Zoning Board of Appeals

Public participation is invited. When called upon, please approach the microphone and state your name. Kindly limit your remarks to 3 minutes. VILLAGE OF VILLA PARK Village Hall, Board Chambers 20 South Ardmore Avenue Villa Park, IL 60181 Zoning Board Of Appeals (ZBA) September 10, 2025 6:00 PM Chair Person: Rodney Pate Commissioners: Wanda Ackermann, Vicki Flaskamp, Troy Clampit, Richard Gonzalez, Jason Jarrett, Deborah Cain Board Liaison - President Patrick Staff Liaison - Michelle House 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes a. Approval of August 14, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 3. Public Hearing - Old Business 4. Public Hearing - New Business a. ZBA-25-01 - 580 E. Harrison St. - Variation b. ZBA-25-02 - 920 S. Summit Ave. - Variation c. ZBA-25-03 - 1046 S. Illinois Route 83 - Variation d. ZBA-25-04 - 300 W. High Ridge Rd. - Special Use 5. Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items 6. Adjournment The Villa Park Village Hall is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. An elevator is operational at the north side entrance to the Village Hall during normal work hours and also during evenings. lndividuals with special needs are requested to contact the Village's Compliance Officer at (630) 834-8500 so that reasonable accommodations can be made for those persons. Page 1 of 48  Village of Villa Park Planning and Zoning Commission August 14,2025 I. CALL TO ORDER BY THE CHAIRMAN Chairman Jarrett called the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A QUORUM Commissioners Present: Hasler, Hofstra, LeMieux, Luedtke, Romano, Shlensky and Chairman Jarrett (7) Commissioners Absent: Jackson, Calvert Staff/Liaison Present: Community & Economic Development Interim Director Michelle House, Planner Rachel Leedom A Quorum was present. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hofstra moved to approve the minutes from July 10, 2025, as presented. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Luedtke. On roll call: AYES: Hasler, Hofstra, LeMieux, Luedtke, Romano, Shlensky and Chairman Jarrett (7) NAYS: None (0) The motion carried. Motion to move Old Business to the end of New Business. Motion made by Commissioner Hofstra seconded by Commissioner Romano. AYES: Hasler, Hofstra, LeMieux, Luedtke, Romano, Shlensky and Chairman Jarrett (7) NAYS: None (0) The motion carried. IV. New Business a. PZ-25-11 - 5 W Madison Ave - Variation Petitioner: Richard Barnes. Page 2 of 48 Michelle House summarized the Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations to permit a 5.0-foot tall open style fence in the front yard, instead of a 4.0- foot tall fence. This would continue an existing fence line in the side and rear yard of the property. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to permit a fence with a maximum height of 5.0 feet in the front yard of a corner lot. The property is located on a corner lot and fence will be located in the front yard of the property. With the orientation of the house facing W. Madison St, the technical front yard on Ardmore Ave is the largest useable space. The property has an existing fence in the rear and side yard with a permitted height of 5.0 feet. This new fence would continue the existing fence line into the front yard, creating a larger usable yard space for the residents. This fence would not impact any required visibility triangles. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations to permit a 5.0-foot tall, open style fence in the front yard, instead of 4.0-foot-tall fence. Commissioner LeMieux asked if the new fence would start at the northeast corner of the house and continue in line with the House. There is a 25-foot setback from the sidewalk. Michelle House stated that from the east property line the fence is offset 4 feet from the sidewalk along Ardmore to allow the applicant to place landscaping. Ryan Nudd explained that they have a large dog that could jump a lower fence. Michelle House explained how the address was determined. Commissioner Hofstra said that a reason to approve would be that the large parkways would be a reason to allow the variation. It should be noted that this intersection has four way stop signs so there would be no danger to pedestrians or cars if they allowed this four foot fence. Michelle House would like to note that there is a code requirement that the fence must be twenty feet outside the visibility triangle and the site line does show that this is outside the visibility triangle. Chairman Jarrett said that corner lots create issues with fences and backyards. This house is set further back than we would usually see. This is the only usable yard on the property. The hardship of the lot makes sense. MOTION Commissioner Shlensky motioned to recommend approval of PZ-25-11 for a Variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations to permit a 5.0-ft tall open style fence in the front yard, at 5 W Madison Ave, as depicted in exhibit A and B. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hofstra. Page 3 of 48 On roll call: AYES: Hasler, Hofstra, LeMieux, Luedtke, Romano, Shlensky and Chairman Jarrett (7) NAYS: None (0) The motion carried. b. PZ-25-15 - 10 S. Charles Avenue – Variation - Petitioner – Jesus and Estela Unzueta. Michelle House reported The Petitioner is requesting a Variation to allow for a garage to be built in the Mixed Use Transitional (MX-T) District to accompany the single dwelling unit. The Petitioner is requesting variations from section 4.4.3-General Building to permit a rear yard setback of 5.0-ft instead of 40.0-ft., from section 4.4.3-General Building to permit a garage entrance not on the rear façade, and section 6.10.3-Nonresidential Accessory Structures to permit a rear and interior side yard setback of 5.0-ft instead of 10.0-ft. The lot is currently zoned Mixed Use Transitional (MX-T) and is used as a single dwelling home. The Petitioners would like to build a new garage on the property. If the house were located in RS-7.5, the existing house with modifications completed in 2023 would be compliant with all building regulations for RS-7.5. The proposed garage complies with regulations typical for a single dwelling unit but requires Variations due to the location in the MX- district. Commissioner Luedtke stated that they saw this petition last month and appreciates staff and the petitioner taking the recommendation of keeping the lot MXT for what ever might happen with the TIF. MOTION Commissioner Shlensky motions to recommend approval of PZ-25-09 for a variation from section 4.4.3-General Building to permit a rear yard setback of 5.0-ft instead of 40.0-ft., a variation from section 4.4.3-General Building to permit a garage entrance not on the rear façade, and a variation from section 6.10.3-Nonresidential Accessory Structures to permit a rear and interior side yard setback of 5.0-ft instead of 10.0-ft. Seconded by Commissioner Hofstra On roll call: AYES: Hasler, Hofstra, LeMieux, Luedtke, Romano, Shlensky and Chairman Jarrett (7) NAYS: None (0) The motion carried. Commissioner Shlensky wanted to make an amended motion to recommend approval of PZ-25-15 for a variation from section 4.4.3-General Building to permit a rear yard setback of 5.0-ft instead of 40.0-ft., a variation from section 4.4.3-General Building to permit a garage entrance not on the rear façade, and a variation from section 6.10.3-Nonresidential Page 4 of 48  Accessory Structures to permit a rear and interior side yard setback of 5.0-ft instead of 10.0-ft. On roll call: AYES: Hasler, Hofstra, LeMieux, Luedtke, Romano, Shlensky and Chairman Jarrett (7) NAYS: None (0) The motion was amended. V. Public Hearing – Old Business Estella Unzueta is asking for case PZ-25-09 for a zoning map amendment to be withdrawn. Chairman Jarrett considered the application withdrawn the public hearing on that is closed. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Donna Noxon expressed her thanks for taking time away from your family and for all you do. Deepasria Kumar expressed she was sad that some Commissioners will be not continue on with future Commission and thanked them for their time. Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Ramano wanted to thank the board it has been his pleasure to serve on the board. He noted disappointment that the Commission was not approached and hoped better decisions are made going forward. Commissioner Hofstra expressed his appreciation for the gentleman he has served with. He has given his time and has learned a lot. Commissioner Hassler was disappointed that his time on the board was so short. Commissioner Shlensky expressed disappointment in the Village Board, thanked fellow Commissioners, staff, and former Commission liasons. Chairman Jarrett thanked former Commission liaison, staff and members of the Commission. He hopes the Commission is successful moving forward and recommended them to review prior meetings and contact him if needed. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion Motion to Adjourn made by Commissioner Romano. Seconded by Commissioner Shlensky. Voice vote: Page 5 of 48 AYES have it. Meeting Adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Page 6 of 48  Village of Villa Park Community & Economic Development 11 W Home Avenue, Villa Park, IL 60181 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Community & Economic Development Department DATE: September 10, 2025 RE: Petition ZBA-25-01 | 580 E. Harrison Avenue | Variation PETITIONER OWNER John Tomaszewski John Tomaszewski 580 E. Harrison St. 580 E. Harrison St. Villa Park, IL 60181 Villa Park, IL 60181 Request Summary The Petitioner is requesting a Variation to allow for a new garage in front of the primary residence. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 2.5.2 Attached Garage Design, to build a garage extension closer to the street lot line than the longest exterior wall of the house facing the same street. Background This existing garage would be converted into living space and a new garage would be added in front of the existing garage, utilizing the existing driveway. The Petitioner would like to expand the existing garage in front of the residence. Currently, the lot features an attached garage. The house is currently facing an unimproved right of way to the south. The home is accessed by an L-shaped driveway from the east. Site Information Present Zoning: Residential Single-Dwelling District - RS-10 Present Land Use: Residential Property Size: 32,670 sq. ft. / 0.75 acres PIN: 06-15-202-021 Surrounding Zoning Surrounding Land Use North: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-10 Residential West: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-10 Residential East: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential South: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-10 Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation - Residential Single-dwelling residential areas are neighborhoods where each lot contains one dwelling unit, which can be a standalone house or attached units like townhomes and duplexes. These areas should encompass carefully planned subdivisions and older, established neighborhoods exhibiting classic neighborhood layouts. Single- dwelling homes are the most common form of residential property in the Village and most likely will remain so. Zoning Request The Petitioner is requesting a variation from Section 2.5.2 Attached Garage Design to build a garage closer to the street lot line than the longest exterior wall of the house facing the same street. Internal Staff Review Variation Page 7 of 48 The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows for Variation petitions in order to grant relief to a property owner from strict compliance with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Variations are intended to help alleviate a practical difficulty or particular hardship that would be caused by the literal enforcement of the subject ordinance requirements and are site specific. This Variation request would permit the garage to be constructed closer to the street than the house. This lot is unique because the lot line with the smallest dimension, considered the front, faces an unimproved right-of- way. The Village has installed water main within this right-of-way and would be unlikely to improve the right-of- way in the future. The layout of the home on the property would not permit another accessible location for the garage to be installed. Site Plan Review 1. Building and Structure Location - The following comments relate to the issue of building and structure location in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The home faces an unimproved right of way. It is unlikely that the right-of-way would ever be improved and the road continued because there are water lines in this space. b. The proposed garage would have an area of 795.6 sq feet. The size of the garage may not exceed 75% of the area of the primary structure, which for this lot, would be 1,721.8 sq feet. c. The proposed garage would have a height of 14.0 feet to match the existing roof line. The maximum height permitted is 28.0 feet. d. The proposed garage would have an interior side setback of 6.2 feet and a front setback of 76.4 feet. e. The proposed garage is in compliance with all bulk regulations, with the exception of Section 2.5.2 Attached Garage Design (D). f. With the orientation of the house and current garage location, there is no alternate location where a new garage could be accessible and comply with current regulations. 2. Building scale - The following comments relate to the issue of building scale in regard to the proposed development plans: a. No comments in regards to scale. 3. Lot Coverage - The following comments relate to the issue of lot coverage in regard to the proposed development plans: a. With the new garage, the lot coverage would be 23.62%. Maximum lot coverage for RS-10 is 50%. 4. Completeness - If the Planning and Zoning Commission requires additional information to determine whether the applicant’s development requests comply with the applicable standards of the Code, they may direct the Petitioner to furnish additional information and evidence that may provide clarity regarding their concerns. Findings Per Sec. 11.5.6.8. The Zoning Board of Appeals’ recommendation must be accompanied by specific findings of fact regarding whether practical difficulties or particular hardships would result if a Variation is not granted. The Petitioner has submitted the following justification for a Variation from Article 6, Section 6.10.2, Table 6-2 of the Zoning Ordinance: A. State the particular hardship and/or practical difficulty created for you in carrying out the strict letter of the zoning regulations to wit: Garage can only work on south/west portion of the house. B. A reasonable return or use of your property is not possible under the existing regulations because: Using existing driveway and no reasonable way to get to the rear of property. 2 Page 8 of 48  C. Your situation is unique (not applicable in other properties in the area or zoning classification) in the following respect: The street is to the east of property. South of home is unimproved [with] water lines and is not a developed street. D. The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; not increase hazard from fire; not impair property values in the neighborhood; not unduly increase congestion in the streets, or otherwise impair public safety; health and convenience because: No issues. Notification Legal Notice was published in the Daily Herald on August 25, 2025, a sign placed on the subject property, and notifications sent to property owners within a 250.0 foot radius of the subject property in advance of the Public Hearing. Staff Recommendation Village staff have reviewed the petition and are in support of the request. Sample Motion To recommend approval of ZBA-25-01 for a variation from Section 2.5.2 Attached Garage Design to permit a garage closer to the street lot line than the longest exterior wall of the house facing the same street. Exhibit List • Exhibit A - Plat of Survey • Exhibit B - Proposed Garage Plans 3 Page 9 of 48  518 52 2 510 514 590 E CALDUTO CIR 580 RS-7.5 525 511 515 523 519 E HARRISON ST Legend Zoning Districts Zoning Districts RS-10 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 10,000 Sq. Ft. RS-7.5 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 7,500 Sq. Ft. RS-10 1210 RD-7.5 - Residential Duplex District - 7,500 Sq. Ft.. RM-9 - Residential Multi-Unit District - 9,000 Sq. Ft. O-R - Office Research District C-1 - Convenience Business District 560 S WAYSI DE C-2 - Neighborhood Business District 540 520 C-3 - Service Business District MX-1 - Mixed-Use TOD District DR MX-2 - Mixed-Use Main Street District 580 MX-3 - Mixed-Use Corridor District MX-T - Mixed Transitional (Office-Residential) District ¯ MX-R1 - Mixed Residential District 1 MX-R2 - Mixed Residential District 2 M-1 - Light Industrial District M-2 - General Industrial District PI-1 - Neighborhood-scale Institutional and Public District E LANE DR PI-2 - Campus-scale Institutional and Public District P.U.D.-R - Planned Unit Development Residential P.U.D.-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial P.U.D.-I - Planned Unit Development Industrial 50 25 0 50 Feet Page 10 of 48 Page 11 of 48 Page 12 of 48 Page 13 of 48 Page 14 of 48 Page 15 of 48 Page 16 of 48 Page 17 of 48  Village of Villa Park Community & Economic Development 11 W Home Avenue, Villa Park, IL 60181 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Community & Economic Development Department DATE: September 10, 2025 RE: Petition ZBA-25-02 | 920 S Summit | Variation PETITIONER OWNER Michael Santiago Michael Santiago 920 S. Summit Ave. 920 S. Summit Ave. Villa Park, IL 60181 Villa Park, IL 60181 Request Summary The Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 2.3 Lot and Building Regulations, to permit a rear yard setback of 9.0 feet instead of 40.0 feet. The Petitioner would like to add an addition to the existing home and attach the existing garage to the home. Background The Petitioner would like to add an addition to the house, enclosing the existing porch, which would connect the existing garage to the house. The permit for the detached garage was issued in April 2024 and meets all regulations for bulk regulation requirements of a detached garage. By attaching the garage to the house, the garage would no longer be considered a detached garage and would need to follow regulations for an attached garage. Site Information Present Zoning: Residential Single-Dwelling District - RS-7.5 Present Land Use: Residential Property Size: 7,902 sq. ft. / 0.18 acres PIN: 06-15-108-023 Surrounding Zoning Surrounding Land Use North: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential West: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential East: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential South: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-7.5 Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation - Residential Single-dwelling residential areas are neighborhoods where each lot contains one dwelling unit, which can be a standalone house or attached units like townhomes and duplexes. These areas should encompass carefully planned subdivisions and older, established neighborhoods exhibiting classic neighborhood layouts. Single- dwelling homes are the most common form of residential property in the Village and most likely will remain so. Zoning Request The Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 2.3 Lot and Building Regulations, to permit a rear yard setback of 9.0 feet instead of 40.0 feet, to add an addition to the existing home and attach the existing garage. Internal Staff Review Variation Page 18 of 48 The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows for Variation petitions in order to grant relief to a property owner from strict compliance with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Variations are intended to help alleviate a practical difficulty or particular hardship that would be caused by the literal enforcement of the subject ordinance requirements and are site specific. The proposed home addition would change the garage from a detached garage to an attached garage which features different bulk regulations for construction. The rear yard setback would increase in required distance to the rear lot line. No changes are currently proposed to the existing, currently detached garage. West of the 920 S. Summit Avenue property is an unimproved alleyway. The property is not under common ownership with the 920 S. Summit Avenue property. The approximate distance from the rear (west) garage wall to the property line to the west is approximately 35.0 feet. Site Plan Review 1. Building and Structure Location - The following comments relate to the issue of building and structure location in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The proposed addition would be built between the house and garage and have an area of 332.0 square feet. b. The proposed addition would have a height of 13.0 feet to match the existing roof line. The maximum height permitted is 28.0 feet. c. With the proposed addition, the new setbacks for the house would be a street side setback of 14.8 feet and a rear setback of 9.0 feet. The street side setback requirement is 15.0 ft, but with a difference of 0.2 feet, this qualifies for an administrative adjustment from staff and does not need to be considered on this variation. No changes are proposed to the front or interior side setbacks. 2. Building scale - The following comments relate to the issue of building scale in regard to the proposed development plans: a. No comments in regards to scale. 3. Lot Coverage - The following comments relate to the issue of lot coverage in regard to the proposed development plans: a. With the new addition, the lot coverage would be 34.88%. Maximum lot coverage for RS-7.5 is 60%. 4. Completeness - If the Zoning Board of Appeals requires additional information to determine whether the applicant’s development requests comply with the applicable standards of the Code, they may direct the Petitioner to furnish additional information and evidence that may provide clarity regarding their concerns. Findings Per Sec. 11.5.6.8. The Zoning Board of Appeals’ recommendation must be accompanied by specific findings of fact regarding whether practical difficulties or particular hardships would result if a Variation is not granted. The Petitioner has submitted the following justification for a Variation from Article 2, Section 2.3, Table 2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance: A. State the particular hardship and/or practical difficulty created for you in carrying out the strict letter of the zoning regulations to wit: One particular hardship is to alleviate a pregnant mother with kids having to walk around the entire property with groceries/work supplies in the snow/rain/cold climates just to enter her residence. A connected garage will alleviate those hardships. Also providing the only dining space available. B. A reasonable return or use of your property is not possible under the existing regulations because: 2 Page 19 of 48  The garage is not connected to the house. This would also close the section off allowing a dog as well as children to roam the fenced in back/side yard. C. Your situation is unique (not applicable in other properties in the area or zoning classification) in the following respect: We would like to make the most out of the space we have. Located on a corner lot, not having 40 feet to the rear of the property, growing family with a limited amount of space. D. The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; not increase hazard from fire; not impair property values in the neighborhood; not unduly increase congestion in the streets, or otherwise impair public safety; health and convenience because: This addition would add to the living space, would not impair the characteristics above because it will be located in the center of the property, still allowing sunlight and air reasonably. Notification Legal Notice was published in the Daily Herald on August 25, 2025, a sign placed on the subject property, and notifications sent to property owners within a 250.0 foot radius of the subject property in advance of the Public Hearing. Sample Motion To recommend approval of ZBA-25-02 for a variation from Section 2.3, Table 2-3 Lot and Building Regulations, to permit a rear yard setback of 9.0 feet. Exhibit List • Exhibit A - Plat of Survey • Exhibit B - Proposed Addition Plans 3 Page 20 of 48  146 E ADAMS ST 920 137 S SUMMIT AV 133 924 RS-7.5 Legend Zoning Districts Zoning Districts 928 RS-10 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 10,000 Sq. Ft. RS-7.5 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 7,500 Sq. Ft. RD-7.5 - Residential Duplex District - 7,500 Sq. Ft.. RM-9 - Residential Multi-Unit District - 9,000 Sq. Ft. O-R - Office Research District E FRANK ST C-1 - Convenience Business District C-2 - Neighborhood Business District C-3 - Service Business District MX-1 - Mixed-Use TOD District MX-2 - Mixed-Use Main Street District 934 MX-3 - Mixed-Use Corridor District MX-T - Mixed Transitional (Office-Residential) District ¯ MX-R1 - Mixed Residential District 1 MX-R2 - Mixed Residential District 2 M-1 - Light Industrial District M-2 - General Industrial District PI-1 - Neighborhood-scale Institutional and Public District PI-2 - Campus-scale Institutional and Public District P.U.D.-R - Planned Unit Development Residential 936 P.U.D.-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial P.U.D.-I - Planned Unit Development Industrial 30 15 0 30 Feet Page 21 of 48  PLAT OF SUR\rEY OF LOT 126 IN ROB€RTSON'S MADISON STREET ARDMORE, BEING A SUADIVISION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUAflTER OF SECTI( EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 20,1926 AS DOCUMENT 2234,61,IN DUPi n '1. \'-1 /ld'!if n""t ' lts q-t' \J' b ca.) ^"*ALTR.AD*AY (t :jl'/- 1o'46*w {M) FIP Ft?k" I 5 00' R M CONC. WALK 1 $ b € .f oq s' h F { 2.04', e 39.56' il in J I o) I I L-- 3S.5? 2 =3 = a CLF w20 k+ F. -373i- 0.10' 6) (d j -oq if rU < ol'@ :.j € * cc o -o 4(f) o" 42.'.1' -a sl g0 (\I ol 9.02 )4 J o sf 1 3 BRICK FtPk', cLF 123'N COLUMN cLF 1.12'N & cLF 0.35'N 0.82'W t 25.C0' { R=M) 0.64'S FtPyf sg7"1o'46"w (M) 0.65'S 0.61'S 3.37 S 3-31'S 0.23'S 127 N LEGEND (M) MEASURmDMENSION ONL ON UNE @ FOIJNDIK (R) RECORD DIMENSION POB POINT OF BEGIHNING o SETRON I (D) DEEDDMEIISION POC POINT OF COMMENCET'ENT o KIUNDIRT Ctl CHORD Oli,tEHSlON OH OVERHANG a SETIRON I 8SL BUIT-DINGSETBACKUNE TYP TYPICAL + CUTCROS PC POINTOFCURVATURE PT POINTOFTANGENCY CLF WF CHAIN TINKFENCE WOOD FENCE +I FOUND CF CWNOTC Page 22 of 48 a o FQdrvallA a :{ r) fi) (s € 5 g qJ Q Endwall B Page 23 of 48  1' 1ts' d r6. 3 8" 8' SIDEWALL I) Mastercraft@ 72W x 80H Primed Steel Low-E Intemal Blinds French ENDWALL B Patio 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange Mastercraft@ 36W x 80H Primed Steel Flush 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Dotrble Hung Window with Nailing Flange Page 24 of 48 g e F[eA,ica\ ElednL a.*lx Ce'tliry t"1/yght S^r,tCl" (n d o (D c) € g 3 (t} :lc' c) (/> ler*r\c au4futr EndwallB EI c or,rflef Page 25 of 48  2r B' B' I' t 3' dnchvall tr J tc 1'6u J a. o- c: fD (v 10' {o) o 17" pq) a 3' 1'6u 1'5" e, 3' EnciwailB B' B' 3' 8' l1' Page 26 of 48  af 1f 3' 15' 38" 8',' 3 s SIDEWALL C 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange 36"W x 54"H .leld-Wen@ Double Hung Windorv with Nailing Flange ENDWALLA 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen(E Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange Mastercratt@ 36W x 80H Primed Steel 6-Panel Page 27 of 48 Materials Building Type Building Location Zip Code 60181 Building Type: Gable Framing Type: Sfud Wall Framing Building Info Building Width: l'l' Building Length: l7' Building Height: 13. Wall Framing Stud: 2x4 Roof Framing: Truss Construction (Sealed truss designs available on request) Truss Type: Scissors (24" on centerspacing) Roof Pitch: 4112Pitch Eave Overhang: None Gable Overhang: None Curb: Poured Curb Curb Height: 4" Foundation Type: Poured Building Plan: Yes I need a Building Plan Wall Info Siding Material Types: Vinyl Vinyl Siding: ABTCO@) Cedar CreekrM Double 4, Coior: Slate Blue Vinyl Corner Trim Color: Slate Blue Accent Material Type: None Wainscot Material Type: None Wall Sheathing: 5/8x4x8Plywood House Wrap: Kimberly-Clark BLOCK-IT'CI 9'x 75'House Wrap Gable Vents: None Roof Info Roof Sheathing: l/2x4 x 8 OSB(Oriented Strand Board) Page 28 of 48 Rootlng Material Type Architectural Shingle Architectural Roofing: Atlas CastlebrookrM Limited Lifetime Warranty Architectural Shingles (32.8 sq. ft.), Color: Weathered Wood Roof Underlayment: VB Shield Synthetic Underlayment 48" x 250'(1000 sq. ft.) Ice and Water Barrier: None Fascia Material Type: Vinyl Fascia Fascia: ABTCO@ 8" x l2'6" Vinyl Fascia, Color: White Gutter Material Type: Aluminum Gutter: Spectra Metals 5" x 10' K-Style Aluminum Gutter, Color: White Ridge \lent: None Roof Vents: None Openings Service Door: Mastercraft@ 72W x 80H Primed Steel Low-E Internal Blinds French Patio Sewice Door: Mastercraft@ 36W x 80H Primed SteelFlush Service Door: Mastercraft@ 36W x 80H Primed Steel 6-Panel Windows: 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange Windows 36"W x 54"H Jeld-WentD Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange Windor.vs 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Double Hung Windorv with Nailing Flange Windows 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange Windows 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange Windows: 36"W x 54"H Jeld-Wen@ Double Hung Window with Nailing Flange Additional Options Ceiling lnsulation: Fiberglass batts Ceiling Insulation R Value Rl3 Kraft Faced Roll Page 29 of 48 Wal[ Insulation: (- \f Ceiling Finish: 5/8 x 4 x 8 Type X Fire-Rated Drywall Wall Finish: 5/8 x 4 x 8 Type X Fire-Rated Drywall Mounting Blocks: No Hydronic Radiant Heat: No Anchor bolt: Grip Fast(D ll2 x l0 HDG Anchor Bolt wl Nut & Washer Framing Fasteners: Grip Fast@ 3-l/4 l6D Vinyl-Coated Smooth Shank Sinker Nail - 5 lb. Box Sheathing Fasteners: Grip Fast@ 2-l/2 8D Vinyl-Coated Smooth Shank Sinker Nail - 5lb. Box Roofing/Shingle Fasteners Grip Fast{D 1-ll4 Electro-Galvanized Coil RoofingNails - 7,200 Count Truss Fasfener: FastenMaster6) TimberLOK@ 5/16 x 6 Hex Drive Black Hex Head Timber Screw - 50 Count Page 30 of 48  r - ' O-+O r IO-O-O r l3-3-O I .Z-Q:a:9.- --, - I | d.eb I 3.io | 1j.o l 6.e.o I 3 -a- 12 i 4 t3 al El l I o-3-E 6 I- I 2L t-:if t2 -i---" Flsre ffaers tx. Y): [1:o-2r.o-o-gl. l5:o-24.o4-5!. [6-o+o.o-2-14, {P€r} gF€hrg 244 c3l DFL PhGS RP TCLL 30,o Plaie Gdp DOL 1 .15 TC o.a3 -o-* &-12 >a3a 240 Ma20 797/14 (PstPg, 27.7t40.O Lumbrrcf- 1 .15 BC o-47 Vo.r{Ct) -o.49 6'1? 134G rao TCDL 7.O Rep Strass lncr YES o.70 HorztcT) 0.2e 5 BCLL o.o - lRc20r5ffPt20t4 BCDL 10-o Weigllt. 57 lb FT - 15oa LUMB€R gRACrre ToP cHoRD a{ SPF No.z aott cHoRE Srru.[,rFl wood cr 2- l- tO .r p.rrlins BOT CHORD 2t4 SPF 165OF l.5E BOT CHORD WEBS 2a4 SPF Stud RACnOiS {lbJsiz6} 1-494/Gg, (min O- 14)- tas/o-3-8. (drin o-l -a) Md Horiz 1:44 (LC t5' Max UPnft 1=-/Z lLC 1Ur, 5=-12 (LC 11) Abx Ara! 144C ILC 2r. s=94O (Lc 2) FffiGS (lbt - Mai. CoDtp./Max. Ton. All tu'@s {lb} ry loss ex@pt whorr shwn. TOP CHORp 1-13:-376tW. 2-13{678/570, 2-3:-293m&. "5O g=-2939i&- 4-14:-JG7A/57O. 5-t4=-3765/g BOT CflORD 1+-6O4reO3. 5-6=_S4/503 WEBS 3-G--14317G22,2-6--909124?.4'6=-691242 NGS r) Unbaland rer llv€ I€dE hav€ lE^ €n3&.ed for this dssiso 2t Wind: ASCE /-1O: Vurt=l15mpn (3-sq>d qusa) Va$391moh: rcoL4.zpsfi 6CUL56.Opst; h=25h: Caa. I: Ex9 8: encrosedi MWFRS teDvebpe) €xlerilr zffe a.rd C-C ed.rio. t2) mne: cantilw* ld Ehd dght exFsd i sd r/d€l l* aFd dghi 6xFdiC-C ftr !ffibtrB and fo.c€ & MWRS for r€adiss s|wi LumtJg DOL=1.6o olde orio o6L=1-60 rcr fficE 7-1o: Prio.o psf (tEf rive bd: Lumhf ool:1 15 Plara ool--1.15): Pg<o,o Ft (sround snow): P#?7.7 Psa (.6f sftp: brnbar DoL:1-t5 Plal€ DoL:1.15): ", Category ll; Ee B: FullY ExP-: Ct:1-1O 4l Roor deslqo snH l€d has b€€rr rdu€d b ac€una for 6loF. 5) Unbalan@d snw toEds tEv€ kc c.rsiderod for ttiis dcEian- 6) This r.ues ha3 b6n designed tor a 1o-O psf bolorh chord twe @d noncon.urena pith any oh€r h./€ toad3- s.ry oha( mert$€r. a) Bea.i(q at ioina(s) 1. 5 @€lders F.dtet b s.ai^ vslus usinq ANSI/T?, 1 an*E b q.aln to.nrola- Buildi.rs d65qne. st(rld vetily capaca.v ol &a.lnar sudsce. 9i Pravda d€chsniel c6nndi6 {by othe.s} of hss to b€sdng pbre capable d dhslandrng 72 lb uplff a! jolni 1 ad 72 lb splift at ,oint 5- LoAO CA3E(S) Sbdatd Page 31 of 48  o{ 5 10 I t?, a 1 o-3-rg: ?t- l2 iFf) PUtg ffirP TCLL (l@D 25.O MI20 24 3re-O TCDL 7-O BCLI o-o - BCDL 10.o LUM6ER BRACNG TOPCHORA a4 sPF No2 1 0P CHORO Slruclural wood ah€alhinq dicctly o. eGO oc Fdnrs. BoT CHORD a4 SPF No.z BOT CHORf' OfrERS ?x4 SPF SFd FEACIqNS All b€a.in96 ?O4o {lb) - Maa Hort 1<4 (Lc r5}. 134 {Lc 15) Max Uplrft Al uPlift 1oo (lb) or less at lo'nr(s) r. 7 g 9 l 1. 1?' 13' t 7 tJ# etn! At.eacEos2& (b)ortPeeaiiojtlar) 1, 7. 9 tA, 11 13 77 oxceot &-553 (LC 21 )- 12-553 (Lc 20) FORCG (lO) - Max. &nrpJMat. Teo- - All fo.es 25O (lb) 6l€s except {1€n 3h(*^ WEBS 2-1?-362tal?- 6&:362t132 NOEg i! Unbalan.:ed tmf live loads have ken con*JBred rc rris dosiq.r' 2, Wid: aSCE 7-i o: vurFl i SF,ph (3*e<5.!d gu3t) vasl:Hl dph: TCDL<4 ?psf: BCOL< Opsf; h=25tt; cal- ll: Exp B: €nctossdi NTWFRS (€nv€lop€) 6d6dot z# and c_c qrlp DOI=t.€o qualified Oudding designd as Ps ANSt/l'Pl ,. 4) tCLr,aSCsz-io:p.4S_Ope.t('6trivetosd:LumtE.OOL=I.15PlateDOL=I 15);PS=35OFl(groundsnNlrk=?4.3pst(root$.)w:Lumb€rmL=l.15PlaleL)Ot:r.15): Cat#ry ll: E& B: Fully Ep-: Cr-1,10 5) R6l dosiqn snow load ha3 be€ir.€duc€d to sscourrt for sloF. 6) Unbatanljd snl* loads have h€n <:onsidet€d bt thts dee€n. 7l All plar6 sre 1-5x4 i4T?O unlcss othcs'l5e lndicald a, Gable requiros corr(nuous bs6tt! cltord beadtrg. 9) Oabb suds spaed dt 2"O-o oc. 10' Thts Uuss has ircn dasqn€d ts a 1O.O Fi bottom cho.d live i€d nonconcurent with ary ohor liwc losds. i I ) - fris ttus has lj.*n designed fdr a tiwe load ol 20 Opsf on the btbrh d6d in all a.eas whc.6 a .ectangle 3-6-00 bll by z-m-OO wide enl! rt b€w6an he b{bm 66..1 and any ohr members. t2) ptovHe mectEri€t cornecils {by othors! of lruse to bearlrq plale capable ol withstatxli^g 1OO tb uplllt al idnt(s) 1. 7. J l. 12, 9. I, t- 7. i3) Aowted obb d shim rsqurod to prdido full @tina suda@ sh kuas chod at id'rqE) 7. 70- 71, 12, s- A- r4) rhis tnrss is .r6sig4ed id a.;cor.Jan4q w;rh il€ 24115 IntEr^ati.Jnrr Ra<idqntiar cdde qqctb^s F-*2 t r t aad RAO2 1n 2 a^.1 .o6e^-ad slaFrt.rd ANSrfpl 1 LOAO gAaE{g} $iandard Page 32 of 48  Village of Villa Park Community & Economic Development 11 W Home Avenue, Villa Park, IL 60181 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Community & Economic Development Department DATE: September 10, 2025 RE: Petition ZBA-25-03 | 1046 S. IL Route 83 | Variation PETITIONER OWNER Mario Hernandez Marllo Construction LLC 1046 S. Route 83 1046 S. Route 83 Villa Park, IL 60181 Villa Park, IL 60181 Request Summary The Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations to permit a 6.0-ft. tall privacy fence in the front yard, instead of 4.0-ft. tall open style fence. Background The subject lot is on the corner of E. Van Buren St. and Route 83’s frontage road. The house faces Route 83 but the residence’s driveway can only be accessed from Van Buren Street. As the smallest street facing lot line, Route 83 would be considered the front yard of this lot. The Petitioner proposes a 6.0-foot tall privacy fence to block the noise and sight of Route 83. The fence plan would follow intersection visibility regulations. The southernmost 20.0 feet of fence at the Route 83 and Van Buren intersection would have a maximum height of 3.0 feet to allow for driving visibility. Site Information Present Zoning: Residential Single-Dwelling District - RS-10 Present Land Use: Residential Property Size: 14,374.99 sq. ft. / 0.33 acres PIN: 06-15-201-031 Surrounding Zoning Surrounding Land Use North: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-10 Residential West: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-10 Residential East: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-10 Residential South: Residential Single-Dwelling District- RS-10 Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation- Residential Single-dwelling residential areas are neighborhoods where each lot contains one dwelling unit, which can be a standalone house or attached units like townhomes and duplexes. These areas should encompass carefully planned subdivisions and older, established neighborhoods exhibiting classic neighborhood layouts. Single- dwelling homes are the most common form of residential property in the Village and most likely will remain so. Zoning Request The Petitioner is seeking a Variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations to permit a 6.0-ft. tall privacy fence in the front yard, instead of 4.0-ft. tall open style fence. Page 33 of 48 Internal Staff Review Variation The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows for Variation petitions in order to grant relief to a property owner from strict compliance with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Variations are intended to help alleviate a practical difficulty or particular hardship that would be caused by the literal enforcement of the subject ordinance requirements and are site specific. The front yard of this property faces Route 83 and the Route 83 frontage road as the smaller dimension of the property lines but the residence’s driveway can only be accessed by E. Van Buren Street. East Van Buren Street and Route 83 do not connect at the southeast corner of the property where the two right-of-ways intersect. The property owner is looking for a taller fence with a solid style to help block noise and traffic from the busy road. Following the permitted regulations of a 4.0 foot tall open style fence would not accomplish this goal. The 20.0 foot visibility triangle at the southeast corner of the property would still be maintained for drivers turning around at the eastern end of E. Van Buren St. Site Plan Review 1. Building and Structure Location - The following comments relate to the issue of building and structure location in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The proposed 6.0-foot tall privacy fence would run along the front (east) property line, along the frontage road for Route 83. b. The required 20.0-foot visibility triangle at the southeast corner of the property would still be maintained. The first 20 feet, from the southeast corner of the lot running north, would have a maximum height of 3.0 feet. 2. Building scale - The following comments relate to the issue of building scale in regard to the proposed development plans: a. No comments in regards to scale. 3. Lot Coverage - The following comments relate to the issue of lot coverage in regard to the proposed development plans: a. No new lot coverage would be added as a result of this project. 4. Completeness - If the Zoning Board of Appeals requires additional information to determine whether the applicant’s development requests comply with the applicable standards of the Code, they may direct the Petitioner to furnish additional information and evidence that may provide clarity regarding their concerns. Findings Per Sec. 11.5.6.8. The Zoning Board of Appeals’ recommendation must be accompanied by specific findings of fact regarding whether practical difficulties or particular hardships would result if a Variation is not granted. The Petitioner has submitted the following justification for a Variation from Article 2, Section 2.3, Table 2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance: A. State the particular hardship and/or practical difficulty created for you in carrying out the strict letter of the zoning regulations to wit: We lack privacy and safety being on a main road. B. A reasonable return or use of your property is not possible under the existing regulations because: It is technically a front yard but would not be used as a front yard. C. Your situation is unique (not applicable in other properties in the area or zoning classification) in the following respect: 2 Page 34 of 48  It is facing a very busy road. Also, truckers park directly in front of the property. D. The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; not increase hazard from fire; not impair property values in the neighborhood; not unduly increase congestion in the streets, or otherwise impair public safety; health and convenience because: It will only provide privacy and safety. Notification Legal Notice was published in the Daily Herald on August 25, 2025, a sign placed on the subject property, and notifications sent to property owners within a 250.0-foot radius of the subject property in advance of the Public Hearing. Sample Motion To recommend approval of ZBA-25-03 for a variation from Section 9.2.2, Allowed Fence Heights and Locations, to permit a 6.0-foot solid fence in the front yard. Exhibit List • Exhibit A - Plat of Survey with Fence Plans 3 Page 35 of 48  650 1046 E VAN BUREN ST RS-10 Legend Zoning Districts Zoning Districts RS-10 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 10,000 Sq. Ft. RS-7.5 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 7,500 Sq. Ft. RD-7.5 - Residential Duplex District - 7,500 Sq. Ft.. RM-9 - Residential Multi-Unit District - 9,000 Sq. Ft. O-R - Office Research District C-1 - Convenience Business District C-2 - Neighborhood Business District C-3 - Service Business District MX-1 - Mixed-Use TOD District MX-2 - Mixed-Use Main Street District MX-3 - Mixed-Use Corridor District MX-T - Mixed Transitional (Office-Residential) District MX-R1 - Mixed Residential District 1 685 ¯ 645 MX-R2 - Mixed Residential District 2 M-1 - Light Industrial District M-2 - General Industrial District PI-1 - Neighborhood-scale Institutional and Public District PI-2 - Campus-scale Institutional and Public District P.U.D.-R - Planned Unit Development Residential P.U.D.-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial P.U.D.-I - Planned Unit Development Industrial 40 20 0 40 Feet Page 36 of 48  A PLAT OF SURVEY 5S E. St SffS PUCE LilBmO, rUNqS 601 48 PHilE : (630) 916-8262 BY A\ GENTII.E AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS LOT 4 IN AI{IHO{Y F. CORSO'S PLAT OF S.JR\EY SITUATEO IN THE NOR]HEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOW\SHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF ]HE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THE EAST 1OO.O FEET OF LOT 22 (EXCEPI IHE NORITI 3OO.OO FEET TNEREOF) AND THAT PART oF LoT 23 LYNG wEsT oF T}IE CENIER LiNE oF THE RIGHT oF PRoPER;Y COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 1046 S. RoUTE ,43, VILLA PARK, tLLtNotS 6018j coNTAtNtNG: 14,374.99 S0. FT., 0.33 AC. (MORE 0R LESS) I I +? dc" ,;", - T66.oT- b ci 90 ft of 6' solid fence T o @ o a i.) 6 s 5 o H,-1, da. F c Hi E FEE G e; $" N so r 6? .* dd? F o jo eq e j -2 e o> oo oll e u; H o ol elN o UP :< z ).a t: 4tt E# (4 = >!. n E t.e { I { fro F' al o.' o E9 gH !t o- E 20 ft of 3' tall solid fence ID h 26.34 100.00' 25.00' i _ __--\i_ ttAr,l &UfrEtt slRgt (sHAl PAWilt (FORMERLY ELM SIREET) so[JIH- TJNES qi S(IJIH UNE OF LOT 4 _rAljg_ 23 - CORSO.S PI.AT OF SUR\EY * ry**r I i STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY 0F DUPAGE BASE SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET WE. GENT]LE AND ASSOCIATES, BEEN MADE AT AND UNDER MY'NC,. HEREBY CERTIFY ]IIAT A SURVEY HAS DIRECTION, OF THE PROPERTY OESCRItsED DISTANCES ARE MARKED IN FEET AND DECIMAL PARTS THEREOF ORDERED BY : trPts.tArBlo pa ABOVE, AND I]1AT THE PLAT HEREON DRAWN IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION 'TN'S OF SAID SURVEY. PLAT CONFORMS TO THE MINIMUM STANDARD DRAI,{! BY: REOUIREMENTS FOR A EOUNDARY SUR\€Y. CHECKED 8Y I JFG SURVEYED BY: tR A.A.2oL_ COMPARE ALL POINTS BEFORE BUILOING BY SAME AND AT ONCE REPORT ANY DIFFERENCE. FOR BUILDING UNE AND O]HER RESIRICNONS NOT SHOW{ HEREON REFER TO YOUR AESIRACT DEED, CONTRACT AND ZONING ORDINANCE. ILLINOS LAND SURVEYOR NO. 2925 MY NO\EMBER 30,2024 oRoER NO. 2+-22851 ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL DESIGN FIRM LICENSE NO- 1A4.OO2A7O Page 37 of 48  Village of Villa Park Community & Economic Development 11 W Home Avenue, Villa Park, IL 60181 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Community & Economic Development Department DATE: September 10, 2025 RE: Petition ZBA-25-04 | 300 W. High Ridge Road | Amendment to Special Use PETITIONER OWNER Islamic Foundation Islamic Foundation 300 W. High Ridge Rd. 300 W. High Ridge Rd. Villa Park, IL 60181 Villa Park, IL 60181 Request Summary The Petitioner is seeking an amendment to the Special Use to allow for an addition to the building to add a body wash for funeral preparations. Background The Subject Property has a previous Special Use which includes the existing religious facility as well as the private school and offices. This amendment to the existing Special Use would allow for a building addition to be added to the existing religious facility. This new addition would contain a body wash facility to conduct funeral preparations. Site Information Present Zoning: RS-7.5- Residential Present Land Use: Religious Assembly and School Property Size: 7.31 acres PINs: 06-16-400-014, 06-16-212-004 Surrounding Zoning Surrounding Land Use North: Residential Single -Dwelling District – RS-7.5 School West: Village of Lombard - Limited General Residential Planned Multi-Family Residential Development- R4PD East: Residential Single -Dwelling District – RS-7.5 Park South: Residential Single -Dwelling District – RS-7.5 School Comprehensive Plan Designation – Residential Single-dwelling residential areas are neighborhoods where each lot contains one dwelling unit, which can be a standalone house or attached units like townhomes and duplexes. These areas should encompass carefully planned subdivisions and older, established neighborhoods exhibiting classic neighborhood layouts. Single- dwelling homes are the most common form of residential property in the Village and most likely will remain so. Zoning Request The Petitioner is requesting an amendment to the existing Special Use to allow for the construction of a building addition and the addition of a body wash facility for funeral preparations. The amendment is required because the prior Special Uses did not include a body wash use on the property. Page 38 of 48 Internal Staff Review Special Use The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows for the right to request a Special Use. The Commission should consider whether the proposed use is appropriate and whether any conditions of operation may be necessary to mitigate any otherwise potential negative impacts. Section 11.4.11. of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any expansion of uses or facilities that qualifies as a major amendment must be reviewed through the Special Use process. This Special Use Permit would expand on previous ordinances for the property. In 1983, Ordinance 2087- allowed for the creation of a private school and church. This Ordinance required the property owners to apply to the village to increase the scope of the Special Use to add any new buildings, additions, or uses to the property. In 1991, Ordinance 2534 amended the Special Use Permit granted by Ordinance 2087, to include increased parking facilities and to allow for additional buildings to be used for private school and religious purposes. This Ordinance included a school building addition of 12,240.0 square feet, a mosque building addition with full basement, first floor, and mezzanine totaling 31,770.0 square feet, set a maximum building height of 40.0 feet, and added 230 parking stalls. This Ordinance also allowed for the property owners to obtain approval from school districts for use of parking lots for special event overflow parking and required that all buildings must be sprinklered. In 2001, Ordinance 3092 was approved for construction of a new 19,650.0 square foot two-story school building, a 7,200.0 square foot addition to existing school building, a 860 square foot addition to the existing mosque, and a minaret. Ordinance 3092 also approved 171 additional parking spaces, created “no parking zones” during school hours, and included a traffic management plan for Friday Prayer. This new Special Use application is seeking to amend the prior approvals to permit a body wash facility, in addition to the previously approved religious and school uses. The proposal would feature a 871.2 square feet addition. Site Plan Review 1. Building and Structure Location - The following comments relate to the issue of building and structure location in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The proposed addition would have a total area of 871.2 square feet. The addition would have a height of 12.0 feet. 2. Building Scale - The following comments relate to the issue of building scale in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The addition is an appropriate scale for the building as a whole. 3. Building Architecture - The following comments relate to the issue of architecture in regard to the proposed development plans: a. No changes to the façade are proposed as part of the Special Use application. 4. Lot Coverage - The following comments relate to the issue of lot coverage in regard to the proposed development plans: a. Current Lot Coverage is 66.55%. After the addition the Lot Coverage would be 66.77%. 5. Site Circulation - The following comments relate to the issue of site circulation in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The proposed body wash facility will be fully accessible from the exterior of the building only. The addition will not feature any connecting doors to the existing building. b. No expansions of the existing parking areas are proposed. c. The existing paver parking area west of the proposed addition will now feature compliant striped parking stalls. 2 Page 39 of 48  6. Parking Lots - The following comments relate to the issue of parking lots in regard to the proposed development plans: a. The site currently has 431 parking stalls. Per section 7.2 only 407 parking stalls are required. 7. Landscaping - The following comments relate to the issue of landscaping in regard to the proposed development plans: a. Landscaping would be installed around the proposed addition. 8. Signage - The following comments relate to the issue of signage in regard to the proposed development plans: a. No new signage is currently proposed. 9. Site Illumination - The following comments relate to the issue of site illumination in regard to the proposed development plans: a. An additional light outside of the entrance door to the addition is proposed. No variations for lighting are being requested. 10. Completeness - If the Zoning Board of Appeals requires additional information to determine whether the applicant’s development requests comply with the applicable standards of the Code, they may direct the applicant to furnish additional information and evidence that may provide clarity regarding their concerns. Findings Per Section 11.4.8. – Review and Approval Criteria: No Special Use may be recommended for approval or approved unless the respective review or decision-making body determines that the proposed Special Use is consistent with and in substantial compliance with all village board policies and plans and that the applicant has presented evidence to support each of the following conclusions for both Special Uses that they are requesting: A. That the proposed use or activity is expressly authorized as a Special Use; Petitioner’s Response: Yes B. That the proposed use at the proposed location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility that is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community; Petitioner’s Response: Yes C. That the proposed use will not, in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be injurious to property values or improvements in the vicinity. Petitioner’s Response: Yes D. That approval of the Special Use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; Petitioner’s Response: Yes E. That the proposed Special Use will be served by adequate utilities, access roads, parking, drainage and other important and necessary facilities, infrastructure, and community services; and Petitioner’s Response: Yes F. That the proposed Special Use complies with all applicable regulations of this zoning ordinance except as expressly approved in accordance with the procedures of this zoning ordinance. Petitioner’s Response: Yes 3 Page 40 of 48 Notification Legal Notice was published in the Daily Herald on August 25, 2025, a sign placed on the subject property, and notifications sent to property owners within a 250.0 foot radius of the subject property in advance of the Public Hearing. Recommended Action To recommend approval of ZBA-25-04 for an amendment to the Special Use to permit a body wash facility use on the existing property. Exhibit List A. Exhibit A- Plat of Survey B. Exhibit B- Proposed Plans 4 Page 41 of 48  300 RS-7.5 W HIGH RIDGE RD Legend Zoning Districts 355 Zoning Districts RS-10 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 10,000 Sq. Ft. RS-7.5 - Residential Single-Dwelling District - 7,500 Sq. Ft. RD-7.5 - Residential Duplex District - 7,500 Sq. Ft.. RM-9 - Residential Multi-Unit District - 9,000 Sq. Ft. O-R - Office Research District C-1 - Convenience Business District C-2 - Neighborhood Business District C-3 - Service Business District MX-1 - Mixed-Use TOD District MX-2 - Mixed-Use Main Street District MX-3 - Mixed-Use Corridor District MX-T - Mixed Transitional (Office-Residential) District MX-R1 - Mixed Residential District 1 ¯ MX-R2 - Mixed Residential District 2 M-1 - Light Industrial District M-2 - General Industrial District PI-1 - Neighborhood-scale Institutional and Public District PI-2 - Campus-scale Institutional and Public District P.U.D.-R - Planned Unit Development Residential P.U.D.-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial P.U.D.-I - Planned Unit Development Industrial 110 55 0 110 Feet Page 42 of 48 Page 43 of 48 August 27, 2025 Page 44 of 48 Page 45 of 48 ([ORJOTM3'XKG 3+^OYZOTM 3333狧狫狫狤狤狫3YW3LZ!36XUVUYKJ 333狨狢狩狫狦狣3YW3LZ 6GXQOTM32UZ 33333+^OYZOTM 33狣狣狩狤狤狫狧3YW3LZ!36XUVUYKJ 3狣狣狩狤狤狫狧3YW3LZ33 9OJK]GRQY 3333333+^OYZOTM 3333狤狩狪狦狩狪3YW3LZ!36XUVUYKJ 333狤狩狨狨狣狨3YW3LZ :UZGR3333333333333333+^OYZOTM 333狤狢狧狣狢狢狤3YW3LZ!36XUVUYKJ 3狤狢狧狩狪狧狤3YW3LZ 2UZ3)U\KXGMK 3+^OYZOTM 33333狨狨狧狧3 33333333336XUVUYKJ333333狨狨狩狩3 Page 46 of 48 Page 47 of 48 Page 48 of 48