I should have said the depth of the basement below grade.
Let's see.
It looks like we're almost eight feet below grade.
It looks like.
Yeah, it looks like that's the case.
That's right.
That's quite below grade.
And you're at 35 in the maximum.
We've got 38.
That's right.
I definitely have a concern with it.
that amount that depth of the basement below grade it's like lower than a grave
all right thank you well i guess my question is this i mean you know you typically have
properties below grade of this sort to give height for the ceiling so we can you know i
can talk to the architect is there well you've got you've got 30 you've got a maximum height of 38
feet and you say you've got a three three more feet you know it could be three more feet out of
out of the ground okay is that instead of the entire unit i mean for all but what a foot
below gray below gray underground gotcha so i can bring that up to the architect and obviously
discuss it with them what what is uh planned for that uh basement was it the the part of the
bi-level a unit yeah it's the living room it has the living room and dining room and kitchen
yeah it's a it's a bi-level unit that's right
i mean if the board i'm sorry if the board has any other comments i can definitely bring it back
to the architect as well i mean yeah i have a question about the the rear yard depth so
So, I mean, you were given a refusal for being, like, one and a half feet short of the requirement, and I'm trying to figure out what was the hardship that kept you from keeping that nine feet.
I think we're just trying to get nicer size bedrooms, living room, and such.
It doesn't sound like much to one and a half feet, but in the grand scheme of things, it does matter.
I mean, I can also talk to the architect about trying to be in conformance with that as well,
but we're trying to give larger bedrooms and living areas to the tenants as well.
Can you explain what was the, so I know that there were revised plans.
What was the main shift from the original submitted plans to the plans that we saw today?
The only shift was going from four units to three units because our site plan stated that
there were four units on there we as a matter of course always submit give a resubmission of the
site plan to say three units instead of four so that's the that's the only change it's technical
in nature but that's what we did sure so the depth of the building is the same even with the reduction
in unit yeah exactly we thought that having like units of a you know size of over i think it was
like 860 square feet for the for the two bedroom on the same on one level and then having over
1600 for the bi-level was a good size for the tenants so if i could if the board is saying
that they you know if if i'm hearing from the board that there may be an opportunity to reduce
the variances and the board would not object to the smaller units we can definitely i can talk
to my client i don't know that that's what i'm saying i i just was asking questions i
other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair strawberry mansion committee concerns has a hand raise i have allowed them to speak
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman and the board.
My name is Bonita Cummings, B-O-N-I-T-A-C-U-M-M-I-N-G-S.
We're affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, Ms. Cummings.
I just wanted to state my presence.
We were the coordinating RCO due to some of the difficulty in reaching some of the other RCOs as well as some being added back.
So with that and looking at this development, with some of the questions of concern that were even raised today, we asked to be able to reach out again to those RSCOs and community to really make sure that
to those RCOs and community to really make sure that the decision on this very complex property development, you know, was going to be, you know, clear to the community, you know, particularly due to several dimensional refusals.
And the property, as discussed on that day, was about four units that people are actually on the same floor as each other.
So the way that this bi-level project is put together, they're living on the same floor as each other.
And then there are these window wells that are thrown in in between hallway levels.
So it was just to mention, you know, but today, you know, they're saying that they now are considering three, which was not discussed at the public meeting.
So we will reach out. However, we won't be able to do that in December.
I know that they're reaching for a December date. There are other, you know, matters going on within the RCOs that those dates for us, you know, we can't meet those dates for this, to bring this back. And we do have to reach out to other RCOs. Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No further answer, Mr. Chair.
Okay. So, Hillary, I don't think planning should vote on this. I mean, we're not sure what's going to be left and things like that. Am I correct?
That is fine, Mr. Chair. We can schedule a resumption hearing, and if there are any additional changes, we can take additional public comment, and we'll take the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Planning, is that okay with you?
Yes, thank you.
Okay, thank you. All right. So, Alan, we're going to hold the vote on this, and we'll see what we can do about when this can be scheduled, and we'll get you back in as quick as we possibly can as concerned with the RCO2.
I appreciate it. I'll reach out to Ms. Cummings and copy the CDA and see if we can get a date that works for everyone.
All right. Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you. Have a great day.
All right.
Number 14, MI 2024-005-736-7300-Frankfurt Avenue.
Stephanie Boggs Magna is the attorney.
No RCO letter, but notice was sent to the neighbors with proof.
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I believe Andrea Solomon will be filling in for Ms. Magana this afternoon.
Thank you.
Andrea Solomon will be our attorney.
We don't have an RCO letter as of yet.
Meeting was held on the 18th before the Mayfair Civic Association.
Good afternoon, Chair Andrea Solomon from Claire Harrison.
On behalf of Lieutenant Fulton Bank and the sign company, Effective Signworks.
Counsel, could you just spell your name for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Andrea, A-N-D-R-E-A, Solomon, S-A-L-O-M-O-N.
Where are a firm that tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Fulton Bank, the tenant of the property, and Effective SignWorks is a sign company.
You stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy.
And all of your documents were submitted five days prior?
Yes, with exception of the current lease, which was submitted to the board on Monday.
Very good.
Thank you.
Could you share your screen and start your presentation?
I may.
And as an initial point, Chair, I do believe the RCO, our meeting was on Monday, and they submitted their letter of unanimous support yesterday to the board.
We don't have that, do we, Hillary?
I do not believe so.
So if you can, we'll double check, but if you can please show it as part of your presentation, that would be appreciated.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'll get right to it.
This is a fairly straightforward reduction of sign area.
As you've seen, Fulton Bank has taken over quite a few of the former Republic Bank spaces around the city.
This is a similar change from the Republic Bank to a Fulton Bank in the Mayfair community in what was formerly the Mayfair Theater.
It's been a bank for over 20 years, but we're reducing the signage and updating it to Fulton Bank from what was formerly the Mayfair Theater.
reducing the signage and updating it to Fulton Bank from what was formerly 152 square feet
to a cleaner sign that's a little bit smaller, 114 square feet.
We've submitted the package to the board. I'll start with the notice of refusal. It's a CMX 2.5
property and the refusal is due to the fact that the cmx 2.5 allows for maximum square footage of
25 square feet when the proposed signage is 114 um there's a lot of tenants on the site and so
the zoning archives are unclear until what was permitted um we're not really sure why but
Illinois asked us to come before the board in order to get this reduction of signage
before the board and approved by the board.
As I mentioned, this is a CMX 2.5 property along the Frankfurt Avenue business district.
It is quite a unique site in that it's triangular in nature and fronts Cotman Avenue,
Bryan Avenue, and it has this small frontage on Frankfort Avenue which is
where the proposed sign is going. This is an aerial image of the site where you
can see what I'm talking about. This is the proposed location of the sign, a
different aerial, and the street view of what's existing at the property. Some of
these signs have already been updated to Fulton Bank,
as you can see in the window.
Some more images of what's existing at the property now.
And the sign package, the proposed location,
let me zoom a little bit out,
just above the main entrance
on the Frankfurt Avenue frontage.
these are the plans for the sign again it's a reduction to 114 square feet from what's existing
statically illuminated wall sign um these signs are are by right but they're also being updated
to the new bank to be in line with the new bank um branding
We've also posted the property with the zoning notices on all three frontages.
This is the Frankfurt Avenue frontage, the Cotman Avenue frontage, and the Ryan Avenue frontage.
We have our application for appeal.
the project information form
are noticed to the RCO with the certificate of mailing to 38 properties within the list.
Sorry, the list is longer, but they're all mailed.
The zoning code with the variance that's requested, the current lease of the property with the
current addendum for the lease premises.
We have also included as part of our package the prior signage that was approved by this
board and find the proof of tax compliance. And finally, I have here the meeting summary from the
Mayfair Civic Association, which we're glad to report received unanimous support. The community
is really show that they're appreciative
that this tenant space is occupied
and they really see the bank here
as an asset to the community.
And with that, with me here today
are Mike Sonlin of the sign company,
Effective Sign Works,
and Mark Medicola on behalf of Fulton Bank.
And I just ask that they be promoted as panelists
so that they can adopt my statements.
so let's why don't we take the person from the bank first
okay so um mark madicola can rate can you raise your hand mark so you can be
Okay, so Mark Maticola, can you raise your hand, Mark, so you can be promoted?
I'm going to have to speak.
Mark, could you please state your full name and spell for the stenographer?
Mr. Maticola, are you available?
hello let's go yes hi could you please state your name and spell for the
all right could you state your name and spell for this uh
first name is mark m-a-r-k last name m-a-t-t-i-c-o-l-a
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counselor
Thank you, Chair. Mark, can you briefly tell us your title and what you do for the bank,
for Fulton Bank? Yes, I am the facilities manager for Fulton Bank. I've overseen this position for
26 years, and I've worked on a lot of signed projects throughout my career here, and I fully
support all of Andrea's statements regarding the signage at Mayfair. Thank you, Mark. So you saw
my presentation to the board that that is correct and it's true and accurate yes it is and you would
adopt it as your own testimony i would thanks so much i bring on your um sign person um mike
sondland if you could please raise your hand so that you can be promoted as panelists
i can speak i could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
or mike sonlin uh s-o-n-l-i-n where a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do please proceed councilman mike and you work with effective sign works is that correct
And can you tell us your title for Effective Signworks?
Sure. I'm a consultant for Effective Signworks. We work on design and branding for projects like this.
And you've been working on a few of these signage updates from Republic Bank to Fulton Bank?
26 of them over the last six months or so, yes.
And this one in particular, it's a reduction in the square footage of the existing sign.
Correct.
And you heard the rest of my presentation to the board?
And it's true and correct?
It is.
And would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Absolutely.
Thanks so much, Mike.
You're welcome.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Two brief things as a chair.
One, we were not able to locate a copy of the letter from the RCO.
So if you could please forward that to us for our records, that would be great.
The second thing is you mentioned that there were two wall signs that were included in this application.
They're not, I see the plans there, but they're not listed on the refusal.
So if the client wants them included in the application, the refusal would need to be amended to list both of them.
Even though they're by right, it just isn't included in the scope of the application.
I mean, alternately, you could file a separate application for them.
But I just wanted to note that the scope of the application of support of the board is just the one sign that needs a variance.