Village of Lombard Legistar System

Scott Jenkins with Landmark Construction Services presented the petition. He stated

the proposed addition will make use of extra space at the northwest corner of the

building. He noted that the addition would be used for reserved and scheduled events.

He also noted that Maxfield's has a rapid turn-over in customers and the parking lot is

generally under-utilized.

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

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Ms. Kulikowski

stated that Maxfield's currently operates on the subject property as a sit-down

restaurant. She mentioned that they are proposing to construct a 1,615 square foot

addition at the northwest corner of the building to serve as a banquet and meeting room.

She noted that the parking requirement for restaurants is based on the gross floor area.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that while no parking spaces will be removed, the increased floor

area will increase the number of parking spaces required. She noted that there is no

more room available on site for additional parking.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that Maxfield's Restaurant is currently 5,900 square feet in size

with 100 parking spaces provided on site. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires

94 spaces for the existing Maxfield's Restaurant, using the formula of sixteen (16)

spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. She mentioned that the petitioner is

proposing to construct a 1,615 square foot addition on the northwest corner of the

building, which would bring the total gross floor area to approximately 7,500 square feet.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that in 2000, the Village Board approved a text amendment

changing the formula for calculating the number of required parking spaces for

restaurants over 7,000 square feet of gross floor area. She noted that the rationale for

the text amendment was to take into consideration larger restaurants which have

sizeable waiting areas and bar areas within the restaurant which increase the overall

capacity of the facility and allows the restaurants to accommodate greater numbers of

people than their table seating capacity. She mentioned that the average time spent at

these restaurants is often longer and results in longer parking periods for patrons. Ms.

Kulikowski noted that because the proposed addition will increase the gross floor area to

over 7,000 square feet, the ordinance would require 129 parking spaces to be provided

on the property with the building addition.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the purpose of the proposed addition is to serve as a meeting

and banquet room. She noted that Maxfield's will essentially have two separate

functions- the existing portion will continue to function as a sit-down restaurant, and the

proposed addition will function essentially as a banquet hall. She stated that staff can

support the parking variation on the basis that fewer additional parking spaces would be

required if the proposed addition was considered individually as a banquet hall. Ms.

Kulikowski also noted that Maxfield's is not the type of restaurant that the 2000 text

amendments were meant to address, and that Maxfield's is a family restaurant with peak

hours for breakfast and lunch. She mentioned that they do not have a substantial

waiting area or bar, and they have a faster customer turn-over.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that there are not any available options for providing additional

parking. Referring to their existing site plan, she pointed out that there is no more room

on site to create additional parking spaces and the parking lot is already considered

legal non-conforming as it relates to the perimeter and interior landscaping areas. She

explained that bringing the property into conformance with these regulations would

require the removal of existing parking spaces.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that based upon empirical observations of the property, staff has

noted that the rear parking lot is usually underutilized during regular business

operations. She noted that even if additional space was available of the subject

property for additional parking spaces, the additional spaces would in most likelihood

remain unutilized.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that both the property to the east and west do not have any

surplus parking to enter into a shared parking agreement. She noted that staff believes

that in order to promote good traffic flow between retail commercial properties, that the

approval of the variation should be conditioned to provide for a cross-access easement

between the subject property and the property to the east.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mrs. Newman pointed out the location of the trash enclosure on the site plan and asked

if any parking spaces would be removed as a result of location of the trash enclosure.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that no parking spaces were going to be removed. Mr. Jenkins

confirmed her response.

Chairperson DeFalco asked for a clarification of how the number of required parking

spaces were calculated. Ms. Kulikowski explained that part B of the formula for

restaurants with a gross floor area to over 7,000 square feet was used.

Mr. Young asked if Maxfield's had a liquor license. Gus Zois, owner of Maxfields stated

that they had a liquor license at one time, but did not currently have one. Mr. Young

asked what prevented Maxfield's from turning into one of the restaurants that the 2000

text amendments were meant to address. Chairperson DeFalco asked how long ago

Maxfield's got rid of their liquor license. Mr. Zois stated that had a liquor license last

year, but they didn't renew the license this year. Chairperson DeFalco noted that

Maxfield's would have to reapply for a liquor license, at which point the Village could

take into consideration the parking issue when reviewing the application for a liquor

1. That in lieu of providing the requisite 129 parking spaces on the subject property, the

property owner shall maintain a minimum of 100 parking spaces on the subject property.

Said parking spaces shall be design and maintained concurrent with the provision of the

Zoning Ordinance. Moreover, the accessible parking spaces shall meet the provision of

the Illinois Accessibility Code.

2. That the parking variation included with this request shall be for the existing building

only. In the event that the existing building is further expanded or redeveloped, the full

provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply, unless further varied by the Village

Board.

3. That the petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the plans submitted as

part of the petition and dated June 16, 2005, with modifications to the plans

incorporating the comments included as part of the Inter-Departmental Review Report.

4. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed

improvements associated with this petition.

5. That the petitioner record a cross-access easement to provide for vehicular access

to the property east of the subject property. Should the abutting property owner agree

to grant a cross-access easement on his/her parcel to connect to the subject property,

and upon a request from the Village to do so, the petitioner and/or future subject

property owner shall be obligated to install a cross-access driveway at their own

expense. Said cross-access driveway shall be constructed per Village of Lombard

specifications.

Laura and James Longo, the property owners, presented the petition. Mrs. Longo

stated that they have lived in Lombard for ten years. She noted that their kids are

teenagers and recently her mother came to live with them. She mentioned that her

mother occupies most of the first floor so that they need more space in their home. She

stated that they don't want to move and have their kids change schools and they can't

afford the bigger homes for sale in Lombard.

Mr. Longo stated that their lot was located on a cul-de-sac and pie shaped. He noted

that there is not enough room to build an addition to the side of the house. He

mentioned that the footprint of the existing residence is 1600 square feet and the

proposed addition is 560 square feet, which together would only cover twenty two

percent (22%) of their 10,000 square foot lot. He noted that a patio currently exists

where the addition is being proposed. He mentioned that the addition would only add an

additional 196 square feet of lot coverage.

Mr. Longo presented a petition that was signed by neighbors of his on Wilson Court.

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

against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco requested the staff report.

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

subject property is located on a cul-de-sac in the Lombard Meadows subdivision and is

approximately 9,750 feet in area. She noted that the existing house is setback

thirty-three feet (33') from the front property line and forty feet (40') from the rear

property line. She stated that the petitioner is requesting a variation to reduce the rear

yard setback to twenty feet (20') so that he can move forward with his plans to construct

an addition.

Ms. Kulikowski referenced the standards for variations. She noted that 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.

She stated that the shape of subject property is typical for a lot located on a cul-de-sac.

She mentioned that there are not any unique differences between the petitioner's lot and

others with the R2 Single Family District with respect to the depth of the property and

the required front and rear yard setbacks. Ms. Kulikowski noted that other houses on

the cul-de-sac follow similar setbacks as the subject property. She stated that staff does

not find that location on a cul-de-sac in and of itself is a hardship, and has been

consistent with its recommendation for denial on petitions located on cul-de-sacs, which

do not demonstrate any other hardships unique to the property. The semicircular front

property line is inherent of properties located on a cul-de-sac. She noted that the

35-foot rear yard setback for R2 properties has been consistently applied throughout the

Village. She mentioned that the hardship has not been created by the ordinance, and

the requested relief is needed due to a personal preference.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Chairperson DeFalco mentioned that this petition was similar to a previous case in the

Pinebrook subdivision (ZBA 05-05). He stated that at the last meeting Dr. Corrado

noted that the rationale for the Board changing the rear yard setback in the R2 District

from thirty-five feet (35') to thirty (30') was for visual appearance. He stated that the

Zoning Board of Appeals was considering whether the rear yard setback has as large of

an impact on cul-de-sac lots. He mentioned that at the last meeting the Zoning Board of

Appeals asked about a re-evaluation of the thirty-five foot (35') rear yard setback.

Chairperson DeFalco also noted that the petition was not signed by the neighbors to the

rear.

Mr. Longo stated that one of their neighbors to the rear was not home and the other

neighbor is present at the meeting tonight.

Mr. Young asked about the sidewalk to the east of the petitioner's property that can be

seen in the aerial photo. Mr. Longo stated that the sidewalk has always been there to

cut through to Hawthorne Circle, making it easier for kids to walk to school.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the existing patio on the petitioner's property is allowed

to encroach into the rear yard setback. He also mentioned that the fifty percent (50%) is

the maximum lot coverage allowed.

Mr. Longo stated that the same size addition would fit in front of their existing house

without a variation, but it wouldn't work well with the layout of the house. Referring to

the aerial, he pointed out that their lot isn't as deep as other lots on School Court and

Wilson Avenue.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that there was room on the side of the house to build a

sixteen foot (16') addition. He asked whether that would be enough room.

Mr. Longo stated that the family room would be just for a family room.