HomeMy Public PortalAbout1985-09-17 minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
AND
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the September 17, 1985 meeting.
Village Hall - 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Arlo Simmons, Chairman ABSENT:
Herb Bayer
Don Pearson
Rich Neely
Jim Anderson
Bob Russ, Ex-Officio
Dale Gullicksen, Liason
Karen Callanan, Trustee
Mary Latta, Village President
Steve Manning, Planner
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Case 137 - 82285V Baish Townhouses
Request for Variation at 719 W. Main Street
Walt Schempf
John Myers, Ex-Officio
Gene Cline, Ex-Officio
Alan Arbo, Ex-Officio
S. 11jenvich, Ex-Officio
Petitioner Bob Baish, 217'N. Willow Drive, Plainfield was sworn in.
Simmons - The Plan Commissioner have a report from Steve concerning
this case. Mr. Baish, have you received a permit from the State yet?
Baish - No, I have applied for a curb cut off of Route 126 and a
floodplain construction permit. My site plans shows a 4-unit building
turned so that one side is facing the street. The rear is facing northeast
and the parking lot. The front is facing the office building to the south-
west side and has a good view down the river.
Manning - I have drawn 3 alternative site plans. First, I reduced the
size of the building by 140 square feet to 4415 square feet which is the
1/3 of the buildable portion of the lot required by our ordinance. Then
I drew the building and the required 8 parking stalls on the lot in 3
different layouts all of which have the required setbacks. Alternative (A)
shows the parking in the rear as required by our ordinance. I think
what will be most important in this case are the reasons why Mr. Baish
has positioned his proposed building as he did and whether A, B, C or
some other alternative would be more appropriate.
Baish - I was advised I had to show a 201 front setback to match Niznik's
office building setback. However I see no problem with having a 30'
frontyard.
Plainfield Plan Commission
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 17, 1985 Meeting
Page Two
Manning - The ordinance permits a front setback less than *301 if the
neighboring building 60'. or less away is less than 30' setback. In this
case Niznik's building is about 61' away.. The reduced setback is optional,
not required, the way I read the ordinance.
Simmons - Alternative (C) shows the parking on the southwest side which
would (1) be next to the office parking and (2) give more privacy to the
single family on the northeast side. Considering the resale value of the
building, do you think it will be worth more with the parking on the side
or in the rear?
Baish - In the rear.
a
Simmons - The purpose of the requirement for the parking in the rear is
so that off-street parking is not too noticeable as one walks or drives
down a street. The purpose of the floor area ratio I requirement is to
keep a certain minimum portion of the lot open for landscaping. How
was this case noticed?
Manning - It reads "to consider a variation in location of parking lot
and-front setback".
Simmons - If you want to stay with the size building you have shown, you
will need another variation and another public hearing.
Baish - I'd rather reduce the size of the building to meet the ordinance.
I could probably go with Alternative A having parking in the rear.
Anderson - Would you rather wait till our next meeting in 2 weeks so you
can revise your site plan?
Baish - I'd rather try to get a vote tonight.
Mr. Kubinski - I own the property. The reason we want the parking on the
northeast side and not the southwest side is so that the view out the front
of the units will be down the river and to save the tree on the southwest
side.
Gullicksen - On Alternative A is there any reason why the drive could not
be on the office side instead of the house side?
Manning - Not that I know of. What landscaping do you plan to put in?
Mrs. Kubinski - We were thinking of big tree at one of the front building
corners and shrubs at the other front corner. Also a fence along the
northeast edge of the parking lot by the house.
I
Plainfield Plan Commission
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 17, 1985 Meeting
Page Three -
Manning - Our zoning ordinance does not have any standards for buffering
but for any sizeable parking lots there should be a hedge or other land-
scape screen. Your site plan does not leave room for such a buffer.
Simmons - At least 5' width minimum is needed to support such a hedge.
Russ - As far as the view from the street I can accept the location of the
parking lot as Baish has shown it if there was a row of high hedges about
25' long in front of it. I object to fences.
Simmons - To summarize the request, are you asking for approval of your
site plan with the changes of adding a landscape buffer in the front and
side of the parking. lot and reducing the size of the building to meet our
code? I
Baish - That is correct.
Simmons - For all variations our ordinance has 3 standards for hardship,
be in harmony, not impair welfare and I think this petition meets these
standards.
Anderson moved to approve the Baish request for variation according to the
site plan he presented with the changes summarized by Arlo Simmons. Pearson
seconded. 'Anderson, Pearson, Bayer, Simmons voted aye. Neely voted nay.
PLAN COMMISSION
Anderson moved to approve the minutes of the August 20 and September 4, 1985
meetings as presented. Pearson seconded. All voted aye.
Simmons - I have received a memo from our Village Administrator dated
September 11, 1985 requesting that any of you who' get a call from a lawyer
concerning anything that is happening in front of the Plan Commission or
Zoning Board of Appeals be sure to refer it to our Village Attorney. It
may be important to a lawsuit.
We also received a letter from Naperville dated September 16, 1985 regarding
FANCATS - Route 59 Guidelines. They have drafted some guidelines and have
asked for our comments by October 21. Another meeting will be scheduled
in early November to finalize these guidelines.
Arlo Simmons left the meeting.
Plainfield Plan Commission
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 17, 1985 Meeting
Page Four
CASE 138-91785 - SiRn Ordinance
Karen Callanan introduced Lockwood Martling, an architect who has worked
with ma . ny towns on renovation of their historic business districts. He
is a member of the American Institute of Architects and other organizations.
Martling - My presentation will have to do with more than just signs. I
hope it will be helpful to the improvement of all aspects of downtown
Plainfield. Signs are one of the biggest problems to deal with in any
downtown area. The size, location, color, and other features of the sign
should not hide or detract from the architecture of the building pilasters,
cornices, arches and so forth.
This slide of Troy, Michigan is a view of'their main street which shows
about 15 signs that not only block one's view of the buildings but also
completely obliterating each other. I suggested to their businessmen-,
association that these signs be removed and that the cast iron columns,
concrete urns, and wrought iron be cleaned and painted with colors that
emphasize these wonderful features.. There were moans and groans at first
but eventually the owners was convinced that thege improvements would help
his business. I designed a wall sign having raised letters on a raised
wood panel that fit in the transom area above the doors and below the
second story windows. The original door, Victorian globe lighting, and
gold colored trim were restored to get a finished facade that was very
appealing. Often times older districts were built with the buildings
joining so that each door was fairly close together. In these situations
it is very important to have a coordinated sign design system to make
sure all the signs and awnings are compatible. The whole town will take
pride and the customers will come if the historic downtown is made to be
a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
Projecting signs can be designed to fit in, however, it is very difficult
to control these signs by an ordinance. They should be reviewed on a
case -by -case basis. A wood shake roof siding, or canopy;.1s,-o-i1t,-6f-w-1. 1ace.
. P
A brick building should get a standard metal seamed canopy which looks
refined and dignified.
Too often the businessman rely on a sign contractor to design their sign
and it turns out to-have no relation to the architecture of the building.
Frequently businessmen try to modernize the front of their store by re-
moving or covering up the brick and iron posts. In my opinion this is
a disasterous mistake. Here I show you many fine examples of stores
that became "gems" when the original materials were preserved. Staining
brick can bring some character to a plain facade.
Plainfield Plan Commission
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 17, 1985 Meeting
Page Five
The backs of these fine, old commercial buildings were thought not.to.be
for public view. However, many towns have now put parking.lots and walk-
ways behind stores and merchants have been encouraged to provide rear
entrances. So now it is necessary to dress up the backs of these build-
ings. The key is to remove the clutter. I prefer the look of louvered
shutters closed over windows.
A color palette should be selected for downtown before any restoration
is done. Earth tones or subdued colors are better than bright and flashy.
Plainfield has some fine buildings along Lockport Street with cast iron
columns, stamped metal cornices, the churches have fantastic character.
The prize of the whole downtown area as far as I am concerned is the
two story turret and metal onion dome on the Mason's Building. Unfor-
tunately it was painted all one color where contrasting colors would
bring out some of the detail.
Manning - The new sign ordinance being considered by the Plan Commission
has a section controlling signs in the historic downtown area. I would
say that from Marling's presentation it is evident that there is no one
type of sign that is best, rather, the sign design depends on the archi-
tecture of the building. This makes it difficult to write specific sign
standards. My idea to handle this is for the Village to,set up a design
review process as described on page 8 of the draft.
Russ - Number 4 in Section I limiting size.of signs in the historic district
to 20 square feet is something that could also be determined by the design
review committee.
Pearson - I think that 20 square feet is not necessary too small for a
projecting sign. Now we have several neon signs that seem to blare at
you. Color is also important.
Neely - Is there anything we can do about existing signs?
Manning - There are different ways an ordinance can treat non-conforming
signs. What 1 have proposed on page 9 does not require removal of all
non-conforming signs within a specified period of time. It's been
my experience that when removal is required the businesses have put
political pressure to get the ordinance changed or they have filed a
lawsuit against the Village.
This is the primary reason for my recommendation to inform all the
businesses in town about our proposed ordinance revisions. When they are
made part of the process before adoption they will more likely support
and voluntarily comply with the new standards.
Bayer - Soneone should spearhead the publicity for this effort.
Plainfield Plan Commission
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 17, 1985
Page Six
Manning - I agree. Another idea is to get the Enterprise to write some
features. You can make revisions to my draft tonight then we could mail.
or deliver copies to all businesses and invite them to another public
hearing before a Plan Commission vote.
Anderson - I think we should take a vote tonight. If any business has
complaints we can always revise the ordinance later.. Otherwise this could
drag on.
Pearson —Maybe we should contact the Plainfield Commerce Association and
have Mr. Martling give them the same presentation.
Neely That was done about 3 years ago and nothing happened.
Russ Most of us saw this presentation for first time tonight and we
could see the potentials. I just think if they saw it now they would
get interested. At least it would be better than arguing about the
size of signs under the current ordinance.
Bayer It will take more than one meeting.
Russ I think there is much more interest now in historic preservation
in Plainfield than there was a few years.
Neely - Don't you think that having an ordinance in place will get more
people interested in replacing their existing signs?
Anderson Controllingnew signs is different than rejuvenation of old
buildings.
Manning - I have written in some corrections on your typed draft of the
sign ordinance. Now is your opportunity to make the additions and
deletions you want.
Neely - Number 5 Section I how far should projecting signs go over the
sidewalk?
Manning - My intention was to limit the projection to the width of the
sidewalk only.
Anderson - I move we recommend approval of the sign ordinance draft
before us tonight with the corrections voted by Steve. Seconded by
Neely. All voted aye.
Plainfield Plan Commission
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 17, 1985
Page Seven
OLD BUSINESS
Manning - As requested by the Plan Commission at last meeting, I have
drafted a letter to IDOT.regarding sidewalks as part of the Rt. 59
viaduct under the E. J. & E. railroad tracks being.studied for improve-
ment. Does it meet with your approval?
Bayer - I think it looks fine.
Manning - As directed at the last meeting, the letter to the County
requesting amendments to the Land Use Plan, Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances was sent. I have not heard a response yet.
NEW BUSINESS
Manning -A 66.6 acre subdivision is being proposed by Richard Searle
on Caton Farm Road west of Rt. 59 by the railroad tracks. It is 2-1/2
miles from Plainfield so we have no review authority. However I
thought you may be interested because it proposes 1/2 acre single
family lots in a flood plain and would disrupt a 580 acre watershed of
surrounding farm land.
Bayer - We should Appose it.
Meeting adjourned.
Steve Manning, Planner