HomeMy Public PortalAbout2009-09-01 ZBA Minutes VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECORD OF MINUTES Date: September 1, 2009 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Renzi, Sanders, Kiefer; Chairman Sobkoviak; and ex -officio Commissioner Schrack Absent: Commissioners O’Rourke and Seggebruck, Plainfield Park District, Plainfield School District , Plainfield Library District, Plainfield Fire District, and Plainfield Police Dep artment Also Present: Sara Javoronok, Planner I Village of Plainfield, and Carol Millan, Secretary Village of Plainfield The minutes from the March 17, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting were accepted as presented. Chairman Sobkoviak apologized for th e late start due to mis -communication. He thanked Commissioner Renzi for coming in to make the quorum necessary to hold the meeting. OLD BUSINESS : None NEW BUSINESS: CASE: 1479 -080309.V FINNEGAN’S IRISH PUB Request: Sign variance to allow a gr eater amount of wall and projecting signage Location: 24102 W. Lockport St. Applicant: Dale Lewis TIME: 7:20 p.m. Planner Javoronok summarized the staff report. She stated the petitioner is seeking approval of a sign variance to allow for a greater amount of wall signage and projecting signage than what is permitted per the Village’s Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance permits one wall sign per façade of a building facing a corner. In the Downtown, a business is allowed one projecting sign. The petitioner was issued a permit for a single wall sign and two projecting sign s , one for each façade of the building. The petitioner has installed a total of 3 wall signs and four projecting signs. She referred to the table of permitted wall signage in t he staff report. The petitioner wishes to achieve an authentic look and feel of a traditional Irish pub. Staff discussed this with the applicant before and after the sign permit applications were submitted. Planner Javoronok went through the 4 findings of fact, of which 4 of 4 findings were unfavorable to the petitioner.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 1, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Although staff believes the petitioner’s signage is well planned and tasteful, it is requesting denial of the sign variance request because the signage is in excess of what is permitt ed by ordinance . Planner Javoronok concluded her report. Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioners. Dale Lewis spoke. He stated staff’s report is accurate. He stated they are requesting additional signage only to maintain the authentic look and feel of the property. They did a lot of research. They think it complements the Downtown Core well. It meshes beautifully with the improvements that have been made in the Downtown Core. It looks authentic, professional, and franchise able. They are part o f what has become a destination in Downtown Plainfield. He had asked other establishment owners in the Downtown to be at the meeting tonight, but with the owners being busy they were unable to leave their establishments. Mr. Lewis stated he has asked oth er Downtown business owners if they felt these signs were bad for the image of the Downtown Core and all of them agreed the signage looks fantastic. It does not impede the look and feel of the Downtown Core in any way, shape, or form. Chairman Sobk ovia k told the petitioner when you come in and ask for a variance in effect you are asking permission to avoid a legally constituted statute. He further stated the Zoning Board of Appeals is also governed by statutes and laws. In order for the Zoning Board o f Appeals to grant a variance, four findings of fact have to be met. The findings of fact are an attempt to guarantee the Commission’s objectivity in granting variances. He felt is was bothersome for someone to erect a sign in violation of the ordinance and then come in to ask for a variance. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the only arguments the Zoning Board of Appeals can consider are arguments against these four findings of fact. He was in agreement with staff. Commissioner Kiefer asked Planner Javoronok if there was any consideration given to the fact that this is a corner lot. He further asked the petitioner if the door on the east side is a functioning door. Petitioner Lewis stated it is. Planner Javoronok stated the ordinance allows one wall sign pe r frontage and she interpreted it to allow one projecti ng sign per frontage also. The petitioner would be allowed to have one wall sign on each side. If there were a different business on the second floor and the door on the east side led to the business , they would be able to have a sign for that business and a sign for the first floor business. Commissioner Kiefer asked if there was any consideration for the angled front door. Planner Javoronok stated it would be measured across the length of the fa çade basically from corner to corner. Petitioner Lewis stated from the door to the wall is 24’. It is about 26.6’ if you measure it from above the door. Planner Javoronok stated she relied on the measurements given with the sign permit application. Pe titioner Lewis reiterated they were not out to acquire additional signage for marketing purposes to sell their products and services. Their main goal was just to achieve the authenticity, the look, that is required of an authentic Irish pub. They did a l ot of research before they planned their façade. Commissioner Renzi asked if the flag was considered a projecting sign. Planner Javoronok stated the flag was not counted. Commissioner Renzi asked the applicant when they put up all of their signage w as their any confusion with what the ordinance allowed. Petitioner Lewis stated they were perfectly clear on what the ordinance allows . Their intentions were also perfectly clear on the application. Petitioner Lewis pointed out that the 18”x20’ sign sho wn in the staff report was actually 18 ” x 16’. Commissioner Renzi wanted to make sure that was corrected before the case goes to the Village Board. Commissioner Renzi asked Planner Javoronok if there were any citations issued for not being in compliance. Planner Javoronok stated there were no citations issued. Commissioner Renzi asked the applicant if the variance was to bring them into compliance at the suggestion of staff or to avoid being cited for a sign violation. Petitioner Lewis stated they were under the assumption that staff was going to work with them to put the variance together for approval. He found out recently that staff was going to deny the variance request. They did not know previously that would be the case. They were not looking t o break the law. Commissioner Renzi asked how long the signs had been in place. Petitioner Lewis stated they were installed in March.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 1, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Sanders asked Planner Javoronok if there was any time that signage had been looked at as an architectural element rather than a sign. Planner Javoronok mentioned a few businesses where this has happened. There was a brief discussion among the Commissioners in this regard. Commissioner Sanders asked Planner Javoronok if there is a definitive detailing of whe re a sign can be considered an architectural element, etc. Planner Javoronok stated that would be up to the discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the Zoning Ordinance an architectural feature is defined as an element of a building design intende d to be functional or ornamental. Commissioners Sanders surmised that it has been a logo type visual rather than something which is for advertising, etc. Planner Javoronok agreed. Commissioner Kiefer referred to staff’s report and the south sign which s tated it was not approved because there was an excess of square footage. He was wondering if that was still the case if the numbers are reconf igured. Planner Javoronok stat ed if the sign were 18” x 16’ then it would not be in excess of the permitted squa re footage. Commissioner Kiefer wondered what staff’s initial response was to the initial application. He wondered if there was any feedback given. Planner Javoronok stated when the petitioner initially submitted the application, she talked to the pet itioner and basically told the petitioner that the sign on the south side facing Lockport Street would not be permitted and that only the one wall sign would be allowed facing the east. The petitioner was still tentative as to whether or not they were goi ng to do the projecting signs. Planner Javoronok told the petitioner the ordinance would only allow one projecting sign per façade. Commissioner Kiefer asked the petitioner if that was made clear to him at the time of application. Petitioner Lewis st ated the Harp signs are part of the Irish image. Guinness and Harp beers are sold at almost every Irish pub worth its salt in the country. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for public comment, but no members of the public were present. Commissioner Kiefer stat ed the signage looks like it is well planned and seems tasteful. He did think it fit in real well with the way this establishment is set up. He had a problem that the petitioner exceeded the allowable signage after being advised of the allowable signage during the sign permit process. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the biggest problem is the four challenges . T he Zoning Board of Appeals cannot justify even one of the challenges. Based on the four challenges, the findings of fact, there is no way he could jus tify a variance. Commissioner Renzi believed the best he could do is make finding “d” neutral. He agreed with Chairman Sobkoviak that the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to vote “no”. Chairman Sobkoviak stated the Downtown District is an overlay dis trict with slightly different rules, but it is a particularly sensitive area. The Village Board has always been very sensitive about the Downtown area. Petitioner Lewis stated he believes times are changing and the Downtown is going to evolve rapidly now , within the next 10 years. You will see a lot more commercial, retail type businesses come into the Core and more “Mom and Pop” type professional services popping up. Some of these businesses are going to require that same authrentic look and feel to re main legitimate. Chairman Sobkoviak did not want the petitioner to take this as an indictment of his business or take it personally. Petitioner Lewis stated he did not. Petitioner Lewis wants and hopes that the Village will keep an open mind about wha t may need to happen with the variances and apply some leniency a s long as the signage is done tastefully. It was his opinion that it is staff’s position that signage remain tasteful. Commissioner Kiefer asked the petitioner if he was given the staff r eport prior to the meeting. Petitioner Lewis stated yesterday he was given the staff report. He was under the assumption staff was giving them the variance package so that they would follow the proper channels , be granted the variance , and be able to mov e forward. That was what he was led to believe.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 1, 2009 Page 4 of 4 Chairman Sobkoviak stated the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals are in the form of a recommendation to the Village Board. The petitioner will have another chance to plead their case to the Village B oard. Petitioner Lewis understood that, but was just hoping they would be able to plead their case here. Commissioner Schrack felt the signage was very tastefully done, but the law is the law. He wished the petitioner all the best. Chairman Sobkoviak s tated that also is the general opinion of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The problem is meeting the four challenges set forth by Statute. At 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Sanders made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend denial of the requested var iance to permit additional signage for Finnegan’s Irish Pub located at 24102 W. Lockport Street. Commissioner Renzi seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Renzi, Sanders, Kiefer, Chairman Sobkoviak Nay: None The mo tion is carried 4:0 Since there was no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at .7:51 p. m. ________________________ Respectfully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secretary Village of Plainfield