Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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