Village of Lombard Legistar System

John Streetz of Doyle Signs, 232 Interstate Road, Addison, presented the petition. Mr.

Streetz stated that the subject property is a unique multi-tenant building within the

industrial district. He noted that multi-tenant properties within the various business

districts are allowed significantly more signage. He described the proposed sign and

indicated that the new sign will be much more aesthetically pleasing than the sign it is to

replace.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting

variations for height, area, and location for a proposed freestanding sign for York Brook

Park. The proposed sign, to be located at the southeast corner of Finley and

Eisenhower Lane, will replace the existing York Brook Park sign at the northeast corner.

The Village has previously issued permits for identification signs in the same general

location as the proposed sign, several of which exceeded the current code limits with

regard to sign area and height.

Staff can support the requested variations for sign area and sign height. The proposed

non-illuminated sign will be surrounded with landscape plantings and will be located

outside of the clear line of sight area, unlike the sign it will be replacing. The new sign

location will significantly improve the visibility of surrounding properties as well as the

park itself.

Shopping center identification signs, which are permitted for multi-tenant properties in

the B3 and B4 Districts, are allowed up to 150 square feet with a maximum height of 35

feet. Examples of these signs include Yorktown Center and Fountain Square.

However, there is no comparable sign classification for multi-tenant properties within the

I Limited Industrial District.

Furthermore, the Village has previously granted a variation request of this type. In 2001,

the Village reviewed a similar case wherein the nearby Oak Creek business park was

granted approval for a 100-square foot, 6.3-foot high sign. As Oak Creek and York

Brook Park are the only consolidated industrial parks within the Village, the requested

relief would not be generally applicable and would not set a precedent for individual

industrial properties.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members.

He summarized the petition, stating that they would be taking down an existing sign

within a clear line of sight area. He noted that there had been a previous permit for a

120-square foot sign, and the petitioner is now asking for a 60-square foot sign that is

7.3 feet in height with a 5-foot setback.

Ms. Newman asked about the setback from the street. Ms. Backensto referred to the

site plans and stated that the sign would be 5 feet from the property line, and the

property line is set back further from the street. The overall setback from the curb would

be greater than 10 feet, and there is no sidewalk along Finley adjacent to the subject

property.

Mr. Bedard asked about the existing setback, and the ZBA members discussed the

details of the submitted site plan.

Mr. Young stated that graphic on the submitted plans was a bit misleading, making the

sign appear closer to the street than it actually would be

Al Kennedy, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. He stated that his

neighbors were in support of his variation request to allow him to construct a three

season room. He submitted a petition signed by several of his neighbors. He noted that

he felt he had met the standards for variations and submitted a new summary of his

variation request.

Mr. Kennedy stated that there is precedent in the neighborhood for properties with three

season rooms set back less than the required thirty five feet (35'). He distributed

pictures of these properties as well as an aerial photo showing where they were located

in the neighborhood. He stated that he felt there was a hardship associated with the

shape of the lot and the location of his house on the property. He noted that 334

Colleen Drive had approximately the same lot width and depth and the house was

approximately the same size and dimensions. He distributed an overlay drawing

comparing the lot layout of the two properties. He noted that the same twelve foot (12')

by sixteen foot (16') three season room could be built meeting the rear yard setback

because the house is located on a rectangular lot and is not positioned at an angle. He

stated that his property is unique because other identical houses in the subdivision are

able to meet the rear yard setback with a three season room.

Mr. Kennedy noted that there were sixteen rear yard variances granted between 2001

and 2006. He stated that the problem is with the Ordinance changing the rear yard

setback from thirty feet (30') to thirty-five feet (35'). He noted that his neighbor to the

south of him has a three season room that is only fourteen feet (14') to the property line.

He also mentioned that his neighbor to the rear has a deck enclosed with an eight foot

(8') fence which is only fifteen feet (15') from the rear property line. He distributed

pictures of the two properties. Mr. Kennedy noted that three season rooms are very

popular in the neighborhood and that the proposed three season room would not alter

the character of the neighborhood. He distributed several pictures of three season

rooms on properties in the neighborhood.

Mr. Kennedy stated that safety issues also create a hardship. He stated that he and his

wife are unable to enjoy their backyard because of mosquitoes. He noted that they are

particularly concerned about the West Nile Virus as the elderly are more susceptible to

the virus. He mentioned that in Illinois there have been 1250 cases of West Nile Virus

and 84 deaths.

Peter Gash with National Energy Contractors stated that he has been working with Mr.

and Mrs. Kennedy for quite some time. He noted that they are frustrated because so

many of their neighbors have grandfathered three season rooms. He noted his

company is located in Lombard and does high quality work. He mentioned that the

Kennedy's have the best intention of improving their home.

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

favor of or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

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

property is approximately seventy feet (70') wide at the front property line and

approximately fifty feet (50') wide at the rear property line with an average depth of the

property is one hundred twenty-one and sixty-one hundredths feet (121.61'). She noted

that the house is positioned on an angle so that none of the exterior walls are parallel to

the front or rear property line. She mentioned that the existing residence maintains a

thirty foot (30') front yard setback and a thirty seven foot (37') rear yard setback. She

stated that the property owner is requesting a rear yard variation to allow the

construction of a three season room setback twenty-eight feet (28') from the rear

property line where a patio currently exists. She noted that the residence on the subject

property currently complies with the Zoning Ordinance setback regulations, as the patio

is a permitted encroachment in the rear yard.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the purpose of setbacks is to control bulk on property, and

provide adequate space for health and safety. She noted that setbacks also preserve

the suburban character of the area, help prevent over intensified use and help ensure

that lots do not have the appearance of being overbuilt. She mentioned that staff

usually does not support setback variations unless a hardship can be shown that

pertains to the physical attributes of the property. She stated that staff finds that the

hardship presented is of a personal nature, not one based on the physical attributes of

the property, and that the lot is similar to many R2 single-family lots in Lombard in terms

of size and the presence of mosquitoes.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the petitioner has noted other non-conforming properties in

the neighborhood relative to rear yard setbacks. She noted the neighborhood was

developed prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance when the rear yard

setback was only thirty feet (30'). She mentioned that a comprehensive review of

Zoning Board of Appeals cases revealed that other rear yard variations have been

granted in the neighborhood for the properties located at 320 Manor Hill Ct. (ZBA 76-5),

410 Manor Hill Lane (ZBA 86-9), 1521 Hillcrest Ct. (ZBA 99-09), 418 Hillcrest Ct. (ZBA

01-18). She noted that for the two more recent cases (ZBA 99-09 and ZBA 01-18) staff

recommend denial, finding that there was no unique physical hardship associated with

the properties.

She stated that staff remains consistent in its interpretation for the standards for

variations. She noted 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 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. She

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

throughout the Village. She stated that the hardship has not been created by the

ordinance and the requested relief is needed due to a personal preference to add a

three season room addition to the existing residence. She stated that the granting of the

requested relief will set an undesirable precedent.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members.

Mr. Young asked staff why there are so many non-conforming residences in that

neighborhood that are closer than thirty feet (30').

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff did not have a definitive answer. Some structures may

have received variances and some may have additions that were constructed without

permits.

Mr. Young stated that staff has remained consistent in their interpretation and the ZBA

has also remained consistent. He noted that there is no hardship, but based on the

neighborhood, he finds no compelling reason to deny the variance.

Dr. Corrado noted that in the past, the Zoning Board of Appeals has discussed the

change in the rear yard setback and its intent to allow a clear view through the

backyards. He mentioned in the past they have granted rear yard variances for

properties located on cul-de-sacs because the houses weren't aligned and there was

still a clear view through the backyards. He noted that this case is similar because the

street is curved and the houses aren't all aligned. He stated that the addition would not

interfere with a clear view through the back yards down the street.

Mr. Gash noted that if the addition were to meet the setback, it could only be five feet

(5'), which is essentially a hallway.

Chairperson DeFalco referred to sixteen pictures that the petitioner submitted of

properties in his neighborhood. He noted that some of the properties may be

grandfathered or illegal. The petitioner clarified that the sixteen referred to rear yard

variations that have been granted from 2001 to the present. Chairperson DeFalco noted

that some of those variances were granted because they were maintaining an existing

nonconforming building line and were not proposing to reduce the setback.

Chairperson DeFalco mentioned that he has a screened enclosure that he bought at a

home improvement store, and he puts it up during the summer months and then takes it

down. He stated that a this type of temporary enclosure would be permitted in the rear

yard. Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, confirmed that it would be permitted as long as the

screened enclosure was not permanent. She noted that it would be considered similar

to a tent or recreational equipment.

Chairperson DeFalso referenced the petition signed by the neighbors. He noted that the

current neighbors may not object, but there may be different neighbors in the future.

Chairperson DeFalco noted other structures that were permitted in rear yards such as

sheds and detached garages.

Mr. Bedard stated that while staff has been consistent in its interpretation, the Board of

Trustees has also been consistent in granting rear yard variations. He noted that he

would be hard pressed to deny this variation.

Chairperson DeFalco noted the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation should reflect

what they think is proper.