Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery board tables Douglas Commons parking-variance after debate over landscaping, parking and food-truck use
Summary
The Village Board accepted the planning-and-zoning recommendation for a Douglas Commons parking expansion but then tabled final action to allow staff and the petitioner to reconsider landscaping, buffering and project scope. The proposal would add 31 spaces and seeks variances from landscaping standards and a slight drive-aisle reduction.
The Village of Montgomery Board on Aug. 11 accepted the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation on a proposed parking-lot expansion at Douglas Commons but then voted to table the item so staff can seek a revised plan.
The petitioner is asking to expand the lot to the west, adding 31 parking spaces, and to be excused from current Unified Development Ordinance landscaping standards for expanded lots. Staff said the applicant also requests a reduction in the drive-aisle width from 18 feet to 17.5 feet to accommodate two parking rows in the constrained site.
Planning staff told the board the commission recommended approval with standard conditions: final engineering and photometric plans, approval from the fire district and a clause that any granted variances would expire if the property is ever redesigned or redeveloped. Staff also noted the variances do not retroactively apply to the existing portions of the lot, which remain a nonconforming condition.
Board members pressed on several points. Trustee Youngerman asked why so many applicants request landscaping waivers and raised the idea of a fee-in-lieu so required plantings could be funded elsewhere; staff said the village code currently has a fee-in-lieu only for tree replacement, not for missing perimeter or island landscaping. Trustee Bauman and others argued for consistent treatment across projects, noting the village required islands and plantings on past private projects and questioned equity if smaller applicants receive waivers while larger firms were held to the standard. Trustee Marcek and others pressed whether the expansion would primarily serve patrons or would be used to host food trucks or events, which could change the board’s view on maintaining beautification standards.
Several trustees and staff observed that Montgomery Road’s planned bike-path work constrains the area available for tree plantings at the street edge, and that some stretches between the property line and pavement are only a few feet wide. Staff said some decorative perennials or smaller shrubs might be possible even where full 8-foot landscape perimeters are infeasible.
After discussion the board took two linked steps: it moved to accept the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation (the motion carried 6–0), and then President Brawley said the board would table the enacting ordinance and send the matter back to staff to work with the petitioner on a revised plan that could preserve some planting along Montgomery Road while still delivering additional parking.
The board directed staff to try to identify a “happy medium” so the project could proceed with a reduced but improved layout. Staff will return with potential revisions and any updates from the fire district.
The board’s first-reading ordinance number for the Douglas Commons item was listed as 2143; the board agreed to table that ordinance to a future meeting after staff follow-up.
