Village of Lombard Legistar System

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:

Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman, Polley, Tap and Bedard

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.

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