufficient multiple dwelling buildings; it is a balanced community today and they want it to stay that way. There is no benefit to Countryside other than permit fees; residents would like to see two nice homes on the land. Their petition is in opposition to any change in the R-1 zoning designation. Mr. Bruce Bryland, 5650 Madison, is diametrically opposed to any changes at all. The residents who live there do not want any changes. Mr. Dumas stated that residents are mainly concerned about density; the type of buildings proposed do not fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Bryland stated that these types of structures increase traffic and reduce the value of adjacent homes and are detrimental to the neighborhood as a whole. Mr. Lube suggested perhaps going to the R-2 designation, giving 75 foot frontage which would create four lots of 10,000+ square feet each.

Resident Bill Johnson, 5749 Madison, stated it is a density issue; Jovic wants to put ten families in that area; that is out of line. Mrs. Jovic stated that the City cannot control how many people live in a single family home. After discussion, Mr. Fahey moved, seconded by Mr. O’Brien, to deny the request for zoning change from R-1 to R-4. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.

Chairman Fullmer stated that this matter will come before the City Council at its Regular Meeting on April 23, 2003.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Fullmer read the Notice of Public Hearing to consider review of the sign ordinance as allowed by Section 8-5-3 of the Municipal Code to review the definitions of animated signs, chaser signs, flashing signs, reader signs, changing of the copy of a sign, bulletin board, display encasement or marquee signs, etc., referred to the PC/ZBA by Chairman Fullmer. This is a continuation of the matter with Oak Brook Bank and the electronic message board sign. Mr. Peck has reviewed this matter and provided the following information: According to the bank’s application, the PC/ZBA did not give them permission to build the sign; the application referred to the land proposal. Any sign they chose to construct had to be in conformity with City ordinances. When the statement was made that this Board approved the sign, that was incorrect. In reviewing the sign ordinance there is no prohibition on electronic billboards; it only prohibits animated signs, flashing signs, moving signs or chaser signs. While certain actions of a sign are not permitted, the sign itself is permitted.

Board members have the option to either 1) make the electronic billboard a permitted use, a special use, or strictly prohibit it; 2) put a specific time limit on pictures/words that appear – 2, 5, 10 seconds; 3) limit the size of the electronic sign. There is nothing in the City Code that makes a standard for everybody; he suggested that Board members give it some thought. Then everybody who has one of these signs would be required to comply with the ordinance; there would be no grand fathering. These signs are computerized and it is simply a matter of programming the message.

Commissioners discussed the matter. Mr. Lube believes it should be limited to one line of wording; Oak Brook Bank has 4-5 lines. He also stated that placement of the sign at low level makes it glaring to the eyes; the sign is super-bright. He suggested reducing the amount of lumens. Mr. Peck stated if the sign becomes a nuisance, the Code Enforcer could require them to tone it down. With specific language in the Code the City could better control these signs. Mr. Moss asked whether there is a State Code regarding lumens on the roadway. Mr. Peck will research that question. Certain communities disallow any moving signs.

Chairman Fullmer noted that the City can declare a total ban on electronic billboards; also it can require 10-15 second duration or have it remain fixed. Mr. Lube prefers a fixed sign with two lines maximum. Mr. Peck suggested that rather than restricting the number of lines, make it a special use and require them to apply for it and explain why it is needed. There are six requirements for special use that must be met. Mr. Moss stated that technology has changed; is the City willing to change with that technology. Mr. Lube suggested putting a time limit on existing electrical signs and provide a two-year grace period for existing signs. Mr. Krautstrunk stated that the City has a definition for reader signs in the Code – that is, “Reader Sign: Any sign which displays a message and/or pictures which appear animated or moving up, down, or across the surface of the sign.” There are four such signs in the City at present, three banks and the Toyota dealership. Members agreed that a new definition is needed.

Chairman Fullmer suggested that this matter be tabled to next month and Board members give thought to whether there should be electronic billboards within the City. He suggested that all members drive around the City and personally review existing signs. Mr. Moss believes the definition should be changed. Mr. Moss moved, seconded by Mr. O’Brien, to table this matter till next month and decide which direction to pursue. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. This matter will be tabled to the May 6, 2003 meeting.

OTHER BUSINESS

Chairman Fullmer has provided members with information on the UIC Plan Commission Certification Class. He suggested that three individuals register for the four-week class. All members have on-line access. This class involves approximately ten hours of reading per week. He will seek Council approval for funding this class at a cost of $450 per person.

Mr. Lube has done some research regarding the 15 foot garage height. He has reviewed neighboring communities, specifically Elmhurst, which allows a 20 foot garage height, but restricts the upper area to no more than 50% of the space. Technically it allows the higher roof but indirectly does not allow a flat roof because then 50% of the space is present in the lower area same as in the upper area. By restricting cubic feet by percentage in the upper area, it allows for the higher roof, but limits the size of the upper area. He has viewed certain homes which have followed that formula; this is food for thought moving forward to the 21^st Century.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to discuss, Mr. O’Brien moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

Chairman Fullmer declared the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Richard Fullmer, Jr. Chairman