HomeMy Public PortalAbout2008-07-15 ZBA MinutesVillage of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Minutes Amended Date: July 15 , 2008 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:01 pm. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kachel , Ren zi, O’Rourke, and Sanders ; Ex Officio Commissioners Peck and Fremarek; Chairman Sobk oviak ; and the Representative from the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Absent: Commissioners McKay and Bonuchi ; Park District; School District ; Library District; and Police Department Also Present: Jonathan Proulx – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Leach - Planner I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretary Village of Plainfield , and Neal Eickholtz – Baxter a nd Woodman MINUTES: The minutes from the June 17, 2008 ZBA meeting were accepted as presented . NEW BUSINESS CASE: 1406 -061608.V CHASE BANK Request: Variance from Sign Code (Public Hearing) Location: Meijer Planned Development SEC 135 th St. & Rt. 59 Applicant: Doyle Signs TIME: 7:03 p.m. Planner Leach summarized the staff report. She stated this is a public hearing and the case has been published and posted per Village Ordinance and State Statute. The applicant is requesting a vari ance to pe rmit the installation of 3 wall signs on the two sides and rear elevation of the Chase Bank Building on Lot 7 of the Meijer Development. Planner Leach stated the Village ordinance permits only 1 permanent wall sign per building except for corner locations or locations adjoining private streets where 1 wall sign for each wall facing the public or private street will be permitted. Wall signage facing access drives is prohibited. At a Committee of the Whole Workshop on June 23, 2008, the Village B oard considered a possible text amendment to the Village’s Sign Code which would allow similar signage on the rear elevations. The Board generally supported the Village’s Sign Code as is and indicated that there is not a need to allow more signage than wh at is currently allowed.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Planner Leach went through the 4 findings of fact for a variance and found that 4 of the 4 findings were unfavorable. Staff recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals adopt staff’s findings of fact and recommend denial of the v ariance. Staff feels the proposed variance is not consistent with the intent and purposes of the Village Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. John Streetz spoke on behalf of Chase Bank. He gave a rebuttal of staff’s findings of fact. He stated th e signage is attractive, well designed, and not cumbersome. He would like the access drives to be considered as public streets and be allowed additional signage. He stated other businesses, such as Verizon, Panera, and Office Max, hav e received additional signage. He stated the property is a unique site with the only entrance to the site being from the rear. He stated signage should be on the rear elevation. He stated traffic coming from the north or south entrances into Meijer will not be able to view the site because of the monument sign. He stated the signs will not alter the character of the area. He stated the blue highlights on the building do not necessarily communicate that this is Chase Bank to potential customers. He sta ted each Chase Bank location is unique and has signage a ccording to traffic flow, architecture of the building, etc. John Streetz went through the sizes of the signage they are proposing for the Chase Bank location and stated they are well under the pro posed allowable square footage. He stated in summary, granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and will not create a traffic hazard or depreciate nearby property values. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there w as anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the commissioners were free to ask questions. Chairman Sobkoviak reminded everyone that in order to grant a variance the Zoning Bo ard of Appeals is required to apply the four challenges that staff has presented in the staff report. Each and every variance request is considered on its own merit. Sign variances that have been approved in the past cannot generally be referenced as “th ey got one, so now I get one.” Commissioner Kachel stated the way the petitioner has presented this to the Zoning Board of Appeals, it sounds like the findings of fact are there. He felt in a lot of the parking lots with the big boxes , rear signage would be helpful. He felt with the architecture on all 4 sides, the signs do look good and can also be used to break up the lines and add more color to the building. He felt they should take a closer look even though it goes against the ordinance. Commission er Renzi concurred somewhat with Commissioner Kachel. He stated by looking at the findings of fact, he cannot accept all four walls having signage. He asked the petitioner if he was suggesting that the bank was not destination driven. Petitioner Streetz stated he felt it is not solely destination driven. Commissioner Renzi concurred with Commissioner Kachel as far as the rear elevation signage. He gave his thoughts on the findings of fact and felt that he could approve a motion for a variance for one a dditional sign. Those thoughts detailing alternative findings of fact, with only one sign, ultimately served as factual basis in support of the approved motion.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner O’Rourke asked th e petitioner if there were other Chase locations in the area that have signage on all four sides of the building. Petitioner St r eetz did not know the answer. Planner Leach referred to the Chase location further north on Rt. 59, which only has a sign facing Route 59. Commissioner O’Rourke stated he went along wit h the petitioner’s statement that the bank is not necessarily destination driven. He further stated visibility is huge and key to a bank. He agreed with Commissioner Renzi that 4 signs are too much, but he would go with a request for an additional sign o n the East side facing Meijer. Commissioner Fremarek felt that a bank is destination driven. Chairman Sobkoviak also agreed that a bank is destination driven. Petitioner Streetz stated there is a location being built up North that will have 4 signs, one on each elevation. Commissioner O’Rourke stated the Zoning Board had considered the concerns of businesses in the past. Commissioner Kachel wanted to clarify his position and stated he would not be in favor of signage on a ll 4 elevations of the building , but felt there should be more than 1 sign allowed. Planner Leach pointed out that when sign variances were allowed on the rear elevation for other businesses there usually was a pedestrian entry to the rear. She further stated Chase Bank does not have a pedestrian entry on the rear. Commissioner O’Rourke mentioned there is an ATM at the rear. Commissioner Peck agreed with Commissioner Fremarek and did not want to set a precedent. He did not support the variance request. Commissioner Sanders felt two additional signs would be appropriate. Commissioner Fremarek stated once the adjacent outlot is built on the north elevation , the sign would not be vi sible. He also felt the bank is a destination driven site and not an impulse driven site. He further f elt the 4 findings of fact do not support the approval of the variance request. Petitioner Streetz asked if he could amend the request for the variance. Planner Schwarz stated the Zoning Board could attach a stipulation to the current request stating app roval is subject only to the signs on the elevations the Zoning Board deems appropriate. At 7 :45 p.m. Commissioner Renzi made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals adopt alternate findings of fact (a & c would be neutral, and b & d would be favorable to the applicant ) from those suggested by staff and recommend to the Village Board approval of the proposed variance for Chase Bank, on Lot 7 of the Meijer PD with the following stipulation: 1. O ne wall sign allowed on the e ast elevation of the building an d the deletion of wall signs on the north and south elevations of the building as proposed in the petitioner’s petition . Commissioner O’Rourke seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Petitioner Streetz wanted to know if the motion could be amended to allow two extra signs. Chairman Sobkoviak stated that could not be accomplished during this motion. Aye: Kachel, Renzi, O’Rourke, Sanders Nay: Chairman Sobkoviak The motion is carried 4:1
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 15, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Since there was no fur ther business before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. ________________________ Respectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary – Village of Plainfield