Village of Lombard Legistar System

Scott Hall, property owner and petitioner presented the petition. He opened his

presentation by noting that the constructed fence height is approximately five feet, two

inches. He then inquired about the references in the staff report from Building and

Private Engineering that stated that they had no comments on the petition.

He then discussed the history of the fence, noting that it was constructed earlier in 2003.

While the intention was to meet the four-foot height requirement, he proceeded to add

lattice to the fence as an aesthetic improvement.

He then discussed the standards for variations. He noted that as the fence is of vinyl

construction, it cannot be consistently level to grade. The property does slope away

from the house to the street.

He stated that they constructed the fence in order to provide greater privacy to their

property. They want a secure area for their children. He also referenced traffic

concerns along Maple Street. He also noted that while the relief requested is for his

front yard, it actually functions as a side yard.

Regarding the increase in fence height, he noted that the additional height was for a

lattice treatment on top of the fence. The lattice does allow for light and air and makes

for a more attractive fence overall. Without the lattice, the fence has no character.

He noted that the neighbors are okay with the fence as constructed. He did ask them

about their proposed fence before he did the improvements and they were fine with the

proposed improvements. He also noted a solid fence within the corner yard at the other

end of the block on Maple Avenue.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment.

Speaking in favor of the request was Mike Bowers, 821 E. Maple. He noted that his

property abuts the petitioner's property and he is okay with the fence as proposed.

Richard Fortier, 901 E. Maple, stated that the fence is an improvement to the

neighborhood and the lattice makes it look better.

No one spoke against the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Heniff stated that the

petitioner applied for and received a fence permit for the placement of a four-foot solid

vinyl fence in the required front yard. Code Enforcement staff received a complaint

regarding the height of the fence and upon investigation determined that the fence

exceeded the maximum height restriction. The fence is four feet in height and an

additional twelve inches of lattice was added to the fence.

Responding to the petitioner's question, he noted that the inter-departmental comments

that stated that there were no comments or concerns relates to the fact that the

requested relief does not relate to their area of expertise. For example, an increase in

fence height would not increase the amount of flooding on a particular property.

Therefore, they would not have comments on this issue. Also for clarification, staff

advertised the fence request for five and one-half feet so that if there was a slight

deviation in overall height beyond the petitioner's stated fence height, an amended

public hearing would not be required.

He then discussed the staff recommendation of denial. The four-foot height restriction is

intended to ensure that proper visibility is maintained as well as preserving the overall

visual aesthetics of the neighborhood. While the placement of the petitioner's fence

may not serve as an impediment to traffic, the fence abuts the front yard of the

neighboring property. Staff typically does not support relief for fences greater than four

feet in height in corner side or front yards where the proposed fence would be adjacent

to a neighboring front yard.

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. The petitioner's lot is comparable to other corner lots in the single-family

residential district. Staff finds that there are not any unique differences between the

petitioner's lot and others with the same classification. Staff finds that the hardship has

not been created by the ordinance, but rather the petitioner's decision to not build

according to the permit issued. While there is another property on the petitioner's block

with a six-foot fence in the corner side yard, a fence permit is not on file for the property.

Given the condition of the fence, staff believes that the fence was erected prior to the

enactment of permits for fences. Staff finds that a fence greater than four feet in height

within the corner side or front yard detracts from the character of the block.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the

Board Members.

Mr. Bedard asked about where the Code Enforcement complaint came from. Staff said

it was an anonymous complaint received by staff.

Chairperson DeFalco asked about the contractor who installed the fence. Mr. Hall said

he was the one who put up the fence. He also noted that fence posts only come in

selected sizes (48", 62" and 70") and meeting code would be difficult. He could build a

fence that meets code, but it would not look right. The additional height gives them

much more relief from traffic on Maple.

Mr. Polley asked if they looked at an alternative type of fencing, such as a chain-link

fence? Mr. Hall stated that the solid fence addresses their sound concerns.

Ray Bartels, 812 E. Maple, stated that he owns property on the same block as the

petitioner and he does not object to the fence request as it is aesthetically pleasing and

is a great addition to his property.

Mr. Bedard stated that he has had experience with sight obstruction issues when he

was on the Traffic and Safety Committee. He expressed a concern that the fence forces

a driver to "nose" their car further out into the intersection to get a clear view of traffic on

Maple. The petitioner rebutted to state that this was not a problem and that the fence

does meet all line of sight requirements as defined in the Zoning Ordinance.

Mary Hinkle, 830 E. Maple, stated that she thought the fence is beautiful and the site

lines are okay. There is no difference between a four and a five-foot fence, they do not

have much of a yard and the fence insulates the property from the street.

Mr. Bedard reiterated his concern regarding the sight impacts of the fence on traffic and

on the block.

H. ZBA 03-29: 1065 S. Norbury Avenue

Requests a variation to Section 155.205(A)(1)(c)(1) and (2) of the Lombard Zoning

Ordinance to increase the maximum allowable fence height in a front yard from four feet

(4') to five and a half feet (5.5') and from six feet (6') to six and a half feet (6.5') in an

interior side yard in the R2 Single-Family Residence District. The Zoning Board of

Appeals recommended denial. (DISTRICT #6)

The Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing on December 17, 2003.

Sarunas Petrus property owner at 1065 S. Norbury Avenue presented the petition. He

stated that he erected a new fence on his property this year. He noted that he had

conversations with the Code Enforcement staff regarding the fence posts. He noted that

the fence itself is only for a few inches - most of the relief is to address the

embellishments on the fence posts itself.

He then submitted a letter to the file that the neighbors do not object to the requested

relief. He then noted that the individual that submitted a letter to the Village signed his

petition and supports the fence as constructed.

He also noted that standard fence posts provided for vinyl fencing come in 4', 5' and 6'

lengths and it is not possible to modify the length of the posts or replace the caps.

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

against the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Heniff stated that the

petitioner originally requested a fence permit to place a six foot fence in both the front

and interior side yard. Staff informed the petitioner that the maximum allowable fence

height in a front or corner side yard is four feet. The petitioner obtained a permit for a

four-foot fence in the front yard and six feet in the interior side yard. The petitioner then

placed a six-foot fence in both the front and interior side yards.

Staff received a complaint regarding the fence height and advised the petitioner to either

apply for a variation or correct the fence height. The petitioner opted to correct the fence

height. Inspection of the corrected fence indicated that the fence panels in the front yard

were reduced to four feet, however the top cover and posts on both the front and interior

side yard fences cause the fence to exceed the maximum height restrictions. The

Zoning Ordinance states that fence height is measured from grade to the highest point

of any component of the fence construction including posts or decorative elements.

Therefore, the petitioner's fence does not meet code as the posts and decorative

elements exceed the maximum height allowed.

Staff informed the petitioner of options for exceeding the maximum height prior to the

issuance of the fence permit. The petitioner understood and agreed to the heights

identified in the permit. Therefore staff finds that the petitioner caused the hardship

associated with this request. Staff also believes that recommending approval of the

requested variation would be inconsistent with previous recommendations on exceeding

maximum fence height. 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. Staff advised the petitioner that he could obtain a fill and

grade permit to level the uneven portions of the lot. The petitioner's lot is comparable to

other corner lots in the single-family residential district.

Staff finds that there are not any unique differences between the petitioner's lot and

others with the same zoning classification. Staff finds that the hardship has not been

created by the ordinance. The petitioner was issued a permit for a fence that met Code.

The hardship occurred due to the petitioner's decision to disregard the restrictions

identified by staff prior to construction of the fence as well as the heights identified on

the building permit. The petitioner states that the top cover and post caps are an added

safety feature for the public and his family. While the petitioner's fence height may be

close to the code requirements, staff informed the petitioner prior that any increase in

height above code can only be approved by the Village Board through the public hearing

process. Therefore, staff cannot support the requested relief.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the

Board Members.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the top of the fence could be modified to allow for a flat

cap rather than the type of cap installed by the petitioner. Mr. Petrus stated that the

fence posts could not be modified with alternate caps.

Mrs. Newman clarified that the embellishment on the post was actually part of the post

itself versus being a cap on top of a vinyl post.

Chairperson DeFalco asked for staff to discuss how fence heights are measured. Mr.

Heniff noted that fences are measured from grade to the highest portion of the fence.

This includes any embellishments on the fence posts.

The members then asked questions regarding the actual height of the proposed fence in

the front yard and in the interior side yard. Staff noted that the requested relief was

based upon data measured by Code Enforcement staff in their review of the property.

Staff rounded the numbers up as to ensure that the legal notice sufficiently addresses

the fence as it was constructed.

George Evangelopoulos of GEA Architects, presented the petition. He opened his

presentation by noting that he reviewed the staff report and he met with staff to

incorporate their recommendations into the design of the building. He then submitted

new drawings of the proposed development based upon staff's recommendations.

He then described the project. The proposed retail center will be about 7,000 square

feet in size and will provide for up to six separate tenant spaces. He then stated that

other than the transitional yard encroachment, the proposed development would meet

all other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

He stated that the transitional yard request is for a reduction to the yards adjacent to

areas where the property abuts a detention facility. He noted that the proposed

development would meet all setback requirements for the area which abuts the

single-family residential lot. The requested relief on the south side of the property is to

accommodate truck loading and requisite Fire Department access to the building. The

relief for the east transitional yard is to provide for an additional parking space and an

access driveway to North Avenue.

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

against the petition.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He restated the request and

described the project. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends Community

Commercial uses on the subject property and the proposed retail uses proposed for the

building would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation.

He stated that the site is currently vacant. Immediately east and south of the subject

property are retention ponds that were constructed as part of the Providence Glen

residential development. To the west is an existing Phillips 66 gas station/convenience

mart that was constructed in 2000. A cross-access easement exists between the two

properties that allows for internal circulation. There is a single-family residence abutting

the southeast side of the subject property. Staff believes that the proposed use would

be compatible with the existing land uses surrounding the site. However, to ensure that

the overall impacts of the new development are satisfactorily addressed, staff offers

additional comments and recommendations, which he described in detail.

He noted two areas in which the transitional landscape yard encroachments occur are

adjacent to areas that are currently improved with a detention pond. The variation for

the rear transitional yard is intended to facilitate the loading activities as well as

providing for requisite Fire Department access around the building. The relief for the

side yard is requested in order to provide for sufficient parking and to allow for the

relocation of the proposed access driveway into the site.

Mr. Heniff then described the proposed signage. The petitioner is proposing adding

channel lettered wall signs for each of the proposed spaces. The petitioner is not

requesting any relief associated with this petition - he will be required to meet the

underlying Sign Ordinance provisions for the B3 District. He then referenced the

conditions recommended by staff to ensure that the proposed signage and awnings

present a favorable appearance to neighboring properties.

Referencing the proposed landscaping, the landscape plan indicates that the landscape

plant material requirements will be provided per code, consisting of shade trees every

25 feet and two rows of shrub masses. With respect to fencing, the Village Board

previously granted relief for the erection of a six-foot solid fence along the property as

part of the Providence Glen development. This fence has been installed and provides

an additional screening and noise-buffering element between the subdivision and the

subject property.

He then noted the petitioner's plan proposes the construction of a parking lot on the

north side of the building and construction of a service/loading area to the rear. Rear

access will be provided via an access drive from the property to the west. The petitioner

(who is also the owner of the property immediately west of the subject property) is

proposing to widen the drive aisle around the gas station and is proposing to sign and

stripe the car wash drive through lane in a manner that minimizes vehicle conflicts on

the property. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval.

The North Avenue driveway will be constructed as a right-in, right-out facility. Staff has

reviewed the proposed IDOT construction plans for North Avenue and finds that the

pavement surface will be located 30 feet closer to the property line. This modification

should not impact the overall site development. However, staff will still require IDOT

review and approval of any improvement within their right-of-way.

The petitioner is providing 26 spaces on the north side of the property for employees

and customers, which would meet the Village's parking requirement when the storage

and mechanical area exemptions are factored in. The petitioner anticipates about 500

square feet (or about 2½ percent of the overall gross area) will be for this activity. He

also referenced additional staff conditions to minimize parking conflicts and impacts on

adjacent properties.

This development would be considered a major development as expressed in the

Subdivision and Development Ordinance. Therefore, the petitioner will be required to

install public improvements per code. The petitioner has already provided cross access

easements to the property to the west. As North Avenue is currently under the

jurisdiction of IDOT, any required improvements will need to be approved by the Village

and IDOT. Staff will also require that as a condition of approval that the petitioner

provides a plat of resubdivision for the property making the property a lot of record.

To ensure that these impacts are removed or minimized, staff has met with the petitioner

and the petitioner is agreeing to modifications to the site plan and layout accordingly.

Staff wants to ensure that the development is compatible with the adjacent

neighborhood and presents a positive appearance for the adjacent residences as well

as the overall corridor and referenced additional conditions of approval in the staff

report.

Overall, staff recommends approval of the petitions, subject to the conditions in the staff

report.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members.

Mr. Polley asked about the proposed sound wall IDOT is constructing along North

Avenue. Mr. Heniff noted that a sound wall will not be installed in front of the subject

property.

Mr. Polley then asked about the types of stores that may located in the center. The

petitioner stated that they plan to lease the property to uses that are permitted within the

B3 District. Generally speaking, they will look to fill the site with convenience

commercial uses.

Mr. Young then asked about the requested relief to the transitional yard. Mr. Heniff

noted that the relief would only be for the paved surfaces noted in gray on the site plan.

The proposed building meets all setback requirements.

Mr. Young then referenced the conditions associated with the recommendation for

approval. Mr. Heniff felt that the conditions locked the petitioner into constructing the

site as depicted on the site plan. He then noted that should a recommendation for

approval be made, the date associated with condition number 1 should be changed to

December 16, 2003 to reflect the latest plans that were submitted to the file.

1. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the site plans prepared

by GEA Architects, Ltd., updated December 16, 2003 and submitted as part of this

request.

2. That the petitioner's building improvements shall be designed and constructed

consistent with Village Code and shall also address the comments included within the

IDRC report.

3. That as part of the public improvements, the petitioner shall provide full public

improvements as required by Sections 154.304 and 154.306 of the Lombard Subdivision

and Development Ordinance. The final design and location of all public improvements

shall be reviewed and approved by the Village and/or the Illinois Department of

Transportation.

4. That any trash enclosure screening as required by Section 155.710 of the Zoning

Ordinance shall be constructed of a material consistent with the principal building.

5. To ensure that the proposed signage and awnings present a favorable appearance

to neighboring properties, the property shall be developed and operated as follows:

a. That channel lettering shall only be used for the wall signs.

b. That consistent with the Sign Ordinance, the awnings shall not include text in

conjunction with the wall signage.

c. That the awnings shall be of a uniform design and color around the building.

6. That the petitioner shall effectuate improvements on the abutting gas station

property, as shown on the petitioner's submitted plans. These improvements shall

include widening the drive aisle around the gas station building and sign and stripe the

car wash drive through lane in a manner that minimizes vehicle conflicts on the property.

Said design shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Community

Development.

7. To minimize parking conflicts on the property and to minimize impacts on adjacent

properties, the developer/owner of the property shall operate the property, as follows:

a. Overnight parking shall be prohibited south of the proposed building.

b. No more than fifty (50%) of the proposed building square footage shall be

allowed to be occupied by restaurant uses.

c. That the handicapped parking spaces shall be located in a manner consistent

with the Illinois Accessibility Code.

8. That the petitioner shall provide a plat of subdivision for the subject property making

the property a lot of record.

9. That the following elevational changes shall be made to the property, as follows:

a. The petitioner shall modify the proposed east, south and west elevations to

break up the proposed brick mass. The modified elevations may include a combination

of inset brick, window or spandrel glass insets and/or use of an additional brick color.

The final design of the wall elevations shall be subject to the Director of Community

Development.

b. That the proposed woodscreen on the south elevation be replaced with an

extended parapet wall similar to the other three building elevations.

c. That additional awnings shall be placed on the access doors, consistent with the

other three proposed elevations.