Village of Bartlett Zoning Board of Appeals met Nov. 7.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
M. Werden called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Roll Call
Present: M. Werden, G. Koziol, B. Bucaro, J. Banno, G. Papa, M. Sarwas and C. Deveaux
Absent:
Also Present: Roberta Grill, Planning & Development Director and Renée Hanlon, Senior Planner, Kristy Stone, Assistant Planner
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2019 meeting.
Motioned by: B. Bucaro
Seconded by: G. Koziol
Roll Call
Ayes: G. Koziol, B. Bucaro, J. Banno, G. Papa, M. Sarwas, C. Deveaux and M. Werden
Nayes: None
Abstain:
The motion carried.
(#19-12) 120 Live (120 W. Bartlett Avenue) Variations:
a) A reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces,
b) A reduction of the required open space, and
c) An increase in the maximum wall sign square footage allowance PUBLIC HEARING
The following Exhibits were presented:
Exhibit A - Picture of Sign
Exhibit B - Mail Affidavit
Exhibit C - Notification of Publication
R. Hanlon stated the first petitioners are requesting to renovate an existing building and renovate and establish a restaurant with alcohol service, outdoor dining area and also offer live entertainment. In order to do this they are required to get 3 variations. The first is a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. The second is a reduction of the required open spaces and lastly, an increase in the maximum wall signage square footage allowed. The first variation is parking. They are asking for a 94% reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces required. The zoning ordinance requires 46 off-street parking spaces to accommodate this use. There exists 3 parking spaces on the site right now and they plan to maintain those 3 parking spaces. Due to the large number of public on and off-street parking spaces in the area there should be adequate parking. We included the downtown parking utilization map in your packet, the same one that you saw when More Brew came through and the available parking spaces in the area listed.
The second variation is the reduction in the amount of zoning space. The zoning ordinance currently requires a 15% open space on lots in the downtown area. This property currently does not meet that requirement. This is a little bit more open space on the property that they do plan to improve in order to do the outdoor seating area (outdoor patio).
Lastly, they are asking for an increase in the amount of allowable wall signage. The zoning ordinance allows 1 sq ft of wall signage per 1linear ft of building width. On the front façade they allowed 22 sq ft of wall signage and they are planning for about 60 sq ft of wall signage. The variation is for the wall signage of the front faced not the rear façade. As you are all aware, the downtown overlay heard recently is making its way through process and will probably be approved by the board at the next meeting. If the downtown overlay were already approved the variation for open space for green space would not be necessary because the overlay does not require that it be set aside. The parking variation would be greatly reduced. The downtown overlay would require for this use only 8 parking spaces and the sign variation would be the same because the downtown overlay does not speak to signage. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. The petitioners are in the audience if you have any questions.
M. Werden asked if the signage will be permanent or temporary. R. Hanlon stated it is all permanent signage. J. Banno questions how does the signage size compare to other businesses in the area?
R. Hanlon we did not do an analysis of that, but I think that it is very compatible to the others in the area. The design as well is in keeping with the downtown area. R. Grill stated it appears they are trying to balance the appearance of the signage. G. Koziol agrees that larger signage is reasonable request and appropriate. B. Bucaro agrees with it being balanced and thinks it looks good. M. Werden agrees, highly visible, does not block windows. C. Deveaux agrees, looks impressive, and would be beneficial.
M. Sarwas question about parking overlay requiring 8 space. Currently they only have 3. R. Hanlon correct, they still would be required to get a variation that would be much reduced from the variation they are asking for currently. R. Hanlon asks if the 3 spots are in the back of the building. R. Hanlon correct, they are on the site plan currently existing. M. Sarwas agrees that there is also plenty of public parking available.
M. Werden asked if anyone else had any comments or questions.
M. Werden opened public hearing. No one came forward.
M. Werden asked if there were any further discussions or motions.
G. Koziol made a motion to pass along a positive recommendation to the Village Board to approve case (#19-12) 120 Live at120 W. Bartlett Avenue.
Motioned by: G. Koziol Seconded by: C. Deveaux
M. Werden closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: G. Papa, B. Bucaro, J. Banno, M. Werden, G. Koziol, M. Sarwas and C. Deveaux
Nayes: None
The motion carried.
Mike Kelly entered the Council Chambers and wished to speak on the 120 Live project.
M. Werden asked for a motion to re-open the Public Hearing for 120 Live to allow Mike Kelly to speak.
Motioned by: J. Banno Seconded by: M. Sarwas
Roll Call
Ayes: G. Papa, B. Bucaro, J. Banno, M. Werden, G. Koziol, M. Sarwas, and C. Deveaux
Nays: None
The motion carried.
M. Kelly For the record, he could not get into the building at 7:02 p.m. Concerned about the outdoor entertainment next door. Concerned about the residential next door and residence that he will be putting on top of his office, residence towards the dentist’s office, and behind it. There will be a lot of people affected by the noise and the sounds that will echo. Also would like to put on the record that he saw that the building was shut down at least twice for not having permits, but while it was shut down, they were building on it anyway every day, all day and that did not seem to mean anything. He does not think there has been zoning granted yet, but there has been a lot of work done. R. Grill what was discussed tonight was not the special use permit for the noise. Tonight they discussed the variations for the wall signage and the off-street parking, reducing the number of parking spaces and the required open space. The live entertainment is going to be discussed next Thursday at the Plan Commission. M. Kelly stated that he is concerned about the parking. He wants these people to be successful, but this is a major problem and when he built his building he was required by the village to build a parking lot in the back and it seems now if you do not have the space that is okay. When he left tonight there was no parking and something has to be done more than just 3 parking spaces in the back. R. Grill you are on the record.
Luz Alvarez stated that her concern is about the business next door having music outside and she is going to be living upstairs in an apartment that she sometimes stays in in the wintertime, but she is afraid she will not be able to sleep because of all of the noise. That is her main concern. He told her there was going to be karaoke inside and a bar outside. She thinks it will be great to have another business nearby that will bring in more people, but her only concern is about what kind of people will come on the weekends. She is concerned that it will be extremely loud and extremely late. M. Werden asks if there are earlier restrictions during the week than there are on the weekend. R. Hanlon we will be suggesting to Plan Commission next week that they place a condition on special use for live entertainment that the amplified noise on the outside of the business cease at 11:00 Monday through Saturday and at 10:00 on Sunday. The reason we came up with those is because that is consistent with our amplification ordinance. M. Werden informs L. Alvarez that this will be discussed next week. M. Werden stated you both have brought up valid concerns for people living on that block. Again, voice those next week at the hearing to have some influence and that 11:00 may be a little late during the week. L. Alvarez said, yes, she will come next week to the meeting.
M. Werden closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: G. Papa, B. Bucaro, J. Banno, M. Werden, G. Koziol, M. Sarwas and C. Deveaux
Nayes: None
The motion carried.
(#19-15) 211 Gatewood Lane Variation:
Village of Bartlett
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
November 7, 2019
To allow a six (6) foot high fence where a 4-foot high fence is permitted
PUBLIC HEARING
The following Exhibits were presented: Exhibit A - Picture of Sign
Exhibit B - Mail Affidavit
Exhibit C - Notification of Publication
Petitioner, Bozena Strozik was sworn in by M. Werden.
B. Strozik of 211 Gatewood Ln is requesting a 6 ft high fence where a 4 ft is currently allowed because they are on a corner lot by a busy street, which is Gerber and they have 2 small kids and a dog. They are requesting the 6 ft high fence 10 ft off the property line for safety and privacy. M. Werden stated that he noticed that the current fence is very close to the sidewalk. On the drawing, it appears that there will be a 10 ft setback for the taller fence. K. Stone stated that the existing 3 ft fence is up to the property line. They will be pulling the fence back 10 ft from the existing fence that is out there. M. Werden concerned about fences that are along the sidewalk where you cannot see what is on the other side. It is a very busy area there and normally this would be quite a stretch for a fence that high, but giving the traffic area, it probably is justified. According to the picture, I think it is going to be a sold fence. B. Strozik stated, yes, it is going to be a solid wood fence. M. Werden concerned about the maintenance of a wooden fence. B. Strozik stated that her husband will be very good at maintaining the fence.
M. Werden asked if there were any further questions. B. Bucaro commented that considering the committee of whole meeting on Tuesday and the discussion about changing our fence ordinance would fit in with the permanent change. K. Stone stated that the Village Board directed staff to look into possible allowing 6 ft fences in corner side yards. We did an analysis of all fence variations that we have had since 1991 and since 2002, the Zoning Board and the Village Board have approved fences as long as they are 10 ft off the property line. We felt the proposed text amendment that you will see next month is to make this a permanent change if someone has their fence set off 10 ft. from their corner side property line they could go up to 6 ft in height. B. Bucaro asks if there would be some distinction from major streets and minor streets. K. Stone for major arterials, which would be Lake St, County Farm, and Route 59, we would allow people to go up to 6 inches, because we do not want to have an area that is not being maintained. There are only 8 lots in the village that would qualify as having a corner side yard along one of those major arterials. A lot of those already have fences up to the property line. A lot of times, the developer puts those in initially instead of the homeowner having to come in at a later date. M. Sarwas agreed that this would be a great security benefit, especially with young children on such a busy street. K. Stone we also think this would make for a more uniform look. When you are going down streets, a lot of time people will have a 4 ft fence. They wanted the 6 ft fence. They did not want to go through the variance process, so they have shrubs that are almost overgrown onto the sidewalk. We think if we allow people the 6 ft fence, but have it set back further, it avoids some of those issues as well.
M. Werden opened public hearing.
M. Werden asked if the public had any other comments. No one came forward.
Mike Kelly arrived to join the meeting and stated that he was unable to enter the building because the doors were locked and wanted to make comments on 120 Live. M. Werden informs M. Kelly that the current discussion is about 211 Gatewood Ln, but he will be added to the record once the current public hearing is finished. R. Grill advised M. Kelly that there is a public hearing next Thursday, November 14 during the Plan Commission meeting.
M. Werden asked if anyone had a motion.
C. Deveaux made a motion to pass along a positive recommendation to the Village Board to approve case (#19-15) 211 Gatewood Lane.
Motioned by: C. Deveaux
Seconded by: G Papa
M. Werden closed the Public Hearing portion of the meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: G. Papa, B. Bucaro, J. Banno, M. Werden, G. Koziol, M. Sarwas and C. Deveaux
Nayes:
The motion carried.
https://www.village.bartlett.il.us/Home/ShowDocument?id=10674
Alerts Sign-up