Loading...
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