VILLAGE OF MONTGOMERY

Transcription

1 200 N. River Street Montgomery, IL VILLAGE OF MONTGOMERY Plan Commission Meeting Agenda December 4, :00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. III. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call IV. Approval of the Minutes of November 6, 2014 V. Community Development Update VI. Items for Plan Commission Action a Z Public Hearing and Consideration for a Text Amendment to Sections 9 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Recreation, Commercial Uses. b SU Public Hearing and Consideration for a Special Use for a Recreation, Commercial Use Located at 625 S Railroad Street DOUG-LAN, LLC. VII. Items for Plan Commission Discussion a. Ground Signs b. Allowable Surfaces for Storage of Material and Equipment in the Manufacturing Districts VIII. Next Meeting: January 8, 2014 IX. Adjournment Thursday, December 4, :00 p.m.

2 Plan Commission Meeting November 6, 2014 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hammond called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: All present gave the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL: Tom Betsinger Present John Francis Absent Tom Yakaitis Absent Mildred McNeal-James Present Patrick Kelsey Present Butch Distajo Present Mike Hammond Present Also present: Senior Planner Jerad Chipman; Director of Community Development Rich Young; Village Attorney Jessica Briney; Village Engineer Pete Wallers; Trustee Theresa Sperling; Trustee Denny Lee; Executive Director of MEDC Charlene Coulombe-Fiore and members of the audience. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Distajo to approve the minutes of the October 2, 2014 Plan Commission Meeting. Commissioner McNeal-James seconded. Motion passed 5-0 Ayes: Betsinger, Kelsey, Hammond, McNeal-James and Distajo. Nays: None V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UPDATE: Senior Planner Jerad Chipman reported four Commercial permits were issued for the following: Murphy Oil USA, O Reily Auto Parts, Riverview Restaurant and Trio Foundry which is adding an addition. All items on the Plan Commission from October passed the Village Board.

3 VI. ITEMS FOR PLAN COMMISSION ACTION: a) SU Public Hearing and Consideration for a Special Use for Outdoor Storage and a rezoning from M-2 General Manufacturing District to M-1 Limited Manufacturing District located at 2175 Aucutt Rd., PIN Hines Building Supply. Senior Planner Chipman stated that the Petitioner intends to open a Hines Building Supply into an existing building located at 2175 Aucutt Road. The Petitioner is requesting approval of a Special Use for outdoor storage to allow lumber and other building materials to be stored in a screened area behind the building. The Petitioner is also requesting rezoning of the property from M-2 General Manufacturing to M-1 Limited Manufacturing District to allow for retail sales. Currently the Zoning Ordinance does not comply with the interior side yards due to the drive aisles located in the side yards. Increasing the side yard setback would decrease the drive aisle below the Village s ordinance requirement of twenty-four (24) feet. The Petitioner intends on installing an eight foot fence and pavement in the rear area where the outdoor storage will be located. The President of Hines Building Supply, Doug Jones stated they operate seven businesses in the Chicago land area and is excited to partner up with Mike s Deck Center. He expressed that Hines Building Supply has been good corporate citizens, participate in the community and are excited to be part of Montgomery. Michael French, owner of Mike s Deck Center indicated they will add five (5) additional employees. Chairman Hammond opened the public hearing for discussion. No comment from the public and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNeal-James inquired about the timeframe for some of the incomplete items and if the fire department has reviewed the plans. Mr. Jones replied the plan is to close on the building in 2014 and open for business and move Mike s business in the first quarter of They take safety very seriously and will make sure they are in compliance with the fire department. Since there was no further discussion Chairman Hammond read through the findings of facts: A. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; This use should not endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; B. That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted, not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; This use should not be injurious or diminish property values;

4 C. That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; The proposed use does not prohibit use of surrounding property and is normal and orderly; D. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been, or are being, provided; Adequate utilities, roads and drainage already exist; E. That adequate measures have been, or will be, taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in public streets; The property provides adequate ingress and egress; and F. That the special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified by the Village Board pursuant to the recommendations of the Plan Commission. All aspects of the proposed development that do not meet the Zoning Ordinance have been discussed in the above report and recommendations have been made accordingly. Commissioner McNeal-James requested under the recommendations to include pending final engineering review and noted to have the fire department review in writing. MOTION: Commissioner Kelsey made a motion to move to recommend to the Village Board approval of SU and Z Special Use for Outdoor Storage and a rezoning from M-2 General Manufacturing District to M-1 Limited Manufacturing District proposed by Hines Building Supply to include the report from Community Development dated October 30, Commissioner Betsinger seconded. The roll call vote was as follows Ayes: Kelsey, Hammond, McNeal-James, Distajo and Betsinger Nays: None Chairman Hammond commented that he thinks Hines Building Supply will be an excellent addition to Montgomery. VII. ITEMS FOR PLAN COMMISSION DISCUSSION: a. Ground Signs Senior Planner Jerad Chipman summarized that the Village Board recently approved two (2) exceptions, one (1) variance and one (1) PUD amendment, to the Zoning Ordinance regarding ground signs and is asking the Plan Commission to make a recommendation to update the ordinance or maintain the current regulations. Senior Planner Chipman

5 provided a brief report which included the current ground sign ordinance along with neighboring community s regulations. The Commissioners commenced with much discussion regarding the overall ground sign regulations and changes to be made to the current ordinance. Senior Planner Chipman asked the Commissioners if they feel staff should conduct more research and bring back a proposed amendment to the ordinance. The Commissioners would like staff to provide more comparables to see what other communities are doing as well as different visual examples of sign heights using a formula based on the linear square footage. VIII. NEXT MEETING: December 4, 2014 IX. ADJOURNMENT Having no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:31p.m. by Chairman Hammond. Respectfully submitted, Toula Coffey Administrative Assistant

6 PC PLAN COMMISSION ADVISORY REPORT To: From: Chair Hammond and Members of the Plan Commission Jerad Chipman, AICP Senior Planner Date: November 26, 2014 Subject: Recreation, Commercial Text Amendment to Section 9 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. Recently staff has been approached by a property owner who has inquired about using the second floor of an existing building at 625 S. Railroad Street for a baseball training facility. Staff reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and concluded that interpreting the ordinance for this type of use was difficult as the categories in the ordinance did not address this type of use. Therefore, staff is recommending a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow recreation, commercial uses, which would include athletic training facilities, as special uses in the B-3, M-1, and M-2 Districts and prohibiting the use in the Residential, Mill District, B-1 and B-2 Districts. The proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance is intended to allow a variety of recreational uses in the more intense use districts and allow the Plan Commission and Village Board to guard against potential nuisances through the special use process. Staff is of the opinion that there may be potential nuisances associated with such uses that warrant the special use process, especially with outdoor activities that may generate noise and intense lighting. Note that this use category is intended to capture uses that are not covered and do not easily fall under the Zoning Ordinance s Entertainment Uses category, or the sub-categories under Entertainment Uses. The sub-categories for Entertainment Uses are as follows: Adult Uses Amusement Arcades Ballroom/Dancehall Billiard Hall/Bowling Alley Clubs or Lodges Drive in Movies Firearm Uses Skating Rink: ice or roller The following two (2) tables and definition indicate the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Section 9 Business Districts Land Use Type MD B-1 B-2 B-3 Recreation, Commercial X X X S

7 Page 2 ( ) Recreation, Commercial Text Amendment November 26, 2014 Section 11 Manufacturing Districts Land Use Type M-1 M-2 Recreation, Commercial S S Definition: Recreation, Commercial Any commercial enterprise which receives a fee in return for the provision of some recreational activity including but not limited to: indoor and outdoor athletic training facility, paintball courses and batting cages, but not including entertainment uses. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proposed regulation concerning recreational facilities for commercial purposes provides beneficial clarity to the Zoning Ordinance, and therefore, recommends the text amendment. Draft Recommendation: I move to recommend to the Village Board approval of Z text amendment to Sections 9 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding recreational, commercial to include the report from Community Development dated November 26, 2014.

8 SU Special Use for a Recreation, 326 Commercial Use for Baseball Training - DOUG-LAN, LLC. 329 ST ILR O AD RA 120 ES T LA K ST ST WA TK IN S NO N AME CA MA IN RI VE R E AV CA ST RI VE R ST RT ST SE ST WA TK IN S ST ILR O RA T JE FF ER SO N TT S AD SC O 323 T 324 RIV ER S SE AV E Source: Esri,727 DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, 1:12,000 Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Legend Village of Montgomery 200 N. River Street Montgomery, IL November 25, Feet MD MILL DISTRICT B-1 LOCAL RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT B-2 GENERAL RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT B-3 GENERAL AUTOMOTIVE AND WHOLESALE BUSINESS DISTRICT FLOOD M-1 LIMITED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT M-2 GENERAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT R-2 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-3 TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-4 TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-5A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-5B ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-6 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT This inform ation is for reference purposes only and the Village of Montgomery is not responsible for its accuracy

9 PC PLAN COMMISSION ADVISORY REPORT To: From: Chair Hammond and Members of the Plan Commission Jerad Chipman, AICP Senior Planner Date: November 26, 2014 Subject: Baseball Training at 625 S. Railroad Street - Special Use. Petitioner: Location/Address: Requests: Current Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: DOUG LAN, LLC 625 S. Railroad Street Special Use for Recreation, Commercial M-2 General Manufacturing District Single Family Detached Residential Surrounding Land Uses: Location Adjacent Land Use Adjacent Zoning North Residential R-5B East Residential R-4, R-5B South Industrial M-2 West Industrial, Commercial M-2, B-2 Background: The Petitioner intends to open a baseball training facility on the second floor of the existing industrial building at 625 S. Railroad Street. This new training facility requires a special use for recreation, commercial use per the recently proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment. The special use would allow the Petitioner to operate the baseball training facility completely inside the building. The Petitioner has indicated that the hours of operation would be approximately 4:00 P.M. to 9 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on the weekends. The training facility would operate during the winter months, as the teams intend to resume outdoor training in warmer months. There are two (2) tenant spaces on the second story of the building. Two (2) separate training entities intend to utilize those two (2) spaces.

10 Page 2 ( ) Recreation, Commercial Use for Baseball Training Special Use November 26, 2014 Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed land use would not completely conform to the Comprehensive Plan as it indicates that the location be utilized as Single-Family Detached Residential. The building is currently a manufacturing in nature in which a new use within the existing building is being proposed. The Village s long term goal to replace the manufacturing building with residential homes remains, however, as the building is not being expanded staff is not recommending full compliance with the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Zoning: The property is zoned M-2 General Manufacturing District. The Petitioner is requesting a special use for a recreation, commercial use potentially allowed in the M-2 General Manufacturing District pending the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Bulk Standards: The existing building does not comply with all of the Village s bulk standards. However, staff does not recommend bringing all of the bulk standard non-conformities up to the Village s standards as it would result in tearing down substantial portions of the building. Parking: Number of Spaces, Handicap Spaces, Drive Aisles & Dimensions: Parking at this location has been an issue recently as the Route 30 and Route 31 intersection improvements have resulted in S. Railroad Street being cul-de-saced north of the new Watkins Avenue extension. This road reconfiguration has resulted in parking for this building being split. Most of the parking is south of Watkins Avenue and a small portion is located north of Watkins Avenue. The Village is petitioning the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to keep the majority of the pavement leading up to the former Case Street railroad crossing for the purpose of providing additional parking for this facility. The Petitioner has indicated to staff that they intend to have one of the two baseball training tenants access their space from the west side of the building and the other tenant from the east side. The Petitioner also indicated that the coaches for the tenant on the east side of the building would park off of the street in an existing driveway and the students would be dropped off near the door on S. Main Street. Staff is concerned with the amount of traffic that would be generated on S. Main Street and is recommending that parking and student drop off be conducted on the west side of the building to minimize the amount of traffic in the residential areas. The parking spaces in front of the building shall be restriped and shall include appropriate accessible spaces and signage. Bicycle parking is deficient for the entire site. A minimum of three (3) bicycle parking spaces shall be provided. Landscaping: Staff recommends that the Petitioner consider adding flowers or plantings in the vacant landscape beds on the west side of the building. Engineering: As the proposed use is completely contained inside the existing building, engineering review was not required.

11 Page 3 ( ) Recreation, Commercial Use for Baseball Training Special Use November 26, 2014 Lighting: The property currently has exterior lighting on the building. Staff recommends maintaining the existing lighting, however, in the event that the Petitioner intends to alter/update the existing lighting that new lighting would be required to comply with the current Zoning Ordinance. Screening: As the proposed use is completely contained inside the existing building, staff is not proposing additional screening measures. Signage: A complete signage package is required before the issuance of sign permits. Access: Site access was discussed in the parking section of this report. Special Use: The Petitioner is requesting a Special Use for a recreation, commercial use. The Commission should consider whether the use is in keeping with the vision of the area and whether its impacts can be properly mitigated. According to the Montgomery Zoning Ordinance, whose language hereafter is in italics, no special use shall be recommended by the Plan Commission unless the Commission shall find that the following standards have been satisfied: Staff has provided findings of fact following the standards for the Plan Commissioner s consideration. A. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; This use should not endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; B. That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purpose already permitted, not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; This use should not be injurious or diminish property values; C. That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; Staff believes that as long as the traffic and parking are kept on the west side of the building that the proposed use does not prohibit use of surrounding property and is normal and orderly; D. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been, or are being, provided; Adequate utilities, roads and drainage already exist;

12 Page 4 ( ) Recreation, Commercial Use for Baseball Training Special Use November 26, 2014 E. That adequate measures have been, or will be, taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in public streets; Staff believes that as long as the traffic and parking are kept on the west side of the building that the property provides adequate ingress and egress; and F. That the special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified by the Village Board pursuant to the recommendations of the Plan Commission. All aspects of the proposed development that do not meet the Zoning Ordinance have been discussed in the above report and recommendations have been made accordingly. The Plan Commission should discuss each of these criteria and make findings of fact as to whether the proposed use meets the criteria. If the Commission finds that the use should be permitted, they may impose additional conditions in order to mitigate any impacts of the proposed use. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the special use with the conditions discussed previously in this report. Draft Recommendation: I move to recommend to the Village Board approval of SU special use for a recreation, commercial use proposed by DOUG-LAN, LLC to include the report from Community Development dated November 26, 2014.

13 PLAN COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: From: Chair Hammond and Members of the Plan Commission Jerad Chipman, AICP Senior Planner Date: November 24, 2014 Subject: Ground Signs At the November Plan Commission Meeting staff requesting direction from the Plan Commission regarding whether to update the Village s ground sign ordinance in light of recent allowances for larger signs than permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. The Plan Commission directed staff to continue conduct further research on the subject and bring the item back for further discussion. This report contains additional information regarding regional municipalities ordinances, and examples of what would be allowed for a sampling of Montgomery Businesses if the Village were to adopt an ordinance similar to North Aurora s which is passed on square footage per linear lot frontage.. Regional municipalities maximum ground sign size for a single tenant building, including the base of the sign: Municipality Height in Feet Width in Feet Area in Square Feet Sugar Grove 30, measured from the Determined by square 100 crown of the nearest roadway, within reason. Nearly all of the signs in the new developments are controlled through PUDs and not the 30 foot high restriction footage of sign, variable Oswego 10 Determined by square footage of sign, 50 Elburn North Aurora 10, 8 if across from a residential parcel 10, 8 if across from a residential parcel variable Determined by square footage of sign, variable Depends on lot frontage Wheaton 7, 11 including berm Determined by square footage of sign, variable 48 One (1) square foot per every one (1) linear foot of lot frontage 48

14 Page 2 Ground Signs November 24, 2014 Geneva 16, 10 in some districts and transitional Determined by square footage of sign, variable Plainfield 10 Determined by square footage of sign, variable Batavia 6 Determined by square footage of sign, variable Naperville 10, 20 for car dealers Determined by square footage of sign, variable Warrenville 7, 10 with message board Determined by square footage of sign, variable Montgomery if located less than 75 feet from right-ofway. 60 if located greater than 75 feet from right-of-way. Depends on speed limit of the frontage road 45 for 40 or less mph, 90 for 45 to 50 mph, 120 for 55 mph and greater. 50 additional 32 with message board The majority of the municipalities sampled allow for larger signs than Montgomery. Five (5) out of the ten (10) municipalities allow 10 feet high signs, and almost all of the sampling regulate width based on the allowable square footage. The majority of municipalities sampled regulate sign area as the area of the sign panel or sign cabinet. This is currently contrary to Montgomery s restriction, which regulates the square footage of the entire structure. The map and table on the next page contain examples of sign size based on the linear front footage of the lot facing the public right-of-way:

15 Page 3 Ground Signs November 24, 2014 Location on Map Linear Frontage Square Footage Allowed Sign Size Assuming a Maximum Height of 10 feet A feet high, 31.5 feet wide 10 feet high, 9.5 feet wide B feet high, 15 feet wide C feet high, 22.6 feet wide D feet high, 21.8 feet wide E feet high, 23.4 feet wide F feet high, 22.5 feet wide 10 feet high, 26.6 feet wide G feet high, 76.8 feet wide H feet high, 25.7 feet wide 10 feet high, 19.5 feet wide I feet high, 15.6 feet wide J feet high, 89.5 feet wide K feet high, 19 feet wide 10 feet high, 21 feet wide L feet high, 22 feet wide

16 Page 4 Ground Signs November 24, 2014 Questions for the Plan Commission to consider: 1. What do you think is an appropriate overall height? 2. Should sign requirements differ based on the number of tenants in a building, speed limit of the road or linear foot of the lot frontage? 3. Should a maximum sign square footage regulate just the sign face or the entire structure?

17 Page 5 Ground Signs November 24, 2014 Appendix A: The Village of Montgomery s current ground sign restrictions. 2. GROUND SIGNS. Ground signs shall be permitted subject to the following and shall be defined as a permanent sign which is supported by a solid, continuous base anchored to the ground: a. NUMBER. No more than one ground sign per street frontage per lot shall be permitted on a lot. One Multi-Building Development sign shall be allowed per street frontage and shall incorporate the development name into the sign and shall include the text of Montgomery. A Multi-Building Development shall be defined as two or more lots that lie within the same subdivision that has been recorded with the County (for example the Ogden Hill or Orchard Crossing commercial Subdivisions). b. LOCATION. No ground signs shall be located closer than five (5) feet to a property line. c. HEIGHT & WIDTH. The maximum height and width of ground signs shall be determined based on the type of building and/or development listed in the table below as well as the diagram below. The height of the sign shall be measured from grade to the top of the sign. The width of the sign shall be the width of the sign panel excluding any perimeter supporting structures. The support structures, base and top of the sign shall not extend more than two feet horizontally beyond the width of the sign panel on each side, and the base shall not be narrower than the sign panel. Example photos have also been provided for reference as to what meets this definition and is acceptable and what is not. Building Type Height (A) Sign Panel Width (B) Single Tenant Building 6 feet 8 feet Multi-Tenant Building 2-5 Tenants 10 Feet 10 feet Multi-Tenant Building 6+ Tenants 12 Feet 10 feet Multi-Building Development (Shopping Center/ 10 Feet 10 feet Business Park) Single Tenant Panel Multi-Building Development (Shopping Center/ 15 Feet 10 feet Business Park) 2-5 Tenant Panels Multi-Building Development (Shopping Center/ Business Park) 6+ Tenant Panels 25 Feet 10 feet

18 Page 6 Ground Signs November 24, 2014 Ground Sign Diagram Decorative Top CL A B C C A = Height of Sign B = Width of Sign Panel CR/CL= 2 foot max width extension beyond the Sign Panel D = Total Width of Sign Structure (B + CR + CL) Example 1: Single Tenant Sign A = 6 feet, B = 8 feet, CR = 2 feet, CL=2 feet, D = 12 feet C Brick Base D Example 2: Multi-Tenant Building 4 Tenants A = 10 feet, B = 10 feet, CR = 1.5 feet, CL = 1.5 feet, D = 13 feet

19 Examples of signs that are acceptable and meet the design intent. Page 7 Ground Signs November 24, 2014

20 Page 8 Ground Signs November 24, 2014 Examples of signs that are not acceptable and do not meet the design intent.

21 Page 9 Ground Signs November 24, 2014 d. MANUAL MESSAGE BOARD SIGN. Manual changeable message board signs shall be permitted when incorporated into a ground sign subject to all applicable standards herein, and the following conditions: i. No more than fifty-percent (50%) of the ground sign area provided shall be used as a message board sign. ii. Lettering used on manual changeable copy signs directed to local or collector streets shall be at least three (3) inches in height. iii. Lettering used on manual changeable copy signs directed to secondary or major arterial streets shall be at least six (6) inches in height. iv. Lettering used on manual changeable copy signs directed to pedestrians shall be at least one (1) inch in height. e. ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGN. Electronic changeable message board signs shall be permitted when incorporated into a ground sign subject to all applicable standards herein, and the following conditions but shall be prohibited in all residential districts: i. No more than thirty-percent (30%) of the ground sign area provided shall be used as an electronic message board sign. f. DISTANCE FROM BUILDING. No ground sign shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to a building, provided that a ground sign four (4) feet in height or less may be located as close as three (3) feet from a building. g. SIGN LANDSCAPING. All ground signs shall be located in a landscaped area separated and protected from vehicular circulation and parking areas. Said landscape area shall be landscaped appropriately and approved by the Director of Community Development. h. BUSINESS ADDRESSES. Business addresses shall be permitted on the base or crown/top of the ground sign and shall be no taller than eight (8) inches.

22 PLAN COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: From: Chair Hammond and Members of the Plan Commission Jerad Chipman, AICP Senior Planner Date: November 24, 2014 Subject: Allowable Surfaces for Storage of Material and Equipment in the Manufacturing Districts The Village has required all outdoor storage and vehicle maneuvering to be conducted on a paved asphalt or concrete, surface for approximately ten (10) years. There are currently locations in the Village that operate on a non-paved surface that existed prior to the ordinance revision requiring paving. Since the ordinance revision, only one (1) known exception to the ordinance exists, and that exception is the temporary special use for the Aurora Tree Service development on Route 31. The Village has received several inquiries and requests into allowing other forms of surfacing such as gravel and recycled asphalt. The interested parties have claimed that their machinery and material storage is heavy and will rapidly degrade the pavement. Staff believes that a pavement designed for that material can withstand the weight, however, the increase pavement thickness is quite expensive. Staff s two (2) primary nuisance concerns are dust leaving the site and vehicles tracking debris onto the roads. Staff has prepared a list of recommended restrictions in the event that the alternative surfaces are allowed, and is seeking the Plan Commission s opinion regarding what should be an allowable surface in manufacturing districts. Recommended restrictions include but are not limited to the following: Alternative surfaces are only allowed in the M-1 and M-2 Districts. Alternative surfaces are only allowed in association with a special use, requiring Plan Commission recommendation and Village Board approval. Alternative surfaces are only allowed for outdoor material storage and equipment above a certain weight license plate. Screening and landscaping would be required around the sites. Even though there is a recommended restriction list, note that this document is for discussion purposes only.