Village of Lombard Legistar System

Mike Mallon, owner of the property, presented the petition. He stated that the only

usable area of his yard was to the east of the house. He mentioned that in April he

started getting bids from fence contractors and after coming into the Village to inquire

about fence regulations, he realized that he couldn't construct the fence as planned. He

noted that he spoke with David Hulseberg (Director of Community Development) and

Trustee Sebby regarding a fence variation. He said they would support a variation for

fence height, but he will still have make an application and go through the variance

process. Mr. Mallon stated that Mr. Hulseberg pointed out that an open fence was

needed along the driveway and street.

Mr. Mallon mentioned that the fence contractor contacted him because he had an

opening in his schedule. Mr. Mallon stated that he did not anticipate a problem with

installing the fence right away since he had been assured that the variance would be

approved. He noted that the fence along the driveway is open, but does not meet the

75% open requirement. He stated that chain link and wrought iron which are 75% open

would not be appropriate and would not fit in. He noted that his fence is not too different

from other fences in town. He stated that he doesn't see the Village's position on why

75% open is necessary in the clear line of sight area.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

present to speak for or against the petition.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She summarized the staff

report dated July 26, 2006 addressing the requested variation to allow a six foot (6')

fence in the corner side yard for the property at the northeast corner of Berkshire

Avenue and Garfield Street. The petitioner is proposing to install a fence enclosing the

portion of his lot east of the residence. Most of the fencing would be four feet (4') in

height, but along the rear property line, a solid six foot (6') fence would extend from the

northeast corner of the lot to a point eleven feet from the corner side property line. The

remaining eleven feet (11') along the rear property line would have a four foot (4') fence

and the transition from a four foot (4') fence to a six foot (6') fence would be aligned with

the building line of the residence on the adjacent property.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the residence on the subject property is setback twenty three

feet (23') from the corner side property line and complies with the corner side yard

setback, but the adjacent property to the east is only setback eleven feet (11') from the

corner side property line, similar to many of the corner lots along Berkshire Avenue.

Staff can support the variation because the subject property is not a reverse corner lot,

and therefore, the solid six foot fence would not be adjacent to any portion of the front

yard of the adjacent property to the east. There is a precedent for granting variations to

allow a six foot (6') fences in corner side yards when they are aligned with the building

line of a residence (ZBA 05-06). The six foot (6') fence will not alter the essential

character of the neighborhood as it will be aligned with the building line of the majority of

the residences along Berkshire Avenue, consistent with the intent of the fence height

regulations for corner lots. She pointed out that the original staff report did mention that

the portion of the four foot (4') fence within the clear line of sight of the driveway must be

of open construction, and the Zoning Ordinance defines an open construction fence as a

fence which has over its entirety at least 75% of its surface area in open space which

affords a direct view through the fence

Ms. Kulikowski summarized Addendum One to the staff report noting that the Zoning

Board of Appeals had continued the petition at the June 28, 2006 meeting in order to

allow the petition to be re-advertised with an additional variation request. She noted that

prior to the June 28th meeting, the petitioner installed the fence, and the portion of the

fence within the clear line of sight area did not meet the open construction requirement.

She stated that Section 155.205(A)(1)(e)(1) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance states

that fences over two feet (2') in height can be located within a clear line of sight area if

they are of open construction. She referenced the definitions of “open construction

fence” and “solid construction fence”. She noted that the petitioner's fence in the clear

line of sight area for the driveway consists of four inch (4”) pickets with a two inch (2”)

opening and by definition, the fence is considered a solid fence, as it only maintains

approximately 33% of the surface area as open space.

Ms. Kulikowski presented background information regarding fence regulations in the

Village of Lombard. She stated that previous fence regulations prohibited fences within

clear line of sight areas, but a 1999 text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowed

fences within clear line of sight areas provided that any fence over two feet (2') in height

was of open construction. She mentioned that the text amendment included definitions

for open construction and solid fences distinguishing that a fence had to be at least 75%

open to be deemed an open construction fence. She also mentioned that the text

amendment also reduced the clear line of sight triangle at the intersection of a private

driveway with a public street from thirty feet (30') to twenty feet (20'). She stated that a

later text amendment in 2000 established the requirement for fence permits, and as a

result of the new permit requirement, staff conducted a field study of all of the fences in

Lombard creating an inventory of all of the fences that did not comply with current

regulations. Ms. Kulikowski commented on the photographs of non-conforming fences

submitted by the petitioner.

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

Mr. Young asked whether the petitioner received a fence permit. Ms. Kulikowski noted

that a permit was not issued.

Mr. Young asked staff to refresh his memory with regard to the fence variation granted

last year for the property at 734 S. Elizabeth. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the property

owner had received a fence permit, but did not install the fence to meet the 75% open

requirement for the portion within the clear line of sight. She stated that the Village

Board of Trustees approved the variation with a condition that the fence be modified so

as to leave a seven foot (7') clear line of sight triangle.

Chairperson DeFalco asked whether he had a professional company install the fence

and whether that company does work in Lombard.

Mr. Mallon stated that he hired Brothers Fence out of Villa Park to install the fence.

Mr. Polley noted that they probably do a lot of work in Lombard and should be familiar

with our regulations. He also stated that a child on the sidewalk would not be able to

see a car backing out of the driveway because of the fence.

Mr. Mallon mentioned that the definition for solid fence stated that a chain link fence with

slats was not a solid fence and he felt it was contradictory. He also asked about shrubs

and hedges on corners in the clear line of sight area.

Ms. Kulikowski responded to the petitioner's comments. She noted that the Zoning

Ordinance has provisions requiring solid fence enclosures for garbage dumpsters. She

stated that the definition for solid fence was worded as such to prevent chain link fences

with slats from be used for trash enclosures. She also noted that along property lines

and in the clear line of sight area, hedges or any landscaping intended to create a visual

screen are subject to the same height restrictions as fences.

Mr. Young asked if violations would be issued for the fences in the photographs

submitted by the petitioner.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that those properties that did not receive a permit and were not on

the 2000 non-conforming fence inventory could be subject to Code Enforcement Action.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that when the Village started requiring fence permits,

notification letters were sent to local fence companies. He asked if staff had sent a letter

notifying Brothers Fence Company of Lombard's fence regulations.

Frank Trombino, owner of the property, presented the petition. He stated that he

purchased the property in 1988 and did a major interior renovation project that took two

years to complete. He noted that in 2000 he built a 3.5 car detached garage on the

property. He mentioned that he now plans on refinishing the exterior to complete the

restoration. He noted that at some point, an enclosed porch front porch was built which

did not fit with the character of the house as it was built in 1893. Mr. Trombino

submitted current photographs of the house and photographs taken during the 1930's

that he received from the previous property owner.

Mr. Trombino noted that he applied for a building permit and started demolition of the

enclosed porch. He discovered during the demolition that the porch foundation was not

in good condition, and he wasn't aware that the grandfathered rights would be lost if the

porch was rebuilt. He also realized that he would have to deviate from the original plan

and move the turret over thirty-three inches (33") so the roof line would not intersect with

the bedroom windows. Mr. Trombino displayed a full scale drawing/template of the

porch showing the location of the footings. He noted that he would use two of the

existing piers, which is why he had to extend the porch to eight feet (8') instead of seven

feet (7'). He mentioned that only 19 square feet of the porch would extend beyond the

original porch. He stated that the house is already non-conforming with a setback of

seventeen and ninety-three hundredths feet (17.93'). He noted that only 145 square

feet of the porch would be in the corner side yard whereas the old porch included 168

square feet in the corner side yard. He also mentioned that the old porch was enclosed

whereas the new porch would be open.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment.

Denise Rubimstein, who resides at 211 S. Craig Place, stated that the petitioner's house

is a really neat house and she thinks that the porch will look nice.

Jim Krawczykowski, who resides at 177 S. Craig Place, stated that the porch will

enhance the house and he believes that the house would be considered a cornerstone

in the neighborhood.

John DeLaurie, who resides at 205 S. Stewart Avenue, stated that their neighborhood is

dangerous. He mentioned that there have been five accidents on Maple Avenue, one

where the car ran into a house. He noted that too many people speed on Maple

Avenue. He stated that the petitioner is a professional and is very protective of the

neighborhood.

Chairperson DeFalco noted Mr. DeLaurie's safety concerns and asked whether he felt

that the porch would make the situation worse. Mr. DeLaurie stated that the porch

would not.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the subject

property is located at the northeast corner of Maple Street and Craig Place and is legal

non-conforming with respect to the corner side yard setback as the existing residence is

setback 17.93' and the attached porch was only setback 10.10'. She noted that the

petitioner received a building permit for a porch repair and addition on a

legal-nonconforming porch. She stated that the petitioner removed the porch, and doing

so lost all non-conforming rights associated with the porch. She mentioned that the

petitioner is requesting a variation to reestablish the nonconforming rights to construct a

new porch.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that at the June 28th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the

Zoning Board of Appeals continued the public hearing for ZBA 06-17 in order to allow

the petition to be re-advertised. She explained that the advertised request was to

reduce the corner side yard to nine feet (9') and was based off of plans that were

submitted for permit. She mentioned that the petitioner submitted the Zoning Board of

Appeals application after staff had submitted the public hearing notice for publication

and the application included revised plans with different dimensions for the porch and an

eight and one half foot (8.5') setback. She noted that upon further review of the revised

plans, staff found that some of the setback measurements were inaccurate. Staff

determined that the proposed porch would actually be setback seven feet (7') from the

corner side property line, and because the amount of relief needed was greater than

what was originally advertised, the petition had to be re-advertised as a request to

reduce the corner side yard to seven feet (7').

Ms. Kulkowski provided background regarding the petition. She noted that the petitioner

applied for a building permit for a porch on May 26, 2006, and when reviewing the

permit, staff contacted the petitioner regarding setbacks and the need for a Plat of

Resubdivision due to the size of the porch. She stated that the petitioner indicated that

there currently was a porch at the front and rear of the house, and that he would be

connecting the two with a porch addition wrapping around the bay window. She

mentioned that staff reviewed the construction drawings and found notes indicating an

existing deck and roof elements to be replaced, and staff issued the permit as a porch

repair and addition. She mentioned that after work was started, the petitioner stopped in

to ask about the corner side yard setback, noting that the deck handout stated the

corner side yard setback was twenty feet (20'). She stated that when discussing the

matter with the petitioner, staff learned that the existing porch had been removed and

the entire porch would be new construction. Staff notified the petitioner that the legal

non-conforming rights were lost when the porch was removed, and a variation would be

needed in order to construct the new porch.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the original plans submitted for permit showed the porch

extending seven feet (7') from the south wall of the residence with a turret element at the

southwest corner projecting an additional twelve inches (12") from the porch. She

mentioned that the plans submitted with the application for a variance were revised

showing the porch extending eight feet (8') from the south wall of the residence with the

turret at the southwest corner projecting an additional thirty-three inches (33") from the

porch. She pointed out that the setbacks indicated on the revised plans are incorrect

because the petitioner measured the setbacks from the sidewalk rather than from the

property line. She noted that the correct setback measurements are circled on the

proposed site plan in the addendum to the staff report.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff has typically supported setback variances in

circumstances where the proposed improvements will maintain the existing building line

or where the lot width is less than the minimum required sixty feet (60'). She noted that

a portion of the proposed porch would maintain a ten foot (10') setback, the same as the

previous porch, but the turret located at the southwest corner of the porch that would be

set back only seven feet (7') from the corner side property line, thus increasing the

degree of non-conformity. She mentioned that in the staff report prepared for the July

26th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, staff recommended approval of a variance to

reduce the corner side yard setback to nine feet (9'). She stated that staff did not object

to the minor increase in the degree of non-conformity because the turret projection was

intended to add an architectural feature to the porch rather than gain additional space.

She noted that staff does not support a variation for the revised plans for the porch with

a seven foot (7') setback from the corner side property line. She stated that staff finds

that the additional encroachment will have a more significant impact.

Ms. Kulikowski pointed out that in a review of past corner side yard variance petitions

since 2000, staff found only one case were a variation was granted to reduce the corner

side yard setback to less than seven feet (7'). She noted that in this case (ZBA 06-01),

the variation was granted to reduce the setback to six feet (6') to allow for the

construction of a roof over an existing four foot (4') by six foot (6') entry stoop on a legal

non-conforming structure. She mentioned that of the nineteen corner side yard variation

petitions since 2000, seventeen petitions were requesting relief for encroachments of

ten feet (10') or less. She noted that prior to the current twenty foot (20') minimum

corner side yard requirement, the Zoning Ordinance formulated the required corner side

yard based on the width of the property with every property required to have at least a

ten foot (10') setback.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the petitioner can still construct a front porch that complies

with the setback regulations. She pointed out that a porch can be built across the front

(west) wall of the residence extending to three feet (3') from the southwest corner of the

residence and meet the twenty-foot (20') corner side yard setback. She also mentioned

that the petitioner could also relocate the turret to another part of the porch such as the

northwest corner. Ms. Kulikowski reviewed the standards for variations, noting that staff

did not find that the requested variation complied with the standards.

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

Mr. Young stated that the petitioner obviously did the measuring on the revised plans

rather than a professional surveyor. He confirmed the correct measurements on the

revised plans. Ms. Kulikowski explained that the original plat of survey noted that the

house was setback 17.93 feet from the southern property line and the petitioner wrote in

the setback as 19.25 feet on the revised drawings.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the measurements on the original plans were inaccurate.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the original plans were based off of the measurements on the

plat of survey and were accurate. She noted that on the revised plans, the petitioner

removed the surveyor's annotated measurements and included his measurements that

were taken from the sidewalk, not the property line.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that there are shrubs to the south of the residence that

would block the view of the porch. He asked the petitioner whether the shrubs would

stay after the porch was completed. Mr. Trombino stated that he wasn't sure if all of the

shrubs would stay, but the larger tree would definitely stay.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the older photographs of the home from the 1930's

showed a porch, but did not show a turret. He mentioned that the picture must have

been taken before the porch was enclosed. He noted that the petitioners plan would

reduce the projection of the porch to the front to get a greater roof slope.

Mr. Bedard noted that the front yard setback was forty feet (40') which would help to

reduce the impact of the porch encroachment in the corner side yard. Chairperson

DeFalco noted that the front of the property was wide open.

Mr. Young asked if the provision in the Zoning Ordinance required construction

associated with an approved variance to start within one year or finish within one year.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that construction must start within one year from the approval

date of the variance.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that a permit was already issued. He asked whether the

petitioner would have to reapply for a permit if the variation were granted. Ms.

Kulikowski stated that typically staff can just amend the permit if the plans change.

Mr. Young stated that he does not see a whole lot of harm in granting this variation.

Jeff Sukowski of Famous Liquors presented the petition. Mr. Sukowski stated that the

grandfather clause that had previously allowed the sign to remain was no longer valid.

The sign is a historic part of the Village, much like the Dairy Queen sign of the same era.

He stated that they plan to remove the “Famous Deli” addition from the sign.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting

three variations that would bring the existing Famous Liquors freestanding sign into

compliance with Village Code. The sign was legally constructed in 1965 and is currently

nonconforming with regard to its size, location, and construction.

In 1993, the Village Board amended the Sign Ordinance to create amortization

provisions to bring legal nonconforming signs into eventual compliance with current

Village regulations while still ensuring that the owners of the signs receive the benefit of

their investments in those signs. The provisions of the ordinance permitted the

continued use of a sign for seven (7) years from the date of receiving notice from the

Village. At the end of this seven-year period, the legal nonconforming status of the sign

expires and the sign must be removed.

Ms. Backensto stated that in 1999, the owners of Famous Liquors were sent notices

regarding the legal nonconforming status of their sign and advising them that, pursuant

to Village Code, the sign must be removed within seven years. As seven years have

passed since the notification, Famous Liquors is now requesting variations to bring the

sign into compliance with code. She references a summary of the existing

nonconformities within the staff report.

Staff finds that the requested relief for sign area and construction can be supported due

to the unique nature and history of the sign. The only other known sign from this era,

the Dairy Queen sign at 205 S. Main Street, was designated by the Village as a local

landmark. As opposed to a new sign, granting relief for the Famous Liquors sign would

not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties or alter the character of the

neighborhood as the sign has existed in its present location for 41 years and predates

much of the surrounding development. In this case, the hardship results from the

various changes that have been made to the Sign Ordinance over the past four decades

and not from any action of the petitioner or property owner.

Ms. Backensto stated that staff can also support the requested relief from the 75-foot

setback requirement due to the character and existing development along Roosevelt

Road. The Roosevelt Road right-of-way is only 100 feet wide, meaning that any

freestanding sign is required by code to be located at least 25 feet in from the front

property line. Many properties along Roosevelt Road have parking lots at or very near

their front property lines and, consequently, many older signs do not meet the 75-foot

setback requirement. There is also a recent precedent for granting setback relief for

freestanding signs in this corridor as two similar requests have already been granted in

2006: PC 06-06, 844 E. Roosevelt Road (Popeye's) and PC 06-11: 300 E. Roosevelt

Road (McDonald's).

As part of the request for zoning relief, the petitioner has proposed to remove the

“Famous Deli” sign that was added underneath the original, historic sign. Given that

staff's support of the requested relief is largely based upon the historic nature of the

sign, staff recommends that the removal of the “Famous Deli” sign cabinet be made a

condition of any approvals.

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

He asked why the letters had been sent in 1999 if staff did not object to the sign. Ms.

Backensto stated that, in 1999, staff had identified a number of freestanding signs

throughout the Village that did not meet code in one way or another. All of the owners of

those signs were sent notices informing them of the seven-year amortization period.

Although staff does not object to the requested relief for the Famous Liquors sign, the

necessary relief can only be granted through the public hearing process regardless of

staff's recommendation on the issue.

Chairperson DeFalco asked how the Dairy Queen sign had been allowed to remain

given that the owners had not appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request

relief. Ms. Backensto stated that the Dairy Queen sign had been deemed historically

significant by the Lombard Historical Commission and Village Board, thereby exempting

the sign from Sign Ordinance requirements.

Brian Carter of Seamless Gutter presented the petition. Mr. Carter stated that the

Village Board had only required the replacement of the fence on the 609 E. St. Charles

property as that was the only one that had been granted a setback variation. He

described the current fence and stated that they need a fence for security reasons. The

replacement fence would be smooth and solid.

Mr. Carter stated that meeting the clear line of sight requirement would create a

hardship for loading their 22-foot trucks, the backs of which would not be able to reach

the overhead door. There would also be an additional cost for saw cutting concrete and

additional landscaping. He stated that the arc of the street creates difficult traffic

conditions, but the trucks are able to look both ways before exiting the driveway.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting

variations to allow for the replacement of several sections of legal nonconforming

fencing along the north property line. This fence replacement is proposed to satisfy a

previous condition of approval that was required as part of a setback variation granted

earlier this year.

The Private Engineering Services Division notes that allowing the new fence within the

clear line-of-sight area for the driveway would present a hazard to vehicles and

pedestrians, particularly due to the curve in the road at this location. There is sufficient

room to locate the fence outside of the clear line-of-sight area. Therefore, they

recommend denying the variation regarding the clear line-of-sight area.

Ms. Backensto stated that in December 2005, the ZBA heard a case requesting

approval of a front yard setback variation to allow for a bay window to be located 10 feet

from the front property line (ZBA 05-20). On March 2, 2006, the Village Board approved

this request with a condition that the fencing along the north property line be replaced.

Currently, the existing fence varies in height and has sections of solid wood as well as

chain link with slats. The proposed replacement fence would be eight feet high and of

solid wood construction. The portions of the fence on the far west and far east sides of

the property would meet code as eight-foot fences high are permitted within business

districts.

Ms. Backensto stated that the portion of the fence located between the 601 & 609 E. St.

Charles Road buildings is both within the front yard and the clear line of sight areas for

two driveways. The affected driveways are not used by customers and are used only

for business vehicles. By Code, fencing within this area could be only four feet high and

any sections within a clear line of sight area would need to be of open construction. She

referred to a graphic within the staff report illustrating the proposed fencing, front yard

setback line, and clear line of sight areas.

Staff finds that this case presents unique circumstances that warrant the granting of a

variation. The lot itself is unusually shaped and has a small depth for a commercial

property, ranging from 124 feet deep at the west end, increasing to 145 feet at its

deepest point, then coming to point at the east end. This configuration undoubtedly

contributed to the way the site was laid out and the buildings were constructed in 1956.

Ms. Backensto stated that the granting of these variations will not negatively impact the

surrounding neighborhood as there has been fencing in the same location for many

years, and the replacement solid wood fence will be a substantial aesthetic improvement

over the existing assortment of materials. Furthermore, there is also precedent for this

type of relief as a similar variation request for an eight-foot fence within the front yard

and within clear line of sight areas was granted in 2001 for the property across the street

at 600 E. St. Charles Road (PC 01-04).

Perhaps most significantly, the hardship in this case has not been created by any

person presently having an interest in the property. The existing fence is entitled to

remain as a legal nonconforming structure and Code allows the fence to be maintained

and repaired. Were it not for the Village requiring its replacement, the existing fence

would not need any zoning relief to remain as-is.

With regard to the clear line of sight variations, staff does not object to the fence at 609

E. St. Charles as the petitioner has stated that this driveway is seldom used and, when it

is used, serves as an entrance. As such, there is no functional clear line of sight issue.

However, the driveway to the east of the 601 E. St. Charles building is a primary exit for

the site and is frequently used. The petitioner has stated that that particular driveway

cannot serve as an entrance only because the other driveway on the west side of the

601 property has even more obstructed sight lines.

Ms. Backensto stated that in cases where there is a legal nonconforming structure that

is to be removed and replaced, staff traditionally makes every attempt to bring the

replacement structure into compliance with Code. Accordingly, staff notes that the clear

line of sight issue could be eliminated by shifting the fence to the south, outside of the

clear line of sight area. The petitioner has stated that they do not wish to move the

fence because the area to the south of the fence is necessary for parking and

maneuvering. Although staff recommends that the fence be moved as part of its

recommendation of approval for the other variations, the Zoning Board of Appeals could

strike Condition No. 1 if they feel that there is a practical hardship that prevents the

petitioner from meeting the clear line of sight provisions.

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

He asked the petitioner if it would be possible to meet the clear line of sight

requirements by installing a steel, wrought iron-type fence similar to that installed by the

industrial properties nearby on Western Avenue. The petitioner stated that such a fence

would not meet their needs as they require a solid fence for security reasons.

Mr. Bedard asked which way the gates open. The petitioner stated that the gates

currently open inward and would continue to do so.

Mr. Young stated that he would abstain from voting on this petition.