Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986-04-15 minutesPLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD Minutes of April 15, 1986 meeting. PRESENT: W. R. D. H. A. Da W. A. R. J. J. M. Schempf ABSENT: Neely Pearson Bayer, Vice-Chairman. Simmons, Chairman le GuIlicksen, Trustee Sharp, Trustee Mauer, Bldg. Insp. Russ, Ex-Officio Myers, Ex-Officio Sobkoviak, Ex-Officio Latta, Village President APPROVAL OF MINUTES D. Anderson J. Anderson G. Cline, Ex-Officio A. Arbo, Ex-Officio S. Hjemvick,Ex-Officio S. Manning, Planner Minutes of April 1, 1986 meeting approved as presented. Under New Business discussion on boundary agreements was added to the agenda. CASE NO. 145-3586V - Phillips Sign NE Corner Division St. & Renwick Rd. Requesting 49 sq. foot sign size variance. This is a continuation of the April 1, 1986 hearing. At the April lst hearing the Board requested Petitioner to come back with a new proposal consolidating everything into one sign post and be cognizant of size. Mr. Daniel McNeill was present representing Phillips Petroleum Corporation. Petitioner proposes putting up a Phillips 66 sign - 49 square feet (7lx7'), and a price sign - 42 square feet (6'x7) at location now of old price sign. Reader board and Pride canopy sign will be removed. They would be actually removing 5 signs and putting up 2 signs. Removing approxi- mately 164 square feet and putting up 91 square feet. The two signs would be on one pole - approximate height 22 feet. PLAN COMMISSION April 15, 1986 Page Two After some discussion and examination of the proposed sign package the Plan Commission agreed to the 91 square foot total signage. Neely m ' oved to approve the sign variance as presented. Seconded by H. Bayer. Vote by roll call. Schempf, yes; Neely, yes; Pearson, yes; Bayer, yes; Simmons, yes. 5 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Graver Farm County Subdivision - NE Corner 135th St., Rt. 59. Attorney James Babcock was present representing the owner of the property, Mr. Paul Graver. They are asking approval from the Plan Commission. to rezone the property from its present County zoning of A-1 to an.R-2A zoning to enable this property to be developed.to single-family residential lots, approximately 100. The proposed lot size is 30,000 square feet, approximately three-quarters of an acre which is the County requirement for well and septic. The property,.approximately 100 acres, is located north of 135th Street and east of Route 59. Petitioner talked with Village Administrator and the.Water and Sewer Department to see where water and sewer services were and where they ended because there is an indication the Village would like to annex the property and Petitioner does not object to annexation. In checking on the water and sewer lines Petitioner stated it would cost roughly a half a. million dollars to hook up to our water and sewer-and.that kind of figure, would prohibit them from doing so. The owner of the property, Mr. Graver, does not want to be in the position of trying to convince people contiguous to the Village to annex. If the Village would take the responsibility of getting certain property owners to annex in order for the Village to get to the Graver property, get them to voluntarily annex, Petitioner would have no opposition as long as an agreement is worked out. If we do not have voluntary annexation we run into litigation; Petitioner wants friendly annexation. Petitioner stated according to the Village Plan the area is considered residential. Referencing rough drawing of the subdivision, Petitioner stated some of the concerns expressed were: one entrance to the subdivision, Fire Chief expressed concern about water supply in case of fire, and water retention facilities. PLAN COMMISSION April 15, 1986 Page Three Petitioner will do whatever is necessary to make entrance to the subdivision acceptable and will do the proper engineering on water retention facilities when zoning is granted. A. Simmons stated he would like to see some active pursuit from the Village on annexation because the proposed subdivision will be using Plainfield. Allan.l..;Mauer, building inspector for Plainfield, stated this is a logical way for Plainfield to grow. We have a 27-inch sewer main which is readily adaptable sitting on the north side of Plainfield primarily geared to future expaftsion north. Mr. Mauer feels growth pattern has to be there and feels this parcel of land should not go to County development. Mr. Mauer recommends that the Plan Commission deny the petition. He feels it is important at this time for the Village to talk to surrounding property owners, CBI, Clayton Eaton, Paul Graver, and Herzog farm; that these areas can be developed into some- thing that would attach to the Village of Plainfield. A. Simmons requests that the Village Board talk to these people about annexation. There were tentative agreements at one time but they fell through. Mr. Babcock further stated that they are willing to negotiate a preannexation agreement with the Village so the Graver property can be annexed on a voluntary basis. If it's an annexation that will involve litigation they are not interested. The logical person to talk to and the logical approach would be Mr. Eaton's farm because he is north and south of 135th Street. In discussion the Plan Commission agreed a committee should be established to talk to CBI and Mr. Eaton. H. Bayer moved to continue the Graver property discussion to the next Plan Commission meeting. Seconded by W. Schempf. Voice vote. All in favor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS BOUNDARY AGREEMENTS a Some time ago a meeting was held with Margaret Price of Naperville to discuss boundary agreements. Naperville suggested a boundary agreement at 115th Street because it is a natural boundary. If they came any lower they would need pumping systems or lift stations. PLAN COMMTSSI,ON April 15, 1986 Page Four Discussion was h.ad on what we would.like as the boundary agreement. One question raised was that if we go above our facility plan (127th Street) what obligation do we have outside our.faci.lity plan, for example water and sewer. Plan Commission agreed they would like to see 111th Street as the boundary agreement. The Board feels it is a nice area and it exits to Route 30 on one end and to Bolingbrook. on the other. Naperville is eager to get boundary agreement at this time. R. Neely moved that the Village Board of Trustees in their continuing meetings with Naperville negotiate.a boundary agreement at 111th Street. Seconded by D. Pearson. Vote by roll call. Schempf, yes; Neely, yes; Pearson, yes; Bayer, yes; Simmons, yes. 5 yes, 0 no. Motion carried. There was a short discussion on s.i.gns as.to what the requirements are when ownership changes. A. Simmons read a letter of resignation from Donald Pearson effective as of the first of May. On behalf of the Mayor, the Village of Plainfield, and the Plan Commission, Dale Gullicksen thanked Mr. Pearson for his many years of service and wished him the best of luck. in his, future endeavors. Adjourned: 9:00 p.m. STATE OF TLLTNOI.S COUNTY OF WILL SS; VILLAGE OF P.LAINFIE.LD Case No.-145-3586Z T.nr, A i- inn - Petitioner: laws) 451 South Division Street April 15 r 19.86 Charles Sheehan and.Daniel McNeill on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Corporation. Request: 49 square foot sign size variance. Discussion: The public hearing was held before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, Apri.1 1, 1986. The legal notice appeared in The Enterprise newspaper on March. 12, 1986. 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 the pole on the property is very close to the canopy. Going below the canopy would create a hazard to the drivers. Th6.(';sign,_w1.11 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 -- 2401 frontage on Route 59 -- they do not feel the 20 square foot requirement is adequate. After some discussion the Board stated.they would like to see everything consolidated into one sign. Would like to see one I 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 continued to April 15, 1986. meeting. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 15, 1986 Page Two Continuation of April 1, 1986 public hearing. Case No. 145-3586Z Location: 451 South Division Street Petitioner: Daniel McNeill on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Corporation. Request: 49 square foot sign size variance. Discussion: Petitioner presented their new proposal as requested from previous meeting. They propose putting up a Phillips 66 sign - 49 square feet (7'x7'), and a price sign - 42 square feet (6'x7') at location now of old price sign. Reader board and Pride canopy sign will be removed. They would be actually removing 5 signs and putting up 2 signs. Removing approxi- mately 164 square feet and putting up 91 square feet. The two signs would be on one pole - approximate height 22 feet. After short discussion and examination of the proposed sign package the Plan Commission agreed to the 91 square foot total signage. Findings of Fact.: 1. The flow of traffic in that area is around 45 m.p.h. 2. The sign will be located on property with 240 ft. of frontage on Route 59. 3. This variation will not alter the essential character of the area. 4. No objections were received and no objectioners were present at the meeting. Recommendation: By a vote of 5 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 49 square foot Phillips.66 sign and a 42 square foot price sign on one pole to be constructed at this location. REPORT OF PLAN COMMISSION Subject: Boundary Agreements Discussion: April 15, 1986 Some time ago a meeting was held with Margaret Price of Naperville to discuss boundary agreements. Naperville suggested a boundar-y,:,a greemehtcaat 115th Street because it is a natural boundary. If they came any lower they would need pumping systems or lift stations. Discussion was had on what.we would like as the boundary agreement. one question raised was that if we go above.our facility plan (127th St.) what obligation do we have outside our facility plan, for example water and sewer. Plan Commission agreed they would like to see 111th. Street as the boundary agreement. They feel it is .a nice area, it exilts to Route 30 on one end and to Bolingbrook on the other. Naperville is eager to get boundary agreement at this time. Recommendation: By a vote of 5 to 0, the Plan Commission recommends that the Village Board of Trustees in their continuing meetings with Naperville negotiate a boundary agreement at 111th Street. Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting please sign this sheet for our official records. NAME ADDRESS �7 �2- t3l - - - ---------- &!ev 1w, 0 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY EVENINGS OF EACH MONTH