Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Greg Young, Val Corrado, |
and Ed Bedard |
Staff Liaison: Angela Clark |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg |
Young and Ed Bedard |
The following staff members were present: Angela Clark, AICP, Planner II; and Michelle |
Kulikowski, Associate Planner. |
U. ZBA 05-11: 352 E. Roosevelt Road (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests a variation to reduce the number of required parking spaces to allow for the |
construction of a banquet and meeting room addition in the B4 Corridor Commercial |
Shopping District. (DISTRICT #6) |
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 |
license. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked what the hardship was in this circumstance. Ms. Kulikowski |
stated that Maxfield's will essentially have two functions. She noted that the existing |
portion would function as a restaurant while the proposed addition will function as a |
banquet hall. Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the parking requirements are less for |
banquet halls and the total parking requirements would be less if the two functions were |
conducted within two separate structures and considered individually. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Newman, to recommend to the Corporate |
Authorities for approval with conditions. The motion carried by the following |
vote: |
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. |
ZBA 05-12: 824 E. Wilson Court (Request to Withdraw - Tabled from July 27, |
2005) |
Requests a variation from Section 153.406(F)(4) to reduce the rear yard setback to |
twenty-one feet (21') where thirty-five feet (35') is required in order to construct an |
addition the R2 Single Family Residential District. |
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. |
Angela Clark, Planner II, confirmed that they had sixteen feet (16') at the closest corner |
to the property line. |
Laura Longo stated they intended to go off the back because it would be the easiest way |
to accommodate the addition. |
Mr. Polley noted that the shed shown on the plat of survey appears to be closer than |
three feet (3') to the property line. |
Mr. Young asked whether they could get a refund if they withdraw their petition. He |
noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals could table the petition to allow the petitioner |
time to research other options. |
Ms. Clark stated that that the petitioner would not be able to get a refund on the portion |
of the fees for the public hearing notice. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Polley, that this matter be tabled to the |
August 24, 2005 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: |
On a motion by Corrado and seconded by Polley the minutes of the June 22, 2005 |
meeting were unanimously approved. |
On a motion by Newman and seconded by Polley the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 |
p.m. |
___________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
___________________________________ |
Angela Clark, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |