Monday, March 19, 2007
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall
Plan Commission
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
Commissioners: Martin Burke, |
Stephen Flint, Ronald Olbrysh, |
Ruth Sweetser, Richard Nelson |
and Sondra Zorn, Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Plan Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 19, 2007
Call to Order
Chairperson Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; Michael Toth, Associate Planner; |
and George Wagner, legal counsel to the Plan Commission. |
Chairperson Donald F. Ryan, Commissioner Ronald Olbrysh, Commissioner |
Ruth Sweetser, Commissioner Martin Burke and Commissioner Richard Nelson |
Present:
Commissioner Stephen Flint and Commissioner Sondra Zorn
Absent:
Chairperson Ryan called the order of the agenda.
Mr. Heniff read the Rules of Procedure as written in the Plan Commission By-Laws.
Mr. Heniff explained that since some of the petitions heard tonight would not be |
scheduled to be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting, he would announce the |
specific date the Board would consider the item after each petition so as to avoid |
confusion. |
Public Hearings
070159
PC 07-10: 1263 S. Main Street |
Requests Conditional Use approval to provide for a Physical Culture and Massage |
Establishment, as defined and regulated by Chapter 12, Section 122 of the Code of |
Ordinances, within a B3 Community Shopping District. (DISTRICT #6) |
Peter Lee, attorney for the petitioner Yong Min Hong, presented the petition. He stated |
that the petitioner has filed a petition for a conditional use for a physical culture and |
massage establishment located in the B3 Community Shopping District. His client will |
rent a 1,200 square foot space in a 43,000 square foot multi-tenant building on Main |
Street. The petitioner has worked with the Village staff and he has submitted the |
necessary paperwork and will comply with any and all requirements of the Village |
pertaining to the massage establishment license. His client will obtain the necessary |
building permits once they have been approved for the conditional use. The use is |
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and with Village ordinances. The people |
working there will be licensed with the State of Illinois. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in favor |
of the petition. Speaking against the petition were: |
Steven Zibrat, 1303 Lore Lane, stated that the public hearing notice did not contain a lot |
of detail. He said there a lot of negative connotations associated with massage |
establishments, especially by a residential area. He stated that the petitioner should |
provide objective information regarding what will be done at the location, and the impact |
of the use on properties. |
Jack Thompson, 1304 S. Main Street, stated that there is another massage |
establishment around the corner by McDonalds and they had an issue with transient |
people. He mentioned the other uses in the center and wondered if there was a need |
for a massage parlor in the area. |
Paul Rogus, 1310 S. Main Street, stated the connotations of the type of establishment |
and if it is appropriate for the Village. As a middle upper class community, it is not a |
category of business he expects to see in Lombard. He asked what the hours of |
operation would be. The evening hours would suggest something shady. |
Mr. Lee responded to the questions. He said they provide massage services. It is a |
massage not unlike anything given at a health club. They have masseuses that will |
provide services from the top of the head to the bottom of the foot. They work with |
muscles, relieving stress points in the body. There are many products on the market |
and home remedies that are similar to what they do. They will have massage seats |
which concentrate on pressure points to relieve tension. |
They realize there are some negative connections by name association, but their use is |
within the Ordinance of the Village and they should be given the opportunity to do their |
business. The activities of the masseurs are governed by the State and they will only |
have licensed individuals on the premises. The tenant space has been empty for a |
while, and they have been working with the landlord, who has approved their use |
subject to approval by Village. |
The proposed hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Unfortunately, they acknowledge |
some negative connotations, but there are positive sides to the proposed business. |
Chairperson Ryan asked staff to address the Village code regulations. William Heniff |
stated that massage establishments are regulated by special provisions included within |
Chapter 122 of the Village Code. This Chapter sets forth the licensing provisions. |
The petitioners are seeking a conditional use for physical culture and massage and not |
an adult use. The use is a pseudo-medical use for purposes of massage versus erotic |
activity which is what adult use is. Chapter 122 of the Village Code provides further |
clarity of the use. Adult uses are not permitted or conditional uses within the B3 District. |
Commissioner Olbrysh mentioned that it would be better to call the use physical cultural |
therapy as National University of Health Services (NUHS) also has such a program. |
Mr. Heniff then presented the staff report which was submitted to the public record in its |
entirety. The petitioner requests conditional use approval for a massage establishment |
within the Oxford Corners Shopping Center. The proposed use will occupy a currently |
vacant 1,200 square foot space within the 43,000 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. As the proposed tenant space is under 5,000 square feet in |
size, the proposed use would not be subject to the Roosevelt Road development |
moratorium. |
The Building Division notes that building permits will be required for any improvements |
within the tenant space. |
Mr. Heniff noted that the Zoning Ordinance lists “Physical culture and massage |
establishments (as defined and regulated by Chapter 12, Section 122 of the Code of |
Ordinances)”, as a conditional use within the B3 District. The 1994 text amendments to |
the Zoning Ordinance further regulating therapeutic massage establishments was |
intended to better differentiate the massage activity from adult uses. |
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 business licensing provisions ensure that the business activity |
is being operated consistent with Village Code - if an establishment does not meet the |
code provisions, their license application would not be extended or could be revoked. |
The licensing procedure also includes a background check. Licenses are also not |
transferable. |
The petitioner notes that the proposed establishment would be primarily operated by two |
licensed masseurs/masseuses. Additional masseurs/masseuses may be added based |
upon business conditions. The concept floor plan, which will be finalized should the |
conditional use approval be granted, proposes to have three massage rooms, two |
bathrooms, a dry sauna, a shower room, a laundry room, an office and a front |
counter/waiting area. No external improvements are proposed as part of the business |
operation. |
The subject property is bounded by commercial uses on three sides. To the north, west |
and east are strip commercial establishments, providing a wide variety of retail and |
service commercial as South of the subject property is the Village's pump station and |
residences. The physical culture and massage establishment, operated in conformance |
with Village Code, would be compatible with the adjacent land uses. |
A final consideration associated with this petition was discussed as part of PC 00-17 for |
the subject property. That petition was for an automotive service facility (installation of |
automotive radio equipment). In that case, staff recommended that the petitioner provide |
a cross-access driveway to the Famous Liquors center. However, in this case, staff |
recognizes that the traffic impacts of the development proposal would not be as |
significant as the previously proposed automotive repair facility. As such, staff only |
recommends as a condition of approval that the property owner submit to the Village a |
Plat of Easement granting cross-access to the abutting property at 55 East Roosevelt |
Road (06-20-100-066), prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, with the location |
of the cross-access easement subject to review and approval by the Village. |
For comparative purposes, staff recommended approval of another massage |
establishment within an existing strip center at 406 W. 22nd Street. In that case, the |
Village did require the property owner to make significant parking lot improvements in |
order to facilitate overall traffic and parking improvements on the site. Staff views the |
request to provide the rights for a future cross-access connection to the adjacent |
shopping center to be similar in nature. Moreover, a vehicular access provision for |
properties along Roosevelt Road is one area currently under review by the Roosevelt |
Road Corridor Ad-hoc Committee. This recommendation would be consistent with their |
overall review of the corridor. |
He stated that staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the conditions in the |
report; with an amendment to condition 2 to note that the license reference should be for |
a business license. |
Responding to the staff report, Mr. Thompson mentioned the checks that the Village |
has, and he mentioned that with another establishment may still have problems. You |
can go through all the checks you want, but it might still happen. |
Mr. Zibrat noted that there are residences to the east as well. There is a higher level of |
proof with these establishments. The concerns are valid and its good to hear the Village |
goes through those checks and they have to pass those checks. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Burke referenced condition 4 regarding the easement request and asked |
the petitioner if they find that condition acceptable. Mr. Lee stated that they talked to the |
landlord regarding the condition and he has been assured that there would not be any |
issues with the easement requirement. |
Commissioner Nelson asked if this was the first business they have operated. Mr. Lee |
stated that this is their first business in Lombard and they have not operated anywhere |
else previously. |
Commissioner Sweetser agreed with Commissioner Olbrysh in terms of the name of the |
land use activity. This is no different than NUHS or a health club. The activities are the |
same as a chiropractor. A lot of people are seeking that type of treatment for stress and |
she is glad that these uses are coming to Lombard. She suggested to staff that in order |
to avoid future confusion regarding this land use that a text amendment to the Zoning |
Ordinance should be made. |
Commissioner Olbrysh noted that massage therapy is an alternate form of medicine and |
is now recognized by universities. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval subject to |
the amended condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint and Zorn
2 -
1. The conditional use for the physical culture and massage establishment is |
exclusively for the tenant space at 1263 South Main Street. Any expansion of the |
establishment within the existing shopping center beyond what was submitted as part of |
PC 07-10, 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. |
4. The property owner shall submit to the Village a Plat of Easement granting |
cross-access to the abutting property at 55 East Roosevelt Road (06-20-100-066), prior |
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, with the location of the cross-access easement |
subject to review and approval by the Village. |
Mr. Heniff noted that this petition would be heard at the April 5, 2007 Board of Trustees |
meeting. |
070160
PC 07-07: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (Utility Cabinets) |
The Village of Lombard is proposing text amendments to the Lombard Zoning |
Ordinance as follows: |
A. Amend Section 155.210 (and other sections as needed for clarity) to establish |
regulations for the placement of Above Ground Utility Cabinets. |
B. Amend Section 155.212 to establish Above Ground Utility Cabinets as permitted |
obstructions in certain required yards. |
C. Amend Section 155.803 to establish and/or amend definitions for Private Utilities, |
Above Ground Utility Cabinet, and Service Entity. |
Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the petition. He provided a general |
description of the cause for concern regarding this issue. Mr. Toth provided background |
information pertaining to Project Lightspeed, which is a generic example as to why the |
text amendment is being proposed. Mr. Toth then presented pictures and pointed out |
the mock AGUC that was displayed in the Board Room. While showing examples, Mr. |
Toth discussed the intent of the text amendment. Mr. Toth then continued with the staff |
report by discussing the rationale for regulating AGUC as accessory structures. He |
continued with the staff report by discussing the Public Works portion of the project and |
the proposed text amendments being presented to the Plan Commission. Mr. Toth also |
added that both petitions (Planning Services & Public Works) will be submitted together |
to the Board of Trustees. He ended his presentation by mentioning the revisions that |
were made to the proposed text amendments by counsel. |
Staff recommended approval of the staff report and additional comments made by |
counsel. |
Chairperson Ryan 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 Olbrysh stated that these Above Ground Utility Cabinets are ugly and |
obnoxious. He also declared that these are not compatible in the front yard, but in the |
back yard they should not be a problem. He then referenced the illustrations from |
Appendix B of the staff report. |
Commissioner Nelson pointed out that in the bottom two pictures (from the staff report) |
the AGUC are right in middle of the right of way. He said that he wouldn't want those in |
front of his house. Mr.l Toth replied that one of the main reasons for the text |
amendment is to force AGUC into the rear yard where they can be screened by fencing |
and vegetation. |
Commissioner Sweetser mentioned that this should work because some people might |
be willing to place AGUC on their property because they can accommodate the size |
requirement in exchange for the location discretion on their property. William Heniff |
added that there could potentially be 35-40 AGUC in the community. He also said that |
they should be in rear yards and should be treated in the same manner as sheds. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked the hypothetical question - suppose that there weren't |
enough backyards for these AGUC, does the Village have any liability? Mr. Heniff |
responded, no direct liability; we will only be trying to minimize the number of AGUC in |
the public rights of way. Regardless, we want to be proactive and begin to designate |
where the utility companies can place the AGUC. |
Commissioner Sweetser shared her thoughts on technology advances pertaining to |
Project Lightspeed. She said that there may be the need for these kinds of things but not |
at the size they desire. Any thoughts of how that might be handled? Mr. Heniff stated |
that we are addressing what is being built now, but trying to keep discretion in regard to |
location and keeping them out of the rights of way. |
Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this text amendment would allow location discretion |
to keep the AGUC out of the public view. Mr. Heniff responded that by relaxing the |
standards for rear yard placement, they can be more discreetly placed throughout the |
Village. Commissioner Sweetser replied that there could be a number of structures in |
the backyard and that would be okay. Mr. Heniff then added - based on technology, |
each cabinet would feed 300-400 residential units. The AGUC will be considered |
accessory structures by the Zoning Ordinance provisions in regards to lot area and |
coverage. |
Chairperson Ryan asked if it's structurally capable to place one on top of the other. |
William Heniff responded that they could be next to each other, but not on top of each |
other. |
It was moved by Commissioner Sweetser, seconded by Commissioner Olbrysh, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval subject to |
the modifications presented by staff. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint and Zorn
2 -
Mr. Heniff mentioned that staff wanted to present this petition to the Transporation & |
Safety Committee and in order to have sufficient time to do this, the petition would be |
heard at the April 19, 2007 Board of Trustees meeting. |
070161
PC 07-11: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (Administrative |
Variations) |
The Village of Lombard is proposing Zoning Ordinance text amendments to Section |
155.101(E): Administration and Enforcement (and other sections as needed for clarity) |
setting forth an alternate provision for granting variations for selected variation requests |
(also known as administrative variations). |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. He stated that the Community |
Development Department is proposing amendments providing for an administrative |
variation process, whereby the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is given authority to |
grant approval of selected variations. He noted the amendment provides for a |
streamlined approval process for those variation requests that are deemed to be minor |
in nature and have traditionally been supported by the ZBA and the Village Board. The |
proposed amendment establishes the types of relief that would be subject to an |
“administrative variation”, the process for approving such relief and the associated |
appeal process, if necessary. |
He then noted the history of this action. The Village Board of Trustees meeting has |
raised concerns about the appropriate review and approval process for rear yard |
variations associated with non-conforming properties. Staff researched alternatives for |
simplifying the variation process in cases in which the requested relief was deemed to |
be minor in nature. While staff initially envisioned an administrative variation process |
that could give approval authority to Village staff, similar to the process followed by |
DuPage County, Counsel noted that the Village's non-home rule authority would |
preclude such approvals. Instead, staff is now proposing a modified administrative |
approvals process whereby selected variations could be approved (or denied) by the |
Zoning Board of Appeals. |
The amendment streamlines the approval process and potentially allows for a quicker |
review of selected variation requests. The process would be similar in nature to the |
Plan Commission's Site Plan Approvals process for selected signage relief and for |
off-site parking requests within established planned developments. The petitioners, staff |
and the Plan Commission have successfully followed the same legal procedures (i.e., |
provide legal notice to newspapers, send letters to adjacent property owners, conduct |
public hearings, make findings of fact and vote on the petitions) as all other zoning |
petitions. The existing Plan Commission Site Plan Approval process also has an |
appeals procedure to the Village Board. |
The amendment would grant the authority to the ZBA to approve or deny minor |
variations to the bulk requirements (height, location of structures, open space |
requirements, etc.) and sign area relief. The language also provides an appeals |
procedure for either the petitioner (if the petition is denied) or another affected party. |
Appeals would be considered by the Village Board in the same manner that the Board |
currently considers zoning petitions. |
Staff reviewed the residential variance petitions over the past ten years and suggests |
that 25% would be an appropriate cut-off for petitions eligible for an administrative |
variation. This comprises about one-third of all variance requests. He noted that these |
petitions would not be automatically granted relief by the ZBA. The petitioner would still |
need to meet the standards for variations. |
He then discussed the specific language in the proposed amendments, noting that staff |
recommends approval of the petition. He also noted that staff recommends approval of |
the petition, subject to final review of the proposed text amendment language by |
Counsel. |
Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one in the |
audience to speak in favor of or against the petition. He then opened the meeting for |
discussion among the Commissioners. |
Commissioner Sweetser asked staff to provide the Plan Commission with a report in |
June or July, 2008 noting how many cases are approved though the proposed process. |
Mr. Heniff noted that we will provide a report to the Commissioners in 2008 accordingly. |
It was moved by Commissioner Burke, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, that |
this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval subject to final |
review of the text language by Village Counsel. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint and Zorn
2 -
Mr. Heniff noted that this petition would be heard at the April 19, 2007 Board of Trustees |
meeting. |
070162
PC 07-09: Text Amendments to the Lombard Zoning Ordinance (Hotel/Motel |
Definitions) |
The Village of Lombard is proposing text amendments to Section 155.802: Rules and |
Definitions to modify the definition of "Hotel or Motel" and/or any other associated |
definitions pertaining to the transient guest time length of stay at such facilities. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the petition. He stated that the Community |
Development Department is proposing a few amendments to the definitions sections of |
the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to hotels and motels and other types of transient |
guest establishments. The amendments are intended to clarify the intent of each use, |
address inconsistencies, and issues pertaining to the length of stay at such |
establishments. |
The intent of the amendments is two-fold. It is intended to further define where hotels, |
which provide for extended stay accommodations, are differentiated from other types of |
transient residence facilities. The intent is to ensure that hotel and motels remain |
primarily short-term accommodation facilities and do not become longer-term guest |
facilities such as rooming houses or even de facto apartments. |
Secondly, staff would also like to ensure that such facilities are subject to the hotel/motel |
tax provisions to the greatest extent possible as provided by State Statutes. While staff |
originally intended to cap the length of stay at such facilities, the Statutes and practical |
code enforcement provisions preclude establishing specific limits of stay for guests. As |
such, Counsel suggested alternate language to denote that intent of hotels and motels, |
which provide greater, but not absolute differentiation, from other types of guest |
facilities. He then discussed the specific language in the proposed amendments, noting |
that staff recommends approval of the petition. |
Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one in |
the audience to speak in favor of or against the petition. He then opened the meeting |
for discussion among the Commissioners. The Commissioners did not have anything to |
add to the petition. |
It was moved by Commissioner Olbrysh, seconded by Commissioner Sweetser, |
that this matter be recommended to the Board of Trustees for approval. The |
motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Olbrysh, Sweetser, Burke and Nelson
4 -
Absent:
Flint and Zorn
2 -
Mr. Heniff noted that this petition would be heard at the April 5, 2007 Board of Trustees |
meeting. |
Business Meeting
Chairperson Ryan convened the business meeting at 8:34 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Heniff indicated that Counsel suggested some revisions to page 14. Staff will |
address these and update accordingly. The minutes of the February 19, 2007 meeting |
were unanimously approved by the members present, subject to corrections by staff. |
Public Participation
There was no public participation.
DuPage County Hearings
There were no DuPage County hearings.
Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson deferred to the Senior Planner.
Planner's Report
Mr. Heniff updated the Commissioners on the Roosevelt Road Ad Hoc Committee |
meetings. He stated that they have met twice. The first meeting included discussion |
relative to the committee's vision and goals. The second meeting's discussion included |
identifying appropriate land uses in the corridor. The next meeting is scheduled for |
March 28, 2007 at 4 p.m. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Subdivision Reports
There were no subdivision reports.
Site Plan Approvals
There were no site plan approvals.
Workshops
There were no workshops.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. |
________________________________ |
Donald F. Ryan, Chairperson |
________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |