How Tall Do You Want the Addison Parking Deck to Be?

Share your thoughts at Thursday's Zoning and Planning Commission public hearing.

Elmhurst Zoning and Planning Commission will again be taking up the issue of whether a parking deck on Addison Avenue should be allowed to bypass current zoning so it can be built six stories tall. Current zoning for the area, at 135-149 N. Addison, is four stories.

The commission will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 23, at City Hall, 209 N. York St. Residents are encouraged to attend the meeting and let their opinions officially be placed on record with the city.

Elmhurst City Council reached consensus last fall to send the issue back to the zoning Commission.

In June, the Zoning Commission rejected a proposal from Addison Corridor LLC for a six-story structure on the property that would have included parking, office space and retail; the new plan omits the office space. Addison LLC still is the developer under contract, but this time it is letting the city take the lead on what the structure will be.

Debate between residents and city officials on the height of this property has been contentious for years. The project has been in the planning stages since 2009, when the original agreement for a four-story parking garage was signed with Addison LLC.

The city is asking the commission to consider zoning relief as follows:

  • A conditional use permit to allow the building height to be 65 feet, as opposed to 45 feet currently in the zoning code
  • Permission to build lot-line-to-lot-line, foregoing the current requirement for 25-foot setback on the front and sides of the property and 15 feet in the rear
  • Elimination of the requirement for a loading dock in the rear of the property

Myriad documents related to this proposal are available on the city's website through BoardDocs

Click here to read some of the many stories about the Addison Deck on Elmhurst Patch.

Joe O'Malley January 22, 2014 at 04:44 AM
This notion as to how tall the parking garage should be built seems to be irrelevant at this point. Public and private enthusiasm for the project's completion has waned. Although under contract, even the the developer exhibits ambivalence by handing over the lead to the City's brain trust. Since most downtown landlords are choking on vacant office space at this time and meaningful retail continues to be a pipe dream, what's the point, other than filling a glaring vacant lot with another parking deck? Oh yes, after completion of the parking structure, make sure to clip out the coupon that entitles you to a free small yogurt next door after your pedicure.
Idont Givitout January 22, 2014 at 06:29 PM
Tall enough that when someone jumps off, the resulting splat pattern is at least 20 feet. A parking garage on the outskirts of the business district does no good. All it will attract is maybe train parkers and do we need that increase in traffic twice a day?
Jim Court January 22, 2014 at 07:52 PM
Without some key destination that compels people to travel to the downtown area, we will continue to struggle. I say make it six floors, add a roller rink/basketball court/ concert venue/ meeting place to the structure. The sixth floor could be used as an ice skating rink in the winter. I would hate to be a Mayor with a grand vision only to be handcuffed by every opinion under the sun. My only genuine concern is the assurance that taxpayers will not be excessively burdened. Elmhurst Rocks and it keeps getting better and better.
Mike Worrell January 23, 2014 at 09:40 AM
Retail is not the future of the downtown (ours or any other). It's restaurants, services and entertainment. That's not to say that there will never be successful retail stores, but they will be those that sell items not easily ordered online or purchased at big box stores, or which offer outstanding customer service. In other words, rarities. The notion of paying for billboards that promote downtown Elmhurst as an alternative to shopping malls is completely ridiculous.
D L January 23, 2014 at 10:35 AM
Mike.....You are absolutely correct. In this "internet" world, it's very hard for the little family retail store to compete. Most little stores don't make it a year, unless the owner is in it for a "hobby" as opposed to making a living. Food, liquor and service establishments have the better odds of surviving. To keep offering new or vacant store fronts is a mistake. I also agree that billboards are a total waste of money. Elmhurst needs to look at the future, not business as usual !!
johnj January 23, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Jim C. and Mike W. made very good points. Our young family decided on moving to La Grange over Elmhurst because the lack of dining/entertainment DTE. I do believe Elmhurst has an amazing future because its downtown configuration is AWESOME and when the right business mix comes in – it will be #1.
Patty January 23, 2014 at 03:25 PM
idontgiveitout, I gasped when I read your comment. You contribute too often on the patch to not realize that a minor died jumping off a parking deck this summer. This comment is beyond insensitive to his loved ones.
D. M. January 23, 2014 at 03:30 PM
As a restaurant owner I would love to see it come to fruition. Too many of my customers have gotten parking tickets because they were 5 minutes past their maximum 3 hour time limit. Who wants to come downtown if they're always going to get a $25.00 ticket. They'll go to the mall or other restaurants with private parking lots.
WLA January 23, 2014 at 08:56 PM
Patty I thought the same thing, insensitive does not begin to describe those comments.
Idont Givitout January 23, 2014 at 10:14 PM
My answer is no more stupid or inappropriate than the question. It is certainly not up to the general population nor even the city to decide how tall or even if a parking structure should be built. The cities only concern is that it is A) built to code, and B) that fire protection may be afforded to it. Other than that, a developer should be at will to build what they want. If the city decides it is ok to have buildings abut each other so there is no right of way or safety buffers between them with no land between to absorb precipitation and become like Oak Park or the City of Chicago then fine, otherwise stand the ground that the forefathers laid out for code. Yes, I am a bit callous in realizing a death occurred at another garage, but that has nothing to do with the why of the event which is the important question there. When one becomes suicidal they will always find a way to accomplish their goal. It is sad that it may come to that but life goes on. I have a friend whose mother threw herself in front of a passenger train, It was terrible but are we to not allow trains? Everybody and thing will eventually die.
Faust January 24, 2014 at 09:39 AM
"Splat" isn't a word you see very often. It appears some would prefer to not see it at all. Reminds me of the word "moist".
Steve January 24, 2014 at 08:35 PM
Idontgivitout - I don't understand your comments. The ordinance of this city allows for 45 ft structures. This request is above 65 ft when you include the appurtenances. All cities have ordinances for height for commercial and residential. I think it comes down to what someone wants elmhurst downtown to look like, the character, how much should the city spend and therefore tax the residents to build this parking deck and to make sure it is as safe as possible.
Idont Givitout January 25, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Steve, exactly my point. There is code in effect that must be adhered to or they can consider changing the code for all not just one. Secondly, the city should not own this property and structure. If they can violate their own code then so can I and start a sweat shop with hundreds of Asian children making a designer shoes. The city is not a for profit corporation and is violating its basic charter by owning and developing the property. Of course I could be wrong and it is the plan of the city to not charge rent for the commercial space nor charge to park so one could use the existing business' . But somehow I think not. as you said 45 feet is 45 feet and the limit. As far as the aesthetics, the city needs to consider the effect of both the front as well as the back and sides of the structure. As a resident who would be behind it I would be very upset at losing my sunrise and then sun fall that will result, possibly killing landscaped features. Bottom line to answer your statement the city should spend $0.00 on building and no tax should be collected from anyone except the property owner that is in the tax roles!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something