Village of Lombard Legistar System

PC 07-23: 1025 E. Madison

A. Approval of a conditional use for an existing religious institution and elementary

school on property located in the R2 Single Family Residence District;

B. Approval of a conditional use for a Planned Development with the following

variations:

1. Allow a variation from Section 155.406 (H) of the Village Code to allow a reduction

in the required open space and approval of a variation from Section 155.508 (C)( 7) to

allow for a reduction in the minimum open space requirements required for a planned

development. Section 155.508 (C)(7) requires that open space in a planned

development must be at least 25% more than is required in the underlying district;

2. Allow a variation from Section 155.602 (C) to deviate from the design and

dimension standards for parking lots;

3. Allow a variation from Section 155.706 (B)(1) & (2) to reduce the minimum interior

parking lot landscaping requirement;

4. Allow a variation from Section 155.706 (C)(1) & (2)(a) to reduce the perimeter

parking lot landscaping;

C. Approval of a development agreement for the subject property.

(DISTRICT #6)

presented the petition. He noted their conditional use request and described his

business. Heavenly Massage & Spa is a day spa that provides manicures, pedicures,

massages, waxing and facials. They have been in business for twelve years and they

have multiple locations around the Chicago area. They are proposing to expand into

Lombard with a new establishment and they have submitted plans to the Village for

approval.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in

favor of or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and submitted it to the public

record in its entirety. He noted that the day spa use is considered to be a type of

massage establishment, which is classified as a conditional use in the B4 District. The

proposed use will occupy a currently vacant 6,053 square foot space within the

Overlook on North, a 17,500 square foot multi-tenant building. Prior to commencing the

proposed massage establishment, the applicant is required to submit an application and

receive approval for a Massage Establishment Business License with the Village.

Regarding the Inter-departmental Review Comments, the Building Division has been

reviewing their build-out plans and they have provided comments directly to the

petitioner on the submitted plan set.

With respect to Planning Services division, the Zoning Ordinance lists “Physical culture

and massage establishments” as conditional uses within the B4 District. While the

petitioner denotes that they are a day spa, staff has made the land use interpretation

that the day spa use is most closely akin to a massage establishment, based upon the

representations made by the petitioner as well as the review of the submitted interior

build out plans.

Prior to commencing the proposed massage establishment, the applicant is required to

submit an application and receive approval for a Village Massage Establishment

Business License. Individual masseurs/masseuses are licensed through the State of

Illinois and are required to provide a copy of their license as part of the overall business

license application.

The concept floor plan, proposes to have eighteen massage rooms, four

restroom/shower rooms, two restrooms, a manicure/pedicure area, a hair cutting area,

and a front counter/waiting area. No external improvements are proposed as part of the

business operation and the business use will be entirely within the enclosed building.

He noted that the use would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and would be

compatible with the adjacent land uses.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired about the hours of operation of the establishment. Mr.

Dagrizikos stated that he proposed the business to be open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday.

Village Counsel George Wagner noted that condition 2 should be amended to reflect

that the required license from the Village is a business license.

establishment within the existing shopping center beyond what was submitted as part of

PC 07-24, shall require an amendment to the conditional use approval.

2. Any massage establishments to be located on the premises shall apply for and

receive a business license from the Village of Lombard. Said establishments shall meet

all provisions of Chapter 12, Section 122 of the Village Code and shall keep their license

in good standing. Moreover, all massage therapists employed on the premises must

have a current license from the State of Illinois for the conditional use to apply.

3. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for any improvements to

the interior of the tenant space prior to starting and build-out of the tenant space.

Moreover, the petitioner shall apply for and receive approval of a Certificate of

Occupancy/Zoning Certificate prior to opening the business establishment.

Mario Valentini of Warren Johnson Architects, 19 North Greely, Palatine, IL presented

the petition. He stated the property is improved with a Shell gas station. Within the

convenience center is a deli counter. Dunkin Donuts has partnered up in several

locations to incorporate their use. This Dunkin Donuts will operate differently than their

freestanding locations. Donuts are not cooked at this location - it will only have a retail

shop and they will also sell beverages. He noted this is one of a few stations that would

accommodate a drive through.

Continuing, Mr. Valentini stated that Warren Johnson Architects came before the Plan

Commission when Shell initially went through the initial zoning approvals. They do not

believe site plan will negatively impact their day-to-day operations. He indicated that the

staff report mentions the operations and peak times. The drive through wouldn't

interfere with gas and daily deliveries of the convenient store. He felt comfortable with

implementing what they thought would work successfully.

He noted the variation to increase the number of wall signs. They need to identify

Dunkin Donuts. The majority of the customers will be people that are using this as a

point of destination for both gas and food purposes. The drive-through accommodates

both activities. He then described the internal design of the building.

Mark Hawkinson the construction manager with Dunkin Donuts, 1160 Ridgewood, West

Chicago, stated the desire to add their stores to a number of Shell locations. They have

stringent criteria, and only two sites met their criteria. They have a high level of comfort

that the plan will work.

Mr. Valentini stated that Shell has stringent requirements before they let Dunkin Donuts

enter the site. The staff report notes the outdoor sales and that concern is about items

on pallets. The response was if they have notice of a problem, they would limit the

amount of material or product that was out on the pallets.

Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in

favor or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff referenced the staff report, which was submitted to the public record. In

2000, the Village Board approved a conditional use for a gas station and a car wash on

the property. The car wash and convenience mart are in separate buildings, and the

gas station has a large canopy covering the fuel pumps. The Shell gas station has

entered into an agreement to lease the portion of the convenience store that is currently

used as a deli counter to Dunkin Donuts. The petitioner is proposing a drive-through

associated with the Dunkin Donuts, which requires an additional conditional use

approval in the B4 Corridor Commercial District. The petitioner also seeks an

amendment to the previous sign approvals to allow for two additional wall signs on the

property.

Referencing the IDRC comments, the Bureau of Inspectional Services comments that

with the possible vehicle stacking at the drive thru and the car wash, proper emergency

vehicle/equipment access is to be maintained at all times.

He then discussed Planning's issues. The petitioner is proposing a new drive-through

window in conjunction with the Dunkin Donuts operations, which requires a conditional

use approval. Four conditional uses currently associated with the property (gasoline

sales, car wash, two principal buildings on one lot, and outside product display and

sales).

The drive-through is proposed to operate in a counter-clockwise manner. Vehicles

using the drive-through would be directed to drive around the rear of the convenience

store and stack in a parallel lane to the car wash drive-through lane. The menu board

would be located behind the building and between the drive-through lanes and the

vehicle delivery area. Once orders have been placed, he/she would proceed to the

window placed on the west side of the convenience store.

He noted that staff offers its concerns and findings. Many such establishments within

the community offer additional retail uses (indoor or outdoor) as well as other auto

service uses such as car washes, vehicle service activities or even restaurant

drive-through facilities, such as the BP/McDonald's establishment east of the subject

property. However, when reviewing this petition, staff finds that if a conditional use for

the drive-through window is granted, the cumulative impact of this conditional use as

well as all of the other conditional uses would negatively affect the property.

The petitioner has represented that the Dunkin Donuts will have peak hours in the

morning whereas the gas station will have peak hours in the afternoon and evening.

However, once a conditional use for a drive-through window is granted it is tied to the

property. There is nothing that would prevent a modification to the Dunkin Donuts

business operations, whose peak hours may coincide with the gas station, from taking

over the lease and operating the drive-through. Empirical evidence from similar types of

coffee establishments finds that while their peak hour of generation may be in the

morning, there will be business activity throughout the entire day.

From a stacking and queuing standpoint, the petitioner's plan does provide the minimum

number of stacking spaces for the drive-through window. However, when one looks as

the cumulative impact of the use, staff notes that should the queue extend beyond eight

spaces, it can impact the ability for other motorists to access the car wash lane, the

parking spaces on the east side of the building and possibly even the access drive into

the gas station along Route 53. The drive-through may also impact the ability for

gasoline delivery vehicles from accessing the visit the site or may hinder the ability of

motorists to circulate around the property during these periods. Staff also has concerns

about the ability to maneuver emergency vehicles around the site if the site is

“overloaded” with an excessive number of differing auto uses.

Staff notes that no other gas station in the Village has approval for all of the conditional

uses proposed for the petitioner's property. Staff has not supported conditional uses for

restaurant drive-through windows on gas station that also have drive-through car

washes. Staff believes that the cumulative impact of this window creates additional

impacts on overall traffic congestion and as such does not meet the standards for

conditional uses.

He then discussed the signage relief. With the approval for the gas station and car

wash, a signage variation was granted to allow five (5) wall signs. There is one wall sign

on the convenient mart building, one on the car wash building, and one wall sign on

each of three sides of the canopy structure. Staff finds that the gas station in

combination with the other uses on the property present unique signage issues.

Additionally, staff finds that the signs are appropriately sized and believes that the

request is reasonable.

Regarding compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, he questioned whether the

existing commercial uses and the proposed drive-through are consistent with the Plan's

recommendations, as the Plan notes as an objective to encourage quality site

development and amenities in commercial areas.

Vice Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for comment among the

Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke questioned how the queuing would conflict with the access to the

car wash, stating that he did see a conflict. Mr. Heniff noted that excessive stacking

past the menu board could create conflicts. It may start impacting the northeast corner

of the property.

Commissioner Burke restated that he does not see a conflict. He stated the

drive-through option might minimize the parking demand on the property.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed with Commissioner Burke's comments. Clear

directional signage could eliminate conflicts in the queue lanes. So until it proves itself

unworkable she doesn't see the problem either. The overall number of conditional uses

should not be a problem if they all can be accommodated. She recognized the concerns

raised by staff regarding changes of use, but would like to see how this issue could be

addressed.

Vice Chairperson Flint noted that if the queues are fully stacked, one would not stop

there, or a customer will walk in.

Commissioner Burke questioned whether the plan would affect emergency access, as

this may be a common problem with all properties of this type.

Commissioner Sweetser asked about the conditional use being tied to the property for

future owners. She does not want to create a disadvantageous situation for the current

property owners. She also asked if there were hours imposed of the drive-through and

if those could those be modified.

Mr. Valentini stated that they have agreed to this condition on other properties.

However, you are on the right track. This happens in many cases that we work on,

where they tied the approval to a business license. They did not want to overly restrict

the hours of the drive through, as it would confuse customers. Mr. Hawkinson noted

that their goal is to serve customers quickly and their average wait time is 57 seconds

from the time you place your order until you drive away.

Commissioner Burke suggested that the petition be continued so that the petitioners can

work out additional details.

Mr. Valentini asked if there were any concerns about the signage. The Commissioners

did not express any.

Commissioner Sweetser concurred that the petition be continued so that they could

review the hours of operation, change of restaurant use conditions and review the

outside display elements.

Larry Debb, 1011 Touhy, Des Plaines, presented the petition. He stated that he is

proposing another development at the 2800 S. Highland site - an 18,000 square foot

single-story retail building. Mr. Debb added that they are not asking for any variances

for the Site Plan Approval in regard to height or setbacks, but rather only signage

issues. He mentioned that he worked closely with staff who asked them to alter the

north side of the building to remove parking, make the building smaller, to reserve that

portion of the building for deliveries only. Mr. Debb stated that staff also asked them to

improve the north side aesthetics due its location to the spine road and because the

building technically has four street fronts. Mr. Debb explained that they will be using the

same building materials as the Highlands II, which includes banding, and adding

spandrel glass. He mentioned that the back of the building will also be designed to

resemble a storefront. He stated he is very pleased with the end result and thinks the

building and parking works. Mr. Debb mentioned that this building will be developed in

conjunction with another building (a proposed restaurant) but it's not quite there yet. For

informational purposes, they would like to come back to the Plan Commission for a

stand alone sign at the right-in/right-out entrance, which would be north of the Amcore

Bank and south of the future restaurant. Concluding, Mr. Debb mentioned that he was

pleased with working with the Village and this would be a step up as all sides of the

proposed building will resemble storefronts.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in

favor of or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

Michael S. Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report in its entirety for the

public record. The petitioner is proposing an 18,055 square foot retail strip center to be

located within the Highlands of Lombard Planned Development. The site occupies the

western portion of the vacant parcel immediately north of an existing retail strip center

(Highlands II). To avoid petitions for signage relief in the future, the petitioner wishes to

address the future signage needs as part of the site plan review, with the

aforementioned portions of the Sign Ordinance being deviated. He noted that many of

the plans submitted by the petitioner depict a proposed free-standing restaurant building

adjacent to the retail center. The approval for the restaurant, a companion resubdivision

approval and companion signage relief will be considered as part of a separate petition.

However, these conceptual plans are offered for contextual purposes.

In regards to design standards, Mr. Toth stated that the Village can consider

compatibility of building architecture, materials and design throughout the Highlands of

Lombard development. During the April 16, 2007 Plan Commission Workshop, Plan

Commission members stated their general satisfaction with the building elevations, but

offered several comments. The petitioner modified his plan in the following respects,

which Mr. Toth described before the Plan Commission:

1. North elevation - the Plan Commission noted that the north side is the most

prominent elevation because of its proximity to the spine road. It was recommended by

Plan Commission members that the design be "broken up" and/or add more design

elements. The petitioner modified their plans to provide greater building offsets,

incorporate additional spandrel or pane glass windows and awnings and carry the

common building elevation similarly to that which was required for the Pier One Center.

This concept is being implemented by utilizing the same design as the south elevation,

which includes the use of awnings and soft white brick, to compliment the red brick.

Ultimately, these changes as well as additional wall signage, will attempt to give the

north elevation more of a "storefront" appearance on the north elevation.

2. East elevation - the Commissioners noted the prominence of this elevation from

Highland Avenue. The petitioner has modified their plans to give the east elevation full

front elevation treatments, including incorporating the second brick color and offering

horizontal and vertical relief to the building.

3. Building orientation - the petitioner, who also developed the other strip retail centers

in the development, recognizes the unique nature of the subject property, as it

functionally has four front elevations. The building's south orientation is intended to

create a horseshoe effect within and between the other retail centers. Orienting the

building in this manner will also minimize the "walling" effect of the Great Indoors by the

buildings located closer to Highland Avenue.

In regard to trash collection, Mr. Toth mentioned that the Development Agreement also

denoted provisions to minimize the impacts of loading areas and trash collection

activities. He added that this issue is of particular concern with this site, as the rear of

the retail building will face the main access drive. Mr. Toth noted that the petitioner's

proposal has all trash enclosures screened by masonry walls on three sides, similar to

what was done at 2820 S. Highland Avenue. He then stated that the fourth side should

be of a solid material as required by Village Code and that all enclosures for the retail

building should be integrated into the building itself. He then added that staff suggests

that these enclosures be designed to accommodate oversized containers to prevent

trash collection issues such as those that have been experienced at Pier One Center.

Mr. Toth stated that the petitioner has removed all perpendicular parking spaces along

the north property line to address a concern raised at the Plan Commission Workshop

session. As noted earlier, the plan shows circulation around all four sides of the

building. Mr. Toth noted that parking and water detention is in compliance. He also

added that there will be a pedestrian link between the retail center and proposed

restaurant. He stated that this will be brought forward with the Patio submittal.

For the proposed commercial retail strip center, the petitioner is requesting site plan

approval for a signage deviation to allow for each tenant to erect two wall signs on any

of the building elevations. The signage deviation would allow for signage that mirrors

the front of the building to the rear of the building for all of the tenants. Staff feels that

this relief can be supported given the location of the building as it relates to the overall

planned development, the unique layout of the site and the fact that many visitors to the

site will be approaching from the north side (access drive) of the building. Moreover, the

use of the signage on the rear, particularly with the additional awnings and spandrel

windows, gives a greater impression of a four-sided building. The petitioner will still be

required to meet the size requirements for the underlying B3 District. Staff recommends

as a condition that the signage shall only be of a channel sign design, to be consistent

with other developments within the Highlands of Lombard.

The petitioner will also be seeking approval of a freestanding sign along Highland

Avenue that would be similar in design and appearance to the sign for The Great

Indoors. Staff notes that as this sign will be located on an adjacent property in the near

future, additional signage relief will be required as part of the approval for the Patio

Restaurant development. However, the petitioner offers the free-standing concept for

Plan Commission consideration as it would ultimately be tied to the center now under

consideration. It appears that the proposed sign location is within the clear line of sight

easement located at the driveway entrance. Since the Development Agreement and the

Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits any exceptions to the clear line of sight area, this

sign would need to be located outside of any clear line of sight areas.

Vice-Chairperson Flint then opened the meeting for discussion among the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke stated that he is struggling with the site plan, as it is still the same.

He mentioned that it looks unsightly from the road because you still have trash

enclosures and trucks parked in front of the building making deliveries. He added the

plan is bringing down what is already a tremendous development. He stated that the

building should be facing the road, and the trash enclosures and mechanical rooms

should be facing the east. The submitted site plan doesn't make any sense to him.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the development has great potential.

Commissioner Sweetser verified that the comments from the workshop were made to

tweak the plans. William Heniff added that staff did share those comments with the

petitioner. Commissioner Sweetser added that this site will pose challenges, but we can

remedy that by incorporating as many elements to soften it as possible. She mentioned

that they also directed the petitioner to look at the east elevation and treat it as the front.

Referring to the north elevation, Commissioner Sweetser stated that the intent was to

provide as many elements as possible - signage, awnings, and spandrel glass to give a

flavor of the retail element. She added that they wanted a horseshoe effect. She

mentioned that it is a four-sided building and it will have one aisle at the back.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the biggest thing is if you flip the building, the trash

enclosures would face the development. She added that it would have a similar

orientation and thought this was the best of the possibilities.

Commissioner Sweetser commented that the submitted landscape plan does not give a

clear depiction of what sort of screening will be available. She added that using

landscaping would help to screen the northern portion of the building. Mr. Heniff

answered that they are meeting the intent, but staff can take another look.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that anything that is recognizable as a trash enclosure is

left per se. She added that this is a nicer north elevation, but it still looks like the back of

a building. She stated that the only way to make it compatible is to soften with massive

landscaping.

Commissioner Burke commented that there is a landscaping plan, but no additional

landscaping has been added. He mentioned that there are also transformers located on

the northern portion of the property. Commissioner Burke then stated that the

recommendation calls for the petitioner to submit a photometric plan. Mr. Heniff stated

that they were going to propose up-lighting. We will look at that as part of the building

permit process.

Commissioner Burke asked if the existing trees in the parkway are deciduous. Mr.

Heniff replied that there is a mix and most of the standard parkway trees have been

there for about 5-6 years. Mr. Heniff also mentioned that the trees do not form a screen.

Commissioner Burke questioned the reason for having two trash enclosures. Larry

Debb replied that in an 8,000 square foot building, having two trash enclosures is

typical. Mr. Debb also mentioned that the site is tough and there is no perfect solution.

Mr. Debb stated that they wanted all the storefronts within the development to face one

another. He added that the Commissioners' suggestions are great - we could bump

them and there is space in the 15 foot median to clump evergreens. He added that they

tried to upgrade, but you have to understand that we are a retail store and require

deliveries and garbage pick up. Mr. Debb stated that they might be able to slide the

dumpsters over, which would make it easier to shelter them and put trees from the

parkway.

Commissioner Burke stated that it is a tough site, but the solution is to build a smaller

building on the site an provide and area for the transformer and trash enclosures so they

are not right against the road. He added that if you are going to try to fit that building on

such a small, odd-shaped site you are risking major compromises on site planning and

the architecturals on the north side. He stated that it is better than it was, but it still

appears to look like the back of the building and that is the problem.

Commissioner Sweetser suggested that by taking off a bit of the northeast corner, it

would allow better screening as it comes over to meet the straight line west would allow

for different placement of the pieces and allow for more landscaping right against the

building. She recommended that they go back to staff on that issue.

Mr. Debb stated that we can add additional landscaping, but there has to be an area

there to have additional landscaping.

Commissioner Sweetser talked about bumping the northeast corner in to provide some

space. According to the picture, there is no space for vegetation on the south side of

the service road, and that would do the trick.

Mr. Debb stated that the economics would not work with that. He mentioned that they

could add more spandrel glass.

Commissioner Burke stated that you lose less than 3,000 square feet to straighten that

wall out, leave your driveway to the south, and landscape the area between the drive

and the road resulting in a much better plan.

Mr. Debb stated that the real estate is worth $400/square foot, which is approximately

$1 million. By reducing a portion of the building it might impact his decision to continue.

He added that the building meets all the requirements and setbacks of the Village code.

If you want more spandrel glass or the relocation of both transformer enclosures so they

are together, this would hopefully cover much of what you requested.

Vice-Chairperson Flint stated that the petitioner should square off a potion of the

building and rotate the trash enclosures where they can be turned and still be accessible

and do some landscaping along the side.

Mr. Debb stated that they could rotate the trash enclosures - make it all brick and have

the doors face west so all you see is the brick wall and put spandrel glass.

Vice-Chairperson Flint stated that the wall should be expanded as a screen.

Mr. Debb stated that they will turn the doors to the west, which would work so you don't

see the garbage. He added they will plant additional evergreen trees.

Vice-Chairperson Flint stated that it would be easier for them then it is now.

More discussion ensued as to how they could amend the plan to improve it. The

petitioner approached the dais and showed the Commissioners the sketch he made

showing the suggested improvements so they could verify the intent of making a better

plan.

Commissioner Burke stated that they would like to see something done with the

transformer.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that they could work with staff on the landscape.

Commissioner Burke felt there were too many issues to clarify and made a motion to

continue the petition to the August 20, 2007 meeting. Mr. Debb remarked that his

contract expires next week and asked them not to continue the petition but to make a

motion and incorporate the changes as made.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if staff could get something in writing because she didn't

want to negatively impact the petitioner.

William Heniff stated that they could bring back this petition for discussion purposes as

an old business item (under unfinished business) and let the Plan Commissioner know

what we came up with. He added that if this were to be approved, he would have the

legal right for his plan, but we could bring back for a final nod for the north elevation.

No one seconded Commissioner Burke's motion, the motion failed.

1. The site improvements shall be constructed in compliance with the submitted plans

included within the plan submittal packet prepared by GVA Williams, dated July 2, 2007

and made a part of this petition, except as amended by the conditions of approval.

2. The petitioner shall submit a final photometric plan to the Village for review and

approval. The photometric plan shall include any parking or driveway lighting on the

subject property. The plan shall also depict a combination of up lighting and down

lighting on the building and landscaping.

3. The petitioner shall meet all development and building codes of the Village of

Lombard and shall follow the provisions set forth within the highlands of Lombard

planned development approval.

4. All wall signs on the proposed buildings must be of a channel letter design.

5. If in the event that the proposed center is not developed concurrent with the

proposed Patio Restaurant development proposed for east of the retail center, the

petitioner shall install requisite parking stalls and drive aisles to ensure full access and

circulation around the proposed center.

6. The trash corral gate design shall be modified to minimize its visual impact by

incorporating exterior screening materials compatible with the proposed building

elevations (a solid beige metal gate shall be deemed to be acceptable).

7. The petitioner shall submit to the Plan Commission for review and site plan approval

a revised plan for the north side of the subject property to address the following issues:

a. additional landscape screening/vegetation along the north property line and

foundation landscaping along the north building elevation;

b. relocate/modify/screen the proposed electric transformer; and

c. modify the design of the proposed trash enclosure areas to orient them westward

and reconfigure/consolidate the enclosures to minimize their impact.

Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the petition. He provided a general

description of the cause for concern regarding this issue.

Mr. Toth stated that staff recognizes that the intent of the regulation was to ensure that

accessory buildings do not overwhelm the principal residence and become the de facto

principal use on the property. He added that while the provision is intended to reduce

structural bulk on residential properties, all accessory buildings and structures including

pools, decks, patios, sidewalks, or even driveways would by definition be included in

the calculation, thus resulting in insufficient allowable square footage for many

residential properties. Mr. Toth then mentioned that these accessory structures are

typically located at or slightly above grade, excessive bulk is usually not an issue. He

noted that this amendment is intended to more closely reflect the practical application of

this code and tie the maximum allowable area to accessory buildings only and not

accessory structures.

Mr. Toth stated that the majority of above-grade decks are attached to the principal

structure, thus (by definition) making it part of the principal residence (requiring a 35-foot

rear yard setback). He noted that if decks were to be considered as accessory

structures, a four (4) foot separation between the deck and principal structure would be

required. For clarity purposes, Mr. Toth stated that the proposed text amendment would

remove the four foot provision within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Toth then added that

the setback provisions would still need to be followed as required in the Lombard

Building Code.

Mr. Toth stated that this amendment alleviates any confusion as to whether a deck

would be considered part of the principal residence or as an accessory structure by

removing the provision in its entirety. He added that staff notes past cases in which the

Building Code would allow the structures to be located closer than four feet, if they were

protected by fire walls. He then mentioned that even if this provision was met, the

petitioner would still need to apply for zoning relief. Mr. Toth noted that staff believes

that as this provision is already outlined in the Building Code and is a life-safety issue,

their regulation should take greater precedent over the provisions currently within the

Zoning Ordinance, which attempt to address design/aesthetic issues. Mr. Toth stated

that for clarity purposes, staff would prefer to have a zero-foot setback (between

structures) to eliminate any ambiguity between the zoning and building code.

Vice Chairperson Flint opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor

or against this petition. He then opened the meeting for comments from the Plan

Commission members.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the petition is very straight-forward and made a

motion to recommend approval.