Village of Montgomery Planning and Zoning Commission met April 6.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
I. Call to Order- Chairman Hammond called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm
II. Pledge of Allegiance- All present gave the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. Roll Call
Absent:
Present: Marion Bond, Tom Yakaitis, Patrick Kelsey, Mike Hammond, Ben Brzoska, Mildred McNeal-James, Joe Yen
Also present: Village Attorney Laura Julien, Village Engineer Pete Wallers, Director of Community Development Sonya Abt, Senior Planner Tony Farruggia, Village Engineer Chris Ott, Trustee Dan Gier, Trustee Doug Marecek, Trustee Steve Jungermann, and members of the audience.
IV. Approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 2, 2023. Motion: Motion was made by Commissioner Bond to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 2, 2023.
Commissioner Kelsey Seconded the motion.
Ayes: Brzoska, Yen, Bond, Yakaitis, Kelsey, Hammond, McNeal-James.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Motion carried.
V. Public Comment Period. There were no comments from the public.
VI. Items for Planning and Zoning Commission Action
a. 2023-002 Variations – Lot 7 of Ogden Hill (Proposed Starbucks)
1. Public Hearing and Consideration of Variations to allow:
• More than 20% of the building façade to be made of materials limited by the UDO (Section 8.16.B.2).
• The primary entrance to be on the side of the building and for the street facing façade to have transparency of less than 60% (Table 8.19.1).
• The drive-through canopy to encroach more than 4 feet into the yard (Section 9.03.C.2).
• The trash enclosure to be located in the front yard (Section 9.03.C.29.b).
• Two driveways to be greater than 12 feet wide (Section 10.06.C).
• Landscape trees to be less diverse than required (Table 11.03.2).
• Less than 40% of the parking area hardscape to be covered by tree canopy (Section 11.05.A).
• Less than 1 tree per 30 linear feet along the parking lot perimeter (Section 1.05.B).
Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing and called for comment from members of the public in attendance. There were no comments.
Senior Planner Farruggia explained that the Variation from Table 11.03.2 would not be required, as further review of the petition showed the proposed landscape plan met the tree diversity requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
He further outlined the variance requests and provided the reasoning behind the requests.
The principal entrance would be located on the south, parking lot-facing side of the building instead of the eastern, Hill Avenue-facing side, and the building would feature less than the sixty percent (60%) transparency required by the UDO.
The building façade would be forty-four percent (44%) Utility Brick and thirty-eight percent (38%) Exterior Insulation and Finishing Materials (EIFS), both of which are limited to twenty percent (20%) of the façade by the UDO.
The petitioner wanted the drive-through canopy to have a wall on the far side to separate the drive-through and bail out lanes, which would require the canopy to extend thirteen (13) feet into the yard instead of the maximum four (4).
The narrowness of the lot required the layout in the site plan, which included a one-way traffic pattern that would require entrance and exit driveways larger than the maximum twelve (12) feet allowed by the UDO, and that the requirement of a bailout lane meant the only location for a trash enclosure would be in the eastern yard facing Hill Ave.
He also explained that the remaining landscape variances include less than forty percent (40%) of the parking lot area hardscape would be covered by tree canopy, and less than one (1) tree per thirty (30) linear feet would be planted along the parking lot area perimeter.
With no further comment from the public, Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact.
According to Section 4.04 of the UDO, the Planning and Zoning Commission must evaluate applications for variations with specific written findings based on each of the following standards.
1. The proposed variation will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.
Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s opinion that the proposed variations will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.
Staff Comments: Staff concurs with the Petitioner that the variations will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.
2. The proposed variation is compatible with the character of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed variation.
Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s opinion that the proposed variances are compatible with the character of other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed variations.
Staff Comments: Staff believes the variations would allow a use that is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed variation alleviates an undue hardship created by the literal enforcement of this Ordinance.
Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s opinion that the UDO creates an undue hardship or practical difficulty because the narrow lot makes locating a high-visibility drive through use on the parcel impractical when adhering to the requirements of the UDO.
Staff Comments: Staff believes the intent of the UDO and Comprehensive Plan is to allow a Drive-Through business on this parcel but recognizes that the several of the UDO requirements including those for a Drive-Through Facility as applied to a parcel of these dimensions with access limited to internal access drives and not public streets creates practical difficulties in developing this site. Having access only available from the internal access drive for the shopping center that is opposite the front yard presents a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements related to front yard orientation and encroachment into front yards.
In Staff’s opinion, the limitations of the site and the requirements of the use would make twelve (12) foot driveways a practical difficulty and would have a negative impact on traffic flow both within the site and the shopping center’s internal access drive.
Staff understands the building material and landscaping variances proposed by the petitioner would allow the building to meet the design requirements delineated by Starbucks’ corporate offices.
4. The proposed variation is necessary due to the unique physical attributes of the subject property, which were not deliberately created by the applicant.
Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s opinion that proposed variations are necessary due to the unique physical attributes of the subject property.
Staff Comments: Staff agrees with the Petitioner that the existing conditions of the subject property impact the proposed variations, as detailed in the above comments.
5. The proposed variation represents the minimum deviation from the regulations of this Ordinance necessary to accomplish the desired improvement of the subject property.
Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s belief that the variations represent the minimum deviation from the regulation of the UDO that would be required to construct a Starbucks location on the parcel.
Staff Comments: The requested variations represent either the minimum deviation necessary or are a good faith attempt at compliance with the intent of the UDO to the extent that Staff believes that the variances requested are consistent with those required for the overall development of this lot for use as a Starbucks.
6. The proposed variation is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance, and the other land use policies of the Village.
Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s belief that the variations are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO.
Staff Comments: Staff concurs with the Petitioner that the variations are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO. Staff believes that the unique nature of the site make it appropriate to allow for variations that still meet the general intent of the UDO requirements.
The Commissioners concurred with the Findings.
Senior Planner Farruggia stated Staff had recommended conditions if the Commission recommended approval.
• The two (2) required bicycle parking spaces must be included in building plans before building permits are issued.
• The height of the light poles, including fixtures, shall not exceed twenty (20) feet, and an updated photometric plan with the revised heights shall be provided before building permits are issued.
• The Oswego Fire District shall receive a Technical Submission for a Sprinkler System prior to permitting.
Chairman Hammond asked staff why the landscape variances were necessary.
Senior Planner Farruggia stated that it was Staff’s understanding that Starbucks’ corporate requirements limited the number of trees that could be on the site, and that the petitioner was present and available to elaborate.
Chairman Hammond swore in the Petitioner, Dan Abdo of Joseph Development.
Mr. Abdo explained that Starbucks typically prefers corners. Given the distance from Ogden Avenue, they were concerned about limited visibility of the site from cars passing on Hill Avenue.
Mr. Abdo asked Senior Planner Farruggia what the bicycle parking requirement from Staff’s conditions meant.
Mr. Farruggia answered that the site plan would have to show a bike rack capable of use by two bicycles simultaneously before building permits would be issued.
Chairman Hammond commented on the use of Utility Brick and EIFS, noting that he had not seen them used so prominently in a long time.
Commissioner Kelsey commented that the parcel was “undersized” and that this was a deterrent to development. He urged the commission to think long-term when considering this petition and future PUDs.
Commissioner Yen asked how many cars would be able to stack in the drive-through.
Senior Planner Farruggia estimated eight (8) cars.
Mr. Abdo stated that Starbucks can often have a stack of twelve (12) or thirteen (13) cars for full-service stores, and that the bail out lane would be used to accommodate additional cars when needed.
Commissioner McNeal-James asked if the petitioner would be willing to add a sign on the east-facing wall to improve the locations visibility to drivers on Hill Avenue.
Mr. Abdo expressed willingness to do so.
Director Abt explained that Staff would work with the petitioner if they choose to add a sign, but noted that, per the UDO, a sign in that location may require another Variance.
Chairman Hammond clarified with Senior Planner Farruggia that the Variance request reducing tree diversity requirements was unnecessary and called for a vote.
Commissioner Kelsey motioned for a vote to recommend approval for the variances from Section 8.16.B.2, Table 8.19.1, Section 9.03.C.2, Section 9.03.C.29.b, Section 10.06.C, Section 11.05.A and 11.05.B with the following conditions:
• The two (2) required bicycle parking spaces must be included in building plans before building permits are issued.
• The height of the light poles, including fixtures, shall not exceed twenty (20) feet, and an updated photometric plan with the revised heights shall be provided before building permits are issued.
• The Oswego Fire District shall receive a Technical Submission for a Sprinkler System prior to permitting.
Commissioner Brzoska seconded the motion.
Ayes: Bond, Yakaitis, Kelsey, Hammond, Brzoska, McNeal-James, Yen Nays: None
Abstentions: None
Motion carried.
Chairman Hammond noted this petition will go before the Village Board on April 10th.
b. 2023-003 Major Amendment to a Planned Unit Development – Lot 2 of Jericho/Orchard PUD (Proposed Retail Center)
i. Public Hearing and Consideration of a request to alter the façade design and materials of a retail center approved with the PUD.
Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing and called for comment from members of the public in attendance. There were no comments.
Senior Planner Farruggia outlined the design change and reasoning behind the request.
The PUD was approved as Ordinance #1836 with the expectation that a Ricky Rockets would be built on the parcel immediately north of the subject parcel. Ricky Rockets was never built, and a Gas N Wash was approved for the parcel instead by Ordinance #1921. With the Gas N Wash built, the petitioner has requested that the retail center approved for the subject property be allowed a redesigned façade to better match the Gas N Wash.
There are no proposed changes to the site plan or the function of the retail center.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the following conditions:
• Any rooftop mechanicals must also be screened from view from the access drive to the west of the building that connects Jericho Road to Rochester Drive.
• A Final PUD Plan will need to be approved by the Village Board before a building permit can be issued for the retail building.
• A Master Sign Plan must be submitted with the Final PUD Plans.
The Petitioner had nothing to add.
With no further comment from the public, Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact.
The Commission should consider whether the PUD, as amended, is in keeping with the vision of the area and whether its impacts can be properly mitigated. Per the UDO, the following findings are to be evaluated by the Commission, with staff’s recommendations provided for each:
Special Use
1. The proposed amendment will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.
The proposed redesign of the retail building will not have a negative impact on the health, safety, comfort or convenience or general welfare of the public.
2. The proposed amendment is compatible with the character of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed special use.
The proposed amendment would allow the structure to better align with the character of the adjacent properties and is envisioned within the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed amendment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed special use.
The proposed amendment does not prohibit the use of surrounding property or its normal and orderly development. An aesthetic change accommodated by the amendment will not alter the use and functionality from that presented in the existing PUD.
4. The proposed amendment will not require utilities, access roads, drainage and/or other facilities or services to a degree disproportionate to that normally expected of permitted uses in the district, nor generate disproportionate demand for new services or facilities in such a way as to place undue burdens upon existing development in the area.
The proposed amendment does not alter the intensity of the use permitted in the existing PUD and will therefore not increase the size or number of utilities, access roads, drainage or other facilities or services required by the property.
5. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance, and the other land use policies of the Village.
The proposed designs are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and design regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Planned Unit Development
A. The proposed planned unit development fulfills the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the other land use policies of the Village, through an innovative and creative approach to the development of land.
The proposed development provides for additional commercial development while providing additional access and connections desired by the Village on the west side of Orchard Road.
B. The proposed planned unit development will provide walkways, driveways, streets, parking facilities, loading facilities, exterior lighting, and traffic control devices that adequately serve the uses within the development, promote improved access to public transportation, and provide for safe motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic to and from the site.
The proposed development will provide adequate access, utilities, etc. to serve the proposed retail center and will improve access and circulation for the area. The access points from Orchard will need to be approved by Kane County.
C. The proposed planned unit development will provide landscaping and screening that enhances the Village’s character and livability, improves air and water quality, reduces noise, provides buffers, and facilitates transitions between different types of uses.
The proposed development will provide landscaping and will provide adequate screening for the proposed retail center that will enhance the Village’s character in this area, reduce noise and provide adequate buffers between uses.
D. The proposed planned unit development will incorporate sustainable and low impact site design and development principles.
The proposed development will provide for sustainable landscaping and provide adequate drainage.
E. The proposed planned unit development will protect the community’s natural environment to the greatest extent practical, including existing natural features, water courses, trees, and native vegetation.
The proposed development will protect the community’s natural environment consistent with PUD standards.
F. The proposed planned unit development will be provided with underground installation of utilities when feasible, including electricity, cable, and telephone, as well as appropriate facilities for storm sewers, stormwater retention, and stormwater detention.
The proposed development will provide underground utilities and adequate stormwater facilities to serve the development. All stormwater and public improvements will require approval by the Village Engineer.
The Commissioners concurred with the findings.
Chairman Hammond stated that he prefers the redesign to the originally approved design. The other commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Kelsey motioned to approve the Amendment to the Special Use/Planned Unit Development Major Adjustment with the following conditions:
• Any rooftop mechanicals must also be screened from view from the access drive to the west of the building that connects Jericho Road to Rochester Drive.
• A Final PUD Plan will need to be approved by the Village Board before a building permit can be issued for the retail building.
• A Master Sign Plan must be submitted with the Final PUD Plans.
Commissioner Bond seconded the motion.
Ayes: Bond, Yakaitis, Kelsey, Hammond, Brzoska, McNeal-James, Yen
Nays: None
Abstentions: None
Motion carried.
Chairman Hammond noted this petition will go before the Village Board on April 10th.
VII. Community Development Update/New Business
Director Abt stated that Freddy’s Steakburgers is beginning construction.
Commissioner Brzoska asked when Strickland Brothers would be opening.
Director Abt stated they expect to be open by the end of the month.
She also noted that the commissioners may have noticed that Ivy Hall has erected their signs; they expect to be open by Memorial Day.
VIII. Next Meeting: May 4, 2023
IX. Adjournment: With no further business, Chairman Hammond adjourned the meeting at 7:34 PM.
https://www.montgomeryil.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04062023-595
Alerts Sign-up