HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991-10-01 ZBA minutesPLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE: October 1, 1991 AT: Village Hall
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Sobkoviak, D. Norris, H. Bayer,
T. Consola, W. Schempf.
ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner
K. Dania, Secretary
Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll call was taken. M. Krippel was absent.
Case No. 328-82891V Steven and Julie Puntney
Requesting sign variation to allow a 42 sq. ft. sign where 38 sq. ft.
is the maximum allowed by ordinance.
Mr. Waldock summarized his report to the
Applicants propose to operate a Subway S.
Village Square Shopping Center at 101 S.
have leased a corner location, therefore
allow this unit to have two wall mounted
there is a total facade frontage of 80.5
frontage is 46.5 ft. along Robert Avenue
Board as follows:
~ndwich Shop at the
Division Street. They
the Sign Ordinance would
signs. Site plan indicates
sq. ft. Approximate:_facade
and 34 ft. facing Route 59.
Applicants have received a sign permit for a 27 sq. ft. sign and
a 42 sq. ft. sign. The structure is new construction. Applicants
state they are seeking the variation to allow a symmetry of signage.
They feel due to traffic along Rt. 59 the extra size of the sign is
needed. Their application states they are basically off by 4 ft.
above the total square footage requirement for their facade area.
This afternoon, applicants stated to staff they.-are :in the process
of recalculating the total square footage of their sign face. Anew
calculation may result in a more favorable position in comparison
to the ordinance.
Mr. Waldock then discussed the provision of the Sign Ordinance for
Wall Signs. The subject site has a large mansard-type roof which
allows -tall lettered signage. This site would be eligible for a sign
up to 46.5 sq. ft. on Robert Avenue, and on the Route 59 side 34 sq. ft.
of total signage area. Applicants desire to put up two signs, each
of 42 sq. ft.
Unique hardship may result in a property. owner not being able to
fully utilize his or her property. This request,:__if approved, would
not pose negative impacts on surrounding properties, but staff
cannot find unique condition or undue hardship in this case.
..............
PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 1, 1991
Page Two
Findings are as follows:
1. The variance, if granted., would not cause negative
impacts on surrounding properties.
2. The subject site does not provide unique conditions as
to lot area, configuration or layout.
3. The enforcement of the ordinance in this case would not
pose undue hardship on the applicants making their site
unusable.
Staff recommends denial of the variation.
Petitioner, Steven J. Puntney was duly sworn.
Mr. Puntney stated the signs come from Subway franchise standards.
He has received one of the signs and realized there is a lot of
wasted space which the sign actually did not cover the fascia of
the building. He learned that this could be subtracted out through
measuring of the actual sign. In reviewing this, he is asking
for a continuance while either an architect or sign professional
makes a determination.
Discussion followed on the measurement classification the applicant
is depicting.
Mr. Puntney stated that after recalculating the sign measurements
and find that they would fa11 into the square footage allowable,
there is still one more interpretation needed by the Zoning Board of
Appeals. He referred to the Sign Ordinance., Page 6, "Wall Signs".
Nos. 1 and 3 do not mention whether you can add the two fascias
together and then divide by two. The large fascia is on Roberts Road
which is a secondary road. The primary fascia is on Route 59 which
applicant feels is the most important, with too few square feet
to put even a 24" sign let alone a 30" sign. He feels this would be
a hardship in that his primary vantage for customers has the shortest
fascia. He would ask to borrow fascia length from the secondary
road and assert it to the primary road. Basically, he is asking to
add the two linear lengths and divide by two for the two signs.
Hardship is the shorter fascia is on the primary road - Route 59.
A short discussion followed regarding the shopping center and
signage for other lessees. H. Bayer commented that from a sign
standpoint, the building does stand out. It is highly visible.
The Board had no problem in continuing this hearing as requested
by the applicant.
PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 1, 1991
Page Three
Mr. Waldock stated at the next meeting we will be hearing a
full presentation from the applicants. If the new information
results in a change of the staff report, that will be presented
also. Assuming that the calculations are going to come in below
the 80.5 sq. ft. maximum allowed, the Zoning Board of Appeals
will be asked for an interpretation on the total fascia frontage
divided by two as requested by the applicant.
H. Bayer moved to continue this hearing to the October 15th meeting.
Seconded by W. Schempf. Vote by roll call.
Norris, yes; Bayer, yes; Consola, yes; Schempf, yes; Sobkoviak, yes.
5 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
Adjourn: 8:00 p.m.
Kay Jan a, ecretary