Roll Call

Secretary Lube called the Roll of Members physically present as follows:

PRESENT: Chairman Richard Fullmer, Jr., Secretary Robert Lube, Michael Anderson, Tina Grotzke, Marco Gutierrez, Crecencio Gonzalez IV, Bryon Bednar, Ronald Ward

Also Present: Attorney Peck, Zoning Administrator Kimberly Clarke

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

The minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2015 were previously distributed to the Board Members. Chairman Fullmer asked if there were any corrections to be made to said minutes. There being no corrections or additions, motion made to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2015.

A motion was made by Mr. Gonzalez, seconded by Ms. Grotzke that this matter be APPROVED.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS

Chairman Fullmer stated the Rules of Proceeding for the hearing before the Plan Commission – Zoning Board of Appeals will follow a strict order of presentation. A sign-in sheet for interested persons addressing the Board is located at the podium. This hearing is being recorded. Please silence all cell phones and pagers.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Public Hearing – Case # 18575-V – 6150 Joliet Rroad – A public hearing published in The Doings to grant a variance to permit the construction of a monument sign that will exceed the maximum height and square footage of display area.

Mr. Lube moved to open the Public Hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Bednar and carried by unanimous voice vote. The Applicant, Tom Bernstein is not available. Russ Nicoletti appeared on behalf of Local 150, and was sworn in by Chairman Fullmer. Proofs of Notice were received by the Building Department.

Zoning Administrator Ms. Clarke presented the Staff Report. She stated that Local 150 is requesting a variance from the sign code to permit the construction of a monument sign that exceeds the maximum height and allowable display area. The entire Local 150 campus has updated all their signs. This Pension Fund monument sign is the last to be upgraded to complement the other signs on the campus. The City previously approved several variances and two special use permits for LED signs on the campus.

Their proposal shows a nine-foot high double-face sign with a width of 16’x6.5; the size makes it more readable from the street. The location is setback 16 feet from the roadway. This sign will replicate the faces of other existing signs and will be an improvement to the overall campus. Photos of the existing sign, plus the new double-sided, internally illuminated sign are displayed. Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variances.

Mr. Russ Nicolletti stated that this is all part of the Local 150 campus area – they are seeking uniformity. The sign is actually slightly taller but is the same width as the existing sign with smaller LED lights – and will definitely complement the corner very well. The size and scale of this particular sign is in proportion to the surrounding property and its existing buildings. If the sign adhered to the current ordinance measurements it would be too small and difficult to read from the street.

Mr. Lube asked about the LED lights – they will be inside the cabinet, with a backlit acrylic face that matches the other signs. The sign will be situated in the same exact location as the current sign. There is approximately 30 underneath the sign to allow for visibility at the corner. Board members commented that the existing signs are very rich looking. There were no other questions from Board members or comments from Interested Parties. There was no closing statement by the Applicant. Mr. Gutierrez moved to close this portion of the evidentiary hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Gonzalez and carried by unanimous voice vote.

Attorney Peck identified Petitioner’s Exhibit A as the group exhibit of three documents presented by Infinity Communications Group showing the sign size and location. This is a recommendation to approve a sign variance to exceed the height of 6′, to allow the construction of a free-standing monument sign 9′ in height and to exceed the maximum allowable sign area of 65 s.f. to 104 s.f. on the property commonly known as 6150 Joliet Road all in substantial conformity with Petitioner’s Exhibit A.

Chairman Fullmer stated that this matter will come before the City Council on August 26, 2015.

A motion was made by Mr. Lube, seconded by Mr. Bednar that this matter be APPROVED.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

2. Public Hearing Case # 2015-1 – TA Section 10-2-13: Fences – A public hearing published in The Doings to amend the City of Countryside Zoning Code regulating fences.

Mr. Lube moved to open the public hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Gonzalez and carried by unanimous voice vote. Z A Ms. Clarke presented the Staff report. A recent variance request for a fence heard at the June Plan commission meeting prompted discussion re: amending the zoning code for fences. Staff has prepared a report identifying how the fence height for corner side yards could be amended. Staff suggests amending the height for corner side yard fences to be increased from three feet to four feet. Corner lots have stricter regulations due to visibility concerns at the intersection. Restricting fences on corner side lots to a minimum height and open design is a common regulation. Staff still recommends limiting the height of fences in the front yard to three feet; also, using landscaping as fencing needs to be further clarified. How does one designate the front of the home -usually where the front door or the address is located; this must be ascertained on a case-by-case basis.

Attachment 1 discusses previous ordinances and the history of regulating fences in the Building Code. Attachment 2 lists the regulations adopted by surrounding communities. There was general discussion regarding the types of fences – the degree of openness of the fence – greater than 50% – whether cyclone fences are permitted – with or without slats – and the need to amend the definition to fit City criteria. Ms. Clarke noted that a wrought iron picket style fence is an example of an appropriate style of fence for the front yard. This is both an esthetics issue and a visibility issue. The side yard and the back yard are one and the same on a corner lot; that leaves many unanswered questions. Attorney Peck suggested that Ms. Clarke provide examples of the types of open fences allowed along with a specific definition. Chairman Fullmer suggested that this matter be continued to next month to gather further information.

A motion was made by Mr. Lube, seconded by Ms. Grotzke that this matter be CONTINUED TO NEXT MONTH. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

3. Public Hearing Case # 2015-2 – TA – Section 10-10-3: Off-Street Parking – A public hearing published in The Doings to amend the City of Countryside Zoning Code regulating off-street parking.

Ms. Grotzke moved to open the public hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Lube and carried by unanimous voice vote. Z A Ms. Clarke presented the Staff report. Staff if seeking direction re: parking of small utility trailers for both recreational and business use on residential properties. Clearer language regulating the use of such trailers is needed. Staff recommends placing a size limit to the type of utility trailer that can be stored in a rear yard or side yard of a residence as long as it is screened. A complaint was lodged regarding such a trailer as being visible over the fencing in the side yard. Currently utility trailers must be in the side or rear yard, screened or in a garage. Mr. Anderson stated that commercial vehicles should never be parked on residential property.

Ms. Clarke provided Exhibit A, Existing Regulations and Exhibit B, Proposed Amendment with a photo of the type of trailer under discussion. The definition states that a utility trailer is an unpowered vehicle pulled or towed by a powered vehicle such as a car or truck. The trailer has wheels and can be built as a flatbed open-air trailer or an enclosed trailer with shelving units or specialty equipment built in. This type of trailer is meant to haul equipment either for recreational or business use. Board members had extensive discussion re: what constitutes a travel trailer – technically a unit that is hauled by another vehicle. Ms. Clarke read aloud the current definitions in the Zoning Code. Is a specific height limitation needed? Attorney Peck suggested that the City wishes to prohibit commercial utility trailers; a recreational utility trailers is permitted if it does not exceed six feet in height. Mr. Anderson stated it should not be defined by use. Mr. Gutierrez agrees that the City cannot regulate use. Ms. Grotzke is opposed to affecting the livelihood of residents by strictly regulating these vehicles; some leeway is required. Ms. Clarke read several current definitions that are currently listed in the City Code. Mr. Gonzalez agreed that an enclosed trailer must be screened or garaged. Also is the matter of an approved surface on which it is parked. Chairman Fullmer stated that enclosed trailers must be garaged. Ms. Clarke will discuss the matter with Mr. Peck and come up with suitable language. A utility trailer is not an allowed vehicle and must be screened or garaged on an approved surface – suggestion made to identify use by specific definition.

A motion was made by Mr. Gonzalez, seconded by Ms. Grotzke that this matter be CONTINUED TO NEXT MONTH. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

4. Public Hearing Case # 2015-3-TA – Section 8-5-9: Permitted Signs in Business Zoning District – A public hearing published in The Doings to amend the City of Countryside Municipal Code regulating electronic message board signs.

Ms. Clarke stated that Staff was directed by the Infrastructure Committee to suggest amendments to the sign code, specifically those regulating electronic /LED signs. The goal is to establish design criteria reflecting the needs of businesses while enhancing the physical appearance of the City. The Infrastructure Committee also suggested removing the special use requirement for LED signs. Technology has improved over the last five years and existing signs have proven to not be detrimental to the physical appearance of the City. Staff recommends removing the requirement for LED signs to be permitted by a special use if certain design standards are met: those are decrease the intervals to ten seconds; increase the allowable display area to 50% of the sign; allow full color and to limit the use of electronic/ LED signs to monument signs only.

Exhibit A lists the existing regulations for LED signs indicating that the size cannot exceed 20 s.f. or 50% of the sign. The new regulation limits LEDs to monument signs, which are 65 s.f. of display area, so it would be 50% of that area. Sign usage is limited to hours of operation. Chairman Fullmer asked Mr. Nicoletti to provide a distinction between electronic message boards and LED signs. The new sign at Local 150 is an LED sign, which is different than message board signs. Ms. Clarke stated that what is being discussed tonight is specifically the message board sign portion – but the way it is written in City Code states electronic/LED signs.

Mr. Nicoletti stated that the Super Deals sign has LED lights going around the window. LED lights are being used inside the window. The sign approved for Local 150 earlier tonight is all LED lights. He stated that Ms. Clarke is really referring to an EMC – electronic message center – that is the reader board sign. EMCs run by LED lights, but to distinguish between the two, it could be an EMC or a reader board. Chairman Fullmer asked about signs that change the entire message in an instant, like on huge billboards — that is an EMC sign. In that case the entire sign is an EMC sign and is cost prohibitive. A message board sign is not an LED sign – a message board changes every ten minutes or six times an hour; it cannot scroll, blink or flash.

An electronic message board would not require a special use if the use complies with the new regulations shown in Exhibit B. Chairman Fullmer asked Ms. Clarke to return next month with a true definition of EMC – to seek input from Mr. Peck and Mr. Nicoletti to get the proper terminology used in the industry. Mr. Peck asked for a minimum threshold EMC to establish a quality sign; a level should be established for the City. Mr. Nicoletti stated that the pitch is the size of the lights – general discussion re: pixels, nits, matrix, lumens and pitch – the size of the lights — 25 mm is unclear, while 16 mm is a nice picture; it can go down to 6 mm bulb. The new Capri sign is 16 mm – looks like a photograph. The City needs a true definition to help control brightness, – photo sensors adjust lights for day / night illumination or set on a timer. Mr. Lube suggested specifying minimum pixel distance in the definition.

A motion was made by Mr. Gonzalez, seconded by Mr. Lube that this matter be CONTINUED TO NEXT MONTH. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8 Fullmer, Lube, Anderson, Gutierrez, Grotzke, Gonzalez, Bednar, Ward

Nay: 0

OTHER BUSINESS

Chairman Fullmer asked Ms. Clarke to discuss requests for donation containers which are a special use in the commercial and manufacturing districts. Board members believe that this topic was addressed earlier and that donation boxes were prohibited; they were removed from Countryside Plaza with extra effort on the part of Mr. Peck. Ms. Clarke stated that an ordinance change made them a special use in B-1. Board members agree they are ugly and unsightly – in the City Code they are allowed in B-1.

This request box includes a leased PODS container next to it that is manned by the charity during operational hours, to be placed at Tony’s Finer Foods parking lot. Mr. Lube stated that the City wishes to eliminate these boxes. Chairman Fullmer stated that the Board wishes to keep them out entirely – board members agree wholeheartedly. Ms. Clarke stated that the current owners are listed as SAVERS THRIFT SHOP – it would involve a flat fee based on weight for whatever is collected. They use the name of the charity only for donation purposes. Board members are not interested in pursuing this matter.

Ms. Clarke stated that the Achievement Center will be returning next month to provide an update on their operations – this was included in the original petition – a review in six months. There have been no complaints regarding their operation.

OLD AND NEW BUSINESS

Attorney Peck stated that he has researched the cellular antenna request brought up last month – regarding a huge dead zone within the City. Is the City compelled to provide access for an antenna per FCC Rules & Regulations. There is no definite requirement. This request was for an antenna to be placed on the roof of the Holiday Inn Hotel, which would be camouflaged so that it is practically invisible. The City could require a special use to control the location. The only problem is that it will be placed on a private business and not on public property; he asked that board members consider the request, zone it as a special use and put restrictions on it. The City cannot be compelled to do anything but it may be in the City’s best interest to consider it. Ms. Clarke asked whether to consider a text amendment limiting placement of roof top antennas to M-1 and M-2 districts only. Mr. Anderson believes it would open up the issue to an avalanche of other companies seeking the same relief. Have they considered placing antennas on expressway light standards? Ms. Clarke stated that antennas may not be placed on utility poles in the City; that is a special use.

ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made by Ms. Grotzke, seconded by Mr. Gonzalez that this meeting be ADJOURNED. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 8

Nay: 0

Chairman Fullmer declared the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

APPROVED : 9-1-2015

Respectfully Submitted,

/fp RICHARD FULLMER, JR., CHAIRMAN