HomeMy Public PortalAbout2007-05-15 ZBA MinutesVillage of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Minutes Date: May 15, 2007 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:12 pm. Roll Call Present: Commissioners McKay , Renzi, Murawski, and Chairman Sobkoviak Abse nt: Commissioners Kachel and O’Rourke Minutes The October 17, 2006 minutes were approved as presented. New Business CASE: 1309 -032807.V PANERA BREAD Request: Sign variance to allow additional signage at rear entrance of building. Location: 12632 S . Route 59 Kensington Center North Applicant: Jason Berg, Director of Construction Panera Bread Time: 7:13 p.m. Michael Garrigan announced that this was a public hearing being held in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Villag e of Plainfield and the State of Illinois. He read the staff report. He went through the findings of fact and stated s taff made a favorable recommendation with 4 stipulations. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the representative for the petitioner, Jason Berg . He stated because of the limited parking in front, Panera is adding an additional entrance at the rear of the building so patrons could use the WalMart parking lot. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Jason how they plan to put in a pathway to the rear entrance . Jason stated they could put in brick pavers for a path for patrons so the present landscaping does not get trampled. Some of the landscaping would have to be relocated. He felt it is something that is really necessary and will not ruin the aesthetics of the
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 2 of 6 existing landscaping. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if the petitioner had any problems with ensuring the door is left unlocked continually and if the petitioner sees this as a security problem. Jason stated he did not see it as a security problem. H e stated during their closed hours there is an alarm on that door, as well as on the front door. The doorway leads into the dining room. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment regarding the case. There was no response. Commissioner Murawski asked what the hours of operation are. Jason stated right now it is 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. Commissioner Murawski asked where deliver ies will be made. Jason stated there was another entrance on the rear for deliveries since there are two store fronts. He also stated the majority of the deliveries are done overnight or by 8:00 a.m. He stated they foresee the entrance in the rear reall y being used during the lunch hours. Commissioner Murawski asked about the lighting in the rear. Jason stated there are two lights above the entrance , one of which is a gooseneck light. He feels that also with the lighting that is in the WalMart parking lot, it is very well lit at night. Michael Garrigan stated he was comfortable with the gooseneck lighting above the awning. Commission Renzi asked if there should be some low voltage lighting along the pathway as well. He felt there should be some kind of marking for the pathway. Jason Berg stated the landlord has been extremely helpful. He also stated they would be willing to put a “Pedestrian Crossing” sign or a yellow painted crosswalk, etc. Commissioner Renzi had concerns that in the winter after a snowfall that this walkway be maintained so people would know there was a pathway there . A discussion ensued regarding the pathway for pedestrians. Michael Garrigan stated staff can work with the applicant on some lighting for the pathway. Commissioner McKay asked staff about other businesses that have dual entrances. She welcomed Panera into the Village. She also stated the pathway should be properly marked for the safety of pedestrians. Jason stated they would work with staff on that issue. Commis sioner Renzi had concerns about the direction the door would open. He wanted to make sure that someone’s vision was not obstructed by the door. Michael Garrigan stated the elevation showed a clear glass door and that was his understanding. He further st ated that is something staff would request. At 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Murawski made a motion that the Plan Commission make a favorable recommendation of the proposed variance subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 3 of 6 3. Incorporation of a pedestrian walking path through the landscape buffer behind the rear of the building. 4. That applicant’s new rear entrance is kep t open during normal business hours. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKay Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Commissioner Murawski, McKay, Renzi, Chairman Sobkovia k Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0 CASE: 1314 -041707.V OF FICE MAX Request: Sign Variance Location: Meijer Outlot, east of Illinois Rt. 59, south of 135 th St. Applicant: Site Enhancement Services R. Kyle Clemens, agent TIME: 7:40 p.m. Jonathan Proulx stated this was also a public hearing and that all notice s have been posted and published in accordance with State Statute and ordinance. He summarized the staff report. He went through the findings of fact and recommended denial of the requested variance to permit wall signage on a secondary elevation witho ut public or private street frontage to allow wall signage on the north elevation of the proposed Office Max on Lot 8 of the Meijer Plainfield Subdivision. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner, Steve Jacks, agent for OfficeMax. He stated the additi onal wall sign will provide adequate exposure for this facility. Commissioner Murawski asked about the orientation of the Office Max building. Jonathan stated during the concept plan, staff did review the ultimate building configurations . O ne configur ation would have been twisting the orientation 45 degrees to the northwest so that it faced, i nstead of facing directly west, more of a northwest direction. The developer felt that the configuration that they settled on was the best configuration for the overall plan. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was a nyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner Renzi had concerns about some businesses having two signs. A discussion ensued regarding bus inesses with two signs. Chairman Sobkoviak asked Commissioner Renzi to clarify if he was in agreement with staff’s findings of fact. Commissioner Renzi stated he was not in agreement. Chairman Sobkoviak stated he
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 4 of 6 agreed with staff’s findings of fact. Jonathan stated the zoning ordinance allows signs on two different elevations on a corner of a public street and a private street. Jonathan stated the code would allow a monument sign up to 10 feet in height and 48 square feet in sign area. The monument would be visible from the north and from the south. Commissioner McKay asked the petitioner if this signage was typical for all of the Office Max stores. Jason Berg stated typically yes, but all jurisdictions are different. He stated the monument sign is helpful for people traveling on Route 59, but not for people traveling on 135 th Street. There is really no primary access for this facility. He further talked about other businesses along 135 th Street with signage on two sides. He stated this is an area where people expect to see signage. Commissioner McKay stated when signs are denied, they end up putting up a temporary sign, a yellow banner. She feels that is not regulated as heavily and asked the petitioner if Office Max put up sale signs. Jona than Proulx talked about visibility from 135 th Street. He stated there are several outlots that upon development will limit the visibility of the subject site. Commissioner McKay stated sometimes compromise is in order and asked the petitioner if the y gave any thought to giving up their monument sign. Jason stated this was a unique situation and that Office Max did not want to give up their monument sign. At 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Murawski made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend denial of t he requested variance to permit wall signage on a secondary elevation without public or private street frontage to allow wall signage on the north elevation of the proposed Office Max on Lot 8 of the Meijer Plainfield Subdivision. There was no second to t he motion. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that lacking a second motion, the motion was ruled “out of order”. At 8:13 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to permit wall signage on a second ary elevation without public or private street frontage to allow wall signage on the north elevation of the proposed Office Max on Lot 8 of the Meijer Plainfield Subdivision. Commissioner McKay seconded the motion. Jonathan Proulx suggested in terms of recommending approval, staff would recommend a few stipulations. One would be establishing a maximum sign area to be consistent with the petitioner’s request, that being 67.5 feet , and then direction on whether the signage would only be for the Office Max tenant. There was a discussion regarding stipulations. Chairman Sobkoviak directed the Commission back to the stipulations. The following stipulations were decided upon:
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 5 of 6 1. Maximum permitted sign area on the north elevation would be limited to 67.5 fe et. 2. The proposed signage would be limited to the retail use of the north tenant space. In this case, Office Max. Chairman Sobkoviak reiterated the motion to recommend approval of the requested variance to permit wall signage on a secondary elevation w ithout public or private street frontage to allow wall signage on the north elevation of the proposed Office Max on Lot 8 of the Meijer Plainfield Subdivision to include the two stipulations added by the Plan Commission. 1. Maximum permitted sign area on t he north elevation would be limited to 67.5 feet. 2. The proposed signage would be limited to the retail use of the north tenant space. In this case, Office Max. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye : McKay, Renzi Nay: Murawski, Chairm an Sobkoviak Chairman Sobkoviak stated the motion to recommend denial failed due to a lack of a second. The motion to recommend approval failed. At 8:25 Chairman Sobkoviak called for a brief recess At 8:35 the Commission reconvened. CASE: 1315 -041907.V 25441 W. GATEWAY CIRCLE Request: Fence Variance Location: Northwest corner of Gateway Circle a nd 135 th Street Applicant: Jeffery Austin TIME: 8:35 p.m. Michael Garrigan summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a side yard fence. The applicant’s side lot line is adjacent to 135 th Street, which is a major collector street. Michael gave the findings of fact and recommended approval. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner, Jeffery Austin. Mr. Austin stated traffic has increase d over the 7 years he has lived in his home. There are other homes along 135 th Street that have fences. He stated his fence will not affect the 20 foot vision triangle from the corner. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience who wish ed to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Murawski asked about the type of fence. Mr. Austin stated there is the possibility of doing an open fence, vinyl fence, but they are not looking at a 6 foot privacy type fence . Chairman Sobkoviak stated he didn’t think the Commission should get involved in what the fence should look like. Commissioner Renzi asked if the petitioner would have to get a permit for the fence if the variance was approved. He asked the petitione r if he agreed with the one stipulation that the fence shall not extend east of the front wall of the house. The petitioner was in agreement with this. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that the corner lot of the petitioner is not somebody’s front yard. He stat ed lots of times the fence is going on an interior street in a subdivision and when you look at the corner lot, that side yard is adjacent to someone’s front yard. He stated that it should be made extremely clear that if the Commission should vote to reco mmend approval of this, that the Commission is in agreement with staff’s findings of fact. Commissioner Renzi agreed with Chairman Sobkoviak. Commissioner McKay concurred. At 8:48 p.m. Commissioner McKay made a motion that the Plan Commission adopt staf f’s findings of fact and recommend approval of a variance to allow a fence in the corner side yard at 25441 W. Gateway Circle, subject to the following stipulation: 1. The fence shall not extend east of the front wall of the house. Commissioner Renzi seco nded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Murawski, McKay, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: 0 The motion is carried 4:0 As there was no further business, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m. Respe ctfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield