East Central Reporter

Village of Montgomery Planning and Zoning Commission met Dec. 5.

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: John Ott

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

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

IV. Approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 7, 2024. Motion: Motion was made by Commissioner Baum to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 7, 2024.

Commissioner Bond seconded the motion.

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

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 2024-016 Special Uses and Variations (R+L Carriers)

i. Public Hearing and Consideration of a petition for Special Uses for a) Outdoor Storage of trucks and trailers and b) Motor Vehicle Repair and/or Service Body Shop with a Truck Wash and Fuel Center

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

1. Variations from Section 9.02.B.23 (Use Standards | Outdoor Storage) to allow stored items to be located in the front yard

2. Variations from Section 11.07 (Screening Requirements) and Section 11.05.B (Parking Lot Perimeter Landscape) to reduce the amount of landscaping and landscape screening requirements for the loading and refuse area and outdoor storage area.

3. Variation from Section 11.07 (Screening Requirements) to reduce the amount of solid fence screening required for outdoor storage.

Chairman Hammond asked for Village Staff to present its report.

Senior Planner Farruggia explained the property owner, R+L Carriers (Petitioner), owns and is seeking to operate its trucking/freight terminal at the former Yellow

Freight site (the “Original Site”). The Petitioner also owns the adjacent parcels to the east (the “Eastern Parcel”) and west (the “Western Parcel”) (with the “Original Site, Eastern Parcel, and Western Parcel” collectively referred to as the “Subject Property”). The Petitioner is seeking to expand its existing building by adding an approximately 49,000 sq. ft. addition. The Petitioner is also seeking a special use for a Motor Vehicle Repair and/or Service Body Shop with Truck Wash and Fueling Center which will allow it to construct a new maintenance building with a truck wash and fueling center (with 4 lanes). Petitioner is also seeking a special use for Outdoor Storage which will allow it to expanded its existing truck and trailer outdoor storage areas onto both the Western Parcel and the Eastern Parcel. The expansion also includes the Petitioner relocating its primary truck entrance further west on the Subject Property.

Due to existing conditions on the Subject Property, the Petitioner also requires several variations from the outdoor storage use standards and screening requirements on the Western Parcel of the Subject Property.

The truck terminal will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, the majority of the trucks/freight leave the Subject Property in the late morning and return to the Subject Property in the mid-to-late afternoon. The new maintenance building and truck wash will handle routine maintenance for the Petitioner’s trucks and will allow the Petitioner to complete a general safety inspection of the vehicles upon their arrival to the facility. More intensive maintenance or repairs will not take place at this facility. Before any truck leaves the Subject Property, it will utilize the onsite fueling station and weigh scale adjacent to the new maintenance building.

The Eastern Parcel was previously granted a special use for the outdoor storage of trucks and trailers by Ordinance 1961. However, that project was never completed. The Petitioner has purchased the Property and will be completing that portion of the project in compliance with the previously approved site plan and landscape plan. There will not be a building or a building addition constructed on the Eastern Parcel. The only change being requested on the Eastern Parcel relates to the paved truck/trailer parking area (outdoor storage).

The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as Light Industrial/Business Park. The existing uses are allowed as Permitted and Special Uses in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District. Senior Planner Farruggia explained that the Petitioner is also requesting the following two (2) special uses (collectively, the “Special Uses”):

• Motor Vehicle Repair and/or Service Body Shop (for truck repair and maintenance of their fleet with a truck wash bay and fueling center)

• Outdoor Storage of trucks and trailers

The proposed addition and accessory maintenance building meet the setback and height requirements for the M-1 District and are designed to match the appearance of the existing building.

Senior Planner Farruggia noted that the Petitioner is requesting variances to allow the outdoor storage area to be located in the front yard on the Western Parcel.

This is an existing condition on the Original Site. With the proposed expansion, the outdoor storage area located in the front yard will expand to the west but will not encroach any further to the north. The setback from Rochester Drive will be increased to accommodate additional stormwater facilities necessary for this expansion.

The Petitioner is proposing to expand the existing parking lot to add 64 new parking spaces. The total proposed parking of 164 spaces exceeds the minimum requirement of 59 parking spaces. The proposed parking expansion does not meet some of the parking lot standards as proposed and will require some parking spaces to be removed. The total parking will still meet the minimum parking requirements for this use. Senior Planner Farruggia stated that Staff recommends that the revisions to the parking lot to meet the code be a condition of approval.

The main truck entry is relocated approximately 55 feet west of its existing location to better accommodate the Petitioner’s operations. All trucks will enter from this point and will be inspected at the new maintenance building. From there, they will circulate the Subject Property in a counterclockwise manner and will only exit through the same entrance point on the west side of the Subject Property.

Senior Planner Farruggia stated a Preliminary Photometric Plan has been submitted for review. Illumination levels meet the restriction of 1.0 fc at the property lines that are adjacent to non-residential properties and 0.5 f.c. at the property lines that are adjacent to residential properties. Staff recommends making final approval of the Final Photometric Plan a condition of approval.

He also noted that the Original Site has an existing tree line along the west side.

With the expansion of the building and truck/trailer parking area to the west, the existing tree line will be removed. The Petitioner will add some of the required replacement trees and will be requesting a fee-in-lieu for the remaining trees that are not replaced. Senior Planner Farruggia stated that Staff recommends making the approval of a Tree Removal and Replacement Plan a condition of approval.

Senior Planner Farruggia explained that the Original Site (former Yellow Freight) is currently enclosed by a chain-link fence with no additional landscape screening. The Subject Property also abuts United Facilities and their railroad spur to the south and Michels and Rochester Midland to the west. The Petitioner is proposing to expand their building and truck/trailer parking to the west and is requesting relief from the screening requirements for outdoor storage (Section 11.07 Screening Requirements) and loading areas (Section 11.05.B Parking Lot Perimeter Landscape) in that area of the Western Parcel. Specifically, the Petitioner is proposing to provide the required perimeter fencing around the Western Parcel, however, is seeking to utilize a vinyl clad chain-link fence rather than the required solid fence. The Petitioner is also requesting the elimination of the landscaping requirement from the south property line of the existing site and Western Parcel and the west property line of the Western Parcel. The Petitioner will be providing the required landscaping along the north side of the Western Parcel to screen the outdoor storage area and loading areas from Rochester Drive, including the required 50% evergreen landscaping, but is requesting relief from the berming requirement due to conflicts with the stormwater area located between the front property line and the outdoor storage area. He noted that Staff recommends making the approval of the Final Landscape Plan a condition of approval.

Senior Planner Farruggia further explained the Petitioner is also requesting relief from the refuse area screening requirements. The dumpster area will be located on the west side of the building near the office area. However, due to the configuration of that area, landscaping immediately adjacent to the refuse area is not feasible as it is in the loading area. The Petitioner has stated they will provide additional landscaping in the parking lot area to help screen the refuse area from Rochester Dr. Staff is recommending this be a condition of approval.

In sum, the variations requested would eliminate the following landscaping and screening requirements:

• Outdoor storage screening, which includes (but is not limited to) requirements for solid fencing around the perimeter of the Western Parcel and Original Site, landscaping around 75% of the storage area, along the southern and western property lines and berming along the north property line of the Western Parcel.

• Loading area screening would eliminate the requirement for parking lot perimeter landscape screening around the south and west sides on the Original and Western Parcels for the loading areas.

• Refuse Area screening, which would remove the requirement for landscaping around two sides of the refuse area. Staff recommends that landscaping be provided in the parking area located immediately north of the refuse area to meet the intent of the code.

Plats of Easement are necessary for the additional stormwater and watermain.

Some existing easements may need to be vacated due to the rerouting of the watermain. These easements will need to be recorded before an Occupancy Certificate will be issued. The Petitioner will also complete the cul de sac for Rochester Drive as part of this development.

Senior Planner Farruggia noted that plans have been submitted to the Fire District and the Petitioner is working directly with them to address their comments.

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing on the Special Uses for public comment.

Stan Richards the Vice President of R &L Carriers was sworn in to speak on behalf of the petitioner.

Stan Richards then gave a presentation sharing the history of the company. He also shared the proposed plan for the site and the neighboring parcel they already own. They would like to expand to the neighboring parcel for trailer storage as it takes 2-3 trailers per open door for the operation to be successful. In addition to adding a fueling island and maintenance building and finish the end of Rochester Drive.

No one else wished to speak; Chairman Hammond closed the Public Hearing

Chairman Hammond read the Findings of Fact (Special Use)

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. Outdoor storage already exists on the Subject Property, and the separate maintenance and fueling of the fleet on site is accessory to the primary use and will not increase the impact on the neighboring properties.

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 and are generally compatible with those uses.

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 the commissioners if anyone had any questions or comments for Staff or the Petitioner.

Commissioner McNeal -James asked if the expansion requires Fire Department approval.

Senior Planner Farruggia said yes, and they are still working with Montgomery & Countryside Fire District.

Chairman Hammond asked for any further comments or questions. There were none, so he asked for a motion on the Special Uses for PZC 2024-016.

Vice Chairman Yen made a motion to approve of PZC 24-016 Special Uses with the following conditions for both Special Uses

1. Staff approval of a Final Landscape Plan including a Tree Removal and Replacement Plan and revisions to the landscape screening north of the outdoor storage area to meet the 50% evergreen requirement and additional landscaping to screen the refuse area from Rochester Dr.

2. The parking lot must be revised to meet the UDO requirements.

3. Staff approval of a Final Photometric Plan.

4. Staff approval of final Fence Details.

5. Village Engineer approval of the Final Engineering Plans.

6. The Petitioner must complete the cul de sac for Rochester Drive as part of this development. An occupancy will not be issued until this has been completed.

7. Grants of Easement and Vacation for stormwater and water main, must be approved by the Village Engineer and recorded before occupancy is issued for this development.

Commissioner Bond seconded the motion.

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

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

Chairman Hammond moved on to the second part of PZC 24-016 for multiple variations of the UDO including:

• Outdoor Storage Standards Variance (Variation from Section 9.02.B.23)

• Landscaping Variance (Variation from Section 11.07)

• Loading Area Landscaping Variance (Variation from Section 11.05.B)

• Fence Screening Variance (Variation from Section 11.07)

Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing. No one asked to speak, he closed the public hearing.

Chairman Hammond read the Finding 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 Petitioner’s opinion that the proposed Variations will result in a development that remains compatible and harmonious with the character of adjacent properties and does not contradict the intent and purpose of the UDO. The properties to the north, west, and south of the Subject Property have had and will continue to have uses that share similar intensities to the use the applicant is proposing. Additionally, some of these neighboring properties also provide outdoor storage and freight transportation components as well. The applicant intends to provide all required screening/ landscaping along the eastern property line that abuts the neighboring residentially zoned property.

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 UDO creates an undue hardship/practical difficulty in developing the Subject Property by requiring implementation of redesign of existing facilities that are already existing on the site without concern.

Staff Comments: Staff recognizes that the historical use of Subject Property has been for a truck/freight terminal and that it was developed under a different code and is consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. While the use is existing, it is expanding, and Staff believes that the proposed plan generally meets the intent of the UDO by providing for the required screening adjacent to the residential neighborhood and along Rochester Drive where it would be visible from the street.

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 applicant proposes to utilize the existing building in its operation as well as expand the building west at its south end. Additionally, the exiting uses to the west and south have been and will continue to be compatible with the proposed use on the Subject Property thus not warranting additional screening above and beyond what is currently provided. These characteristics and/or conditions have been generated by implementation of previous Village codes and/or approvals. The railroad spur serving the building to the south solidifies the reason to not need additional screening/buffering items above and beyond what is currently provided.

Staff Comments: The Petitioner is providing additional screening to meet the intent of the code where it will have the most impact and visibility, specifically street facing areas and areas adjacent to residential buildings.

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. The Petitioner has attempted 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 previous zoning codes that applied to the site when it was initially developed. The Petitioner has made a good faith effort to either meet the current ordinance or to meet the intent of the ordinance where feasible, specifically focusing on mitigating any impacts in the areas of the Subject Property that have the most external visibility or impact.

Chairman Hammond asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments on the Finding of Fact.

Vice Chairman Yen asked if on the far east side along the residential line, if those parking spaces for the trailer storage as well.

Petitioner Richards responded yes, empty trailer storage.

Commissioner Baum asked what the residential screening on that boundary was.

Senior Planner Farruggia added the Village requires 75% evergreen screening.

There is berm requirements and solid fencing and further landscaping as well.

Chairman Hammond asked if there were any further questions, there were none.

Chairman Hammond asked for a motion.

Commissioner Bond made a motion to approve all variations for R & L Carriers with the following conditions:

1. Staff approval of a Final Landscape Plan including a Tree Removal and Replacement Plan and revisions to the landscape screening north of the outdoor storage area to meet the 50% evergreen requirement and additional landscaping to screen the refuse area from Rochester Dr.

2. The parking lot must be revised to meet the UDO requirements.

3. Staff approval of a Final Photometric Plan.

4. Staff approval of final Fence Details.

5. Village Engineer approval of the Final Engineering Plans.

6. The Petitioner must complete the cul de sac for Rochester Drive as part of this development. An occupancy will not be issued until this has been completed.

7. Grants of Easement and Vacation for stormwater and water main, must be approved by the Village Engineer and recorded before occupancy is issued for this development.

Commissioner McNeal-James seconded the motion.

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

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

Chairman Hammond stated this item will be brought to the Board on Monday December 9th.

b. PZC 2024-014/-017 Variations and Final PUD Plan (Sunway Carriers)

i. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Final PUD Plan and Variations from Section 11.07 (Screening Requirements) to reduce or eliminate the landscaping and fencing screening requirements for the outdoor storage area along the north, and west property lines.

Chairman Hammond asked Village Staff to present its report.

Senior Planner Farruggia gave the report. The Petitioner, Sunway Carriers, is seeking to construct and operate its 36,000 sq. ft. warehouse distribution/freight terminal on Lot 5 of the Montgomery Business Center Unit 3 (“Subject Property”). The use includes the outdoor storage of their trucks and trailers.The

Petitioner has submitted their Final PUD Plans for review and approval, however, require screening variances for the outdoor storage area due to existing conditions on the site.

The proposed outdoor storage area, which will be used for the parking of trucks and trailers, is located in the rear yard and will be enclosed by a new fence on three sides. There is an existing fence along the eastern property line that the

Petitioner is requesting to be allowed to connect to in order to fully enclose the outdoor storage area as required by Section 11.07 of the UDO (Screening Requirements for Outdoor Storage).

The Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property as Heavy Industrial.

The Subject Property is currently zoned M-2/PUD General Manufacturing District. The proposed warehouse distribution/freight terminal use and outdoor storage are allowed as part of the Planned Unit Development granted for the Montgomery Business Center pursuant to Ordinance No. 1918.

Senior Planner Farruggia explained that the proposed precast concrete panel building meets the setback and height and design requirements for the M-2 District. The site will contain three (3) parking areas around the front and sides of the building containing a total of 83 parking spaces. This exceeds the minimum 19 parking spaces required by the PUD. The tractor/trailer parking spaces meet the minimum size requirements of the UDO. The site has two (2) entrances off Knell Road that are located on the east and west sides of the site.

The employee parking areas are separated from the truck areas.

Senior Planner Farruggia noted a Photometric Plan has been submitted for review. Illumination levels meet the restriction of 1.0 fc at the property lines that are adjacent to non-residential properties. He stated that Staff recommends making final approval of the Final Photometric Plan a condition of approval.

Senior Planner Farruggia explained the Subject Property has an existing tree line along the west property line and an existing fence and tree line along the east property line belonging to the adjacent property. The UDO’s 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 east property line. The Petitioner believes this is impractical and is requesting relief from this requirement. In keeping with the general intent of the UDO’s landscaping requirements, the Petitioner is proposing to connect a fence from the building to the existing fence to enclose the outdoor storage area and to provide some landscaping on the interior side of the existing fence.

The Petitioner is also requesting relief from the required 75% landscape screening along the north property line abutting the railroad spur. The proposed plan provides approximately 26% screening.

The Petitioner is also requesting relief from the requirement to provide solid fencing around the outdoor storage area. The Petitioner will provide solid fencing along the south end of the outdoor storage area to screen it from Knell Road. They are also providing the required berming and evergreen landscaping to screen the outdoor storage area from Knell Road. The remainder of the fencing will be vinyl clad chain-link.

Senior Planner Farruggia said the existing tree line along the west property line provides the required screening for the west side of the outdoor storage area. No landscape screening variance is needed for the west side. The Petitioner is providing additional native plantings along this area adjacent to the wetland to meet the additional landscaping requirements of the PUD.

Senior Planner Farruggia stated the engineering plans have been reviewed by the Village Engineer and provide for the required utilities, stormwater and floodplain and wetland management and Staff recommends making the approval of the Final Engineering Plans a condition of approval.

He further noted that in accordance with the PUD, Knell Road must be extended to the west side of this property as part of this development. At a minimum binder must be down before an occupancy can be issued. Plats of Easement are necessary for the stormwater and watermain. These easements will need to be recorded before an Occupancy Certificate will be issued.

Senior Planner Farruggia further stated plans have been submitted to the Fire District and the Petitioner is working directly with them to address their comments.

Senior Planner Farruggia provided more specific details on the required variances.

• Landscaping Variance (Variance from Section 11.07)

The Petitioner has requested relief from the landscape screening requirements. The proposed Variations would reduce the requirement for landscape screening along the north side and east sides of the outdoor storage area and allow the landscaping along the east side to be located on the interior side of the fencing.

• Fence Screening Variance (Variation from Section 11.07)

The UDO requires outdoor storage areas to be completely enclosed by a solid wall or fence. The adjacent property to the east has existing chain link fencing along the shared property line. The Petitioner is requesting to be allowed to utilize the existing fence on the east side to enclose the outdoor storage area and is therefore requesting relief from the fencing requirement along the east property line for the outdoor storage area.

The Petitioner also requests relief from the solid fencing requirement for the proposed fencing on the north and west sides of the outdoor storage area and the existing chain-link fence on the east side. The fencing facing Knell Road will be a solid fence (chain-link with vinyl slats).

Chairman Hammond opened the Public Hearing. No one wished to speak so Chairman Hammond closed the Public Hearing.

Chairman Hammond read the Finding 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 Petitioner’s opinion that the development will be compatible with the surrounding properties which are industrial and are screened by existing tree lines.

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: It is the Petitioner’s opinion that the UDO creates an undue hardship/practical difficulty in developing the Subject Property by requiring additional fencing rather than allowing the use of existing fencing. This also creates functionality issues and maintenance issues by creating a dead zone between an existing fence and a newly installed fence.

Staff Comments: Staff concurs that abutting fences could create functionality and maintenance issues and that the existing tree lines provide screening that meets the intent of the UDO.

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

Petitioner: It is the Petitioner’s opinion that the existing tree lines that are being preserved and the adjacent natural areas and existing fencing create a unique circumstance.

Staff Comments: Staff concurs with the Petitioner that there are unique conditions on the Subject Property with wetland and tree preservation areas on the west side of the Subject Property and existing fencing on the east side of the Subject Property and a railroad spur on the north side of the Subject Property. The Petitioner is providing additional screening to meet the intent of the code where it will have the most impact and visibility, specifically street facing areas.

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 believes the Petitioner has attempted 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 concurs that the Variations are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO. The Petitioner has made a good faith effort to either meet the current ordinance or to meet the intent of the ordinance where feasible, specifically focusing on mitigating any impacts in the areas of the Subject Property that have the most external visibility or impact and preserving existing trees in protected areas.

Chairman Hammond asked the Commissioners if they had any comments or questions for Staff or the Petitioners. There were none.

Chairman Hammond asked for a motion.

Commissioner McNeal-James made a motion to approve PZC 2024-014/-017 with the following conditions:

1. Staff approval of a Final Landscape Plan

2. Staff approval of a Final Photometric Plan.

3. Village Engineer approval of the Final Engineering Plans.

4. Should the adjacent neighbor’s screening fencing along the east property line be removed without replacement for six months, a new vinyl-clad chain-link fence that meets this Ordinance’s standards, or that complies with the UDO, shall be erected by the property owner.

5. Grants of Easement for stormwater and water main, must be approved by the Village Engineer and recorded before occupancy is issued for this development.

6. Knell Road must be extended to the western edge of the property in accordance with the PUD for Montgomery Business Center approved by Ordinance No. 2093.

Vice Chairman Yen seconded the motion.

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

Nays: None

Abstentions: None

Motion carried.

Chairman Hammond stated this item will be brought to the Board on Monday December 9th.

VII. Community Development Update/New Business

Senior Planner Farruggia mentioned Popeye’s is on the cusp of final approval. The carwash he mentioned last month has asked to be moved to the January meeting, we will hopefully see them within the next couple of months. Briarcliff Park has completed its parking lot for the pickleball courts. Lindsay, our GIS person, is currently working on a new interactive map that will be going before the Board in the next few weeks that will allow people to either search their address or click on their property and see a lot of different information that they might need all in one place i.e. whether they are in a special service area, a homeowner association, what their zoning is, all of the various districts that they are in, what their trash pick-up day is, all those different things.

Engineer Wallers added one additional comment, regarding the R&L property. He noted that one of the items that came up during Translines was the installation of an outfall storm sewer. It had been delayed because of the need for easements. He advised that the Village did get the easements and installed the outfall storm sewer. This completes the area for stormwater management.

VIII. Next Meeting:

The next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission would be on January 2nd. IX. Adjournment: With no further business, Chairman Hammond adjourned the meeting at 7:49PM.

https://www.montgomeryil.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01022025-721