East Central Reporter

Village of Montgomery Planning and Zoning Commission met Nov. 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: None

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

Also present: Village Attorney Laura Julien, Senior Planner Tony Farruggia, Engineer Pete Wallers, Secretary Jill Hoover, Trustee Ben Brzoska, Trustee Doug Marecek and members of the audience.

IV. Approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2024. Motion: Motion was made by Commissioner Baum to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 5,2024.

Commissioner Yen seconded the motion.

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

Nays: None

Abstentions: Yakaitis

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 2024-015 CNA Invest, LLC

i. Public Hearing and Consideration of petition for annexation into the Village of Montgomery and immediate rezoning of said property to M-1 District (Light Manufacturing) upon annexation

Chairman Hammond asked for Village Staff to present its report.

Senior Planner Farruggia gave the background. The property owners, CNA Invest LLC (“Petitioner”), currently operate a truck repair business (PTR Truck Repair) at 29 Baseline Road (“Subject Property”). The 6-acre property is currently unincorporated and was developed according to the rules and standards for Kane County’s B-3 District. The Petitioner has petitioned to annex into the Village with M-1 zoning, in order to expand its operations to build a 15,600 sq ft garage, which will be used for truck repair for their existing business. The proposed business expansion requires several special uses and variations to allow the existing operation to continue once incorporated.

The adjacent parcel to the east is also owned by the Petitioner and is already incorporated into the Village. That parcel is currently being used by the Petitioner to operate their truck repair business. For the purposes of these zoning actions, the two parcels will be treated as a single “zoning lot” as defined by the UDO.

The Petitioner is proposing several key changes to the Subject Property, including: the construction of a 15,600 sq ft garage to be used for truck repair, underground stormwater storage, and additional screening. The Petitioner also plans to pave the existing gravel outdoor storage area as part of this project.

The existing business engages in repairing and selling trucks, as well as providing parking for truck and trailer storage. Each of these three uses requires a Special Use in the M-1 District. Because the existing business has been operating in the County, which has different use standards than the Village, the Petitioner is requesting relief from several requirements of the UDO pertaining to landscaping and screening, parking, and use and district design standards.

The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as Light Industrial/Business Park. The existing uses are allowed as Special Uses in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District.

The Subject Property currently has a County zoning designation of B-3 Business District. The Petitioner is proposing a zoning designation of M-1 Light Manufacturing District upon annexation. The Petitioner is also requesting three (3) special uses (collectively, the “Special Uses”):

• Motor Vehicle Repair and/or Service Body Shop (for truck repair)

• Motor Vehicle Sales (for truck sales)

• Outdoor Storage of trucks and trailers

Senior Planner Farruggia explained that the proposed building meets the setback and height requirements for the M-1 District. The maximum impervious coverage is 80%; however, the proposed improvement plan would bring the impervious area to 85.7%. The Petitioner is adding underground storage to accommodate additional runoff, however, would still require a variance to exceed the maximum 80% impervious area.

He further explained the design standards variations needed. The proposed building is designed to match the appearance of the existing building on the eastern parcel. However, matching the appearance means the new building would not fully conform with the UDO Design Standards without variances. Under the UDO standards, buildings in manufacturing districts with more than 100 ft of width or depth are required to feature some amount of façade articulation on all street-facing facades. The proposed building design does not meet the articulation requirement, and therefore, a variance is being requested. Limited materials, such as metal wall panels, are limited to no more than 25% of any façade. The proposed building is primarily metal wall panels and therefore requires a variance to exceed 25%.

Motor Vehicle Repair and/or Service Standards: The UDO requires that vehicles be stored in the rear or interior side yards. The current truck parking areas are located in the front, corner side, and interior side yards. Therefore, a variance is needed.

Motor Vehicle Sales Standards: The UDO requires that motor vehicle sales uses’ lighting does not exceed 10 foot-candles anywhere on the site. The existing lighting on the site cannot meet this requirement and therefore the Petitioner is requesting a variance. The Petitioner has not provided a final photometric plan but has assured staff that all other photometric requirements can be met. Staff recommends making approval of a final photometric plan a condition of approval.

Outdoor Storage Standards: The Petitioner is requesting variances to allow the outdoor storage area in the front (east) and corner side (north) yards, and to allow the height of materials stored within 20 feet of the lot line to exceed the maximum allowed eight (8’) feet in height. These are both existing conditions.

Senior Planner Farruggia outlined the parking variation explaining that the proposed new building, which is to be used for motor vehicle sales and repair, is required to have at least 32 parking spaces. The Petitioner is proposing to provide 19 parking spaces between the existing structure on the eastern parcel and the proposed building on the western parcel.

He also noted that aside from those listed in the Motor Vehicle Standards already mentioned, the Petitioner’s engineer assures staff that the remaining lighting requirements of the UDO will be met. As noted above, staff recommends making final approval of the photometric plan a condition of approval.

Senior Planner Farruggia then outlined the screening for the subject property. He explained that the Subject Property is screened on the west side of the property by the neighbor’s solid fence. Some trees are planted on the Subject Property adjacent to the fence. Screening requirements for outdoor storage include a solid fence with landscape screening on the exterior side of the perimeter fencing. This would require the Petitioner to build a fence and place landscaping between the new fence and the existing fence along the lot line. This is impractical and the Petitioner is requesting relief from this requirement. He further explained that there is also existing solid fencing along the east side of the building south of Bohr Ave and strictly imposing the requirements of the UDO would create the same condition as on the west side. The east side north of Bohr Ave features a non-solid fence. The Petitioner is requesting relief from the full screening requirements for this side of the Subject Property.

Along the north end of the Subject Property, along Route 30, he noted that there is a non solid fence with trees growing on the exterior side (in the right-of-way). The Petitioner’s engineer has agreed to add additional trees to that side of the property. The Petitioner is

requesting relief from the full screening requirements for this side of the Subject Property. The south side of the Subject Property abuts a residential parcel and does not currently feature any screening. The Petitioner is proposing a solid fence and landscaping to improve screening from the existing house.

Senior Planner Farruggia stated that the variations requested would eliminate the following landscaping and screening requirements:

• Tree diversity, which would normally be no more than 10% of any single tree species

• Parking lot perimeter landscaping, which includes (but is not limited to) requirements for at least 75% of the parking lot perimeter be landscaped, that one large shade tree be located every 30 linear feet of parking lot, that foundation planting be located along the full length of the of the front and corner side yard facades, and that parking lot islands be located throughout the parking area.

• Buffer yards, which includes (but is not limited to) requirements for a continuous hedge along the southern property line and one evergreen tree for every 10 linear feet of buffer area.

• Outdoor storage screening, which includes (but is not limited to) requirements for solid fencing around the entire perimeter of the storage area, landscaping around 75% of the storage area, 50% of trees to be evergreen along rights-of-way, and berms.

A final landscape plan has not yet been submitted and staff recommends that its approval by Staff be made a condition of zoning approval. Additionally, Staff recommends that if the existing solid fence along the west lot line is ever removed by the adjacent property owner and not replaced, the Petitioner must then install their own solid fence along said property line to continue to enclose and screen their outdoor storage area.

The proposed underground detention area exceeds the footprint of the existing stormwater management easement, and an additional easement will be required. Staff recommends that approval of the final engineering plans be made a condition of approval. Senior Planner Farruggia noted that the Village Engineer, in discussing the site with Public Works realized that because the road is a dead end the snowplows are not going to have a place to turn around. They are requesting an easement for snowplow turnaround be required as a condition of approval in addition to the plat of easement for stormwater. Both would need to be approved and recorded before a building permit is issued.

Chairman Hammond asked Engineer Wallers for more information on the detention or underground storage. Engineer Wallers stated the site has an existing conventional stormwater detention open water stormwater. He explained this is what you normally see, but it is common in industrial and commercial areas to use an underground concrete vault to store water. The trade name is storm trap. It is done quite often in the Chicagoland area and is an accepted practice and works well. It basically allows them to use the space over the detention basin like the parking lot. It is a more efficient use of space.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for annexation.

No one wished to speak, so Chairman Hammond closed the public comment period. Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact (Annexation)

According to Section 3.02 of the UDO, the Planning and Zoning Commission must evaluation applications for annexations with specific written findings based on each of the following standards.

1. The proposed annexation is in compliance with state law.

The proposed annexation is in compliance with state law.

2. The parcel(s) proposed for annexation are contiguous to parcels located in the Village. The 6-acre property is contiguous to parcels to the east and west that are located within the Village’s corporate limits.

3. The annexation conforms to all annexation or service extension policies of the Village. The annexation will conform to the Village’s annexation and service extension policies.

4. Proposed public infrastructure and utilities are provided to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer, including water facilities, wastewater facilities, drainage facilities, streets, and transportation facilities.

The proposed infrastructure is satisfactory to the Village Engineer. The 6-acre property will be consolidated with a larger adjacent parcel to provide additional stormwater management.

5. The proposed annexation supports any planned capital improvement policy.

The proposed annexation supports planned capital improvement policies.

6. The annexation supports the land use, development intensity, and planned pace of growth in the Village as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and the other land use policies of the Village.

The annexation is in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other land use policies of the Village.

Chairman Hammond asked for a motion on the annexation.

Commissioner Baum motioned to recommend approval of the petition for annexation.

Commissioner Bond seconded the motion.

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

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for rezoning.

No one asked to speak, so Chairman Hammond closed the public comment period. Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact (Rezoning to M-1 upon annexation):

According to Section 4.06 of the UDO, the Planning and Zoning Commission must evaluate applications for text or map amendments (rezoning) with specific written findings based on a balance of the standards for the type of amendment.

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

The proposed rezoning will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public. The Subject Property is primarily surrounded by industrial, commercial, and industrially zoned agricultural uses.

2. The proposed amendment is compatible with the existing uses, character, and zoning of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed amendment.

The rezoning is generally compatible with existing uses and zoning in the immediate vicinity. Parcels to the north, west and east are zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing. There are residential parcels to the immediate south and west, though the area is largely industrial in character.

3. The proposed amendment provides a relative gain to the public, as compared to any hardship imposed upon an individual property owner.

The proposed rezoning will allow new industrial uses and employment in an area that is largely removed from residences and that is contiguous with existing industrial uses.

4. The proposed amendment addresses the community need for a specific use.

The rezoning allows for the continued growth of Montgomery’s industrial base and for the development of land adjacent to Heavy Industry.

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

N/A

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

The rezoning is consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the area to be utilized by industrial uses. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the proposed area to be Light Industrial/Business Park and Heavy Industrial. The rezoning is consistent with the intent of the UDO and other land use policies of the Village.

Commissioner Yen motioned to recommend approval of the petition for rezoning to M-1 Light Manufacturing District. Commissioner Ott seconded the motion.

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

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

ii. Public Hearing and Consideration of a petition for Special Uses for a) Motor Vehicle Sales, b) Motor Vehicle Repair and/or Service Body Shop, and c) Outdoor Storage

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for Special Uses for Motor Vehicle Sales, Motor Vehicle Repair and/or Service Body Shop, and Outdoor Sales.

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

Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact (Special Uses)

According to Section 4.03 of the UDO, the Planning and Zoning Commission must evaluate applications for special uses with specific written findings based on each of the following standards.

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

The Special Uses proposed on the Subject Property will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the public. The uses already exist on the Subject Property, and the design and use standards of the UDO will reduce the impacts of the existing use by enhancing screening requirements and allowing the vehicle repair work to be performed inside.

2. The proposed special uses are compatible with the character of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed special uses.

The proposed special uses would be located in an area of predominantly industrial character. Additional screening has been required to further mitigate the use from areas that aren’t currently industrial.

3. The proposed special uses will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed special uses.

The uses currently exist, and their continuation and expansion will not cause any greater impediment to development.

4. The proposed special uses 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 development will provide adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, etc. and the proposed Special Uses will not place an undue burden on existing development.

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

The proposed development and associated Special Uses and are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as Light Industrial/Business Park.

Chairman Hammond asked for a motion on the special uses.

Commissioner Bond motioned to recommend approval of the special uses with the following conditions:

1. Staff approval of a Final Landscape Plan including additional trees along the north (Route 30) lot line.

2. Staff approval of a Final Photometric Plan.

3. Village Engineer approval of the Final Engineering Plans.

4. Fire District approval.

5. Any replacement of outdoor lighting fixtures shall conform to Village rules and standards or the approved Final Photometric Plan.

6. Should the adjacent neighbor’s screening fences along the west lot line be removed without replacement for six months, a new screening fence that meets Village rules and standards shall be erected by the property owner.

7. A Plat of Easement for stormwater, approved by the Village Engineer, must be recorded before a building permit is issued for this development.

8. A Plat of Easement for snowplow turnaround, approved by the Village Engineer, must be recorded before a building permit is issued for this development.

Commissioner Yakaitis seconded the motion.

Commissioner Baum asked how the water in the underground storage would leave the property.

Engineer Wallers explained that the underground storage would accommodate excess water and would slowly release the water.

Chairman Hammond asked the Secretary to call the roll.

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

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

iii. Public Hearing and Consideration of multiple variations from the Unified Development Ordinance, including:

1. Variations from Section 8.20 (Design Standards) to exceed the maximum percentage of limited materials and to remove the façade articulation requirement.

2. Variation from Section 8.21|Table 8.21.1 (M-1 District Requirements) to increase the maximum amount of impervious area from 85% to 87.5%.

3. Variation from Section 9.02.B.19 (Use Standards | Motor Vehicle Operations Facility or Motor Vehicle Repair and/or Service) to allow outdoor storage of vehicle in the front and corner side yards.

4. Variations from Section 9.02.B.20 (Use Standards | Motor Vehicle Sales) to allow vehicles to be stored in the front and corner side yards and to exceed the outdoor lighting maximums.

5. Variations from Section 9.02.B.23 (Use Standards | Outdoor Storage) to allow outdoor storage areas to be located in the front and corner side yards and to allow stored items to exceed 8 feet in height within 20 feet of the lot line.

6. Variation from Section 10.02 | Table 10.02.1 (Off-Street Parking Standards) to reduce the amount of parking required.

7. Variations from Sections 11.03 | Table 11.03.2 (Species Diversity Requirement), 11.05 (Parking Lot Landscaping), 11.06 (Buffer Yards), and 11.07 (Screening Requirements) to reduce the landscaping, landscape screening, and tree diversity requirements.

8. Variation from Section 11.07 (Screening Requirements) to reduce the amount of solid fence screening required.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for the eight Variations.

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

Chairman Hammond asked about the hours of operation and the number of trucks they expect to sell.

Corneliu Pinzari was sworn in and stated that the hours of operation would be from 8am to 5:30pm on weekdays and 8am to 12pm on Saturdays. He explained that they don’t have a projection for number of trucks sold but said it would depend on the market. They only sell semi-trucks.

Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact (Variance)

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 Petitioner’s opinion that the proposed variations are compatible with the character of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity of the proposed variations.

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 Subject Property was developed in accordance with County rules.

Staff Comments: Staff recognizes that the Subject Property was developed under a different ruleset and that these are existing conditions. Rules pertaining to vehicle sales were written with personal vehicle sales in mind, and staff and the petitioner agree that the requirement seems excessive for truck sales. Staff believes that the proposals set forth herein will allow Petitioner to generally meet the intent of the UDO while acknowledging the existing conditions.

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 Subject Property is already developed.

Staff Comments: Any annexation of a previously developed property is likely to encounter challenges with conformance. The Petitioner is providing additional screening where feasible to meet the intent of the code where it will have the most impact, specifically street facing areas and areas adjacent to residential. Additionally, the Petitioner is providing some preferred building materials as well as several windows on the new building on elevations with street frontage in an attempt to meet the intent of the code providing a high-quality building while matching the existing building.

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: Staff understands the Petitioner’s desire to limit the amount changes to an already functional site. Staff also recognizes that bringing the site into full conformance with the Village’s requirements would have a significant impact on the capacity and operations of the business. The Petitioner has made an effort to either meet the ordinance or meet the intent of the ordinance where feasible.

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 understands the need to balance the intent of the UDO against the County requirements that applied to the site when it was initially developed. The Petitioner has made an effort to either meet the ordinance or meet the intent of the ordinance where feasible and in the areas of the Subject Property that have the most external visibility or impact.

Chairman Hammond asked for a motion on the Variations.

Commissioner Baum asked if the Landscape plan had been finalized.

Senior Planner Farruggia stated that it had not been and was not part of what was being approved at this hearing, and that final approval of the landscape plan and photometric plan were listed as conditions of approval.

Commissioner Yen asked to include an upper limit on the stored materials or equipment to be located within 20 feet of the lot line. He clarified with the petitioner that 15 feet would be an adequate maximum to allow for the storage of trucks and trailers, since those would be unlikely to exceed 13.6 feet.

Commissioner Ott motioned to approve the variations with the following conditions:

1. Staff approval of a Final Landscape Plan including additional trees along the north (Route 30) lot line.

2. Staff approval of a Final Photometric Plan.

3. Village Engineer approval of the Final Engineering Plans.

4. Fire District approval.

5. Any replacement of outdoor lighting fixtures shall conform to Village rules and standards or the approved Final Photometric Plan.

6. Should the adjacent neighbor’s screening fences along the west lot line be removed without replacement for six months, a new screening fence that meets Village rules and standards shall be erected by the property owner.

7. A Plat of Easement for stormwater, approved by the Village Engineer, must be recorded before a building permit is issued for this development.

8. A Plat of Easement for snowplow turnaround, approved by the Village Engineer, must be recorded before a building permit is issued for this development.

9. The maximum height of materials stored within 20 feet of the lot line shall be increased from 8 feet to 15 feet, as part of the Variation to 9.02.B.23.

Commissioner McNeil-James seconded the motion.

Commissioner Baum asked for clarification on the 15 ft. height condition. Commissioner Yen and Senior Planner Farruggia verified that the Petitioner believed it was sufficient to allow their vehicles to be parked within that 20 ft area.

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

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

VII. Community Development Update/New Business

Senior Planner Farruggia provided a preview of petitions likely to be heard at the next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission and provided updates on ongoing projects in the Village.

VIII. Next Meeting:

The next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission would be on December 5th.

IX. Adjournment: With no further business, Chairman Hammond adjourned the meeting at 7:39PM.

https://www.montgomeryil.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12052024-719