Village of Lombard Legistar System

Chuck Zen with Olympic Signs presented the petition. Mr. Zen handed out drawings to

show the revised location for the proposed sign. He noted that the new location is thirty

feet (30') to the north, closer to the actual entrance to the clearance center. He stated

that Harlem Furniture has recently remodeled their store with a new marketing concept.

He explained that the second floor would have their existing retail line and the first floor

would have their clearance center. He noted both signs would still be under the total

square footage allowed by code for one wall sign.

Bob Clark with CRB Commercial Interiors, who worked on the remodeling project, gave

a brief overview of the new layout for Harlem Furniture. He referenced the floor plans,

pointing out the main entrance to the standard retail store, which leads to escalators to

the second floor. He noted there is a set of stairs that allow the clearance center to be

accessed from the second floor. He also pointed out the separate main entrance to the

clearance store.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the

Harlem Furniture store has recently undergone interior renovations. She noted that

Harlem Furniture currently has a one hundred thirty-five (135) square foot wall sign for

the standard retail portion of the store. She stated that the petitioner is requesting a

variation to allow a second wall sign, approximately sixty-four (64) square feet in size,

for the clearance center portion of the store. She noted that as the Sign Ordinance

allows for one wall sign per street frontage, a variation is required.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that Harlem Furniture is set back over one thousand feet

(1000') from the Rohlwing Road right-of-way and that the Lombard Zoning Code would

allow a single wall sign up to four hundred (400) square feet in size because the setback

is more than three hundred sixty feet (360'). She noted that the total square footage of

the two proposed wall signs is only two hundred (200) square feet. She stated that staff

finds that the signs are appropriately sized and are reasonably located on the building.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the total surface area of the wall signage will meet the

Sign Ordinance square footage requirements. She stated that staff can support the

variation on the basis that Harlem Furniture is using two different marketing concepts

with the clearance center and the standard retail store, and that the second wall sign will

help identify the two marketing concepts and help direct customers to the appropriate

entrances.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that staff had a concern about the trash on site.

He mentioned that when a petition is received for zoning action on a property, staff

typically looks at the property as a whole relative to other outstanding code issues. He

noted that the trash is largely the result of fly dumping. He stated that he just wanted to

bring that up to the Board's attention, and they could choose how they want the issue to

be addressed.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Bedard asked whether the fly dumping issue is something that the Village Code

Enforcement Officers could issue a violation notice for. He stated he felt that the trash

issue should not be tied to the variation as a condition of approval.

Rob Lescovar, Manager of the Harlem Furniture, stated that they realize it is a problem

and they are continuing to monitor the problem. Mr. Clark stated that Harlem Furniture

did put up blockades at the cul-de-sac, which has helped to some degree.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the record should reflect staff's concerns about the

fly-dumping issue. The members stated and agreed that this concern should not be tied

to the petition as a petition of approval.

Mr. Polley asked if the sign was already up on the façade of the building. Mr. Zen stated

that they currently have a banner up. Mr. Polley asked whether the sign would be

bigger. Mr. Zen stated that the banner is approximately thirty-two (32) square feet, so

that the proposed sign will be twice the size of the banner.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the recommendation of approval should reflect the

revised sign plans.

illustrating staff's options for locating a garage in the rear and his proposal. Mr.

Felbinger noted that there is only one other house on the block that is set as far back.

He also mentioned that with the house set so far back there is limited space for placing

a garage on the property. He mentioned that there is a bay window on the rear wall of

the house that is not shown on the plat of survey. He stated the bay window would not

allow the required four-foot (4') distance between the house and the garage.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that the

subject property is fifty feet (50') wide by two hundred feet (200') deep with an existing

house set back approximately one hundred twenty feet (120') from the front property

line. She stated that a detached one-car garage previously existed in front of the front

wall of the house. She mentioned that the petitioner's wife received a building permit to

demolish the garage in June 2005, and staff notified her that the Zoning Ordinance

would not permit a garage to be rebuilt in front of the residence.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that prior to 2001, the Zoning Ordinance only prohibited

accessory structures in required front, corner side and interior side yards. In 2001, a

text amendment was approved that required accessory structures to be located behind

the front wall of the principal structure in the R-1and R-2 Single Family Residence

Districts. She noted that the rationale for the text amendment was that accessory

structures should be clearly subordinate to the principal structure and should be placed

at least behind the front wall of the principal structure.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the location of the principal structure on the lot is unique, but

in and of itself did not constitute a hardship. She stated that there are other alternatives

for constructing a two-car garage on the property that would comply with code. She

stated that a detached garage could be placed behind the house. She stated that for

practical purposes the garage would have to be placed at the northwest corner of the lot

with the garage door facing south so that vehicles could maneuver in and out of the

garage. She also stated that a two-car garage could also be built attached to the house.

She noted that the Building Code would require that the foundation be tied into the

foundation of the house.

Ms. Kulikowski reviewed the standards for variations. She stated that staff finds that

there is no demonstrated physical hardship, nor are there any unique topographical

conditions related to this property that would prevent compliance with the ordinance.

She noted that there are other options for constructing a garage that meets code. She

mentioned that the provision requiring accessory structures to be located behind the

front wall of the principal structure has been consistently applied throughout the Village.

She stated that the requested relief is needed due to a personal preference for the

location of the garage. She mentioned that while complying with the Zoning Ordinance

may be more expensive than the proposed site plan, staff does not find that financial

cost in this circumstance constitutes a hardship. Ms. Kulikowski noted that granting of

the requested relief could set an undesirable precedent. She stated that the houses in

the neighborhood are generally set closer to the front property line, and none of the

other houses have a detached garage in front of the principal structure. She mentioned

that the petitioner is also proposing to build a larger garage than the one that previously

existed in front of the house, which would further increase the visual bulk of the

accessory structure in front of the house.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Young asked what room was behind the eastern wall of the house behind the

garage. Mr. Felbinger stated that the master bedroom was behind that wall. Mr. Young

asked if there was a window on that wall. Mr. Felbinger stated there was a window

there. Chairperson DeFalco stated that the window looked new and asked if the window

was just installed. Mr. Felbinger stated that there was always a window there, but they

just recently had the window replaced. Chairperson DeFalco asked if that was the only

window in the bedroom. Mr. Felbinger stated that there was another window on the

adjacent wall facing south.

Mr. Young asked for confirmation that the foundation for an attached garage would have

to be connected to the house. William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that an attached

garage is considered a structural element of the house, and Building Code would require

that the foundations would be connected.

Mr. Young stated that by squeezing a detached garage behind the house, there would

virtually be no back yard to the property. He also commented that the visual bulk would

be no different if the garage were attached or detached in front of the house. Mr.

Bedard stated that the garage would still be set back further than most detached

garages.

Chairperson DeFalco asked whether light was able to get into the window to the

bedroom on the east wall. Mr. Felbinger said that there would be thirteen feet (13')

between the window and the garage, which would provide enough room for light to

come through.

Chairperson DeFalco asked for confirmation that his wife was informed that the Zoning

Ordinance would prevent the garage from being rebuilt if were demolished. Mr.

Felbinger stated his wife was notified about the Zoning Ordinance regulation, and was

given a Zoning Board of Appeals packet.

Chairperson DeFalco asked whether the petitioner considered an attached garage. Mr.

Felbinger stated that he did consider it, but the cost was too much because the roof

lines would need to be changed and a perimeter foundation would be required. He

asked whether he considered attaching the garage before applying for the variation. Mr.

Felbinger stated he had.

Dr. Corrado stated that a detached garage behind the house was not an option because

of the bay window.

Mrs. Newman asked if a detached garage in front of the house would have to be set

back six feet (6'). Mr. Heniff stated that detached garages only require a three-foot (3')

side yard setback. He stated that staff tried to institute a five foot (5') setback, but the

Village Board denied the amendment. Mr. Bedard stated that even if the garage were

placed in front of the house, it would still be as far back as the detached garage on the

property to the south.

Mr. Polley asked when the house was built. Mr. Felbinger stated the house was built in

1934. He stated that the house did not meet the required setback from the north

property line. He asked if they could rebuild on the existing foot print should the house

be destroyed by a fire. Mr. Heniff stated that they could not rebuild with the existing

footprint without zoning relief.