Village of Lombard Legistar System

The petitioner, Tom Parkinson, was present. Mr. Parkinson stated that he has been a

resident of Lombard since 1979. He then stated that he had worked for UPS for over 30

years after which he looked to open his own business. Mr. Parkinson stated that he

founded the 5 Star Sign Company at 208 W. North Avenue because that tenant space fit

his needs. He added that he was unaware that signage would be a problem for him, but

he understands that the zoning dictates the allowable signage. Mr. Parkinson stated that

he needs the wall sign to have presence on North Avenue so that he may grow his

business. Lastly, Mr. Parkinson stated that he paid all the appropriate fees and did all

the required paperwork for his petition and stated that he is asking for nothing out of the

ordinary.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if anyone was present to speak for or against the petition.

There was nobody present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. Michael Toth, Planner I, read the

staff report. Michael Toth stated that 5 Star Sign Company has recently leased one of

seven tenant spaces situated within the commercial building at 200 W. North Avenue

located within the I Limited Industrial District. The subject property has access by

means of ingress/egress to North Avenue from the south and Ridge Avenue from the

east. As the subject property has two (2) street front exposures, the total number of wall

signs would be capped at two (2).

The petitioner wishes to erect one forty (40) square foot wall sign on the façade of the

subject tenant space. Because there are already three existing wall signs located on the

subject commercial building, the petitioner is required to obtain a variation to allow for

one additional wall sign. As part of this petition, the number of allowable wall signs for

the subject property (as a whole) will be examined so that each tenant will have rights to

at least one wall sign depending on whether they are an interior or exterior tenant.

Michael Toth stated that the subject property is unique in that it is a multi-tenant

semi-commercial building located directly on North Avenue in the I Limited Industrial

District. One of the identified reasons signage is more restrictive in the I Limited

Industrial District is because the roadways in that District tend to move at a slower rate.

As the subject property has frontage on North Avenue and Ridge Avenue, the property

fronts two different speed zones. As a State right of way, North Avenue has a speed

limit of 45 miles per hour, while Ridge Avenue has a speed limit of only 25 miles per

hour. As there are currently no freestanding signs being utilized for any of the seven

tenants or the property collectively, there would be no visual representation for the

petitioner's business along North Avenue or Ridge Avenue.

Michael Toth then stated that the zoning issues create a unique circumstance for the

subject property. Staff finds that applying portions of Section 153.505(B)(19)(b) of the

Sign Ordinance (B4 wall sign standards) to the entire property would be more suitable.

No zoning reclassification or text amendments will occur for the subject property.

Rather, each tenant space will be afforded similar rights to that of the B4 zoning district,

as it pertains to properties with multi tenants. Essentially each tenant would be afforded

one wall sign with exterior tenants being allowed to have two wall signs.

Chairperson DeFalco made reference to the other wall signs that were currently located

on the subject building and had asked how they were permitted to be placed on the wall.

Michael Toth responded that all of the signs on the building had sign permits; however,

there was no relief associated with any of the signs.

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 submitted by 5 Star Signs and made a part of this petition.

3. The permitted wall signage requirements for tenants located on the subject property

are as follows:

a. Each tenant shall have the rights to only one wall sign. Exterior Tenants shall be

permitted to have up to two (2) wall signs, with no more than one (1) sign per wall. Each

sign shall face either a parking lot which serves the tenant or a street on which the

tenant's parcel has frontage.

b. The total surface area of a wall sign shall not exceed one times the lineal front

footage of the tenant space, excepting that each tenant shall be entitled to a minimum of

twenty-five (25) square feet of sign surface area. The total sign surface area of a wall

sign shall not exceed one-hundred (100) square feet.

The petitioner, Cher Angeles, presented the petition. Ms. Angeles began by stating that

her parents were long time residents of Illinois but moved to Florida when they became

older. Illnesses forced her parents to move back so that they could be cared for by

family. One of their daughters lives nearby at 230 N. Craig Place. So, they purchased

the home at 217 N. Craig Place to be close by. Other family members are within a short

drive. Ms. Angeles stated that her parents miss Florida. She wants to be able to give

them a sunroom to enjoy the sunshine during part of the year. She also would like to

give them a little more living space. Ms. Angeles stated that her intent is to make her

parents' older years a little more enjoyable.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if anyone was present to speak for or against the petition.

There was nobody present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. Stuart Moynihan, Associate

Planner, read the staff report. Mr. Moynihan stated that the property contains a

one-story single family residence built approximately 7.9 feet from the northern side

property line. The petitioner plans to erect a sunroom on the footprint of an existing

wood deck attached to the rear of the home. The addition will utilize the posts of the

existing deck. As there is no attached garage, the Lombard Zoning Ordinance requires

that one interior side yard setback be a minimum of 9 feet. Therefore, the house is legal

non-conforming and will require a variation for the proposed construction. The sunroom

will maintain the current side yard setback of 7.9 feet.

According to Section 155.212, decks that are not over three feet above the average

level of the ground and that maintain a minimum two (2) foot side yard are permitted

encroachments to the required interior side yard. Therefore, the petitioner's deck is

permitted in its current condition. Granting this variation would address the existing

nonconformities on the property as well as the new sunroom.

Setbacks are required to control bulk on property. Without such requirements structures

could be built without adequate space for health and safety. Setbacks also preserve the

suburban character of the area. For these reasons staff usually does not support

setback variations unless a hardship can be shown that pertains to the physical

attributes of the property.

There are several ZBA cases that provide precedence for the requested variation where

the addition holds the setback of the existing residence and does not further encroach

into the requisite yard. Examples of these variations include:

1) The property at 576 Green Valley Drive received approval of a variation to reduce the

required interior side yard setback from six feet (6') to two feet (2') for the conversion of

a carport into a garage and for a residential addition (ZBA 03-10).

2) The property at 828 S. Fairfield received approval of a variation to reduce the

required interior side yard setback from six feet (6') to two and a half feet (2.5') for a

residential addition (ZBA 05-14).

3) The property at 219 W. Hickory received approval of a variation to reduce the

required interior side yard setback from six feet (6') to two and a half feet (2.5') for an

attached garage (ZBA 06-14).

4) The property at 259 N. Garfield received approval of a variation to reduce the

required interior side yard setback from nine feet (9') to 7.88 feet for a second story

addition holding the previously developed exterior wall of the residence (ZBA 07-12).

The proposed addition would maintain the existing building line and would not increase

the degree of encroachment into the existing non-conforming setback. There are no

similar cases in the immediately surrounding neighborhood to provide additional

precedent for this case.

Staff finds that this petition meets the Standards for Variations. The proposed location

for the sunroom is the only option at the rear of the house due to the location of

windows, meters, and the only rear access door. The deck will be constructed upon a

legal non-conforming structure, maintaining the building line, and would therefore not

increase the setback non-conformity. The proposed addition would neither be out of

character in the neighborhood nor detrimental to the public welfare or other the

neighborhood properties.

Mr. Moynihan stated that the Inter-Departmental Review Committee recommends that

the Zoning Board of Appeals make a motion recommending approval of the side yard

setback variation subject to the two conditions in the staff report.

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

Mr. Tap suggested an additional condition should be added to the motion for approval.

This condition was that the petitioner will apply for and receive a building permit.

Chairperson DeFalco suggested that another condition should be added. This condition