Planning board recommends U-Haul site plan amid resident concerns over drainage, traffic and frontage

The Swansea Planning & Zoning Board voted to recommend approval of a planned business development at 2211 North Illinois Street — an application from Amerco Real Estate Company (a U-Haul affiliate) — after a public hearing in which nearby residents pressed the company and staff on drainage, traffic, security and visual buffering.

Dan, the village’s planning and zoning director, opened the hearing by summarizing the materials required under Section 154-080(b) of the village code (site plan, narrative and impact statement) and confirmed notice had been posted. Mike White, the applicant’s representative, described a revised plan that reduces the original single three‑story storage building to two single‑story, climate‑controlled storage buildings, retains two residential homes on the site (one to house the on‑site manager), and continues to offer truck and trailer rentals and a retail showroom. White said the location would operate about 7 a.m.–7 p.m., employ six to 12 people and that the company has regional operations based in St. Louis.

Residents at the hearing raised several recurring concerns. Sherry Nichols, whose parents’ property borders the site, said runoff and creek washout are already a serious local problem and asked whether the project’s detention and grading plan would worsen erosion or remove buffering trees. "Those creeks behind this are already experienced severe drainage from above and we're experiencing washout to a large scale," Nichols said. White responded that the site includes an engineered detention area and that stormwater controls, grading/balancing and a detention basin to the east are intended to control flows and avoid downstream flooding.

Neighbors and several board members also objected to the project’s proposed frontage treatment and the visibility of rental trucks along IL‑159. One commenter urged the board to preserve a more community‑oriented frontage, arguing the current layout "looks more like an industrial area" and asked whether landscaping, a fence, or a traffic signal at the access point would be required. White said landscaping was not required in the prior approval but that the company is open to adding planting and other buffering where feasible. He said the site would have directional signage and on‑site staff would instruct most rental customers how to enter and exit safely; he estimated a maximum on‑site display of roughly 15–20 trucks at peak times, with many units rented out to customers.

Board members pressed the applicant on retaining‑wall responsibility, lighting and safety buffers between vehicle maneuvering areas and pedestrian/door openings. White said lighting would use downcast fixtures (maximum 12 feet) and that the company would review photometrics and make adjustments if light spill becomes a problem. On security, White said the site will be monitored with a DVR system and off‑site monitoring and described the planned installation of multiple interior and exterior cameras with six months of retained footage.

After discussion about whether to impose conditions or to table the application for a revised site plan, a motion was made to recommend approval "as presented" to the Village Board. The planning and zoning board vote forwarded the recommendation of approval (five in favor, one opposed). The board’s recommendation and a findings‑of‑fact summary will be provided to the Village Board for its final decision.

The applicant and residents were encouraged to continue dialogue before the Village Board hearing; the planning board noted it can provide conditions or additional guidance to the Village Board but that the ultimate authority for approval rests with the trustees.