Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991-06-04 ZBA minitesPLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE: June 4, 1991 AT: Village Hall COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Simmons, Vice-Chairman Sobkoviak, M. Krippel, W. Schempf, D. Narris, H. Bayer, T. Consola. ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Planner K. Dania, Secretary Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order at 9:56 p.m. Roll call was taken. All members were present. Case No. 304-5291V Jeffrey and Carolyn Dement Requesting variance from sign setback requirements to allow a ground sign at a setback of less than one foot where 5 feet is now the minimum required. Location: 101 S. Division St. Mr. Waldock reported a site plan was approved for the subject site on November 26, 1990. The project involves reconstruction of a retail shopping center destroyed by the August 28, 1990 tornado. Applicants are proposing to construct aground sign to identify their shopping center. The sign is proposed for the northwest corner of the lot. The plans-show the sign to be placed back five feet from the north property line and within one foot of the west property line. The applicants list the hardship related to loss of parking. The sign, as proposed, is placed in the location of a previously existing sign which was destroyed by the tornado. The proposed sign would provide a 40 ft. setback from the edge of Route 59 pavement. Findings of staff are as follows: 1. The sign, as proposed, will not interfere with traffic sight lines and visibility. 2. The variance, if approved as requested, would not cause a negative impact on surrounding properties. 3. The sign placement is consistent with a previous ground sign lost to the August 28th tornado. Staff recommends approval of the sign setback variance. Petitioner, Carolyn Dement, was duly sworn. PLATNFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 4, 1991 Page Two Discussion followed regarding what impact not granting a variance would have on parking. There would be loss of parking if variance is not granted. Chairman Simmons commented that when we grant a variance there generally has to be a hardship. He questioned if we are loosening the reins and granting variances too easily. Ms. Dement stated that when she brought the site plan in originally it was her mistake to plan on putting the sign back where it originally was without further checking into all the new ordinances. She sought IDOT permission to make some alterations in the lot which took over six months. If she had to go through that procedure again it would put a hold on everything. J. Sobkoviak commented that part of the hardship is due to the tornado. Mr. Waldock stated that had a significant influence on his. recommendation. Mr. Waldock stated he agrees this case is a self-made hardship. The hardship in this case is a result of the design of the site plan which does not allow enough room for the sign to meet the ordinance. But this does not necessarily mean that the variance still is not justified for other reasons. Chairman Simmons stated his major concern is that if we get into Court battle, have we been consistent, have we made hardship shown. W. Schempf moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of the sign setback variance for 101 S. Division Street as requested. Seconded by J. Sobkoviak. Vote by roll call. Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes; Schempf, yes; Norris, yes; Bayer, yes; Consola, yes; Simmons, yes. 7 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. Case No. 306-5791V Golden Development Requesting variance for temporary sign standards to allow a 160 sq. ft. sign where 32 sq. ft. is the maximum allowable. Location: Northwest corner of Route 59 and 135th Street. Applicants desire to erect a 160 sq. ft. subdivision marketing sign which will be used in the sale of lots. They have listed hardships related to unusual configuration of their development site. The subdivision entrance is a considerable distance from Route 59. They also list traffic and traffic speeds as hardship which require a larger sign to compensate for speed and distance. The sign would be temporary - approximately 18 months. PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 4, 1991 Page Three Findings are as follows: 1. Traffic and traffic speeds along with distance to site entrance cause hardships. 2. The sign is temporary and will not be needed for more than two years. 3. The variance, if granted., would not cause a negative impact on adjoining property. Staff recommends approval. Chairman Simmons suggested our new sign ordinance should have something in it for subdivisions where a temporary sign would automatically grant a larger sign subject to staff's approval. The-Board agreed. these types of requests should not have to come before the Board. Ms. Norris asked if the commercial area is developed, will this sign be affected in any way. Mr. Paul Giusti, Developer, stated that if the commercial area is developed ..and that developer asked him to remove the sign he would have to move it. It is part of his sales agreement. J. Sobkoviak moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of the sign variance for Golden Development to permit a 160 sq. ft. sign at Route 59 and 135th Street for a period of 18 months. Seconded by M. Krippel. Vote by roll call. Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes; Schempf, yes; Norris, yes; Bayer, yes; Consola, yes; Simmons, yes. 7 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. Case No. 308-5991V Gary Slaybaugh Requesting variance from zoning regulations to allow the reconstruction of a non-conforming deck at a setback of 4.5 ft. where 10 ft. is required. Location: 714 N. Center Street. Applicants wish to construct a new wooden deck to replace an old damaged concrete deck located on the north side of their house. Presently the deck now is at 4.5 ft. from the property line. The new wooden deck would extend around the back of the building. The design and landscaping are tasteful and are felt to be an asset to the property. PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 4, 1991 Page Four Findings are as follows: 1. The variance, if granted, would not decrease the, setback of an existing non-conforming deck on site. 2. The variance, if granted, would not provide a negative impact on adjoining property. 3. The expansion of the existing non-conforming deck is part of an overall home improvement and landscaping plan for an existing home with limited alternatives for deck placement. Staff recommends approval. Petitioner, Gary Slaybaugh, was duly sworn. Ms. Norris stated she talked to the neighbor to the north who said-.they are impressed with what Mr. Slaybaugh has done with the house and have no objection to the proposed. deck. No objectioners were present, nor were any written objections received. W. Schempf moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of the setback variance as requested by Gary Slaybaugh at 714 N. Center Street. Seconded by J. Sobkoviak. Vote by roll call. Krippel, yes; Sobkoviak, yes; Schempf, yes; Norris, yes; Bayer, yes; Consola, yes; Simmons, yes. 7 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. Adjourn: 10:45 p.m. Kay ~'ar~ia, Secretary