Village of Lombard Legistar System

Kamel Tbakhi, property owner of 340 E. Roosevelt Road, stated the request. He stated

that he would like to affix the existing patio tables to the ground.

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

the petition. He then requested the staff report.

Angela Clark, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the petitioner applied

for a building permit last fall to secure umbrellas and tables to the outdoor patio area.

She noted that Building Inspectional Services would require that the umbrella structures

be constructed of fire resistant materials. Ms. Clark stated that the existing structure

was constructed in 1975 as a fast food restaurant with a concrete area and perimeter

railing where the current outdoor dining area exists. The site has been occupied by a

variety of uses including a computer software sales store and a realtor's office. In 2000,

the site was re-established as a fast food restaurant (Pita House).

Ms. Clark stated that the Zoning Ordinance lists outdoor seating as a conditional use

and the proposed expansion requires conditional use approval at this time. She noted

several site improvements that staff recommended be brought into compliance. She

stated that the site has the requisite parking required, however the parking lot must be

restriped to reflect an additional handicap parking space with the appropriate signage

denoting two spaces. She stated that the northern portion of the parking lot must be

patched or resurfaced and a solid wood trash enclosure of six to eight feet must be

constructed for the dumpster. Ms. Clark also noted that there is trash at the rear end of

property that must be removed. She stated that the proposed use is compatible with

surrounding land uses and staff recommends approval with the conditions noted in the

staff report.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the commissioners.

Commissioner Flint asked if the petitioner understood the conditions of approval.

The petitioner replied that he did.

Commissioner Sweetser stated that the conditions should reflect the required additional

handicap parking space.

1. The petitioner shall construct a trash enclosure for the restaurant dumpster(s) and

grease containers on the subject property. The enclosure shall be designed consistent

with the Zoning Ordinance provisions with the exterior enclosure walls being between

six (6) and eight (8) feet in height and constructed of wood or a solid screening material.

2. The northern section of the parking lot must be patched or resurfaced, pursuant to

Village Code.

3. That the petitioner shall supply the requisite number of accessible parking spaces

on the subject property by adding an additional accessible parking space, with said

space meeting the Illinois Accessibility Code provisions.

4. The petitioner shall obtain building permits for the construction of the outdoor

seating area, parking lot repair and restriping, and trash enclosure.

5. That the discarded signage, sign structure and all other additional trash and debris

shall be removed from the subject property.

*C. PC 04-13: 208 to 230 S. Westmore-Meyers Road (Three Ordinances on

Second Reading)

The petitioner requests approval of the following actions:

1. For the property located at 208 S. Westmore-Meyers Road:

a. Approve a map amendment rezoning the property from the B2 General

Neighborhood Shopping District to the R2 Single-Family Residential District;

b. Approve a 2-lot Minor Plat of Resubdivision with a variation to reduce the

minimum lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet for each lot.

2. For the property located at 220 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, approve a map

amendment rezoning the property from the B2 General Neighborhood Shopping District

to the R2 Single-Family Residential District.

As a companion to this request, the Village also requests approval of the following

actions:

3. For the properties at 214, 226 and 228 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, approve a map

amendment rezoning the property from the B2 General Neighborhood Shopping District

to the R2 Single-Family Residential District.

4. For the property at 230 S. Westmore-Meyers Road:

a. Approve an amendment to the Village of Lombard

Comprehensive Plan, designating the property for low density residential use

b. Approve a map amendment rezoning the property from the B2 General

Neighborhood Shopping District to the R2 Single-Family Residential District. (DISTRICT

#5)

Christine L. Stade, 1141 Stoddard, Wheaton, Illinois presented the petition. She and her

husband lived at 532 S. Lombard Avenue. They currently own the properties at 208

and 220 S. Westmore-Meyers Road. They are requesting the rezoning of these

properties from the B2 to the R2 District. She then read the letter she sent to the Plan

Commission describing the history of the project (a copy of this correspondence is

attached to the IDRC staff report). She stated that it would certainly be in Lombard's

favor not to have a vacant lot remain.

James H. Stade, 1141 Stoddard, Wheaton, read a letter included with the petition

relative to the subdivision of the land (a copy of this correspondence is attached to the

IDRC staff report). He stated that subdivision of the 208 S. Westmore-Meyers property

is being requested so that two single family homes could be constructed on the site. He

noted that many of the lots in the area are fifty feet in width and that the single-family

residences would be designed to meet setback requirements.

After conclusion of the petitioner's presentation, William Heniff, Senior Planner for

Community Development, presented the companion petition for the other properties that

were included within the public hearing request.

He noted that the subject properties are located along the west side of the 200 block of

Westmore-Meyers Road. The properties have historically been used for residential

purposes, but have been zoned with B business designations since at least the 1960s.

In consideration of the petitioner's request, staff initiated companion map amendments

for other properties on this block, which should be considered as part of the rezoning

request. A detailed discussion of all the properties is included within the report.

Referencing the IDRC report, he noted that the subject properties are located in an area

served by a combined sanitary/storm sewer system. Should any of these properties be

developed with non-single family residential structures, the respective property owner

will need to apply for a variation to connect to the combined system. Additionally, they

would need to provide on-site stormwater detention improvements to address

stormwater runoff. Should the properties be rezoned to the R2 District and single-family

residences are constructed on the two proposed lots at 208 S. Westmore-Meyers Road,

stormwater detention improvements would not be required.

He then referenced an existing and proposed zoning map and an aerial photo. While

the subject properties have been historically developed as residences, they have had

commercial zoning since at least the 1960s. The Comprehensive Plan recommends

that except for the 230 property, the subject properties used as Low Density Residential

uses.

The rezoning request to R2 Single Family residential would be compatible with the

residential properties on Maple Avenue and to the west on Ahrens Court. Immediately

east of the subject properties are properties zoned in the Village's R3 and R4 General

Residence Districts. The rezoning request would designate these properties to a zoning

district more compatible with the adjacent residential properties, than the current B2

zoning district designation.

He then discussed the specifics of each lot. The 208 property was previously improved

with a single-family residence. In 1999 the home was razed and the property has sat

vacant since that time. The property is 100 feet wide by 320.24 feet deep (32,024 sq.

ft.) in size. The petitioner has sought interested parties to develop the site for business

purposes. However, when the underlying B2 bulk and transitional requirements are

applied to the property and when site development constraints are applied to the lot

(e.g., stormwater detention improvements, Fire Department access/circulation and

parking requirements), the development options for the site become limited.

As far as the lot width request is concerned, the petitioner is requesting relief to allow

the property to be evenly subdivided into two fifty-foot wide lots. Each of these lots

would retain their existing depth of 320.24 feet, thereby making each lot about 16,012

square feet in size, or more than twice required by the R2 provisions.

In consideration of the lot width relief, staff reviewed the lot width dimensions of other

neighboring residential lots and finds that the abutting properties along Ahrens Court

and three of the lots along Maple Avenue are 50 feet in width. Additionally staff notes

that the abutting lots at 214 and 230 S. Westmore-Meyers Road are 50 feet in width (the

lots were created via a deed division). Therefore, the 50-foot lot width in this area is not

without precedent.

Should the relief be granted, staff will require the petitioner to prepare a final plat of

resubdivision for Village signature and recording that subdivides the lot into two lots of

record, with each lot meeting the provisions of the Subdivision and Development

Ordinance.

The 214 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property is sandwiched between the two properties

owned by the petitioner. It is 50 feet wide by 320 feet deep and is improved with a

one-story, four-unit apartment building. The apartment building is already legal

non-conforming as apartments are not permitted uses when located on the first floor in

the B2 District. Should the map amendment be approved, the apartment can remain as

a legal non-conforming use. However if the building was damaged or destroyed, the R2

District provisions would apply. He also noted that the apartment building is about two

feet off of the north property line at its closest point. No companion relief is being

considered at this time - the location of the structure on the property will remain legal

non-conforming.

Should the building be razed, the Zoning Ordinance allows for a new single family

residence to be erected on the lot as it is at least 80 percent of the proposed R2 District

lot width requirements. He referenced a letter submitted to the Plan Commission from

the property owner's attorney stating that supports the petition. He noted that staff did

send a letter to the property owner that the lot could be improved with a single-family

residence if the apartment building is razed.

Regarding 220 S. Westmore-Meyers Road, should the map amendment request be

approved, the use of the property would become legal conforming use. The property

would meet all bulk requirements of the R2 District.

The 226 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property is 65 feet wide and 229 feet deep (14,919

sq. ft.). This property is currently used as a single-family residence. Should the map

amendment request be approved, the use of the property would become a legal

conforming use. Staff notes that the property would meet the bulk requirements of the

R2 District.

The 228 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property is a flag lot. At the right-of-way, the parcel

is ten feet wide. This portion of the property is improved with a driveway that serves as

public access to the single-family residence to the rear of the property. At the rear of the

property, the tract is 75 feet in width. This single-family residence is not visible from

Westmore-Meyers Road.

Reserve lots are not permitted in the Zoning and Subdivision and Development

Ordinances. However, given the nature of the property, rezoning the property to the R2

District would create less of an impact on neighboring properties than if the property

retained its B2 designation. In that instance, the property owner could assert their rights

to construct a commercial establishment with access only on a ten foot strip of land,

which would be quite undesirable.

The 230 S. Westmore-Meyers Road property is improved with a single-family residence

which is being converted into an engineering office. As the conversion met the B2

requirements, staff approved the permit. However, in light of the other pending actions

for this block, staff is recommending that a similar map amendment should also occur on

this property as well.

The Comprehensive Plan identified this parcel for Commercial and Office use. When

one reviews the entire block face, the 230 property has more in common from a design

standpoint than the insurance office (i.e., residential structures, no parking in front of

structures, access driveways to side of structures, etc.). Should a map amendment be

approved for this site, the owner would have the ability to continue using the property as

a legal non-conforming office use. He could also sell the property as a permitted

single-family residence.

In closing, Mr. Heniff noted that the proposed companion map amendments are being

presented in consideration of the petitioner's request for a map amendment. Staff

believes that the entire block face should have a unified zoning classification, and the

requests being brought forward here are intended to create grater consistency between

the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for public comment.

Deborah Zaleky, 925 E. Maple, stated that she lives adjacent to the 208 S.

Westmore-Meyers property and approves of the R2 zoning request.

George Green, owner of 226 S. Westmore-Meyers noted that he was in favor of the

petition. He indicated that he has a piano studio he runs in his building and was worried

that it might be considered undesirable or that it would not be allowed. In response to

the question, Mr. Heniff stated there are two ways this could activity could be reviewed -

either as a legal non-conforming use or as a home occupation.

There was no one who spoke against the petition.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that changing the designation to R2 makes sense. The

Village needs to look at surrounding properties - there are a lot of fifty foot wide lots in

the area, so it is doable with the right architect. It is also nice to see some construction

activity on the 208 S. Westmore-Meyers property as well. He is in favor of the R2

change.

Hein Lam, president of Van-Lang Food Products, presented the petition. She noted that

they have been operating their business out of the 88 and 86 Eisenhower Lane North

tenant space. She said that they seek an amendment to the conditional use so that the

space can continue to be used as a food processing plant. She said the IDRC staff

report describes the property and their petition very well, so she is here to answer any

questions they might have.

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

the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, stated that the subject property is located within the

Yorkbrook Industrial Park, which contains a mix of warehousing, office, light

manufacturing and light industrial uses. The property, addressed as 50-88 Eisenhower

Lane North, is improved with a multiple tenant industrial building that was constructed in

1978. In 1991, the petitioner applied for and received approval of a conditional use (PC

Case 91-12, Ordinance 3439) for a food processing facility for the 2,400 square foot

space at 88 Eisenhower Lane North.

In 1999, the petitioner applied for and received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) to

occupy an adjacent 2,400 square foot tenant space at 86 Eisenhower Lane North as

well. In further review of the 1999 (CO), staff has made the interpretation that occupying

the space at the 86 Eisenhower Lane North with the food processing use constitutes an

expansion of a conditional use. Therefore, this CO should have been approved only as

part of an amended conditional use application. Staff recommended to the petitioner

that this issue should be addressed as soon as possible so that both the petitioner and

property owner will then have assurances that the business operation is in compliance

with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner is now seeking an

amendment to the previous conditional use approval so that the space located at 86

Eisenhower Lane North can continue to be utilized as a food processing business

already established on the premises. No exterior physical improvements or interior

modification to their business is proposed as part of this petition.

The petitioner has integrated the 86 Eisenhower Lane North space into their overall

operations that previously only occurred within the 88 Eisenhower Lane North space.

The additional space allows for more office area and cooler space for their business.

The number of employees and function of the business remains unchanged. Overall,

the proposed food processing use encompasses approximately 7.5 percent of the

overall building.

Mr. Heniff noted that the proposed industrial use is compatible with the

recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan that recommends business park uses. It

is also compatible with the surrounding industrial uses. The operations of the use have

not been modified since 1999, when they occupied the space. Therefore, adjacent

industrial properties should not be impacted by the conditional use amendment.

North of the tenant space is the existing Arboretum Park townhouse development. But

for occasional deliveries to and from the site, the use is completely operated within the

existing building space. From a historical perspective, we do not have any code

enforcement records or violations associated with the business establishment.

He stated that the petition can be supported based on the final considerations:

The Plan Commission and the Village Board found that the food processing activity land

use on the property met the standards for conditional uses in 1991;

The use has operated in compliance with Village Code since its inception;

The expansion, while increasing the overall size of the business activity, has not

modified the use to a point that it is no longer incompatible with surrounding land uses or

contrary to the Comprehensive Plan; and

The expansion of the use is consistent with the standards for conditional uses.

He noted that the existing salt mound on the property was removed. Therefore, this

item does not need to be added as a condition of approval. An additional item for

consideration pertains to the existing dumpster on the premises. Right now, their

dumpster is sitting in the middle of the parking lot, which hinders the ability of vehicles to

access the designated parking spaces. Staff recommends that a trash enclosure area

be constructed for the petitioner's dumpster, with said enclosure being designed per

Village Code.

Chairperson Ryan then opened the meeting for discussion among the Commissioners.

There were no comments.

Bill Boyle, 17258 Rob, Elwood, Project Manager for Friday's, presented the petition. He

stated that they were requesting an amendment to their existing signage as they were

remodeling in order to display their new image.

There was no one present to speak in favor or against this petition.

Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, mentioned that he had elevations that were not included

in the packet as well as colored ones. He stated the request for site plan approval for a

deviation to the Sign Ordinance to allow for four wall signs where one wall sign per

street front exposure is permitted within the O Office District, Planned Development.

Currently the planned development consists of five office buildings and Friday's which

was approved in 1979. The Village Board approved an amendment ot the planned

development to allow for the enclosure of an outdoor dining area associated with their

restaurant in 1997.

The petitioner now is requesting to modify the facde of the existing building in addition to

adding four new wall signs where only one is allowed. Since the property is located

within the planned development, the signage deviations can be considered and

approved by the Plan Commission through the site plan approval process.

Mr. Heniff continued by indicating that the total proposed signage for the restaurant

would decrease from 139 square feet to 106 square feet. They are proposing to modify

the building elevations and the front facade and he referred to the table on page 3 of the

staff report. The Sign Ordinance limits signs to one sign per street elevation and no

record could be found approving the painted wall sign on the north elevation.

The proposed facade modification for this location is intended to modernize the look of

the restaurant and bring greater attention and identity to the restaurant as access to the

site can only be achieved by a frontage road from Butterfield Road.

The existing restaurant has one free-standing sign in front of their property which meets

the O District regulations. Staff believes that comparing signage to other restaurants in

the corridor, the proposed additonal wall signage would complement the overall

appearance of the building.

The Comprehensive Plan advises the site be developed for office uses. Sit down

restaurants are considered to be complementary to office uses especially when

considered as part of a larger office planned development. Therefore, the proposed

restaurant use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.

In conclusion, Mr. Heniff indicated that staff supported the petition subject to the

conditons outlined in the staff report.

Chairperson Ryan opened up the discussion to the Plan Commissioners.

The Plan Commissioners had no comments.

1. That the site be developed in conformance with the signage plans prepared by

Gilfillian & Callahan Architects, Inc., dated March 24, 2004 and made a part of the

request.

2. That a total of four wall signs shall be permitted on the principal building, with the

wall sign size and placement to be consistent with the petitioner's plans, as follows:

a. One "T.G.I. Friday's" sign on the north elevation near the roof line of 48 square

feet,

b. One "T.G.I. Friday's" sign on the north tower elevation of 26.28 square feet,

c. One "T.G.I. Friday's" sign on the east tower elevation of 26.28 square feet, and

d. One "In Here, It's Always Friday" sign of 5.54 square feet in size above the main

entrance.

Any future signage changes shall be subject to a future site plan approval from

the Village.

3. That the property shall be developed consistent with Village Code.

Diane McGhinnis, 13 Birchtree Court, Elmhurst, representing Elmhurst Memorial

Healthcare presented the petition. She stated that they are requesting a sign variation

for a 64 square foot developer sign. The purpose of this sign is to provide greater

recognition for their site located at 130 Main Street due to the size and the nature of the

redevelopment process. She mentioned that the sign would be located less than the

required 10 feet from the right of way due to the parking lot construction. This is being

done so as not to create confusion and the sign will not be located in the clear line of

sight.

There was no one to speak in favor or against this petition.

Chairperson Ryan requested the staff report.

Mr. Heniff clarified that the staff report makes reference to a request for two signs but

only one sign is being requested. The location of the requested sign can be found on

the site map located on page 4 of the staff report. The requested sign will be located on

Main Street. The signage along Maple Street is not being requested.

Mr. Heniff then stated the petitioner's request for approval of a 64 square foot

developer's sign for the Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare project at 130 S. Main Street.

The sign will be located near the southeast corner of the property along Main Street.

None of the interdepartmental entities had any comments except Planning which

indicates that the site is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land

uses, and with the Zoning Ordinance. The main points of this petition relate to the Sign

Ordinance. With the request for a variation for a 64 square foot developer's sign and

given the high public visibility of this project, staff feels it is appropriate to have a larger

developer's sign to communicate the size and nature of the redevelopment process.

The proposed sign should have minimal impact on the surrounding area as it will be

orientated toward nonresidential traffic. The sign will only be on the property for a

limited period of time and will be removed upon the issuance of a Certificate of

Occupancy.

Mr. Heniff noted that when this request came in staff looked at other previously

approved developer's signs in the community. He mentioned the approval of the

Fountain Square development signs and felt that if this proposed relief were granted, it

would be in line with previously requested relief. He mentioned that the look of the sign

could be found on page 3 of the report. The location of the sign could be found on page

4. The sign would be relocated once the parking lot construction was completed. Most

importantly since the property is located in a B5 district which allows buildings to be

constructed in the clear line of sight, the sign will have less impact than a building. As

such staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the

staff report with condition #2 being modified to reflect one sign.

Chairperson Ryan opened up the meeting for discussion and questions by the

Commissioners.

Commissioner Sweetser asked if there was an estimate as to the time frame the sign

would remain. Mr. Heniff answered approximately the spring of 2005.

Commissioner Sweetser inquired about keeping the appearance of the sign decent for

that time frame. Mr. Heniff stated that staff has a good working relationship with

Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare and they would make the necessary changes if needed.

Commissioner Olbrysh thought that it was great that Elmhurst Memorial Healthcare

decided to locate in downtown Lombard but he had a concern with the analogy of the

requested sign with Fountain Square. He thought it was a poor comparison because

Fountain Square was one massive empty lot versus having a large sign in a congested

area. He felt that a better comparison to the Elmhurst Memorial site would be the

DuPage Medical Group building on Highland Avenue. He noted that DuPage Medical

Group was satisfied with a small developer sign and never came forward to request a

larger sign. Commissioner Olbrysh stated he had issues with an ornately large sign in

the downtown area.

Commissioner Flint stated that they want the larger sign in order to display information

and make it more readable.

Prior to the start of the presentation, Commissioner Olbrysh recused himself from the

petition based upon a business relationship he has with the petitioner.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting

approval of a plat of resubdivision for a tract of land located at 303 W. Roosevelt Road,

entitled "Heritage Cadillac Subdivision". The plat proposes to make the tract of land a

lot of record, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. This plat is being requested because

it was a condition of approval for the petitioner's requested sign variations (PC 03-40).

This division is considered a major plat of subdivision as it is greater than one acre in

size. Therefore, it must be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission and Board

of Trustees.

This subdivision meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision

and Development Ordinance. The lot exceeds the 150-foot minimum lot width and

minimum 40,000 square foot area requirements of the underlying B4 Corridor

Commercial Zoning District requirements. As the plat shows, the proposed lot will

include five-foot and ten-foot public utility and drainage easements to the side and rear

property lines respectively. Additionally, the plat includes requisite easement for

drainage and utilities as required by Private Engineering Services.

Chairperson Ryan opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the Plan

Commission. There were no comments by the members.

William Heniff presented the staff report and indicated that the petitioner was requesting

site plan approval of a substantial change to the initial ordinance, which was previously

approved, for the proposed building elevations associated with the hotel/convention hall

on the subject property. He mentioned that Peter Dumon and Dave Stelter were in the

audience to answer any questions.

Continuing, Mr. Heniff indicated that the hotel convention hall was approved in 2003.

One of the conditions of approval the Board of Trustees added at that time was a

provision stating that should there be any changes to the elevations, the petitioner would

have to go through the site plan approval process. The petitioner is now requesting a

color change to the elevations-not any site or structural changes. Since the initial

approval date, the petitioner has been finalizing plans and referred to the revised

elevations. He stated that the hotel remains as proposed and the building materials are

the same. The primary change is that the building color is being changed from a

rust/brown color to a lighter gray, reflecting the natural color of the pre-cast materials.

The color change is intended to soften the overall appearance of the building, provide

for greater compatibility with the proposed signage and awning plans and to enhance

the proposed up-lighting and façade embellishments. Staff notes that the color change

will also create less of a long-term maintenance issue, as the lighter color will better

withstand possible sun-bleaching and it will blend in closer with many of the structures

near the property.

Mr. Heniff noted the items displayed which included the materials pallette. He showed

the comparison of the approved materials versus what is being proposed for the exterior

of the building.

Chairperson Ryan opened up the discussion for questions and comments by the Plan

Commissioners.

Commissioner Burke stated he thought it was a big improvement and asked if that was

blue glass. Mr. Stelter indicated that it was not. They will be putting a tint on the glass -

the rendering shows a reflection of the sky and is not showing the actual glass color.

Commissioner Burke asked what color the glass would be. Mr. Stelter answered light

gray tints.

Commissioner Flint asked if the building would still include up-lighting of the building

exteriors. Mr. Stelter answered that it would be up-lit.

Commissioner Flint indicated that he liked it.

Residential Building Setbacks

William Heniff presented the workshop. He stated that the issue pertains to front yard

setback requirements for single family residences. The question being raised is whether

the Village should consider modifying its front yard setback requirement to account for

setbacks of homes already existing on a particular block. The Board of Trustees asked

staff to look at this issue and solicit input from the Plan Commission. Mr. Heniff then

presented the workshop in PowerPoint format.

Mr. Heniff outlined the Village of Lombard's existing regulations:

All principal structures must be set back at least 30 feet from the front property line

(with the exclusion of the B5 and B5a zoning districts) regardless of the setbacks of the

surrounding homes,

25 foot setbacks are permitted for roofed-over front porches

Setbacks of adjacent properties are not considered.

The Village's requirements were then contrasted with other communities - those of Glen

Ellyn and Wheaton and he proceeded to explain each. He referred to an example in

which the character of the existing neighborhood could be changed by applying an

absolute setback versus a relative setback.

Mr. Heniff then explained the perceived benefits:

Relative setbacks tie the permitted setback of a house to the setbacks of adjacent

houses ensures that the placement of the new construction is compatible with the

existing neighborhood.

Ensures that the placement of the new construction is compatible with the existing

neighborhood.

Prevents a new home from being built entirely within the perceived front yard of the

neighboring properties.

He then explained the potential issues involved:

New construction can create non-conformities on adjacent properties.

It can impact a property owner's ability to add on or alter their home which should be

a matter of right.

Requires access to Plat of Survey for abutting properties.

Concluding, Mr. Heniff stated that staff is looking for support and/or comments from the

Plan Commission about the possibility of amending Village code to create a relative front

yard setback provision for residential developments. Some issues he would like

addressed would be the front yard setbacks provisions, vacant properties and how you

would set the standard, corner properties which already have 20 foot setbacks, and

legal issues of how we want to consider zoning relief. Either through a variation or a

conditional use similar to the manner in which the Zoning Ordinance treats building

height. If done through a variation it might be difficult to make a hardship argument and

they may need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Chairperson Ryan commented on the Glen Ellyn and Wheaton models indicating that

teardowns could establish what Lombard would look like and that would include making

existing permitted conforming properties non-conforming. Mr. Heniff stated that was

correct and indicated some examples of where this has happened in Lombard at the

properties located east of Madison Meadows where existing homes had a 40' setback

and the other new home had a 30' setback.

Chairperson Ryan stated while there has to be some conformity to the neighborhood, he

felt big brother is getting involved again and does not like us setting limits.

Commissioner Burke stated he was struggling more with various depths of the lots.

Using his lot as an example, he indicated that his lot is 130 feet deep and his neighbor's

is 200 feet deep and they line up with each other. He indicated that you need to make

the front of your house line up. Wheaton and Glen Ellyn for the most part have larger lot

sizes than Lombard does. Mr. Heniff stated that he is not familiar with either Village's lot

sizes. Commissioner Burke indicated that those types of depths might be more doable

there than here.

Commissioner Sweetser agreed with the comments about size of lots, teardowns and

deep lots. She felt that a relative instead of an absolute setback would be more

practical because even though 200 foot setbacks is extreme, there should be flexibility.

She is worried about teardowns and subsequent rebuilding and how that could affect the

setbacks. As far as seeking a conditional use she thought that in the past they had tried

to reduce the numbers and this would only add more to the process. Commissioner

Sweetser then asked how this issue came about. Mr. Heniff indicated that based on a

couple of cases where they noted they were different than established. He stated there

are ways to do it but you have to be careful once you make one lot relative to another.

Commissioner Melarkey indicated that while serving on the Zoning Board of Appeals

there were many cases they reviewed relative to this topic. He felt that Lombard lots

and blocks were different than other communities and was a different shaped town. By

changing the setbacks, the lot might not be suitable for the home to be put on it and

could push the developers to other communities. He questioned the rear yard setback

and how other issues come into play like open space.

Chairperson Ryan stated that Lombard has quite a few lot variation sizes due to the

1910 and 1920 additions to the Village that have since been grandfathered. Tying in to

what Commissioner Sweetser said, that would require additional work for either the

Zoning Board of Appeals or the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Melarkey mentioned how the topography of the land would drive them to

get variations from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Commissioner Sweetser suggested that in any process where a home would come in

there could be some kind of advisement or guidelines in order to call this to the attention

of the developer or owner. Mr. Heniff indicated that the City of Naperville developed

guidelines for development in the community where they consider the context of the

neighborhood. Commissioner Sweetser stated that she would prefer that.

Commissioner Olbrysh stated that this is not an easy solution. Lombard has 30-40

teardowns per year. He is concerned about maintaining the character of the

neighborhood and that would include the setbacks. He likes the idea of a relative

setback but there are a lot of things to look at.

Mr. Heniff then summarized the Commissioners' comments stating that there is a bit of

concern about jumping into a relative yard setback. They would like to keep the context

of existing homes but there is concern that this is not the best tool as it can create

additional problems. The front yard can be considered as far as guidelines instead of an

absolute setback.