Planning Commission Minutes 07-11-2017MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson,
Commissioners Absent: Lucas Wynne
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), John Rued
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Brad Fyle called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
6:00 p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Regular Meeting Minutes — June 61h 2017
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 6TH, 2017 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
2. Public Hearings
A. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning to
Planned Unit Development, a request for Development Stage Planned Unit
Development for Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair — Minor, and
Accessory Office and Retail Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District,
including allowance for 130' flag pole height
Applicant: FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC
Steve Grittman explained that the request was for an expansion of a current
facility under a new PUD to occupy a fonner used car dealership. The PUD was
intended to accommodate some of the conditions that exist on the site. Grittman
noted that most of the expansion site would be used for recreational vehicle sales
and displays.
Grittman stated the accommodations for the PUD would be needed to
accommodate the proposed building size and floor ratio. The applicant requested
having an expanded sales area that is outside of the standards ratio for building
size to display area size.
A flag pole also was proposed at 130 foot flag pole height.
Grittman noted that a monument sign is currently located a couple feet in the
right-of-way. Camping World proposed to keep that monument sign in the
location as constructed, as well as the additional sign shown.
Grittinan explained the comments identified in Exhibit Z of the staff report. The
applicant requested having a larger flagpole height than the staff recommendation
and to construct a fence or wall around the east and south boundaries of the east
parcel.
Brad Fyle asked which sign was in question. Grittman responded that it was the
monument sign located along 3801 Chelsea Road. Staff recommended removing
it out of the right-of-way. The current location is around 2.5 feet in the right-of-
way.
Brad Fyle commented that he did not have a problem with the flagpole height.
Fyle asked if the existing building would further violate the Zoning Ordinance per
the provision regarding the ratio percentage of building to lot. Grittman
confirmed, stating the Hecker Building that was originally built and conformed to
the previous code. Camping World then purchased land from the City and paved
that area, increasing the percentage beyond the allowed limit. By adding more
land, the percentage further violates the ordinance, even with the two buildings on
the acquired lot. As the ordinance is written, the applicant would need to have
40,000 square feet of additional building to confonn.
Charlotte Gabler asked what the two buildings on the acquired site would be
considered. Grittinan stated they would be considered accessory uses. Grittman
stated the point of the screening condition was to direct traffic to the main
building. Gabler also asked if it would be practical to combine the parcels.
Grittman stated that combining the lots would not necessarily resolve any issues
within the PUD.
Fyle asked for clarity about the access points. Grittman responded that there are
currently three curb cuts along Chelsea Road. They are proposing to gate at least
one of the driveways for operational purposes and they would completely close
off one of the entrances.
Gabler asked if the stormwater plan was sufficient with the addition of new
pavement. Angela Schumann stated the stormwater system for the existing site
was approved at the last meeting, but the new site was proposed to have an
underground system. She stated the City Engineer has approved the configuration
with minor comments.
Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward first.
Walter Kucharyszyn, Camping World — Lincolnshire, Illinois, stated he reviewed
the Exhibit Z comments. He stated the zoning requirements for the pylon sign
would be met. He was concerned with the expenses that would incur by moving
the monument sign out of the right-of-way, citing that it was approved under the
previous owner when it was constructed. He also stated concerns with turning
movements if the sign were moved farther into the Camping World site.
Kucharyszyn explained that the existing pavement on the former Bedrock Site
was not curbed stated that Camping World would complete the curbing, if
desired. He also stated that a landscaping plan was submitted the previous day.
The detail on the fence was also provided.
Kurcharyszyn explained the importance of having a flagpole at the proposed 130
feet. He stated that many employees at Camping World are veterans and that it is
very well noticed by people. He asked that the setback of the flag pole be set at 15
feet and reassured that the FAA completes their review of the structural
engineering.
Kucharyszyn explained that he preferred to construct a fence or wall around the
east and south boundaries of the east parcel (per 9c. of the staff report). He also
stated their compliance for items 10, 11, and 12 of the staff report.
Gabler asked if a similar flagpole height was seen in Monticello, specifically
noting the Perkin's flag. Schumann responded that she was unable to get the
height of the Perkins flagpole, but believed Camping World's request would be
taller.
Gabler also asked for detail on the ornamental fence and landscaping detail.
Schumann stated that the ornamental fence would be placed along the south, east,
and west boundary line. Grittman also explained that the submitted landscaping
plan included evergreen shrubs, trees, perennial, and deciduous trees. Gabler
asked if any over story trees were required. Grittman confinned stating the over
story trees would be located along the common boundary and along Chelsea
Road. Grittman was unable to verify if the numbers of plantings would conform
to code due to the time of the submittal of the landscaping plan.
Sain Murdoff asked if the applicant was planning on keeping the existing
buildings on the former Bedrock Motors site. Kucharyszyn confinned, stating that
they would be used for detailing. Murdoff also asked if the green space would be
paved. Kucharyszyn confinned stating it would be used for inventory.
Shawn Weinand, Ocello, stated he looked at purchasing the property years prior.
He was informed at that time that if the property was modified, the existing metal
buildings on the site would have to be removed as they did not meet the B-3
Zoning. He explained visual concerns, especially as it leads to the City's Otter
Creek Business Park. He suggested dressing up the existing buildings. Fyle
commented that he was not in favor of Bedrock Motors not updating the building
materials. He noted if this was new construction, it would not be allowed as is.
3
Hearing no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed.
Marc Simpson asked if an existing flagpole exists. A Camping World
representative confirmed.
Gabler asked how to take all existing metal buildings in Monticello and repurpose
them. She questioned if a repurposing section of the code could be created.
Grittman stated that the applicant could use the site as is as an existing non-
conforming property. However because other improvements to the site are
proposed, the code applies to bring non -conformities into conformity. Many cities
have tiered stages of approval to bring sites into compliance. Grittman stated they
could look into adding language to the code to include a repurposing section.
Gabler asked if he agreed with improving the building surface of the existing
buildings. Kucharyszyn stated that was a corporate decision. Gabler asked if that
could be something included in the PUD or development agreement. Grittman
stated that it is important to think about how to enforce such decisions.
Fyle asked how they could enforce the building materials specifications. Grittman
stated they would propose the applicant submit revised plans showing the
approved improvements.
Marc Simpson asked for clarification on the gated entrance. Kucharyszyn
responded a manual gate would be created. Simpson asked if it would be
accessible if necessary for the fire department. Kucharyszyn confirmed that
something could be done to make the area more accessible. He explained that
there would be only one entrance for the general public. Grittman added that there
would be a property connection on the north portion of the site.
Murdoff asked if any code issues would exist with only the one access. Grittman
stated that the southeast entrance would be open in any case, but that the applicant
should work with the Fire Department so that they were also satisfied with the
site.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-016,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN EXHIBIT Z, BUT
WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Camping World PUD
3801, 3887 Chelsea Road
Lot 1, Block 1 Camping World First Addition
0
Lot 1, Block 1, Maas Addition
1. Meet the architectural materials requirements of the pylon sign standards.
2. Enforce the requirements for monument sign relocation at 3810 Chelsea Road, by
moving the sign out of the right of way; or if location is approved by the City, the
applicant shall enter into a license agreement for the encroachment.
3. Provide curbing around the entire paved area, consistent with the requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
4. Revise landscaping plan to provide quantity and species for proposed landscaping
along south portion of the site.
5. Provide materials and height detail for proposed ornamental fence.
6. Accommodate the proposed flagpole height of 130 feet.
7. Locate the flagpole at a distance from the east and north property line a distance of
30'
S. Demonstrate FAA review and approval for flagpole as required.
9. Upgrade the existing buildings with exterior architectural treatments to meet/exceed
the requirements for commercial buildings and construct a fence or wall around the
east and south boundaries of the east parcel, with landscaping on east and south sides
to create an attractive visual screen, and which focuses traffic and attention to the
main property (3801 Chelsea).
10. Revise site and building plans to illustrate consistency in proposed improvements.
11. Comply with the comments of the City Engineer per the checklist included with the
staff report of July 11 th, 2017.
B. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Conditional
Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Multi -
Tenant Commercial Building in a B-3 (Highway Business) District
Applicant: Larson Building, Inc/Crown Bay, LLC
Steve Grittman explained that the PUD accommodated the development of a
commercial site at Monticello Travel Center. The site is surrounded by existing
access drives or streets. The building entrance would face Oakwood Drive with
parking bays at the north and west side of the building. An existing curb cut for
general public access to the site would be eliminated along Cedar Street, but
access would be allowed on the east side of the site through the existing shared
access drive. Trash receptacles would be on the south side of the building.
Grittman noted that a sign easement exists on the south side of the lot for a large
pylon sign. They are not proposing any structures in this area, but are proposing a
monument sign elsewhere on the site. The easement remains in place as
originally approved.
Retail and office uses were proposed to be accommodated at the site. Cross access
easements and parking agreements would be set with adjoining property owners.
It was noted that adequate parking was proposed on the site, however would need
to be recalculated if a food service use was to locate in the building.
Staff recommended approval of the proposal, subject to the comments displayed
in Exhibit Z.
Charlotte Gabler asked if any drive through lanes were proposed. Grittman
declined, stating only a service drive on the south portion of the side would be
provided.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing and welcomed the applicant to the podium
first.
Bob Lamont, Crown Bay LLC., explained that the staff report was presented
accurately and stated compliance with the Exhibit Z comments.
Marc Simpson verified that either two or three tenants could be located in the
proposed development. Lamont confirmed.
Dan Mielke, adjacent property owner in the PUD, stated that no concerns with the
proposal. He asked that all operational easements stay in place, that the businesses
are always able to use the driveways, and that all drives stay open during the
construction stage.
Lamont stated one of the Exhibit Z comments included verification of cross -
parking and access agreements and reassured the Planning Commission that it
would be easily provided. Fyle verified that the roads wouldn't be blocked off
during construction. Lamont confinned.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for
a Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate the
construction of a multi -tenant commercial building and associated site
improvements and parking.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-017
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR PUD, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
3
CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development
And PUD Development Stage Site Plan Review
Lot 6, Block 1, Monticello Travel Center
Proposed Tenants include those listed in the B-3 District as Permitted Uses, in
addition to commercial and/or professional office space (a Conditional Use in the
B-3 District).
2. The applicants complete Change of Use process requirements as tenants change to
verify continued compliance with zoning requirements.
3. Verification of executed cross -parking and access agreements within the Travel
Center PUD.
4. Verification that lighting fixtures meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance
as specified in this report.
5. Compliance with comments from the City Engineer in the Engineer's letter dated
June 5th, 2017.
6. Payment of required development charges and submission of required
landscaping security.
7. Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public
Hearing.
C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development and Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Self -
Storage Facility in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Applicant: KB Properties, LLC
Steve Grittinan explained that the proposed development of a self -storage facility
would be located along Chelsea Road and abuts the Groveland development.
There would be a small parking area, gated with a kiosk. The applicant proposed
construction of the development in phases. Grittman explained that most of the
buildings along Chelsea would be the same size, reducing down as they move to
the north. The drive aisles were proposed at 24 feet, with a few narrower sections
near the units facing Chelsea Road. Staff recommends accommodating the 24 foot
width at all locations due to visibility concerns. Staff also recommended bollard
placements at the corners of the buildings and pavement markings to define traffic
movement.
Grittman stated that the applicants proposed a cast-iron fence around the site
except along the west area where a berm exists. Stormwater management would
7
be located along the south side of the development. The landscaping is adequate
south of the site and along Chelsea Road. Staff recommended a rock mulch be
placed along Chelsea Road where a pathway. This would ensure the landscaping
would not spread onto the pathway.
The buildings were proposed to be primarily metal exteriors, with cultured stone
wainscot on sides of buildings facing the roadway. Fencing and landscaping for
screening would be provided on the site. Grittman noted the building materials
were the largest code variation.
Grittman reviewed the Exhibit Z comments with the Planning Commission and
recommended approval of the proposal.
Brad Fyle asked for clarification about the fence. Grittman confirmed that no
fencing would exist adjacent to the residential area. Only landscaping and a berm
were proposed near this area. Fyle asked if the fencing would be phased. Grittman
responded that the proposal was to construct the buffer landscaping along the
berm as a part of the first phase, and then he believed it would be constructed as
they built out from east to west. All of the landscaping would be built with the
first phase.
Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Keith Burnham, KB Properties, stated that he had no issues satisfying the
comments in Exhibit Z. Burnham added that all residents maintain a fence to the
property line and didn't see the need to have two fences back to back with the
proposed buffering and landscaping. Fyle asked for clarification on the
construction of the metal fencing. Burnham stated that they would phase the
fencing.
Charlotte Gabler mentioned concerns with traffic along Innsbrook Drive.
Nicole Hills, 10036 Park Place Drive, mentioned concerns with the appearance of
the building on the corner of Innsbrook Drive and Chelsea Road. She also
mentioned safety concerns with having no fence along the residential area.
Shawn Weinand, Ocello, explained concerns with having metal buildings in a B-3
area. He expressed a desire to have a taller fence along the property and explained
that with the landscaping the ends of the buildings would still be visible. He
recommended having additional architectural materials used on the corners of the
buildings and on the fence. He mentioned the difficulty in having a kiosk during
the winter, not having a manager on site, no restrooms, and garbage concerns. He
recommended grading and landscaping the site all at once so that people know
what's happening along the perimeter. He recommended the fencing along the
residential area and mentioned concerns with snow removal and keeping the
buildings dry because of the elevations. He also recommended having 25 feet
driving lanes with ballads at the corner of every building. Weinand asked the
applicant to consider the type of customers he was trying to attract.
Burnham responded to concerns with the kiosks and explained that the kiosks
would be housed inside a climate control building and that the option to call hien
or an operator would be available instantly.
Burnham explained that the buildings facing Innsbrook Drive and Chelsea Road
would use stone rock wainscot and fibrous cement board. He explained that much
of the landscaping would add color and break up the buildings.
Burnham explained that the target customer is residents of Monticello and
explained that the concerns with dumping garbage would occur regardless of his
development.
Burnham stated that the grading would occur all at once. He also added that snow
removal could be blown into the rain gardens.
Burnham noted that Monticello has two self -storage facilities, both of which are
understood to be full with waiting lists.
He reiterated his desire to cater to Monticello residents.
Burnham also explained that if people wanted to get over a fence, they would do
so regardless. He explained the costs to build a fence along the residential area
would be expensive.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Fyle explained that the buildings facing Chelsea Road should be better dressed
up. He stated the buildings facing Innsbrook Drive would be sufficient with the
landscaping and agreed that additional fencing would be unnecessary along the
residential area.
Murdoff agreed with Fyle and added that he would like to see the fence completed
all at one time.
Gabler asked for the height of the berm. Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineering Site
Design, stated that from the residential side to the bene, it varies from four to six
feet and from the berm towards the storage units would be up to seven feet.
Dahlke stated the berm would provide significant screening with the landscaping.
Gabler asked for the building to be enhanced along the streets and agreed with the
fencing being completed around the perimeter at the time of development.
Burnham believed with the landscaping and the raingardens the view would be
broken up. Gabler asked if the buildings along the outside perimeter could have
gables to better transition the proposed development. Burnham said that he would
be open to the change. Concerns with the visual appearance above the fence line
was a concern.
E
Gabler asked for clarification of the entrance gates. Burnham explained the site
would have a security system with automatic locking and that the gate between
the buildings would not allow access to anyone.
Simpson agreed with the comments of the fence around the perimeter and to
better tailor the buildings.
Scott Dahlke proposed that the development stage plans get approved and that the
comments from the Planning Commission and City Engineer comment letter get
addressed in the final stage PUD plan review.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC -
2017 -018, PENDING SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FROM
THE APPLICANT, PUBLIC, AND/OR STAFF. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
D. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown Small Area Study
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann explained that the most recent version of the Small Area Study
was included in the packets. Schumann explained that the request for approval
was tabled at the EDA meeting. The EDA have since asked for a workshop
meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss implementation of the plan.
Staff requested tabling action and continue the public hearing on the item.
Schumann encouraged the Planning Commission to attend a special meeting on
Wednesday, July 12th at 7 pm at the Community Center.
Brad Fyle asked if a quorum was necessary. Schumann responded that the public
notice notes that a quorum of the Planning Commission, EDA, and/or City
Council may be present. Schumann also requested any specific questions or
concerns regarding the plan be sent to her.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADOPTION OF THE
DOWNTOWN SMALL AREA STUDY AND RELATED AMENDMENTS
AND CONTINUE THE HEARING TO AUGUST 1 ST, 2017. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
E. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 3 for regulations for accessory use outdoor
storage in industrial districts
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann explained that discussion was held at the June Planning
Commission Meeting, but the public hearing was not opened.
10
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing
was closed.
Schumann added that staff recommended approval of the changes as identified in
the exhibits.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC -2017-014,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 6XX, FOR
AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 5,
SECTION 3 FOR REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY USE OUTDOOR
STORAGE IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration to accept the resignation of Planning Commissioner Lucas
Wynne and to direct posting of vacant position for Commission
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF LUCAS
WYNNE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO DIRECT
POSTING OF VACANT POSITION FOR COMMISSION. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
B. Consideration to call for a public hearing for amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance for Chapter 4, Section 8 as related to driveway width for
single-family residential lots.
Angela Schumann explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires a maximum
width of 24 feet between the curb and the property line for single-family
residential lots. At the last City Council meeting, two separate residents applied
for a driveway permit for over 24 feet.
Per City Council discussion, staff have asked the Planning Commission for a
public hearing for August 1St, 2017.
Brad Fyle asked what the width of the proposed driveways by the two residents
was. Schumann responded that she believed they were 30 and 31 feet. She also
added that those residents decided to move forward with a driveway permit to the
width that currently conforms to code.
Schumann also added that the reason driveway permits were started was to ensure
that residents stay within code allowance.
Schumann noted that driveway widths vary from city to city, but 24 feet width is
common. The reasons for the 24 width has to do with the amount of impervious
surface per lot, the amount of area for snow storage and visibility, and lot widths.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 1ST, 2017 TO
11
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 8 FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report
Angela Schumann stated that she provided an update on the Planning Commission
list of recommendations in the report. She noted a previous item that was heard,
Chadwick/Bowers comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, the applicants
have requested tabling at the past few City Council meetings. Mr. Chadwick has
requested to withdraw his application and Mr. Bowers has asked to continue
moving forward.
4. Added Items
Brad Fyle asked that the previous two applicants for the Planning Commission be
contacted for the opening on the Planning Commission. Schumann responded that the
message would be given to the Human Resources department.
5. Adjournment
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:12 PM. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Recorder: Jacob ThunanderoT_
Approved: August 1, 2017
Attest:
Angela Schur an�,,Comjnunity Development Director
12