HomeMy Public PortalAbout2009-03-17ZBA Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECORD OF MINUTES Date: March 17, 2009 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Renzi, O’Rou rke, Bonuchi, and Sanders; ex officio Commissioner s Fremarek and Kiefer ; Chairman Sobkoviak ; and Plainfield Fire Protection District Absent: Commissioner s Kachel and Peck, Park District, School District , Library District, and Police Department Also Presen t: Michael Garrigan – Village Planner Village of Plainfield, Mike Schwarz – Planner II Village of Plainfield, Sara Javoronok – Plann er I Village of Plainfield, Carol Millan – Secretary Village of Plainfield , and Neal Eickholtz – Baxter and Woodman The min utes from the February 17 , 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting were accepted as amended. Commissioner Renzi referred to Page 6, and wanted lead way changed to leeway. Commissioner O’Rourke referred to Page 6 and wanted the sentence “Commissioner O’Rourke felt the flag was the Marine Corps’ log o” changed to “Commissioner O’R ourke felt the flag could be considered a Marine Corp logo.” OLD BUSINESS CASE: 1441 -010709.V FIRST COMMUNITY BANK Request: Rear Sign Variance (Public Hearing) Location: 14150 S . Route 30 Applicant: Express Signs & Lighting Eddie B. Hartsell TIME: 7:30 p.m. Planner Javoronok summarized the staff report. The case was originally scheduled for February 3 rd and then continued to February 17 th and then to March 17 th . This is a public hearing and notice has been posted and published as required. The applicant is seeking a variance to permit the installation of a wall sign and logo on the rear elevation of the First Community Bank. A front wall sign, a logo, a side wall sign, an d also a monument sign was previously approved by staff. The Sign Ordinance is designed to limit excess signage and encourage signs to be located facing the public roadway. Research has indicated that impulse stop businesses are more reliant on additiona l signage than destination point businesses. A bank is more of a destination point, which requires less signage than an impulse stop. The Village Board considered a possible text amendment to the sign ordinance in June to allow for more rear signage . Th e Village Board supported the current sign ordinance and did not feel there was a need to allow additional signage. They decided they would prefer to review each sign variance on an individual basis.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Planner Javoronok summarized the 4 findings of fact for a variance and felt 4 of the 4 findings were negative to the applicant. Staff recommends denial of the rear wall signage. Planner Javoronok concluded her report. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Eddie Hartsell from Express Signs spoke He stated this site is unique since most everyone enters the building from the rear because the driveway is at the rear . He felt the rear of the building should mirror the front of the bank. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment. There was no response. Commissioner Renzi asked staff about the orientation of the building. He asked which is the front of the building. Planner Schwarz stated the discussion at the time the project cam e through was whether or not the building should be “flip flopped” so that the drive -thru lanes were on the south side of the building as opposed to the hard corner. Planner Schwarz indicated to his knowledge it has always been indicated and defined in t he Zoning Ordinance, the front lot line is what faces Route 30. Chairman Sobkoviak asked that one of the planners point out the location of the existing signs. Commissioner O’Rourke believed in most locations where rear signage has been considered there typically is a “big box” or another retailer behind the building. In this situation there is a subdivision and a retention pond. Chairman Sobkoviak added generally a variance for more signage is considered when there is confusion as to which building is which. There was a comparison to Panera in front of WalMart. Commissioner Sanders stated the rear architecture in itself is distinctive and distinguishes the building as a traditional bank looking building. He felt the aesthetics would be better if the re were no sign on the rear. It is easily defined as a bank building where there is no common architecture with another building, such as a Panera, etc. that needs additional identification. Commissioner Bonuchi felt in this case it is almost as if the d esign of the building would be missing something without the additional signage. Commissioner Fremarek agreed with staff and the fact that the bank is a destination. People know that it is a bank. His concern was with the residents looking out their b ackyard or across the retention pond and seeing the lit up sign and glowing logo on the bottom. He felt once a person is in the parking lot they wouldn’t see the sign in the rear anyways. Planner Javoronok stated the sign would not be illuminated. Commi ssioner Fremarek had a question about the logo, which had a notation stating “to be illuminated by white LED’s”. Planner Javoronok stated the lettering on First Community Bank would not be illuminated. The logo would be illuminated. Petitioner Hartsell stated it is also set about 12’ back where the canopy comes out over the front. Commissioner Renzi went through the findings of fact and found 1 neutral, 2 no, and one yes. He felt that would not constitute a yes vote for the signage. He would vote in s upport of staff’s recommendation for denial. Commissioner O’Rourke felt with 360 ° architecture , it is not a good argument in favor of rear signage to say the front and back of the building should look the same and have the same signage. Petitioner Hartse ll stated the bank also has lighting controls . W hen things turn off at nighttime and only their security signs turn on, the signs would turn off. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in another petitioner, Richard Ethridge from First Community Bank. He gave testi mony. He stated they built a building similar to the Village Hall and First Midwest Bank . They included a very attractive front door close to the street that nobody uses. Everyone comes into the building from the parking lot on the back. The First Midw est Bank has the same kind of signage across the back of their building, which is not illuminated.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 17, 2009 Page 3 of 3 There is a street that is one block long that permits them to have the signage. Instead, First Community Bank has multiple parking lots interconnected so that their clients will be able to access the facility coming off of 143 rd Street and coming through the parking lots behind. If that was a street instead of an interconnected parking lot, they would comply with the ordinance. It is part of the archi tecture. It is not distracting and not illuminated. It will not be a nuisance to the neighbors. They feel even though the ordinance does not permit rear signage it should be reasonable under the circumstances. At 7:26 p.m. Commissioner O’Rourke made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals adopt staff’s findings of fact and recommend denial of the proposed rear sign variance for First Community Bank. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Re nzi, O’Rourke, Sanders, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: Bonuchi The motion for denial is carried 4:1 Since there was no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 7:27 p.m. ________________________ Respectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary Village of Plainfield