Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Greg Young, Val Corrado, |
and Ed Bedard |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
The following staff members were present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; and |
Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner. |
A. ZBA 05-20: 609 E. St. Charles Road (Ordinance on First Reading) (Tabled |
January 19, 2006) |
Requests a variation to Section 155.415(F)(1) to reduce the front yard setback from |
thirty feet (30') to ten feet (10') to allow for the construction of a bay window on an |
existing legal non-conforming structure in the B4 Corridor Commercial District. At the |
request of Trustee Florey this item appears on Separate Action. (DISTRICT #5) |
Bob Carter, owner of the subject property at 609 East St. Charles Road, presented the |
petition. He stated that Seamless Gutters replaced the existing glass block window |
because the window frame was rotting out. He mentioned that when he asked the |
Village, he was told he did not need a permit to replace the window. He stated that the |
bay window is not a sidewalk obstruction, and that it is an enhancement to the property. |
He noted that he received several compliments about the window. |
Brian Carter, manager of Seamless Gutters, stated that he was involved in the window |
design. He noted that it took nearly ten weeks to construct the window. He mentioned |
that he never thought about the setback when designing the window. He also stated |
that the size of the window opening has not changed. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the existing |
building was constructed in 1956 at a distance ten feet (10') from the front property line, |
and is now considered legal non-conforming as the B4 Corridor Commercial District |
requires a minimum 30-foot front yard setback. The petitioner removed an existing |
window flush with the building in 2004 and constructed a replacement bay window. |
As the bay window projects out further from the façade of the building than the original |
window, the new bay window is increasing the degree of non-conformity and, therefore, |
requires a variation. She noted that the bay window was constructed without a building |
permit, and Village staff issued a stop work order upon identifying the window |
improvements. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated the constructed bay window is similar in style and design to an |
existing bay window on the front façade west of the subject bay window. She |
mentioned that bay window protrudes approximately twenty-two inches (22”) at the roof |
and twenty-eight inches (28”) for the bracing from the front wall of the building. She |
mentioned that the actual opening of the window remains the same, but the new bay |
window incorporates a mansard roof above the window opening and gusset supports |
under the window opening. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance does provide for bay |
window encroachments (Sec. 155.212, Table 2.1), provided that the bay window is no |
more than one story high and not projecting not more than three (3) feet into the |
requisite thirty-foot (30') front yard. She mentioned that the bay window cannot be |
located closer than twenty-seven feet (27') from the front property line. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff finds that the bay window does not substantially increase |
the degree of non-conformity with regard to the front yard setback. She noted that the |
bay window does not have a foundation, and it does not actually increase the floor area |
of the building. She mentioned that from a visual perspective along St. Charles Road, |
the existing roadway arc draws the motorist's eye away from the subject property, which |
decreases the overall visual impact of the encroachment. She stated that staff also |
finds that the window improvements are not detrimental or injurious to other properties |
or improvements in the area, and the added architectural elements are an aesthetic |
improvement to the property and the St. Charles Road Corridor. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the property is part of the study area of the St. Charles Ad |
Hoc Committee. She noted that the objectives outlined in the St. Charles Ad Hoc |
Committee Report issued in January 1999 include encouraging site improvements, |
integrating planned landscaping improvements, and encouraging adequate screening of |
outdoor storage and parking lots. She mentioned that as this property was part of the |
study area of the St. Charles Ad Hoc Committee, the goal of any zoning actions |
requested by property owners is to bring the properties in closer compliance with the |
corridor objectives and the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that in consideration of the |
requested relief, staff believes that the petition can supported if the proposed |
improvements are considered in the context of addressing some of the nonconformities |
on the subject property. She noted that as the relief is for an encroachment within the |
front yard (the most visible yard) those non-conformities should be addressed which |
include: removal of the existing cargo containers on the property, parking lot |
improvements, and fence improvements. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members. |
Mr. Bedard noted that he did not agree with some of the conditions of approval outlined |
in the staff report. He stated that he felt that some of the conditions didn't have anything |
to do with the requested variation for the bay window. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that it is common for cases heard before the Plan |
Commission to have conditions of approval related to aesthetic concerns for the subject |
property as a whole. He noted that many of these cases are associated with new |
development. He said he didn't recall any instances where the Zoning Board of Appeals |
outlined such conditions of approval. |
Mr. Bedard asked about the amortization of storage containers and whether Seamless |
Gutters was already required to remove their storage containers. |
Mrs. Newman stated that she agreed that the conditions of approval should only be |
related to the variation request. |
Chairperson DeFalco mentioned the Harlem Furniture signage variation (ZBA 05-15) in |
which staff brought up the issue of fly dumping on the property. He noted that the ZBA |
decided not to include it as a condition of approval, but rather have it handled through |
the Code Enforcement process, should the problem continue to occur. |
Chairperson DeFalco noted that there was reason to comply with the request to remove |
the cargo container, but he did not see a rationale for requiring the parking lot to be |
paved. He said that there are many gravel driveways in Lombard. He questioned if a |
residential property with a gravel driveway were seeking a variation, would the Zoning |
Board of Appeals require that the driveway be paved as a condition of approval. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, noted that ultimately the Zoning Board of Appeals can |
amend or strike conditions of approval as they see fit. |
Mrs. Newman mentioned that if the property owner were to put up a new fence they |
would have to comply with the fence regulations. |
Mr. Bedard mentioned that he noticed the fence on the property was in disrepair. He |
asked that the petitioner take a look at fixing the fence. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked about the timeline of events as far as the Village |
recognizing the bay window encroachment. Brian Carter stated that they hadn't had |
their rough inspection when the Village notified them about the bay window |
encroachment. He noted that it was a long time after the window was finished that the |
Village issued a stop work order. Robert Carter noted that the bay window was custom |
made. He described the unique construction of the building which required that the |
window be custom made. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Newman, that this matter be |
Recommended for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to the amended |
condition(s). The motion carried by the following vote: |
1. That the petitioner shall satisfactorily addresses all of the comments within the IDRC |
report, as follows: |
a. The property owner shall submit the required building permit application and |
construction documents to the Building Department for proper review and permit |
issuance. |
b. The construction of the already installed bay window will have to be inspected to |
determine if the code correct construction materials were used, including any and all |
electrical work installed within the bay construction. |
c. It will also need to be determined if any fire protection devices are to be installed |
in order to make the construction code compatible with the rest of the building. |
2. The petitioner/property owner shall apply for and receive approval from the Village for |
any requisite building permits prior to commencing work on the property. |
3. The relief included as part of this petition shall only apply to the encroachment for the |
bay window on the subject property. This relief shall not apply to any existing building |
and structures on the subject property. If in the event that the principal building at 609 |
E. St. Charles Road is damaged or destroyed more than fifty percent of the value of the |
principal building, the relief shall no longer apply |
On a motion by Newman and seconded by Polley the minutes of the November 16, |
2005 meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. |
The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. |
______________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
______________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |