Village of Lombard Legistar System

Petitioner Roger B. Wozniak, 1201 US Hwy 1, Apt 221 North Palm Beach, Florida

gave statement that he was under the impression from VOL that the subject lot was a

buildable lot in 1979. He read a letter from VOL stating requirements received prior to

purchase of the property at a tax sale. He stated that at that time the Village had

recommendations as to how building should be arranged. He has since put property on

the market having sought neighbors to buy the property unsuccessfully. He further

stated that now the VOL has recommended a subdivision and he wants the lot to be

considered buildable by today's standards. Mr. Wozniak is asking for the Village to

honor their original letter.

Copies of the letter were distributed to the Plan Commission and staff.

James Dee, J.W. Reedy, spoke to the details of the listing. He further stated that he

had contacted VOL who were unable to give a definate answer. A contract was

negotiated according to terms they knew from VOL and sold contngent on buildability,

the contract was cancelled. The property is now off the market.

Ray Flemm, 623 Finley, described the lot and grade in question and told the history of

the vacant property and various drainage problems. He stated that the property has

been vacant for over 50 years. He detailed the effects on surrounding propeties if the

lot is developed. He further described that any home that would be able to be built

would not look appropriate in the area.

Robert Rada, 439 W. Harding Rd. said that he resides within 300 ft, and further stated

that the lot is a swamp.

Louis George, 635 Finley, stated that no one dumps on the property and respectfullly

requests that petition be denied. He feels that a home on that lot would be a detriment

to property values. He said that the lot acts as needed retention for the area. He

presented photographs that were taken days after a rain. Asks that Plan Commisssion

either deny or add conditions regarding retention.

Patricia Thundenburg, whose property abuts the property in question said that the lot

has at times been a pond. She stated that it has never been maintined by the owner.

Joan Gibbon, 607 Finley, has been through all the improvements that have been done.

water flows across their property and they have been told that basement damage has

been caused by hydrologic pressure. They respectfully hope that this developement not

be encouraged.

Joeseph Mazarro 615 S. Finley noted the drainage and showed topographic survey of

the area and stated that already part of their property is useless due to the water. He

asked that if this petition does go through, that a storm drain be installed. The previous

owners had asked the Village for a drain which was denied due to being on private

property.

Petitioner Roger B. Wozniak, 1201 US Hwy 1, Apt 221 North Palm Beach, Florida

rebutted that he wanted to address the fact that if his lot is not a lot of record, the

adjacent lots are not either, for they are much the same. He spoke regarding the

drainage and passed out a grading drainage plan. He agreed that they natural drainage

does run through the lots and provisions would have to be in the recommendation. He

stated that the style of home could be a raised ranch with parking underneath. He

spoke regarding the issue of depressed property and does intend on a relialble builder

with a nice home on the lot. He recounted that he originally could not build because of

the building moratorium and now when he asks about building, the Village of Lombard

has to consult their lawyer. He concluded by asking the Plan Commission for approval.

Staff report was given by David Sundland, Planner who corrected the dimensions of the

property.

Com Brod Questioned Council as to the VOL responsibliltiy to follow the later. Ms.

Petsche responded that VOL can not be held responsibilty for a previous mis statement

of the law.

VILLAGE OF LOMBARD

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW GROUP REPORT

TO: Lombard Plan Commission HEARING DATE: November 12, 1997

FROM: Department of Community PREPARED BY: David Sundland

Development Planner

TITLE

PC 97-26: 637 South Finley Road: Requests approval of a one (1) lot subdivision,

which includes a variation of the Zoning Ordinance for lot width from the required 60 feet

to 32.43 feet, and a variation of the Zoning Ordinance for lot size from the required

7,500 square feet to 4,891 square feet.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Petitioner/Owner: Roger Wozniak

1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 220

North Palm Beach, FL 33408

PROPERTY INFORMATION

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Size of Property: Approximately 4,891 square feet

Comprehensive Plan: Recommends Single-Family Residential Development

Existing Zoning: R2 Single-Family Residence District

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

North: R2 Single-Family Residence District; Single-Family Residence

South: R2 Single-Family Residence District; Single-Family Residence

East: R2 Single-Family Residence District; Single-Family Residence

West: R2 Single-Family Residence District; Single-Family Residence

ANALYSIS

SUBMITTALS

This report is based on the following documentation, which was filed with the

Department of Community Development on September 12, 1997:

1. Petition for Public Hearing.

2. Response to Standards for Variations.

3. Copy of Letter from David Clements, Village of Lombard Zoning Administrator, to

Roger Wozniak, dated December 4, 1979

4. Plat of Survey; Prepared by Ernst W. Kohn, dated January 13, 1982.

5. Plat of Resubdivision

6. Grading and Drainage Plan

DESCRIPTION

There have been two land divisions which have affected the subject site. The first was a

subdivision, created in 1923, which included three (3) lots facing Finley Road. (See

Exhibit “A”. The diagram at the top of the page shows the original lot configuration. The

original lots are shown in red; the subject site, though not yet created, is shown, in

green, for reference.) The second division, the date of which is unknown, reconfigured

those three lots into four (4) lots, with three (3) lots facing Harding (Exhibit “A”; outlined

in blue) and a fourth lot, the subject site, facing Finley Road (Exhibit “A”; green). This

second division was not a subdivision; therefore, these four lots are assessment lots,

not legal lots-of-record. Single-family residences were constructed on the three lots

facing Harding prior to 1956 (exact dates unknown); no structure was ever constructed

on the subject site.

The subject site is 150 feet deep, 32.43 feet wide (as measured at the front setback)

and approximately 4,891 square feet in area. This lot is much smaller than is allowed in

the R2 district, which specifies a minimum lot width of sixty (60) feet and a minimum

area of 7,500 square feet. It is unknown why such a small lot was created, but it may

have been intended to be an outlot to be used exclusively for stormwater detention.

This speculation is supported by the topography of the site, the “standing water” (see

Grading, Drainage Plan), and the “mosquito infested” nature of the site (see response

“6” in the response to standards for variations). This speculation would also help to

explain why the previous owners did not bother to pay the taxes for the property and

why the property was available at a tax sale auction. It is unlikely that such a small lot

was created with the intention of developing it as a single-family residence.

Regardless of the reasoning behind its creation, this piece of property was purchased

and development of a single-family residence pursued. The petitioner contacted the

Village of Lombard in 1979 to ask whether or not the site was developable, and was

sent a written reply stating that the site was indeed developable. (As is stated in the

attached letter from Janet Petsche, Attorney, this letter was a misstatement of the law,

and that misstatement cannot prevent the Village from enforcing the law.) The petitioner

states that the property was purchased subsequent to receipt of this letter; staff has no

record of the exact date of property transfer. A building permit for the site was never

requested, due in part to the Village’s building moratorium in the early 1980s.

The petitioner contacted the Village in 1997 to again pursue the possibility of developing

the site. He was informed that this would not be possible without creating a lot-of-record

and receiving variations from the Village’s standards for lot width and area.

ENGINEERING

Private Engineering Services

The Private Engineering Services Division has no objection to the request for approval

from an engineering or construction perspective. If the plat is approved, a five (5) foot

public utility easement will be required along the side property lines, and a ten (10) foot

public utility easement will be required along the rear property line.

The Private Engineering Services Division has not yet reviewed the Grading and

Drainage Plan. This plan will be reviewed as part of the building permit application

process.

Public Works

The Department of Public Works has no comments regarding this application.

FIRE AND BUILDING

The Fire Prevention Bureau has no comments regarding this application.

PLANNING

Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan

The Comprehensive Plan recommends single-family residential uses at this location.

The proposed use complies with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan.

Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses

The subject property is surrounded on all sides by single-family residential homes. In

this regard, a single-family residence would be compatible with the surrounding

properties. However, the smallest property in the area is fifty (50) feet wide and 7,250

square feet in area. Thus, if the property is developed it will look out of character with

the surrounding properties.

Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance

The petitioner is requesting variations from the minimum lot width and minimum lot area.

These variations are substantial -- a 46% reduction in lot width (from 60 feet to 32.43

feet) and a 35% reduction in lot area (from 7,500 square feet to 4,891 square feet). To

consider granting such a variation, one must look very closely at the Standards for

Variations:

· Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions

of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as

distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be

applied. The petitioner is in a difficult position, as the subject property is too small to be

developable by Village standards. If this property is to provide financial benefit to the

petitioner, the only options that are available are either to acquire enough additional

property to create a conforming lot or to sell the property to adjacent property owners.

· The conditions upon which an application for a variation is based are unique to the

property for which the variation is sought, and are not generally applicable to other

property within the same zoning classification. Assessment lots are quite common in

Lombard, and often do not meet Code requirements for lot size. Properties were divided

into assessment lots for a number of reasons; however, undevelopable lots were usually

created to reduce tax assessments -- by placing vacant land in a separate lot, a portion

of a person’s property could be assessed at a lower tax rate. Since the creation of

assessment lots was permitted until 1990, the number of nonconforming assessment

lots that have been created in Lombard are innumerable.

· The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase

financial gain. The petitioner is seeking the variation to realize a financial return on his

investment. Some financial return could likely be gained by selling the property to

adjacent property owners; however, staff does not presently know the amount that

adjacent property owners would be willing to pay for the property.

· The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this ordinance and has not been

created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The difficulty is not

caused by this ordinance -- Lombard records indicate that the minimum lot size for the

property has always been 7,500 square feet. Without knowing when the assessment lot

was created, it cannot be known whether the difficulty was caused by the adoption of

Lombard’s very first Zoning Ordinance. Without knowing why the assessment lot was

created, it cannot be known whether or not there was ever an intent for the property to

be developed.

· The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious

to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.

The granting of this variation is most likely not beneficial to the public welfare; however,

the impact of the granting of this variation is not likely to be significant enough to be

considered to be detrimental or injurious (the potential establishment of precedent

notwithstanding).

· The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the

neighborhood. All of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood are substantially larger

than the proposed lot would be. Any development on this lot, regardless of how well

designed or constructed, would appear crowded and would stand out as being unusual

for the neighborhood. Development of this lot would, therefore, alter the character of the

neighborhood.

· The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent

property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the

danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent

properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property

values within the neighborhood. The granting of the variation would not impact light, air,

congestion, fire, or public safety. Code standards would ensure that development of the

site would not impair natural drainage or create drainage problems. It is unknown what

impact the granting of this variation would have on property values within the

neighborhood.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For any variation to be granted, all seven of the standards of variations must be

affirmed. Staff does not believe that all of the standards have been adequately affirmed

for the proposed subdivision. Additionally, staff believes that granting the proposed

variation would set a dangerous precedent, as there are numerous nonconforming

assessment lots in the Village.

Based on the above considerations, the Inter-Departmental Review Committee

recommends that the Plan Commission make the following motion recommending denial

of this petition:

Based on the submitted petition and the testimony presented, the proposal does not

comply with the standards required by the Lombard Zoning Ordinance; and, therefore, I

move that the Plan Commission recommend to the Corporate Authorities denial of the

subdivision and variation associated with PC 97-26.

Inter-Departmental Review Group Report Approved By:

______________________________

David A. Hulseberg, AICP

Director of Community Development

DAH:DCS:am

att

c. Petitioner

M:\WORDUSER\PCCASES\97\97-26\REPORT.DOC

he petitioner spoke regarding the proposed enclosure of an outdoor dining area which is

apporximately 575 Square ft..

Brad McNeal, 115 S. Grace St., stated that the outdoor area is not working due to the

weather. He outlined the need for space to seat people more quickly.

No one was present to speak against the petition.

Theresa Koehler presented the staff report.

VILLAGE OF LOMBARD

INTER DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW GROUP REPORT

TO: Lombard Plan Commission HEARING DATE: November 12, 1996

FROM: Department of PREPARED BY: Theresa R. Koehler, AICP

Community Development Senior Planner

TITLE

PC 97-27: 601 E. Butterfield Road: Requests approval of an amendment to a Planned

Development in order to increase the allowed square footage of the TGI Fridays

Restaurant.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Petitioner: Paul Long

TGI Friday’s

12117 E. 75th Street

Indianapolis, IN 46236

Property Owner: K-B Opportunity Fund I, L.P.

1834 Walden Office Square

Schaumburg, IL 60173

Status of Petitioner: TGI Friday’s Facilities Manager

PROPERTY INFORMATION

Existing Zoning: O PD Office/Planned Development

Existing Land Use: Restaurant/Office

Size of Property: Approximately 7.96 Acres (entire Planned Development)

Comprehensive Plan: Recommends Office

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

North: B3 PD Community Shopping District/ Planned Development

Yorktown Mall

South: Interstate 88 (East-West Tollway)

East: O PD Office District/ Planned Development

Embassy Suites (Hotel)

West: O Office District

TCF Bank

SUBMITTALS

This report is based on the following documentation which is on file with the Department

of Community Development:

1. Petition for Public Hearing: Signed and Notarized September 25, 1997.

2. Site Plan: Prepared by Spring Valley Architects, Inc., dated as last revised on

August 21, 1997.

3. Landscape Plans (Exisiting, Plan “A” and Plan “B”): Prepared by Classic Design

Landscape, dated September 26, 1997.

4. Responses to Standards for Condtional Use, dated September 23, 1997.

ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION

The entire Planned Development consists of five office buildings and the TGI Friday’s

restaurant. The amendment being requested affects only the restaurant located in the

northwest corner of the Planned Development.

ENGINEERING

The Private Engineering Services Division has no objection to the request from an

engineering or construction perspective.

PUBLIC WORKS

The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has no concerns.

BUILDING AND FIRE

The Bureau of Inspectional Services notes that permits are required and that the

emergency exiting an automatic fire protection must be extended to the addition.

PLANNING

Zoning History

The subject property was annexed into the Village of Lombard on March 22, 1979. At

that time, the property was zoned to the Office/Institutional District and granted

conditional use approval for an Office Planned Development (pursuant to Ordinance

#2273). The Annexation Agreement and Planned Development allowed an 8,000

square foot restaurant with a sidewalk cafe.

The petitioner is requesting that the existing outdoor eating area, located on the east

side of the restaurant, be enclosed so as to provide additional indoor seating. By

enclosing the 573 square foot outdoor eating area, the 8,000 square foot restaurant

limitation is being exceeded.

Landscaping

The petitioner submitted three landscape plans (one showing the existing landscaping

and two showing proposed landscaping). The plans are not to scale and some of the

landscaping materials are not identified. While Plan B is preferable, staff recommends

that the petitioner work with the Department of Community Development prior to building

permit submittal to agree upon an acceptable Landscape Plan.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Staff finds that the impact of enclosing the outdoor seating area creates a minimal

impact on the site design. By enclosing the outdoor seating area, the property will

continue to meet the parking requirements.

Based on the above, the Inter-Departmental Review Committee recommends that the

Plan Commission make the following motion recommending approval of this petition:

Based on the submitted petition and the testimony presented, the requested

amendment to the Planned Development complies with the standards required by the

Lombard Zoning Ordinance; and, therefore, I move that the Plan Commission

recommend to the Corporate Authorities approval of the amendment to the Planned

Development associated with PC 97-27, subject to the following conditions:

1. This amendment to the Planned Development shall be null and void unless a building

permit is obtained within one year or a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained within 18

months of the approval of this ordinance.

2. All improvements shall substantially comply with the site plan prepared by Spring

Valley Architects dated as last revised on August 21, 1997.

3. That a Landscape Plan be submitted to the Department of Community Development

for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

4. That the Planned Development Ordinance be amended to allow an 8,600 square foot

restaurant; and that should a new outdoor eating area be considered, an amendment to

the Planned Development would be required.

______________________________

David A. Hulseberg, AICP

Director of Community Development

TRK:am

att

c: Petitioner

m:\worduser\pccases\97\97-27\stfrpt.doc