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, June 23, 2004
Call to Order
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley and Ed |
Bedard |
Present:
Greg Young
Absent:
Also in attendance: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner.
Public Hearings
040266
ZBA 04-07: 702 Western Avenue |
Requests that the Village approve a variation from Section 155.205 (A) (3)(a)(c)(2) of |
the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to increase the permitted fence height in a required front |
yard from four feet (4') to six feet (6'). |
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. |
It was moved by Corrado, seconded by Polley, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to conditions. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Young
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5514 |
1. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for any proposed |
fencing on the subject property. |
2. That the fence staff be located per the petitioner's plans submitted as part of this |
request. |
3. That the fence consist of wrought iron or an equivalent material not to exceed six |
feet (6') in height when measure from grade to the top of the post. Said design subject |
to the approval of the Director of Community Development. |
4. That the fence shall be of at least 75% open construction and shall meet all |
provisions of Section 155.205(A)(3)(e) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance. |
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the May 26, 2004 meeting were approved by unanimous consent of the |
members present with the following corrections: |
1. Page 1, 3rd paragraph, should read "Absent members were" |
2. Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, should read "No one spoke in favor or in |
opposition to the petition." |
3. Page 3, 1st paragraph, last line should read "to the underlying Sign Ordinance |
provisions." |
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 by Newman and seconded by Polley the meeting was adjourned at 7:57 |
p.m. |
______________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
______________________________ |
William J. Heniff, AICP, Secretary |