East Central Reporter

Village of Montgomery Planning and Zoning Commission met March 7.

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: Mike Baum

Present: Marion Bond, Tom Yakaitis, John Ott, Mike Hammond, Mildred McNeal-James, Joe Yen

Also present: Village Attorney Laura Julien, Director Sonya Abt, Senior Planner Tony Farruggia, Secretary Jill Hoover, Trustee Dan Gier, Trustee Theresa Sperling, Trustee Ben Brzoska, Trustee Doug Marecek, Commissioner Mike Baum (online) and members of the audience.

IV. Approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 1, 2024. Motion: Motion was made by Commissioner McNeal-James to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 1, 2024.

Commissioner Bond seconded the motion.

Ayes: McNeal-James, Yen, Bond, Yakaitis, Ott, Hammond McNeal-James Yen.

Nays: None

Abstain: None

Motion carried.

V. Public Comment Period.

Chairman Hammond opened the public comment period. No one asked to speak, so Chairman Hammond closed the public comment period.

VI. Items for Planning and Zoning Commission Action

a. PZC 2024-003 Façade Improvements Variation – 400 US Route 30 (Blain’s Farm & Fleet)

i. Public Hearing and Consideration of Variation from Design Requirements from Business Zoning Districts.

Chairman Hammond asked for Village Staff to present its report.

Senior Planner Tony Farruggia explained that Blain’s Farm and Fleet has submitted a petition to update their façade to bring it up to their corporate standard. That means they would be installing metal panels and EIFS, which is limited by the UDO to 20% of the entire building façade. They are requesting 22.3% They want to go over by just 2.3% and as such they need a variance. They will also be adding clerestory windows as you can see in the packet, they have provided a rendering that shows the façade as intended.

Staff recommends the approval of the petition with only one condition, fire department approval. This is part of a broader redesign. The next petition will be going further into more of that. They have some signage they would be adding to the entire façade. Now it is here for your consideration.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for public comment. No one asked to speak, so Chairman Hammond closed the public comment period.

Chairman Hammond then read the Findings of Fact.

Variance

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 variation will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.

Staff Comments: Staff concurs with the Petitioner that the variation 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 opinion of the Petitioner that the requested zoning variation will allow a modification to the exterior of the structure that is in harmony with the neighborhood and will greatly enhance the aesthetics for the current building.

Staff Comments: Staff believes the variation 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: The hardship is the result of the current UDO requirements not being in place during the original time of construction.

Staff Comments: Staff understands the desire to update the building façade to meet the corporate standard. The current design standards were not a part of the Zoning

Ordinance when the building was constructed.

4. The proposed variation is necessary due to the unique physical attributes of the Property, which were not deliberately created by the applicant.

Petitioner: The existing structure does not meet corporate standards.

Staff Comments: Staff understands the desire to update the building façade to meet the corporate standard and that the existing materials and design limit how the façade could be brought into conformance.

5. The proposed variation represents the minimum deviation from the regulations of this Ordinance necessary to accomplish the desired improvement of the Property.

Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s belief that the variation represents the minimum deviation from the regulation of the UDO.

Staff Comments: The proposed variation is the minimum deviation required that would allow Petitioner to meet its corporate standards while still meeting the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and land use policies of the Village.

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 variation is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO.

Staff Comments: Staff concurs with the Petitioner that the variation is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO by utilizing higher quality materials and adding windows that enhance the façade of the building.

Chairman Hammond opened the meeting to Commissioner comments and questions. There were no comments or questions.

Commissioner Bond motioned to recommend approval of the petition with the condition of fire district approval.

Commissioner Yakaitis seconded the motion.

Ayes: Bond, Yakaitis, Ott, Hammond, McNeal-James Yen.

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

Chairman Hammond said this item will come in front of the Village Board on Monday, March 11th.

b. PZC 2024-004 Sign Variations – 400 US Route 30 (Blain’s Farm & Fleet) i. Public Hearing and Consideration of Variation from Section 12.05.11 (Wall Signs) and Variation from Section 13.02 (Definition of Terms)

Chairman Hammond asked for Village Staff to present its report.

Senior Planner Farruggia explained as part of the façade redesign the petitioner is requesting additional signage beyond what is allowed by the UDO. The UDO allows only one wall sign on the façade. They are going to be requesting an additional permanent wall sign as we define them. It would be at the far east side of the building to delineate a separate entrance for their tire servicing center. In addition to that additional wall sign, they are requesting six signs that do not totally fit into the definitions within our UDO. We have permanent signs and temporary signs. This is in between; they would be installing permanent infrastructure to accommodate temporary banner signs. The idea here is they would be swapping those banners out; the petitioner can talk more about what the timeline would be. The idea is they would have a uniform sign across the front of the building as indicated in the renderings, then those would be rotated. The building is currently legally nonconforming with the zoning ordinance because it does not have façade articulation. The UDO now requires any big blank walls to be broken up visually. While this does not completely meet the requirements; it does fulfill the intent. A few different sign variances are required here, one is the number of wall signs, as well as the total area of wall signs. They would be requesting eight wall signs; the sign area exceeds the maximum 553 feet allowed. A variance from the definitions is required because this does not meet the requirements to fall into the definition of permanent sign. We are requesting this semi permanent sign format be treated as though it is a permanent sign, and they would agree to make sure it is maintained and replaced to make sure it is in a good condition. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: (1) no more than six of the semi-permanent signs shall be allowed and their size shall not be increased from what is proposed and (2) the total signage on the front facade shall not exceed 1185 square feet which is what is currently proposed.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for public comment.

There being no public comment, Chairman Hammond closed the public hearing.

Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact.

Variances

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 variations 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 variations are compatible with the character of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed variations.

Petitioner: It is the opinion of the Petitioner that the requested zoning variations will allow a modification to the exterior of the structure that is in harmony with the neighborhood and will greatly enhance the aesthetics for the current building.

Staff Comments: Staff believes the variations are compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

3. The proposed variations alleviate an undue hardship created by the literal enforcement of this Ordinance.

Petitioner: The hardship is the result of the current UDO requirements not being in place during the original time of construction.

Staff Comments: The UDO’s signage regulations are more restrictive than the previous sign regulations, and the proposed signs do not meet the literal definition of a permanent sign. However, in practice are intended to act as permanent signs.

4. The proposed variations are necessary due to the unique physical attributes of the Property, which were not deliberately created by the applicant.

Petitioner: The proposed banners would improve façade articulation requirements imposed after the building was first constructed.

Staff Comments: The proposed variations would allow the building to better meet the intent of the UDO without requiring exorbitant costs to bring the Property into full conformance and address how the existing large setback from Route 30 limits the visibility of signage on the east side of the building facing Fifth Street.

5. The proposed variations represent the minimum deviation from the regulations of this Ordinance necessary to accomplish the desired improvement of the Property.

Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s belief that the variations represent the minimum deviation from the regulation of the UDO.

Staff Comments: The proposed variations are the minimum deviation while still meeting the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and land use policies of the Village.

6. The proposed variations are 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.

Chairman Hammond opened the meeting to Commissioner comments and questions.

Commissioner McNeal-James asked if she correctly understands that the red panels are the six panels we are talking about.

Chairman Hammond confirmed.

Chairman Hammond swore in Petitioner David Wynn the Senior Architect and Design Manager for Blain’s Farm and Fleet.

Commissioner Yen asked how often the panels will be changed.

Petitioner Wynn stated the banners will stay consistent with what is showing. Someday in the future marketing may want to change the product line but the banners will remain the same color red, the text on them, like auto and some of the products sold will stay the same. He stated they currently have these banners at the Chippewa Falls store. They have had them for probably 20 years. It is similar style store to this one, they have held up pretty well. They were just replaced in the last couple of years.

They will maintain them if they get wind damaged at all. They will not cycle through what wording or design is going to be on them. They will be that red color, the way it looks in the rendering.

Chairman Hammond said it says you will replace them every three- to five years. What type of material is this made of?

Petitioner Wynn added it is a heavy-duty vinyl type banner material.

Commissioner Yen asked why not go permanent sign?

Petitioner Wynn answered so that we can change them if we want to change what we say on them.

Commissioner Yen said, you have no intention to change them, but it allows you the option?

Petitioner Wynn confirmed. We do not have any active intention of changing them. If our owner or marketing says we want to do this differently, then we can look at that,

Chairman Ott asked if they only use these just for what they are selling?

This is not for “sale today” or “4th of July sale”?

Petitioner Wynn confirmed they will not change in that manner like typical banners. It is the six different categories clothing, sporting goods, automotive and it is vertical. They are red and have the Farm and Fleet eagle on them. He was not 100 % sure which categories they have labeled, but they have decided on the six.

There were no further questions, Chairman Hammond asked for a motion.

Commissioner Bond made a motion to approve PZC 2024-004 Sign

Variations for Blain’s Farm & Fleet Sections 12.05.11 and 13.02 for PZC with the following conditions:

• No more than six (6) of the semi-permanent signs shall be allowed and their size shall not be increased from what is proposed.

• The total signage on the front façade shall not exceed 1,185 sq.ft.

Commissioner Yen seconded the motion.

Ayes: Bond, Yakaitis, Ott, Hammond, McNeal-James Yen.

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

Chairman Hammond said this item will come in front of the Village Board on Monday, March 11th.

c. PZC 2024-001 Text Amendment – Unified Development Ordinance

i. Public Hearing and Consideration of Text Amendments to Various Sections of the Village of Montgomery Unified Development Ordinance.

Senior Planner Farrugia explained The Village needs to make some changes to the UDO to meet some of our goals and graduate from a program called Electric Vehicle Readiness Program. This is something run by the

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus. The idea is to eliminate as many barriers as possible in anticipation of increased adoption of electric vehicles.

Therefore, the need for additional infrastructure may come as those numbers continue to increase. Staff has taken this opportunity to address other items in the UDO. Other concerns and issues that Staff has seen over the past year since the last update. One of the items they have us looking at is creating new definitions as well as updating some of the items in our ordinance to make sure the language that was originally written a few years ago is not matching what the market looks like now. For example, one thing staff has done is add a new definition and new use called “electric vehicle charging station”. That follows more of a gas station like format in which cars would go to a destination that is the principal use on the property and there could be a convenience store or other sort of support activity there. Basically, treating it very much the same as a gas station. Staff also looked at the language that already existed in the ordinance and modified it in accordance with the standards proposed by the mayor's caucus. The purpose behind all of this, is to streamline things if somebody does buy an electric vehicle, they can easily install charging infrastructure or if a business wants to come to the village and install charging infrastructure the format fits their business model is allowed in the village. Currently, that is not the case for some of these formats.

In addition to the electric vehicle language, Staff has proposed a change to procedure which would allow the zoning officer to make an administrative adjustment if a petitioner is applying for a variance for limited building materials. If they are proposing less than a 5% increase over the maximum 20% on things like metal wall panels and EIFS. That would give the discretion to the zoning officer to approve. For example, the first item we heard today, if this amendment were to be approved, that would not have to come before you unless the zoning officer were to look at it and say the aesthetic is not what the village desires, in which case then it would come before the PZC.

Staff also made several use changes; you may remember the carport from last year. Staff is closing that loophole; we have created a separate definition Planning and for carports and said things like gazebos do not count as them. Daycare

Home standards were adjusted to make sure the regulations are in line with state law.

Staff updated some of our language for solar panels because certain formats that have become popular in the US would currently not be allowed. For example, right now the UDO requires that any panels must be flat against the roof. There are a lot of flat roof buildings here in the village, commercial and industrial in particular and anytime you see panels installed, they are at an angle. The amendment would allow angled panels on flat roofs. Staff also added a new definition for solar energy over parking lots. Panels are installed over the parking spaces so that you now have covered parking spaces. Those parking spaces are now dual use, where they are generating energy for the site and providing electricity for charging underneath them also shading those parking spaces.

A new use called a vertical storage container was added. This is in response to several different properties that already have a similar use as well as a recent inquiry about adding a few new ones. The idea is that these are sort of silo in shape and appearance. They are used in industrial areas for storing either liquid or small particles. Ravago for example have some going in.

Carl Buddig has inquired about adding something along these lines. There is one at International Paper. This use technically is not allowed by the UDO. Ravago was able to do it because they got a PUD. International Paper predated the current ordinance, and Carl Buddig, for example, would now have the option to do what seems to be a fairly common use for industrial uses. These would only be allowed in the industrial districts.

Staff is also proposing changes to Parking Lot Landscaping, currently the rows of parking are required to end in landscape islands. Those would remain however, partly in response to a suggestion from the Village's forestry division to try and get more trees into the village and to reduce heat island effects, they suggested creating a landscape strip that would connect those two islands. Senior Planner Farruggia further explained where you have two parking rows where the cars parked nose to nose it would basically be just pushing them back a little bit and then having a strip of landscaping in between and making sure it is wide enough to accommodate tree growth. Director Abt added, the idea is creating a landscape strip that is wider than what the end islands are, because in the Village Arborist's opinion, it is not a wide enough space to really accommodate a tree. He thought providing that larger space is going allow the tree to thrive better in that parking lot environment. The proposal is to require those when a certain threshold of parking spaces is exceeded. If you just have two rows of parking spaces, you are not necessarily required to provide that. Once you get to that fourth row of parking spaces, now you must start providing that middle, long island that extends the whole length of the parking row. Senior Planner Farruggia added this is largely for larger sites. In addition, to provide a little bit of flexibility and to help the village achieve its goals for pedestrian circulation in those larger parking lots, if necessary, and if deemed appropriate by the zoning officer, that strip could be utilized for pedestrian circulation infrastructure. A five-foot sidewalk, for example, which we would still have a few feet for landscaping, that would not accommodate trees, but we would still get something a little bit nicer than just having a little walkway between bumpers.

In addition, we have proposed a couple of changes to the sign code. The A frame and T-frame signs would be reclassed from permanent signs to temporary signs allowed without a sign permit. This is something that Staff sees now and then, and hopefully this will give businesses some flexibility and not make the process onerous for them. Staff has also proposed that banner flag signs be reclassified as prohibited. This is an instance where staff has really been struggling with enforcement to address banner flag signs that have been put up without a permit or those that stay up past the duration of their permit. You see them, they have been deteriorating quickly. This is one way that Staff would be more easily able to address this aesthetic concern.

Staff has made modifications to definitions that are all in support of the uses that were just described to you. Currently staff is working on updating illustrations that would be in the ordinance, so images and diagrams. For example, an illustration showing what those landscape islands would look like, as well as a couple of other things that would require updating.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for public comment.

There being no public comment, Chairman Hammond closed the public hearing.

Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact.

Text Amendment

According to Section 4.06 of the UDO, the Planning and Zoning

Commission must evaluate applications for text amendments with specific written findings based on a balance of each of the following standards.

1. The proposed amendments will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.

The proposed amendments will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.

2. The proposed amendment corrects an error, adds clarification, or reflects a change in policy.

The proposed amendments clarify existing language around carports, canopies, day care homes, solar panels, streets, rights-of-way, and storage containers, and update the Village’s policies for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, parking lot landscaping, signs, and solar panels.

3. The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance, and the other land use policies of the Village.

The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance, and the other land use policies of the Village.

Chairman asked the Commissioners for any questions or comments.

Chairman Hammond had a question on page 53. Electric vehicle charging station, four per 1000 square feet of GFA and your retail use. Are you requiring chargers or just parking spaces?

Senior Planner Farruggia said those are parking spaces if there is a convenience store there. That is just taken straight from our gas station requirements.

Chairman Hammond asked if there is no requirement for electrical charging stations?

Senior Planner Farruggia stated they do have stacking space requirements.

Then we also have recommendations for how the chargers be positioned, if you have a two -port charger then you need to have two parking spaces.

Chairman Hammond asked if this a requirement of four chargers per 1,000 square feet, or no?

Senior Planner Farruggia responded no.

Chairman Hammond then asked if it is one charger for a bike short-term or is it just a parking space?

Director Abt added this is for off -street parking not to charge, just to park, so if you were to have a convenience store, if you were to have a retail as part of your charging station i.e. gas station for electric vehicles, then you would have to provide additional parking beyond at the charger itself. That is what that parking request is, you would have to provide a bicycle parking space as well as vehicle parking.

Chairman Hammond thanked staff for clarification.

Chairman Hammond then asked for further comments or questions from the Commission, there were none. He then asked for a motion.

Commissioner Yakaitis motioned to recommend approval of PZC 2024-001 text amendments to various sections of the UDO with the condition that some numbering and references may need to be revised if the other UDO text amendments under review are approved and adopted.

Commissioner Yen seconded the motion.

Ayes: Yakaitis, Ott, Hammond, McNeal-James Yen, Bond

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion Carried.

Chairman Hammond said this item will come in front of the Village Board on Monday, March 11th.

d. PZC 2024-002 Food Truck Court Text Amendment – Unified Development Ordinance

i. Public Hearing and Consideration of Text Amendments to Sections 9.02 (Principal Uses and Structures), 9.03 (Accessory Uses and Structures), 9.04 (Temporary Uses and Structures), and 13.02 (Definition of Terms)

Director Abt explained staff has been researching food truck courts for a while now, looking at other communities and what type of regulations and standards they have in the case that they do have them and regulate them.

Back in January and February staff brought proposed text amendments to the village board as well as this commission for your review and feedback prior to having a public hearing on the text amendment.

Based on that feedback we have revised the amendment to address the issues that were brought up in both of those discussions and then prepared a text amendment for the public hearing which we are having tonight. The proposed text amendment adds a new use which is “food truck court” and provides use standards and a definition. The definition for a food truck court is a location hosting multiple mobile food facilities. Vendors may serve customers from trucks trailers push carts permanent structures or in any other format deemed appropriate for the use by the zoning officer. The proposed amendment will classify them both, the principal use ones, and accessory use ones, as special uses in our Mill District B1 and B2 districts, M1 and M2 zoning districts. We propose specific use standards for both principal and accessory food truck courts. These state what the number of mobile food facilities is. It does require a minimum of two or you to qualify as a food truck court, but we do not require a specific maximum simply stating that the site has to be able to accommodate the number of trucks proposed including the required customer parking, the dining areas and still provide navigable area for emergency vehicles.

They must also have a designated manager for the Food Truck Court whose contact information is provided at the Food Truck Court as well as to the Village and they are responsible for the site's conformance with the codes and ordinances of the village.

Hours of operation are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. This is slightly different than our mobile food facilities which does allow hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. For parking, trucks must be on a paved surface, and we require two and a half parking spaces per vendor. They have to provide on - site restrooms so either they can use a port-a-potty or in the case of an accessory food truck court they may utilize the property’s existing facilities provided they are open and available for the customers when the food truck court is operating.

We also have requirements regarding power, waste and refuse. Either permanent power hookups for principal uses or sharing power with an existing principal structure for the accessory use food truck courts must be provided and no generators are permitted. Waste receptacles must be provided on the site, and they cannot be located any closer than 10 feet to a property line. Any wastewater produced must be discharged either through an approved industrial pretreatment system or by a licensed waste hauler and the site must be kept clear of litter and debris.

Additional outdoor sales for non-mobile food facility vendors as an accessory used to a food truck court is allowed and that they are exempt from the duration limits of the temporary use standards for outdoor sales. It also calls out for enforcement, that the zoning officer may suspend or revoke a special use permit if the permit holder is found to be in violation of the use standards or Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code three or more times during a rolling 12 month period.

The text also includes some changes to the temporary use permit section where it has been updated related to food truck courts where they are either exempt or have different requirements from what is in that section to make sure everything is clear.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing.

Chairman Hammond swore in Carlos Martinez.

Mr. Martinez is a part of a food truck community, he is interested in one of these spaces, he brought some questions and concerns with him regarding the regulations and what he would proposing.

Chairman Hammond closed the public hearing.

Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact.

Special Use:

1. The proposed amendments will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.

The proposed amendments will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public.

2. The proposed amendment corrects an error, adds clarification, or reflects a change in policy.

The proposed amendments establish a new special use and create standards to regulate the new use to ensure sites are accessible, kept in clean and sanitary condition, and minimize any negative impact on adjacent properties.

3. The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance, and the other land use policies of the Village.

The proposed are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance, and the other land use policies of the Village.

Chairman Hammond opened for questions and comments.

Chairman Hammond asked Mr. Martinez if he operates one of these food trucks and if he carries their Certificate of Sanitation with them? Is it posted somewhere?

Mr. Martinez answered yes.

Commissioner Yakaitis asked Mr. Martinez if he is a part of the Lake Street Location or the Montgomery Road location or both?

Mr. Martinez has a food truck on Montgomery Road not Lake Street.

Chairman Hammond asked if they need to post their health certificate in the window or somewhere visible?

Director Abt said we do not have it written that they must post it in their window, that may be a county requirement. We just require them to provide us with a copy.

Chairman Hammond requested that posting The Health Department

Certificate be required.

Director Abt said yes that could be added in their motion.

Mr. Martinez stated it is displayed on the back of the truck.

Commissioner McNeal-James asked what hours they are open.

Mr. Martinez said they like to open between 9-9:30 am until 10 pm.

Commissioner Yen asked if there are any landscaping requirements?

Director Abt said there are not.

Chairman Hammond asked for further question, comments or a motion.

Commissioner Yen made a motion for approval of 2024-002 Food Truck

Court Text Amendment - Unified Development Ordinance including the proposed text amendment adds a new “Food Truck Court” standard that the Health Department License be displayed on the truck.

Commissioner Bond Seconded the motion.

Ayes: Yen, Bond, Ott, Hammond

Nays: Yakaitis, McNeal-James

Abstentions: None

Motion Carried.

Chairman Hammond stated this item will come in front of the Village Board on Monday, March 11th.

VII. Community Development Update/New Business

Director Abt said the Illinois Industrial Lumber special use and variances were approved by the Village Board. They are working on their final engineering so they can get their permits. Cooper's Hawk continues to make progress as does Starbucks. Karis continues to make progress off of Orchard Road with Ravago. We are excited that all those projects continue to move along and hopefully we will have some grand openings to tell you about soon. We also have a new commissioner. I’ll let him introduce himself. We have another new commissioner that was appointed but was not able to make today's meeting. You will all get to see Mr. Baum next month.

Commissioner Ott thanked everybody and introduced himself stating he came to Montgomery going on six years ago. He and his family fell in love with this town. We came here originally for the school district for my daughter, and we have been so pleased with being here that I want to be more a part of this community. I appreciate the opportunity to serve.

VIII. Next Meeting:

The next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission would be on April 4th, 2024.

IX. Adjournment: With no further business, Chairman Hammond adjourned the meeting at 7:47 PM.

https://www.montgomeryil.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04042024-672