Collinsville City Planning Commission met
Thursday June 19th (at the City
Hall Community Room, 106 N 12th Street) for a regular meeting.
Commission members are: Ellis Holly, Larry Uhl, Jim Price, Ellis Holly, Brad
Francis and Kathy Bradley (& INCOG's Diane Fernandez).
Wright comments: I don't receive electronic
agendas for the Planning Commission and won't bother retyping it all here
as it is mostly legal descriptions of properties anyway. I rarely attend the
planning commission meetings as the major topics usually end up being rehashed
at the city commission meeting later. I attended this one to try and get some
sense of what is planned for "prohibiting all outdoor advertising signs"
which has cryptically been on various agenda for months now since a moritorium
was put on signs back in Feb.
2008. I learned nothing new on that topic as it was tabled again and likely
will be for some time with changes in the city planner position on-going.
rest of the meeting proved very interesting with rejection of several requests
for metal buildings and a lot offset boundry dimension reductions.
Kyle Smalygo Industrial Building - Northeast corner of 156th ST. North
and the SKO Railroad. -- the application for a metal
building at the site was denied by the planning commission. Smalygo
had proposed a 200x40 foot metal building for storage of his property only
... not to be a business site. Apparently the main reason for rejection of
the application was the lack of three "required" site plan elements:
a paving plan, a landscaping plan and a hydrology report/plan. Smalygo countered
that the city's animal shelter (the only other nearby building & also
a metal building with gravel parking) did not have any of the three stated
"required" plans when it was approved (Jan.
2008 opening). City Manager Pam Polk was present and said she did "not
know why" the animal shelter did not have the required plans. Kyle's
building request (and others later) was clouded by the pending ordinance /
just extended (June 16th) moritorium on
ribbed metal buildings.
DG&S Properties request for supplemental zoning for Ashbury Park
- Single Family housing (north of the South Fork(s)) --
the request was denied. One concern given was the request to reduce
the building offset requirements on the side down to 5 ft. Minimum lot width
was also being requested to change to 55ft from the original (2005) zoing
of 60 feet. The public hearing portion of the discussion was primarily focused
on the drainage problems at Southfork which drains into Ashbury Park. Other
public concerns were the total number of units (302) and potential reduction
in their (South Fork) property values with smaller lots nearby. Jeff Tuttle
(the project engineer) represented DG&S at the meeting (see photo above).
Mr. Finney's amended request for Metal Building - Northwest corner of
9th & Broadway. -- the site plan change request
was denied. The primary issues being the age of the building permit which
was started by Kyle Smalygo years ago and not paid for before the property
sold to Finney -and- the ever cloudy state of new metal buildings in Collinsville
with moritoriums and pending ordinances. This one might be further considered
by the City Manager and INCOG planner? The plan called for brick on the side
of the metal building facing 9th Street (but not the alley side) and only
sight screening on the residential side. Indications were that Mr. Finney
would build in Vera instead with his furniture manufacturing facility. His
builder had been waiting for go-ahead at the beginning of June.
Eddie James Metal Warehouse Building - Behind the new car wash by the
new Main Street bridge (near several other industrial sites). --
the site plan was approved with a flood plain stipulation as the flood
maps are currently being revised. The building is just outside the east gateway
appearance district. I won't speculate how the application will fare in the
metal building moritorium issue. -- Ted
Wright Editorial: All of this begs for comment
and public input (which is rare at these type of "public hearings")
but I don't know enough about the protocol and history of any of the
specific cases above to comment on them. But in general I would like
the city to provide real/meaningful information to the public in a timely
fashion before any so-called "public hearings". I have been
trying for months to determine just what is proposed for both the sign
restrictions and metal building issues. The legal notices and agendas
(so far) offer little clue to what could have been approved at numerous
meetings with no real opportunity for the majority of citizens to even
comment on. I agree with having some restrictions on signs and buildings
but they need to be well considered and public feedback encouraged &
fostered. Based on the typical "public" turnout at most city
meetings ... maybe no one cares? I have had my nose rubbed in the comment
before that "we had public hearings and there was no real objection"
(i.e closing 12th street)
and just hate to see that happen again. Also, this meeting "seemed"
very un-business-friendly -vs- a potential goal of brick only buildings,
but again there may have been other protocols and issues that I'm not
up-to-speed on. -- Ted June 21, 2008
I do want to commend the city staff for the slides projected at the
June 16th budget public hearing ... which was a step in the right direction
(although a bit too small to read easily) for the audience which typically
has no knowledge of the figures which commissioner are discussing.
This page sponsored in part by: