Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Octane Lounge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances first reading for "Octane Lounge" automotive club at 865 E. Roosevelt after residents raise noise and access concerns
Summary
At a May 7 Lombard trustees meeting, the board held first-reading action on a text amendment and conditional-use requests for the proposed Octane Lounge (865 E. Roosevelt). Residents questioned lighting, sound study methods, hours and access; developers and staff said operations would follow ordinance limits and modeled sound controls.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Octane Lounge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees in Lombard held a first-reading vote May 7 on a text amendment and related zoning requests to allow an indoor automotive storage and recreation use, branded by the petitioner as the Octane Lounge, at 865 East Roosevelt Road.
The matter drew multiple public comments and detailed answers from the developer and staff. Doris Dornberger, who said this was her third hearing on the project, asked for clearer hours and logistics for events and vehicle access, noting she understood valet and some services might operate until 11 p.m. and that special events could run later. "There's real variation in this and, I think it's important to be aware," Dornberger said, pressing the board to clarify when various parts of the business would operate.
Resident Adam Johnson raised specific safety and procedural questions: "First, what is the village's rules or schedules for inspections of storage facilities?" he asked, and questioned where the sound-study microphones were placed. The petitioner’s representative, Mark Daniel, said the sound study modeled a point on a resident's property but "the microphone was not placed on his property. We did not go on his property," and described how the team drove a range of cars and test maneuvers during the study to model potential noise.
Daniel and other representatives described operational controls they said would limit disturbances: doors to vehicle service areas would remain closed; detailing would end by 7 p.m.; member access to stored vehicles would be constrained by the Plan Commission motion to 7 a.m.–11 p.m.; and motor-vehicle services would be limited to 7 a.m.–7 p.m. Staff clarified that the requested lighting variation applies to a north-side shared access to improve pedestrian/vehicular safety and is not a south/residential-side variation.
The petitioner said the development would include three restaurants and a spa open to the public and a member-only "Octane Lounge" with vehicle storage racks. The developer described the planned vehicle inventory as 27 rack spaces plus two on the main floor (29 total) and discussed membership tiers. A representative described higher-tier garage spaces at about $700 a month and estimated combined membership totals "depending on where we land" could be roughly 300–500 across tiers.
Trustees pressed for comparisons to similar facilities and details on enforcement. Trustee Bochner, whose district includes the site, said he favored repurposing the building and did not anticipate water-runoff or parking impacts at the scale proposed. Staff and the petitioner said similar, smaller-scale private garage-club concepts exist regionally and that the project will return for a second reading with additional materials for the board to review.
On the first-reading motions the board recorded split votes in places. For the text-amendment first reading (Item A) Trustee Wagner moved, Trustee Mettello seconded; roll-call recorded two "No" votes (listed in the transcript as Trustee LeBach and Trustee Hammersmith) with multiple "Aye" votes recorded from other trustees, advancing the item as a first reading. The clerk then read Item B (conditional use, site plan and multiple variations) and the board recorded votes consistent with a first-reading action; the item will return for a second reading and final action.
Residents and trustees will have additional opportunity to submit questions and for staff to supply follow-up materials between readings. The board emphasized that several conditions and hours were constrained by the Plan Commission recommendation and that the first reading does not finalize approvals.
The board closed public comment and carried remaining first-reading items forward to the next meeting.
