Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.