Village of Lombard Legistar System

The petitioner, Robert Gianatsio, president of the business at 702 Western Avenue

presented the petition. He discussed the history of the property. He entered into a

parking agreement with the Village to allow for additional parking for his business within

the Western Avenue right of way. As a condition of the agreement, the Village

requested that he replace his existing chin link fence with a new wrought iron fence. As

the fence will be over four feet in height, he must received approval of the variation prior

to erecting the fence.

He then discussed the proposed fence and its location on the property. The fence will

still be an open fence, so issues associated with clear line of sight will not be a problem.

The additional height is needed for security purposes.

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

favor or in opposition to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

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

former Kohler Trading Company site was redeveloped by Safeguard Storage, the

developer agreed to install on-street parking on Western Avenue at the request of the

Village. Staff met with the property owners along Western Avenue to establish

agreements specifying improvements to be made to their properties in exchange for

licenses to access the on-street parking constructed on the south side of Western

Avenue.

One improvement identified in the license agreement for the property at 702 E. Western

was the removal and replacement of an existing chain link fence in the front yard. The

existing fence is approximately six feet in height with barbed wire across the top. The

license agreement states that the fence may be replaced with a new decorative wrought

iron fence of up to eight feet in height provided that the owner applies for and is granted

a variation to exceed the four foot maximum height in the required front yard. The

petitioner intends to replace the fence with a six-foot metal fence and therefore requests

a variation at this time.

He then discussed the Zoning Ordinance provisions as it relates to fences. The

four-foot (4') height restriction of fences in front yards is intended to provide adequate

visibility for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic. This restriction is also intended to

ensure that light and air flow are not obstructed on other properties, as well as for

aesthetic purposes within neighborhoods. Staff finds that the material and placement of

the proposed fence will not inhibit light or air circulation on adjacent properties. A

portion of the fence will be located within a line of sight area as it will be adjacent to a

driveway on the subject property. Since the proposed fence will consist of open

construction, staff finds that the fence will not obstruct visibility when traveling in or out

of the site.

As the subject property is located within the I Limited Industrial District, staff finds that

the placement of a six foot fence in the front yard is acceptable given the nature of the

uses within the area and will therefore be unobtrusive to surrounding properties. The

proposed replacement fence will be an aesthetic improvement to the property as well as

to the corridor overall. Staff can support the requested variation assuming that the

fence is at least 75% open which will prevent the front yard area from appearing

enclosed.

The petitioner's proposed fence would not be inconsistent with past development activity

along Western Avenue and would be more compatible with the adjacent uses. While

the property to the south is zoned and developed for retail uses, the uses are oriented

toward St. Charles Road and the uses back-up to the Western Avenue right-of-way.

With respect to the single-family residence at 116 S. Chase, the property is oriented

toward Chase and away from the subject property. As the new fence is replacing an

existing fence already located on the property, the residential property should not be

negatively impacted.

He also passed out pictures of the subject property that clearly illustrate the existing

conditions of the site and of the neighboring properties.

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

Mr. Polley asked about the age of the existing fence and the green slats that are

currently on the fence. Mr. Gianatasio did not know the fence age as it was there prior

to him operating his business there. He noted that the new fence would be an open

fence and would not contain any screening material. He also plans to provide additional

landscaping adjacent to the fence at a later date.

Mr. Polley then asked about the residence south of the property. Mr. Gianatasio stated

that their house faces Chase Avenue and that their detached garage and driveway

faces Western Avenue. He believed the fence would be an aesthetic improvement from

what is existing on the property.

Chairperson DeFalco then inquired about the existing tree east of the property. Mr.

Gianatasio stated they propose to angle the fence so that they do not have to remove

the tree.

Mr. Heniff inquired about the type of gate they are proposing to use. Mr. Gianatasio

stated that the gate will match the fence materials. He also noted that a compatible

sliding gate would also be added along the side of the building.