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