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.