Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Greg Young, Val Corrado, Ed Bedard |
and Keith Tap |
Staff Liaison: Jennifer Henaghan |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Ed |
Bedard and Keith Tap |
ZBA 08-04: 1005 E. Washington Boulevard |
Requests a variation to Section 155.205(A)(1)(c)(2) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
increase the maximum allowable fence height in a corner side yard from four feet (4') to |
five feet (5') in the R2 Single-Family Residence District. (DISTRICT #5) |
Kristen Walsh, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. She stated that |
she and her husband were requesting to install a five (5) foot fence that would |
completely enclose their yard. The fence would be constructed to four (4) feet and |
would include an additional one (1) foot topper. The topper would give an open, not |
fortress-like feel. The current fence is in disrepair, and it would benefit the character of |
the neighborhood to have it replaced. She further stated that the proposed fence height |
would not change the character of the neighborhood. |
Mrs. Walsh stated that the fence would be constructed eleven (11) feet from the |
sidewalk rather than right against it. This would make the fence less obtrusive. She |
stated that her family lived on a busy street and that she has a two and a half year old |
child and another on the way. The fence would serve in part as a safety feature for |
them. Building the fence to code would limit the usable space of the yard and alter their |
current landscaping. |
She stated that the fence topper would consist of two (2) foot boards spaced two (2) feet |
apart and could easily be seen through. At this point, Mrs. Walsh submitted two photos. |
One showed an example of the proposed fence and the other showed the current fence. |
Mrs. Walsh finished by saying that the fence would not be a danger in the neighborhood |
or a clear line of sight issue. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. |
Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Moynihan stated |
the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Washington Boulevard and |
Westmore-Meyers Road. The petitioner is requesting a variation to allow for the |
installation of a fence four (4) feet in height with a one (1) foot lattice extension, a total |
height of five (5) feet. The new fence will replace an existing fence greater than five (5) |
feet in height that is in disrepair. The proposed fence would be set back approximately |
eleven (11) feet from the side lot line. As the existing nonconforming fence is being |
replaced, the new fence would be required to meet the current zoning ordinance |
provisions, unless a variation is granted by the Village. |
The Zoning Ordinance allows nonconforming fences to remain in existence provided |
that once a nonconforming fence reaches the end of its useful life any replacement |
fence will meet current code requirements. In time, this allows for full compliance with |
the Zoning Ordinance. A variation may only be granted if there is a demonstrated |
hardship that distinguishes the subject property from all other properties in the area. |
Within their request, the petitioners have raised a few issues related to safety and |
neighborhood character. While staff recognizes these points are valid to a point, staff |
does not believe these concerns are demonstrative of a hardship. The petitioners also |
argue that the construction of a five-foot fence set back twenty (20) feet from the corner |
side property line as required would create an awkward situation due to the placement |
of a tree and an existing deck. Staff does not find this to be the case. A fence set back |
twenty (20) feet or slightly further would be located between the tree and the existing |
deck. |
Staff finds that the Standards for Variations have not been affirmed. |
Staff finds that there are no conditions related to the property that prevent compliance |
with the fence height regulations. The petitioner's property does not have physical |
surroundings, shape, or topographical features that differ substantially from other corner |
lots in the neighborhood as to be demonstrative of a hardship. |
Staff finds that the conditions are not unique to the subject property. Many other |
properties with a similar layout and design have been able meet the established |
regulations. |
Staff finds that the fence could be constructed per the ordinance requirements either by |
lowering the fence height to four (4) feet or changing the location so that the fence is |
outside the corner side yard. The hardship has been created by the petitioner as a |
result of the preference for the fence's height and location. |
Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the petition as requested. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Board has had a number of fence height cases |
before them. He described one fence on School Street that was built to six (6) feet in |
height. The fence had to be saw cut to four (4) feet. Similar concerns about safety were |
raised. He described another case on Elizabeth Street in which a four (4) fence had an |
additional lattice. Issues about dogs jumping the fence were raised in this case. Still, |
the lattice had to be removed. |
Mr. Tap asked the staff if the fence were set back twenty (20) feet, would the fence be |
permitted to be five (5) feet high? |
Mr. Moynihan answered that this would be permitted. Chairperson DeFalco stated that |
the fence could be as high as six (6) feet. |
Mrs. Walsh stated that the fence would cut into usable yard space, would be too close to |
an existing deck, and would change the layout of the yard. |
Mrs. Newman asked if the twenty (20) foot side yard were to be maintained, how far |
would the fence be from the deck? |
Mrs. Walsh stated that this would only be a few feet. Also, there is equipment in the |
area that would be difficult to reach if this were done and an existing tree would be |
outside the fence. |
Mrs. Newman stated that the tree seems to be interfering with the current fence and was |
causing it to bow. She asked if this was the case and if the proposed fence would be |
built in the same position. |
Mrs. Walsh stated that the fence would be built in the same place but it was not an issue |
as it appears. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that according to the site plan, a fence set back twenty (20) |
feet would be at least three and one half feet from the existing deck. He also stated that |
the width of the lot is eighty (80) feet and the usual lot width in the Village is sixty (60) |
feet. So, a set back of twenty (20) feet leaves sixty (60) feet to work with when it would |
normally leave forty (40) feet. |
Mrs. Walsh stated that these were valid points. However, she believes the spirit of the |
ordinance was to address safety issues and not creating a fortress-like feel. She |
believes that the proposed fence would not have either effect. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that when a fence is adjacent to a neighbor's front yard, |
they may not want to come out of the front of their house and see a wall to the side of |
them. This is what is meant by a fortress-like feel and is the case here. |
Mrs. Walsh stated that no neighbors were objecting to the fence. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the neighbor at 1015 East Washington may not be |
there forever. A new home could be built closer to the front lot line and would be |
impacted by the proposed fence. |
Mrs. Walsh stated that the proposed topper would give the fence a different feel. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that a hardship must be shown and that this case would set |
a precedent for other properties in the Village. |
Mrs. Walsh asked if there were cases with a precedent for approval. |
Mr. Moynihan stated that some similar cases had been recommended for denial and a |
few others for approval. However, the details of those cases were not necessarily the |
same as the current one. |
Mrs. Walsh stated that the trustee in her district supports her petition and had |
recommended the public hearing process. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated the Zoning Board of Appeals makes only a |
recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The ZBA must take a look at the ordinances |
and determine if there is a hardship. |
Mr. Bedard stated that given the size of the lot, he did not see a hardship in this case |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Corrado, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
ZBA 08-05: 805 S. Main St. |
Requests a variation from Section 153.504(B)(16)(b) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to |
allow two (2) wall signs where only one (1) wall sign is permitted in the B1 Limited |
Neighborhood Shopping District. (DISTRICT #6) |
Craig Kueltzo, president of Lombard Pharmacy, presented the petition. Mr. Kueltzo |
stated that when the pharmacy switched franchises they were required to display an |
additional illuminated sign on their building. The illuminated sign was permitted by the |
planning department, but the pharmacy would have to seek a variation for the existing |
second wall sign on the building. This sign has been in existence before the business |
was acquired by Mr. Kueltzo. He believed that damage to the building may be visible |
were it to be removed. Also, a shadow of the sign may be left behind on the façade. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. Michael Porritt, 762 S. |
Main St., spoke against the petition. He stated that he lives across the street from the |
pharmacy. The signage at the pharmacy is much brighter than it used to be. He stated |
that he was concerned about the light pollution as the pharmacy is open until nine p.m. |
and the sign is often on until 11 p.m. He also stated the other businesses in the building |
might ask for more signs. Mr. Porritt stated that he believed the new illuminated sign |
was out of character with the other signs on the building. |
Mr. Kueltzo stated that his variation was intended to allow one of the original, |
non-illuminated wall signs. His illuminated sign was allowed by the Zoning |
Ordinance. He stated that he understood the concerns of Mr. Porritt and that he would |
arrange to have the sign turned off by 9:15 p.m. |
Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. |
Stuart Moynihan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Moynihan stated |
the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Harrison Road and Main |
Street. Lombard Pharmacy is the southernmost tenant within a multitenant commercial |
building on the property. The pharmacy currently has two existing wall signs facing |
Main Street. As a member of the Health Mart Pharmacy group, Lombard Pharmacy was |
required by the corporate entity to install an exterior, illuminated sign. In January 2008, |
Lombard Pharmacy was issued a building permit to attach the illuminated sign to an |
existing wall sign affixed to the building's cornice. Staff evaluated the addition of this |
signage to an existing wall sign as an expansion of an existing non-conformity. |
However, the petitioning pharmacy remains out of compliance with the Lombard Sign |
Ordinance. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a variation from Section 153.504(B) |
(16)(b) of the Lombard Sign Ordinance to allow two (2) wall signs where only one (1) |
wall sign is permitted in the B1 Limited Neighborhood Shopping District. |
The Sign Ordinance permits one (1) sign per business in the B1 Limited Neighborhood |
Shopping District. However, staff believes that the particular circumstances of the |
petitioning business merit an additional wall sign. The lower of the two wall signs |
provides only limited visibility to passersby of the pharmacy. Due to its placement, the |
sign can be completely obscured by larger vehicles parked in front of the pharmacy. |
The visibility of this sign is especially poor when traveling southbound on Main Street. |
Due to its placement, the lower of the two signs seems to have a primary function of |
directing those patrons already on the site. Meanwhile, the wall affixed to the building's |
cornice primarily serves drivers on Main Street. |
If this property were zoned B3 Community Shopping District, Lombard Pharmacy would |
be allowed a second wall sign as a matter of right. The land use and site design of the |
subject property does not differ significantly from properties north on Main Street that |
are zoned B3. Staff finds that the signs are appropriately sized and are reasonably |
located on the building. The addition of the illuminated Health Mart sign does not cause |
the pharmacy's signage to be excessive. The illuminated signage also provides some |
increased visibility for the pharmacy during evening hours. This is important as the |
pharmacy is open until nine p.m. four days of the week. |
The approval of this petition would bring the subject property into compliance with the |
Lombard Sign Ordinance with regard to the new Health Mart signage and the two |
pre-existing wall signs. |
Staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the condition in the staff report. |
Mr. Tap asked if there was a freestanding sign on the property and if that sign was also |
related to this petition. |
Mr. Kueltzo stated that there was an old pylon sign on the property. |
Mr. Moynihan stated that the existing freestanding sign was not part of this petition. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that Mr. Z's parking lot lights rose concerns from neighbors |
concerning illumination. He asked if code identifies the permitted amount of illumination. |
Mr. Moynihan stated that the amount of illumination is not reviewed by planning. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked about the number of watts used for the illuminated sign. |
Mr. Kueltzo stated four, thirty watt bulbs were used. He stated that his original signage |
was brighter but he was forced to change his wall sign by the property owner. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked Mr. Porritt if the lights being turned off at 9:15 would make |
him more amenable to the request. |
Mr. Porritt answered yes but, he was still concerned about more signage at the property. |
Mr. Kueltzo stated that soon there would only be two tenants in the building. |
Mr. Tap asked staff if the new wall sign's size conformed to the ordinance regarding the |
width of the tenant space. |
Mr. Moynihan stated that the sign was reviewed by the planning department and was |
permitted. |
It was moved by Polley, seconded by Tap, that this matter be Recommended to |
the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to one condition. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
1. The wall sign for the pharmacy, or any future tenant, shall be limited to one wall sign |
on the existing cornice and one wall sign on the west building elevation south of the |
existing window pane, as depicted on the submitted building permit applications issued |
as #05-1154 on 8/10/2005 and #08-86 on 1/31/2008. |
On a motion by Bedard and seconded by Newman the minutes of the April 23, 2008 |
meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. |
Mr. Bedard asked if all of the Statement of Economic Interest forms had been received. |
Ms. Backensto stated that she would check with Carol Bauer. |
Mr. Tap mentioned the property at 482 N. Main Street, noting that it appears to have |
been abandoned. Mr. Bedard added that it does not create a desirable entry point into |
the Village. Ms. Backensto stated that she would ask Code Enforcement to inspect the |
property. |
Mr. Tap provided a summary of the Planning Commissioner Workshop sessions he had |
recently attended. He believed the sessions were very worthwhile and felt that Lombard |
is lucky to have a professional planning staff. Chairperson DeFalco noted that other |
workshops attended by ZBA members have led to procedural changes, such as having |
staff members be sworn in or not allowing trustees to testify in ZBA cases. Mr. Tap |
mentioned one good idea he came away with was the idea of a self-report card the ZBA |
could rate itself with on an annual basis. He added that the other communities were |
impressed with Lombard's Strategic Plan. |
Mr. Bedard asked if Code Enforcement regularly reported a breakdown of violations. |
Ms. Backensto stated that they track the number of complaints received, violations, and |
tickets issued, but they do not typically break things down by type of violation. Mr. Tap |
asked about the pending changes in Code Enforcement. Ms. Backensto explained that |
there would be one full-time coordinator who would work from the Village Hall and three |
part-time officers who would largely work in the field. This year, the Village is also |
moving toward administrative adjudication for some, if not all, Code Enforcement tickets. |
The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. |
________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
________________________________ |
Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II |
Zoning Board of Appeals |