Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1985-06-04 minutesDATE: June 4, 1985 PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION AND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES - 7:30 p.m. PRESENT:' Arlo Simmons, Chairman Herb Bayer, Vice-Chairman Don Pe4r5on,,,, Member Jim Anderson; Member Rich Neely, Member Phil Bonnelli, Member Walt Schempf, Member Steve Manning, Planner Mary Latta, President Dale Gullicksen, Trustee Liason Bob Russ, Ex-Officio Gene Cline, Ex-Officio ABSENT: John Myers, Ex-Officio Township Avon Arbo, Ex-officio School Sig Hjemvick, Ex-Officio, Fire Introductions were made for Walter'l.S-chempf, who was recently appointed as a Regular Member and Steve Manning, who was re- cently hired as a part-time planner to the Village. Case No. 135 Watson-Larson Townhouses Appearing for the Petitioner Jbhn.Larson was�Mrs..Lenette Watson and Mr. Dennis Watson. Mr. Watson - Last fall we received have zoning changed on this lot at A-2. At that time we presented thi unit townhouse with parking in the tonight. The odd shape of the lot put parking in the rear. from the Village approval to 706 W. Main Street from A to a same site plan of a four front that we are showing makes it very difficult to Mrs. Watson - We think our plan is good because there would be less driveway to build and the yard space in the back would be more private. Neely - Did you consider any alternative layouts? Watson - Yes and we think we found the best one. I have not had much time to study Mr. Manning's plan but I see he shows a 30' front setback. I thought 40' was required. Simmons - The Zoning ordinance calls for 301 minimum in A-2 or the same setback as buildings-within'601 of-�6ither side if they are setback 30' to 40'. Manning - I have drawn two alternative site plans to show that it is possible to locate a building the size proposed by Watson Zoning Board of Appeals/Plan Commission Page Two June 4, 1985 on this site and satify all setback requirements and still have parking in the rear. Neely - The cost of putting in a driveway to the rear of the property is not reason enough alone to grant a variation. Bonnelli - Would the parking area you show in front of the building be all paved? Watson - Yes. Bonnelli - Then it looks like there is just as much blacktop on your plan as on Mr.. Manning's alternative. Watson - Our architect saw the advantage of parking in the front as it would be next to the parking area of the 2 unit building to the east. Also the side and rear of the building would be left as a landscaped yard, which would be next to the yards of the adjacent lots. There also is a 2 unit building across Main Street with parking infront. Neely - We also have to consider how parking in front will affect the aesthetics of appearance of the area, of how it will be seen by neighbors. Can the bTtilding in Mr. Manning's alternative be angled to provide more side yard? Manning - Yes. Cline - I own the house just to the west of this site and I see advantages to having parking in the front. Simmons - The purpose of the ZBA is to give relief to the ordinances in cases of hardship. You understand though, we have to look at the precedent being set. If we give you parking in front, the next guy has the right to the same thing. The prohibition against parking in front is kind of severe but the intent is to prevent a Chicago type situation where there would be too many cars parked every where. Mr. Watson, are you willing to try to work with staff and come up with a new design? Watson - We would like to stay with our plan because it has two extra parking spaces - 12 instead of 10 -'and an extra setback -401 instead of 30' - and easier access to the parking spaces. Gullicksen - Were the Watson's advised when they were given the rezoning that parking in front was okay? Simmons- They were asked to come back for a request for variation. Zoning Board of Appeals/Plan Commission Page three June 4, 1985 Neely - I don't see your hardship where you have to have the parking in front to get four units on the lot. The benefit of having a private backyard only benefits four families living on the lot, not the people living next door or across the street, who have to look at your parking. Schempf - Since Mr. Cline does not object, neither do I. Pearson- Have you talked to any other people in the area? Watson - No. Russ - I would think that parking in front would lessen the value of the property. Watson - I think that having more backyard, would increase the value. Neely - I think granting this variance sets a bad precedent. Bonnelli'moved and Pearson seconded to grant the variance of allowing parking in front of the townhouse building as shown on your'plan. Ayes: Bonnelli, Pearson, Schempf, Simmons Nays: Anderson, Neely, Bayer Motion passed. Simmons - I vote in favor because when the Watsons presented their plan at the rezoning hearing, the Plan Commission pretty much agreed to the layout. Case No. 136 Pride Petroleum Thomas Hughes, President of Pride Petroleum Company, was in attendence - I have brought a sketch of what the sign should look like. I would be 6' x 61 with changable numbers. You should have a plan that shows the spot where I would like to put it, next to the * far driveway on Route 59. 1 would take down the tall "Pride" sign because it is obsolete, difficult to get to change the numbers. I will junk it unless the Village wants it. Simmons - our sign ordinance is not,the best, we know we have problems, especially with enforcement, but it is what we have to use now. Pearson - I see two free standing signs on the site now. Would you be removing both of them? Hughes -.No, I want to keep the one on the northwest cornor. Bayer - Will your proposed location for the new sign be in a bad spot - likely to get hit by trucks? Zoning Board of Appeals/Plan Commission Page four June 4, 1985 Hughes - I do not think so. It is pretty far from the pumps. But I am open to suggestion. Also, I don't have any preference as to the height of the sign. What ever the Village wants. Anderson It should be higher than the deck of a tractor.or truck cab maybe about 12'. Anderson moved and Bonnelli seconded to grant a variation to allow a 30 square feet sign after removal of the tall Pride. sign and to be 121 high or other height you work out with Steve Manning. Ayes: Anderson, Bonneli, Pearson, Schempf, Bayer Simmons Nays: Neely Motion Carries. Plan Commission: The minutes of the April 2, 1985 Plan Commission meeting were approved unanimously without change.. Unfinished Business - Gullicksen announced that the Village is suing the developers of Whispering Creek and Pheasant Chase subdivisions because the required improvements were not com- pleted or completed improperly. Manning announced that new zoning maps have been printed. Simmons said that he would get copies for the Plan Commission and Gullicksen. Manning distributed copies of membership information for the American Planning Association and asked if anyone would like to join? Simmons said the Village should get at least one membership for $25.00 and the magazine should be circulated so all the members could read it. Manning - Please hold on to the memo in your packets on signs. It will be helpful to refer to when we get around to revising the sign ordinance. The last item on the agenda is Planner's Objectives. I need for you and the Board of Trustees to tell me where I should start. What are the highest priority pro- jects or problems in Plainfield that should be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ordinance? Simmons - Signs and parking on vacant property are big problems. Gullicksen - Trees and bushes blocking views at corners. Also, making sure that zoning is consistant with our Plan Latta - I think we should compare ordinances from other towns. I also have a model sign ordinance from Doyle. The revision put together by our previous planner was no good. It had too 'Zoning,)Bbard of,Appeals/Plan Commission Page five June 4, 1985 much regulation. Bayer - How can you get a sign ordinance to work? Manning - You need a concensus of the Plan Commission and the Board, the willpower to enforce it and a prolonged effort to educate the businesses that it will benefit them. The Annual Report of the Plan Commission was accepted unanimously. Meeting adjourned. Steve Manning, Planner SM/vk STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF WILL SS June 4, 1985 VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Case No. 135-31385V Location: 706 West Main Street Petitioner: Dennis and Lynn Watson developers of property and John Larson owner of the property. Request: A variation in the zoning ordinance to permit automobile parking on the front of the property. Discussion: The public hearing was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, June 4, 1985. The legal notice appeared in the Enterprise newspaper on May 15, 1985, according to state Statues. This property was before the Plan Commission on August 28, 1984 with a request to rezone from Res. A to Res. A-2 and at that time the petitioners presented a proposal that would require frontyard parking. The parking was discussed at that meeting and the petitioners were told they would need a variance to allow such parking.' The rezoning request was subsequently approved by the Village Board. Because of the shape of the lot, the petitioner felt that parking in the front would be more economical and allowed for more privacy in the rear of the property. Their proposal would put their parking contigious with the parking on the ajoining east lot. Gene Cline, owner of the property to the west, was present and stated that he preferred to have the parking located in the front. The petitioners were asked if they were willing to look at other plans. They stated that they preferred their own plan because it would allow them to have 12 parking spaces and easier access to the parking spaces. Findings of Fact: 1. There would be an unreasonable hardship to the property owner to provide parking to the rear of the property due to excessive exca- vation costs. 2. More parking spaces would be available if parking was allowed in the front due to the shape of the property. 3. No objections were received nor were any objectioners present at the hearing. 4. The proposal would not alter the essential character of the area. Recommendation: By a vote of 4-3, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends that the Village Board of Trustees adopt an ordinance which permits a variation of the zoning ordinance to allow parking in the front at this location as shown on the plans. STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF WILL SS. June 4, 1985 VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Case No. 136-5185V Location: 451 South Division Petitioner: Thomas D. Hughes on behalf of Pride Petroleum Request: Variation in size of sign for a pole sign on west side of property located near north driveway from 20 sq. ft. to 36 sq. ft. (6'x6') with changeable numbers. Discussion: The public hearing was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, June 4, 1985. The legal notice appeared in the Enterprise newspaper on May 6,-1985, according to State Statutes. Petitioner felt larger sign necessary because traffic speed on Route 59 was such to warrant a larger illuminated sign. Peti- tioner wanted to remove the old tall "Pride" sign because it was obsolete and difficult to change the numbers. The new sign would be 6' x 6' and have changeable numbers. Concern was expressed as to whether the new sign would be in the way of trucks and it was suggested that the bottom of sign be at least 12 ft. above the ground. Findings of Fact: 1. The flow of traffic of Route 59 may warrant a larger sign than the 20 square feet allowed by ordinance. 2. The sign will be located on a one acre piece of property with 240 ft. of frontage on Route 59. 3. This on site advertising will aid this business in continuing to yield a reasonable return. 4. This variation will not alter the essential character of the area. 5. No objections were received and no objectioner were present at the meeting. Recommendation: By a vote of 6 to 1, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends that the Village Board of Trustees adopt an ordinance which permits a variation of the zoning ordinance to allow a sign up to 36 square feet to be constructed at this location.