Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Greg Young, Val Corrado, |
and Ed Bedard |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg |
Young and Ed Bedard |
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner, and |
Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner. |
Q. ZBA 05-15: 1000-1046 N. Rohlwing Road (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests a variation to Section 153.507 (B) (11) (b) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to |
allow a second wall sign where only one wall sign is permitted in the B3 Community |
Shopping District. (DISTRICT #1) |
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. |
It was moved by Polley, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be Recommended |
for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to the amended condition(s). |
The motion carried by the following vote: |
1. The petition shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed signage. |
2. The signage to be installed shall be essentially in accordance with the sign plan |
package prepared by Olympic Signs, dated September 28, 2005 and made a part of this |
petition. |
D. ZBA 05-16: 332 S. Edson Street (Tabled from October 20, 2005) (Waiver of |
First Requested) |
Requests a variation to Section 155.210 (A) (2) (b) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
allow an accessory structure in front of the front wall of the principal building in the R2 |
Single-Family Residence District. Staff is requesting a waiver of first reading. |
(DISTRICT #1) |
Jim Felbinger, owner of the property, presented the petition. He distributed a drawing |
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. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Corrado, that this matter be |
Recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to one condition. |
The motion carried by the following vote: |
1. The variation shall be limited to the existing residence and proposed detached |
garage. Should the existing residence be reconstructed due to damage or destruction |
by any means, the residence and the detached garage shall meet the full provisions of |
the Zoning Ordinance. |
On a motion by Newman and seconded by Polley the August 24, 2005 minutes were |
unanimously approved with the following changes: |
1. Page 2, 7th paragraph, last sentence, 4th word, strike the word "the". The sentence |
should read: "He stated that most new homes are maximizing the lot......" |
2. Page 3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, add the word "substantially". The sentence |
should read: "He stated that the degree of the nonconformity would not be substantially |
greater if the .........." |
William Heniff requested that the ZBA members bring their calendars to the next |
meeting so that the November and December meeting dates could be confirmed. |
On a motion by Polley seconded by Newman the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. |
_____________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
_____________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |