Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-07-2020 ZBA minutes Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Minutes Date: January 7, 2020 Location: Village Hall CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE & ROLL CALL Chairman Kiefer called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Heinen, Minnis, Renzi, Ruane, Seggebruch, Womack and Chairman Kiefer were present. Plainfield Fire Protection District was present. Plainfield Township Park District, Plainfield Public Library District and Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 were absent. OTHERS PRESENT: Jessica Gal, Associate Planner; and Jonathan Proulx, Director of Planning APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated November 19, 2019 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Kiefer asked for public comment and there was no response. DEVELOPMENT REPORT No report. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Case No. 1864-120419.VAR 25229 W. Zoumar Dr. Jeffrey DeRango Mr. Proulx stated the applicant is seeking a variance to allow a covered porch to encroach 3.68 feet into the front yard setback. According to the Village’s Zoning Ordinance, a 30-foot front yard setback is required for residential structures in the R-1 zoning district. Mr. Proulx stated according to the applicant, the encroachment into the front yard setback is due to a surveying error that occurred prior to home construction. Such error was not discovered until home construction was complete and was noted on the as-built property survey. Thus, the applicant is seeking a variance in order to keep the covered porch. Keeping the existing porch is of significant importance to the applicant because the encroachment is minimal whereas removing the porch, rooflines and sidewalk to rebuild a smaller porch would be an extensive cost and be an inconvenience. Even so, the porch that could be constructed to meet the setback could only be two to three feet deep which results in a space that is not functionable to a new homeowner. Mr. Proulx reviewed the finding of facts in the staff report dated January 3, 2020. Mr. Proulx concluded Staff finds that the mistake in the plat of survey which resulted in the requested encroachment is minor deviation from the code and will not change the character of the neighborhood nor significantly impact adjacent properties. The applicant has implemented additional checks to avoid the same error. Removing the porch and rebuilding a smaller one is a costly undertaking and a smaller porch would not benefit a new homebuyer. However, staff remains neutral whether the property could not still yield a reasonable use since the house has already been constructed on the subject property. Prior to discussion by the Zoning Board of Appeals and any public comment given during the public hearing, staff recommends approval for the proposed variance. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 7, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Chairman Kiefer swore in Patti Bernhard, Attorney for applicant. Ms. Bernhard provided a presentation on why the variance is being requested. Ms. Bernhard stated the encroachment was not discovered until the as-built survey. Chairman Kiefer asked for public comments. Chairman Kiefer swore in Marilyn Munsayac, resident. Ms. Munsayac voiced a concern regarding that the homes adjacent to the property have not been built. Chairman Kiefer closed public comments. Chairman Kiefer asked staff if they feel this will create an ongoing problem. Mr. Proulx stated staff is not concerned and is comfortable with a favorable recommendation. Chairman Kiefer swore in Jeffrey DeRango, surveyor for the applicant. Commissioner Ruane asked who the builder is. Mr. Bernhard stated Lennar, also known as CalAtlantics, is the builder. Commissioner Ruane asked if the home passed all the inspections with the Village. Ms. Bernhard stated it does not have a certificate of occupancy. Commissioner Ruane questioned why this issue was not caught during the as-built foundation inspection. Mr. DeRango stated during the foundation survey the porch was not located on the survey because the field crew did not locate at that time. Commissioner Heinen asked if the foundation for the porch is poured at the same time the house foundation is poured. Mr. DeRango stated a frost or wing wall would have been there. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the porch was added at a later date and if the building permit has the porch on it. Mr. DeRango stated the building permit had a different elevation on it, which was the problem. Mr. DeRango stated they have changed their process to ensure this problem does not occur again and took responsibility for the error. Commissioner Heinen believes this is a mistake and that is why he supports the variance. Commissioner Minnis stated he is willing to support the variance and indicated is learning experience for the village, builder, and surveyor. Commissioner Renzi stated he will support the variance because of the economic realities of the situation. Commissioner Ruane stated he will support the variance and explained why. Commissioner Seggebruch also believes this is mistake and will support the variance. Commissioner Heinen suggested there be a 2-foot encroachment on the adjacent lots. Commissioner Renzi stated the encroachment will need to be asked for and approved. Commissioner Heinen made a motion to we adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend approval of a variance to remain the existing concrete porch up to 3.68 feet into the front yard for the property located at 25229 West Zoumar Drive. Seconded by Commissioner Renzi. Vote by roll call: Minnis, yes; Ruane, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Womack, yes; Renzi, yes; Heinen, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 7, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Case No. 1865-12109.VAR 24216 W. Lockport St. Dale Lewis Ms. Gal the applicant is seeking a variance in order to allow internally illuminated signs on a building located in the Central Sign District. Pursuant to Section 9-100(3) of the Village’s Zoning Ordinance, only externally illuminated signs are permitted in the Central Sign District. Ms. Gal reviewed the staff report dated January 3, 2020. Ms. Gal concluded staff submits that the findings of fact have not been met in order to recommend approval of the variance request. While the glass wall on the primary façade poses a challenge in incorporating exterior lighting, Staff believes that there are solutions that can meet the applicant’s desire to illuminate wall signs and comply with the sign regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff proposes that the applicant review lighting alternatives with a sign contractor. Staff is seeking input and direction from the Zoning Board of Appeals on whether there is support to allow internally illuminated signs in the historic downtown which could be reviewed through a future text amendment process. Chairman Kiefer swore in John Argoudelis, attorney for applicant; and Dale Lewis, applicant. Mr. Argoudelis stated that the applicant has satisfied the four factors in the staff report. Mr. Argoudelis stated that the business is located on the edge of the central sign district and pointed out that Station One and Mora has signs that are internally light. Mr. Argoudelis stated that the applicant believed their signs were in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Argoudelis indicated the sign ordinance is better suited for more traditional building in downtown but does not make sense for larger multi-tenant buildings. Chairman Kiefer asked for public comment and there was no response. Commissioner Seggebruch asked staff if the Station One signage was approved administratively. Mr. Proulx stated the signage for Station One was approved as part of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development that was approved administratively. Mr. Proulx pointed out that Station One is not located in the historic district but is in the central sign district. Mr. Proulx stated staff does acknowledge that there is some unusual characteristic to the subject building, such as size of building and lot. Mr. Proulx addressed the timeline of the coordination with the applicant. Mr. Proulx stated the applicant was forthcoming with wanting an internally illumination of the signs and staff did a thorough review of the sign code to see if anything could be done administratively. Mr. Proulx stated since the sign code prohibits internally illumination staff provide the applicant with their options. Commissioner Seggebruch suggested the village may need to review the central sign district code. Commissioner Seggebruch stated the downtown area has a lot of lights from the trees and landscaping. Commissioner Seggebruch understands the applicant’s point regarding the size of the building warranting the sign. Commissioner Heinen stated he likes the signage the applicant has on the building because it complements the architecture of the building. Commissioner Heinen also suggested reviewing the central sign district code to add illuminated signs. Commissioner Renzi agrees that the signage looks nice but agrees with staff. Commissioner Renzi indicated to maybe limit the brightness of the lights, but their job is to enforce the code. Commissioner Minnis asked if the signs are in compliance with the code, expect for the illumination. Mr. Proulx stated correct. Commission Minnis clarified that the signs don’t need to removed, so it is a matter Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 7, 2020 Page 4 of 5 of finding a new way to light the signs to comply with the code. Commissioner Minnis stated he likes the signs, but it is ultimately the Village Board decision. Commissioner Womack agrees with the other commissioners’ comments. Commissioner Womack asked if there are any other committees that review the signs in downtown. Mr. Proulx stated no. Mr. Proulx stated the code does allow us to regulate the light intensity of the signage. Commissioner Womack likes the signs and stated there are ways to have the signs lite to meet code. Commissioner Womack stated there is some redundancy to the signs. Mr. Lewis stated there are wall mounted and protruding signs. Commissioner Womack has concern about a third business into the building and where will that sign be placed. Mr. Lewis indicated that there may not be a third business because of the banquet hall success. Mr. Lewis stated they would like to utilize the signs they installed and explained the challenges to follow code because of the glass front of the building. Mr. Argoudelis stated it is their intention to have the lights at the lowest setting. Commissioner Ruane stated the signage fits the building. Commissioner Ruane is concerned for the resident across the street from the building. Commissioner Ruane asked how a light level would be enforced if this is approved and suggest a stipulation in the variance for the light level. Mr. Lewis stated the signs have a dimmer and he is comfortable with the lowest setting on the dimmer. Mr. Lewis wants to be able to light all five signs to maximize their revenue at nighttime. Commissioner Womack asked staff if there have been many requests for internal illuminated downtown area. Mr. Proulx stated on occasion and explained that the signs needs to compliment the building. Chairman Kiefer agreed that this building is unique, and he feels there is a challenge to lighting it in the evening. Commissioner Minnis asked why is the Station One building is different then this case. Mr. Proulx explained that the Station One building has a Planned Development. Chairman Kiefer reminded the applicant that they are on record saying the signs will be at the lowest illumination. Mr. Lewis stated he understands. Commissioner Minnis made a motion to adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend denial to allow three internally illuminated wall signs and two internally illuminated projecting signs in the Central Sign District for the business known as Sanctuary Plainfield, LLC located at 24216 West Lockport Street, subject to the following two(2) stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer; 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. Seconded by Commissioner Heinen. Vote by roll call: Renzi, no; Ruane, yes; Seggebruch, no; Womack, no; Heinen, yes; Minnis, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 4-3. DISCUSSION Commissioner Renzi asked that the speed limit on Renwick Rd. between Route 59 and Route 30 be reviewed. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 7, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Seggebruch indicated that the village has a good problem since the downtown area is booming. Commissioner Seggebruch stated he feels we have too many streetscape lights in the downtown area. Chairman Kiefer read the reminders. ADJOURN Zoning Board of Appeals meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Tracey Erickson Recording Secretary