Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall Board Room
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Call to Order and Roll Call
Chairperson DeFalco called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Swearing in of new Zoning Board of Appeals Member - Ed Bedard
William Heniff, Senior Planner, administered the oath commissioning Edward Bedard as |
the new ZBA member. |
A roll call vote indicated the following members in attendance.
Chairperson John DeFalco, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed |
Bedard |
Present:
Val Corrado
Absent:
Also in attendance: William Heniff, Senior Planner.
Public Hearings
030787
*F. ZBA 03-28: 825 E. Maple (Tabled 1/15/04) |
Requests a variation to Section 155.205(A)(1)(c)(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') in the R2 Single-Family Residence District. The Zoning Board of |
Appeals recommended denial. (DISTRICT #5) |
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. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Newman, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
030806
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. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Polley, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
030786
K. ZBA 03-27: 25 E. North Avenue (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Ordinance requesting a variation to Section 155.414 (K) of the Lombard Zoning |
Ordinance to reduce the requisite transitional landscape yard from thirty feet (30') to |
fifteen feet (15') in the B3 Community Shopping District. (DISTRICT #4) |
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 |
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. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Polley, to recommended to the Corporate |
Authorities for approval with conditions this file. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5423 |
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. |
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the December 17, 2003 meeting were unanimously approved by a voice |
vote of the members present. |
Planner's Report
Staff did not have anything new to report.
New Business
There was no new business.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business
Adjournment
On a motion made by Mrs. Newman and seconded by Mr. Bedard, the meeting was |
adjourned at 9:18 p.m. |