Loading...
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.