HomeMy Public PortalAbout1986-07-01 minitesVILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD
PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
DATE: July 1, 1986
AT: Village Hall
PRESENT: H. Bayer, R. Neely, W. Schempf,.J. Anderson, D. Anderson,
J. Sobkoviak, D. Gullicksen, R. Russ, J. Eichelberget,
Janet Anderson.
ABSENT: A. Simmons, W. Sharp, M. Gehrke,, D. Almon, A. Arbo,
J. Bostjancic, J. Wilson.
H. Bayer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll call was taken.
There being no additions or corrections to the minutes of the
JuAe 3, 1986 meeting H - Bayer declared the minutes approved as
presented.
PUBLIC HEARING - 601 N. Illinois St.
Joliet Federal Sign Variance (Amerifed)
Present were Mr. Robert F. Zielinski on behalf of Joliet Federal
Savings and Loan Association (Amerifed), and Mr. Jack Phelan of
the Federal Sign Company.
Petitioner stated the proposed sign is 5 1/2 feet high, 101 1" long,
15 feet to the top of the sign. Would be 9' 61' from grade to the
bottom of the sign. Will be illuminated. Color of sign is dark gray
with red, white and blue theme. overall there would be about 55 square
feet of signage.
There are a couple of directional signs - they would be taking down
two (2) "Drive-Thru" signs and replacing them with just one sign. At
the other exit a "Do Not Enter" sign will replace the existing sign.
They will be utilizing the same steel pipe that is there, so
basically they would be taking the top section down and replacing it,
just remodeling the sign that is already there.
The Board asked the Petitioner what the possibility is of taking their
15-foot dimension and bringing it down to say 4 or 5 feet and going
to the low profile with the same dimension. Petitioner stated there
would be a problem with traffic hazards and vandalism.
In discussion the Board stated they feel the trend seems to be to
much smaller and more blending-type signs. Plainfield is trying to
set the ground rules for lower signs as we are presently working on
a new sign ordinance. The Board also felt they would not lose their
Plainfield Plan Commission
July 1, 1986
Page Two
identity by changing the size of the sign. Can see no hardship,
and they are not in competition with other businesses.
To clarify, Mr. Zielinski.stated they can change the Drive-Thru
sign, Customer Parking sign, and the One-Way Do Not Enter sign.
It was the consensus of the Board that they could put up the
directional-type signs, but the electrical sign would be denied.
R. Neely moved to deny the sign variance and go with the same type
sign that is there, except change the color and name.
Seconded by J. Anderson. Vote by roll call.
Bayer, yes; Neely, yes; Schempf, yes; J. Anderson, yes; D. Anderson,
yes; J. Sobkoviak, yes. 6 yes-,j 0 no. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
County Case - Discussion on annexation of property
south of Renwick Rd. and east of Rt. 59.
Su Su/Koop
Mr. Howard A. Koop, President of The Spartan Group., Inc. in
St. Charles, Illinois was present representing Mrs. Su Su, owner of
the property for an informal discussion regarding possible annexation
of the property south of Renwick Rd. and east of Route 59.
Mr. Koop stated the property is approximately 89 acres. There are
no utilities to the property presently. What they are thinking of is
single-family development. This property is not contiguous to the
Village and as yet they have not contacted any of the adjoining land
owners. Assuming that they could make the property contiguous and
assuming the retention and everything else is properly designed there
would be about 80 acres for development. About 8 acres in ponds-,
et cetera.
Since the Village does not have sewer capacity at
extend and annex, we'are asking-ican we annex this
present ordinances allowing septic systems. They
Board's reaction to having a development annexing
this basis, or if they should pursue going to the
anything prior to spending a lot of funds on engi
There have been some soil tests, but not on every
present to in fact
property under
would like the
residential land on
County or not pursue
veering and design.
lot.
Mrs. Su Su stated she purchased this property from Opportunity Homes
in 1978. She wishes that Plainfield can help her think of something
which would be easier for the developer and at the same time do
something good for the Village of Plainfield.
Mr. Koop further stated that as a developer he
Village. He is interested in doing the job pr,
He knows what the regulations are in regard to
sewer, percolation and what sells. What they
some idea from the Village on getting the cost
the property.
would.rather be in the
Dperly without skimping.
retention, water and
are looking for is
of water and sewer to
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
July 1, 1986
Page Three
If the Village would be agreeable to well and septic, assuming
all the engineering is there, and they can get contiguous to the
Village, would the Village be amenable to allow development in the
corporate limits with well and septic.
R. Neely questioned whether the property could be developed with
a covenant that when the water and sewer became available they would
have to hook up.
Mr. Koop stated he has seen it done in other communities. When the
water and sewer get to the property the people have a right to tap
on, it's not mandatory, but they have a certain time period and they
are able to pay for it over a certain.period of time- Eventually .
they-must tap on. A lot of western suburbs have hard water and a lot
of people would probably welcome getting off the septic system.
Mr. Koop stated he feels there are advantages to being annexed such
as police protection, post office, et cetera.
In discussion it was the feeling that the Village would receive
roughly $200 per home in addition to what would be paid to the
Township. The Board felt if annexed, the acre lots would be a large
tax base and would open up the route to the south for annexation.
The consensus of the Board was that they would not see any reason
why they would deny the well and septic providing the soil could
handle it and follow-up tests were done to.make sure everything is
proper as far as the sanitary conditions are concerned.
The Board was agreeable to the project. Mr. Koop stated he will get
back to the Board.
On motion the medting'was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
4
Kay- i4ni ' S retary
1400 DIVISION ST PLAINFIELD. IL 60544
PHONE 815-436.7093
Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting
please sign this sheet for our official records.
ADDRESS
Am
6 N. dlo--A
IV,
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FIRST AND THIRD MONDAY EVENINGS OF EACH MONTH
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF WILL SS:
VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD
1WAI
AMERIFED SIGN VARIANCE
601
LOCATION: _&� N. Illinois Street
Plainfield, IL
July 1, 1986
PETITIONER: Mr. Robert F. Zielinski on behalf of
Joliet Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. (Amerifed)
DISCUSSION:
Present were Mr. Robert F. Zielinski on behalf of Joliet Federal
Savings & Loan Association (Amerifed), and Mr. Jack Phelan of
the Federal Sign Company.
Petitioner stated the proposed sign is 5 1/2 feet high, 10' 1" long.
15 feet to the top of the sign. Would be 9' 6" from grade to the
bottom of the sign. Will be illuminated. Color of sign is dark
gray with red, white and blue theme. overall there would be about
55 square feet of signage.
There are a couple of directional signs - they would be taking
down 2 "Drive-Thru" signs and replacing them with just one sign.
At the other exit a "Do Not Enter" sign will replace the existing
sign.
They will be utilizing the same steel pipe that is there, so
basically they would be taking the top section down and replacing it,
just remodeling the sign that is already there.
The Board asked the Petitioner what the possibility is of taking
their 15-foot dimension and bringing it down to say 4 or 5 feet and
going to the low profile with the same dimension. Petitioner stated
there would be a problem with traffic hazards and vandalism.
In discussion the Board stated they feel the trend seems to be to
much smaller and more blending-type signs. Plainfield is trying to
set the ground rules for lower signs as we are presently working on
a new sign ordinance. The Board also felt they would not lose their
identity by changing the size of the sign. Can see no hardship,
and they are not in competition with other businesses.
REPORT OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 1, 1986
Page Two
To clarify, Mr. Zielinski stated they can change the Drive-Thru
sign, Customer Parking sign, and the One-Way Do Not Enter sign.
It was the consensus of the Board that they could put up the
directional-type signs, but the electrical sign was denied.
RECOMMENDATION:
By a vote of 6 to 0, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends that
the Village Board of Trustees deny the sign variance but can go
with the same type sign that is already there, except change the
color and name.