HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986-04-01 minutesPLAN COMMISSION
VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD
Minutes of April 1, 1986 meeting.
PRESENT: A.
H.
R.
D.
D.
W.
K.
Bo
J.
Simmons, Chairman ABSENT:
Bayer, Vice Chairman
Neely
Pearson
Gullicksen, Trustee Liaison
Sharp, Trustee
Callanan, Trustee
b Russ, Ex-Officio
Sobkoviak, Ex-Officio
D. Anderson
J. Anderson
W. Schempf
J. Myers, Ex-Officio
G. Cline, Ex-Officio
S. Manning, Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Minutes of March 4 and March 18, 1986
meetings approved as presented.
CASE 144-22586V MOBIL SIGN
NW Corner Division St. and Main St.
Requesting 88 square foot sign size variance
Present on behalf of Mobil Oil were David Burge, Stu Shore,
Cheryl Buczynski and Jean McMurray., .
Petitioner requested putting up their standard sign package
which. is a Mobil identification sign with corporate logo
5'2" x 12' and beneath that an illuminated price sign 4'10" x 512".
They would replace the 6 x 4 Texaco sign and remove the two price
signs at the corner of the station. Virtually they will have
one whole sign giving a cleaner more concise look. Total signage
they are asking for is 88 square feet for pole sign, two Mobil
signs approximately 10 square feet each, and snack shop sign
13 square feet. Approximately 120 square feet total. They will
sell snacks such as canned soda, cigarettes, candy, et cetera,
but primary business is to sell gas. Petitioner stated the reason
for requesting larger sign is because the gasoline industry is
extremely price competitive on a daily basis and would like
to be able to compete in the marketplace.
Petitioners were asked if they had smaller sign packages. They
stated they do, such as 44 square feet, and felt that the
44 square foot package would not be out of line with what is
existing in community at present.
The Board expressed their feeling that they would like to see
smaller signs.
PLAN COMMISSION
April 1, 1986
Page Two
Neely motioned to
Neely, yes; Bayer,
Motion carried.
deny petitioner's request. Bayer seconded.
yes; Pearson, yes; Simmons, yes.
In further discussion the Petitioner asked Board for suggestions
on a counterproposal.
The Board stated
any way, but are
number of signs,
attractive. The
layout of the sm
will be and some
they are certainly interes-ted in helping in
not in favor of large signs. Reducing the
along with.smaller -sign would be more
Board asked Petitioner to come back with a
aller sign gn package showing exactly where sign
concept as. to h.eight.
Petitioner then gave dimensions for a smaller package.- total
approximately 83 square feet: Pole would be 10' high, sign
on top 3'x 7' x 8' long, underneath. that the price sign
3'6"x 4' x 4', two canopy signs approximately 12 square feet
each, and the snack shop sign 13 square feet.
In discussion th.e Board agreed to the smaller package.
Neely motioned that the Board pass the revised variance.
Bayer seconded.
Pearson, yes; Neely, yes; Bayer, yes; Simmons, yes.
Motion carried.
CASE - 145-35862 PHILLIPS SIGN
NE Corner Division St. and Renwick Rd.
Requesting 49' sq-.: foot sign* size variance
Present on behalf of Phillips Sign;;were Charles Sheehan and
Daniel McNeill.
Petitioner stated they have approximately 96 square feet of
signage there now. They propose to remove the Pride sign
and replace it with their sign -- approximately 49 square feet.
The location of th.e pole on the property is very close to the
canopy. Going below th.e canopy would create a hazard to the
drivers. The sign will-be 23 feet high because of canopy.
Pride would be taken off building and canopies and they are not
planning any further identification at present. Will continue
with convenience store. Petitioner feels because this is a
large piece, of property -- 240' frontage on Route 59 -- they do
not fee . 1 the 20 square foot requirement is adequate.
PLAN COMMI.S$I,ON
April 1, 1986
Page Three
After some discussion the Board stated they would like to
see everything consolidated into one sign. Would like to
see one pole with Phillips sign and price signs below it.
The Board requested Petitioner to come back with a new proposal
consolidating everything into one sign post and be cognizant
of sign size.
Hearing was continued to April 15, 1986 meeting.
J. and S. CROMER COUNTY ZONING CHANGE REQUEST
Attorney Priscilla H. Gruber was pro-sent representing the
owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Cromer. Ms. Gruber
stated this property is north of Caton Farm Road and South of
Renwick Road, each of DuPage River. DuPage River bordering it
on the west. The property goes from Drauden Road on the east
to DuPage River on the west. It is a relatively short distance
south of Renwick Road. Several times that distance north of
Caton Farm Road. The present situation there is vacant, heavily
wooded and the river is on the back end of it. Has been vacant
since 1966 when Cromers took title to it, and has been a lot
of record since February of 1967. It is surrounded by
agricultural zoning and is presently zoned agricultural itself.
It is 2.9 acres which. is too small for an economical farming
operation. To the north is a home known as the Mauer home. To
the south is another home owned by the Parises. Ms. Gruber
stated they are proposing to rezone it through. the County zoning
process to R2-A which is single-family residential small acreage.
1 1/2 acres per lot.
Petitioner feels residential is best use for the property. It is
too small for farming, and too remote for commercial or
industrial use. There will be well and septic on the property
under Will County ordinance and requirements.
In discussion the Plan commission members agreed with
Petitioner and do not object to the rezoning change.
Neely motioned that we not object to this rezoning ng change.
Bayer seconded.
Pearson, yes; Neely, yes; Bayer, yes; Simmons, yes.
PLAN COMMISSION
April 1, 1986
Page Four
CASE 143-220862 Bai.sh Rezoning
605.W. Main Street..
.,Roque-st ng A-3, Current, ly A
This is a continuation of the March- 18, 1986 meeting.
Mr. Bob Baish brought in plans showing an 8-uni.t townhouse
on proposed site. He is not in the market for an 8-unit but
is asking to build a 7-unit townhouse. 7-unit is most
economical for him. Units would be bigger, more space for
the tenants. Each unit would have their own front and rear
entrance and own privacy- area. There would be 4400 square
feet of land per unit. Rent range would be $450 to $500.
A short recess was had.)
SIMMONS: For information purposes, A-3 has been requested and
that is 8 units. A-2 is 6 units. A-3 is the only thing we can
vote on. If Board decides they're looking for only a 6-unit
then you would have to deny the A-3 and have Petitioner come
back with. a-petition for A-2 and make a request that fees be
waived.
The consensus of the Board was they would like to see less
dense zoning for this lot. Would like more free space for
better quality of life.
Pearson motioned to deny Petitioner's request for A-3 zoning.
Bayer seconded.
Neely, no; Bayer, yes; Pearson, yes; Simmons, yes.
Pearson motioned that i.f the applicant returns with an A-2
zoning request for said property we recommend the Village Board
waive filing fees. Neely seconded.
Neely, yes; Bayer, yes; Pearson, yes; Simmons, yes.
GRAVER FARM COUNTY SUBDIVISION, NE CORNER 135th, ROUTE 59
This matter will be on agenda for the April 15, 1986 meeting.
Simmons and Manning will talk to Attorney Babcock before then
to consider the question of annexation since the property is
so close to the Village. They would be calling police, using
park district, et cetera and paying no taxes to Village.
Meeting adjourned.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF WILL SS April 1, 1986
VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD
REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Case No. 144-22586V
T.n r. A i- i nn !
Petitioner:
900 N. Division Street
David Burge, Stu Shore, Cheryl Buczynski and
Jean McMurray on behalf of Mobil Oil Corp.
Request: Variation in size of sign from 20 square feet to
88 square feet on northwest corner of Division Street
and Main Street.
Discussion:
The public hearing was held before the Zoning Board
of Appeals on Tuesday, April 1, 1986. The legal
notice appeared in The Enterprise newspaper on
March 5, 1986, according to State Statutes.
Petitioner requested putting up their standard
sign package which is a Mobil identification sign
with corporate logo 512" x 12' and beneath that
an illuminated price sign 4'10" x 5'2". They would
replace the 6 x 4 Texaco sign and remove the two
price signs at the corner of the station. Virtually
they will have one whole sign giving a cleaner more
concise look. Total signage they are asking for is
88 square feet for pole sign, two Mobil signs
approximately 10 square feet each, and snack shop
sign 13 square feet. Approximately 120 square feet
total. They will sell snacks such as canned soda,
cigarettes, candy, et cetera, but primary business
is to sell gas. Petitioner stated the reason for
requesting larger sign is because the gasoline
industry is extremely price competitive on a daily
basis and would like to be able to compete in the
marketplace.
Petitioners were asked if they had smaller sign
packages. They stated they do such as 44 square feet,
and felt that the 44 square foot package would not
be out of line with what is existing in community at
present.
Page 2
Discussion:
The Board expressed their feeling that they would
like to see .:stmaller signs.
Recommendation: By a vote of 4 to 0, the Zoning Board of
Appeals denied Petitioner's request for
88 square foot sign size variance.
Discussion: In further discussion the Petitioner asked Board
for suggestions on a counterproposal.
The Board stated they are certainly interested in
helping in any way, but are not in favor of large
signs. Reducing the number of signs, along with
smaller sign would be more attractive. Asked
Petitioner to come back with a layout of the
smaller sign package showing exactly where sign
will be and some concept as to height.
Petitioner then gave dimensions for a smaller
package - total approximately 83 square feet:
Pole would be 10' high, sign on top 3'x7'x 8' long,
underneath that the price sign 3'6'x4'x4', two
canopy signs approximately 12 square feet each,
and the snack shop sign 13 square feet.
Findings of Fact: There would be economic hardship to the
property owner unless larger sign is
permitted.
Proposal would not alter essential
character of the area.
The installation of sign will not impair
visibility to motoring public.
No objections were received nor were any
objectioners present at the hearing.
Recommendation: By a vote of 4 to 0 the Zoning Board of Appeals
recommends that the Village Board of Trustees
adopt an ordinance which permits a variation
of the zoning ordinance to allow a sign
variation totaling approximately 83 square feet.
Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting
please sign this sheet for our official records.
NAME
ADDRESS
pwi-)q 7'lw f
/6 0 g 0
J.1
U1,
Ike UGC_
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY EVENINGS OF EACH MONTH