Village of Lombard Legistar System

William Soldwisch, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. He stated that

last January his home suffered a fire. He noted that the original back deck was

protected by grandfather provisions, but after the deck was removed, the deck was not

protected anymore. He mentioned that with the improvements to the house as part of

the fire restoration, he would also like to rebuild a deck that was slightly larger than the

original deck.

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 noted that the subject

property is a triangular shaped lot that abuts Route 53 to the east and Interstate 355 to

the south and west. She stated that the property is currently improved with two

structures, and the structure to the south is the principal structure where the petitioner

resides. She mentioned that in January 2005, the residence was damaged from a fire,

and prior to the fire, there was an attached deck in the rear which was setback three feet

ten inches (3'10”) from the rear property line. She stated that the deck on the subject

property was more than three feet (3') above grade and was considered legal

nonconforming. Ms. Kulikowski noted that decks are only a permitted encroachment in

the rear yard if they are less than three feet (3') above average grade, and decks over

three feet (3') must meet the thirty-five foot (35') rear yard setback. She mentioned that

the deck remained intact after the fire, but in order to work on the foundation, the deck

had to be removed. She noted that once the deck was removed, any legal

non-conforming rights associated with the deck were lost. She stated that the petitioner

is proposing to reconstruct a similar deck with an additional expansion to the south of

the residence, but because the proposed deck will be more than three feet (3') above

grade and setback only five feet four inches (5'4”) from the rear property line, a variation

is needed.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the subject property consists of a triangular portion of Lot 17.

She noted that Lot 17 was originally platted as a more rectangular shape, but the

southwestern portion of the lot was acquired for the construction of Interstate 355. She

mentioned that the two structures on the property were constructed prior to the

construction of the tollway. She stated that the acquisition of the southwestern portion

of the lot for the tollway created noncomformities relative to the rear yard setback for the

structure to the south. Ms. Kulikowski noted that both structures were originally

constructed as residences, and the petitioner lives in the structure to the south and uses

the structure to the north as an accessory structure for storage. She mentioned that the

Zoning Ordinance only permits one principal structure, or residence, on a lot. She

stated that since more than a year has passed since the structure to the north was used

as a residence, there are no longer any legal nonconforming rights to allow two

residences on the property. She noted that the property would have to be subdivided in

order to use both structures as separate residences.

Ms. Kulikowski also noted that the petitioner is also replacing the stairs to the front

entrance, which do not include a roof over the landing, and therefore are not considered

a front porch. She stated that a front porch on the subject property would require a

variation because the provisions for front porch encroachments would not be met. She

noted that stairs are a permitted encroachment in the front yard, and therefore, no

variation is necessary.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the staff finds that the standards for variations have been

affirmed. She stated that there are several factors that present a hardship unique to the

subject property. She noted that the nonconforming rear yard is a result of the

acquisition of the southwestern portion of the lot for Interstate 355. She also noted that

the proposed deck would be a permitted encroachment if it were less than three feet (3')

above grade, but because the property slopes substantially towards the rear of the

property, the deck must be built at a height greater than three feet (3') above grade.

She also mentioned that the triangular shape of the lot presents a unique condition for a

property within the R2 District. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the proposed deck within the

rear yard will not impact any properties to the rear as the property abuts Interstate 355,

and there is also a sound wall between the tollway and the subject property. She noted

that the only adjacent property is to the north, and the residence on the subject property

is more than one hundred feet (100') from the shared property line. She mentioned that

the two story accessory structure will also obstruct the view of the deck from the

adjacent property. She stated that the proposed deck will not alter the essential

character of the neighborhood, as there was already a similar deck on the subject

property prior to the fire. She noted that the proposed deck will decrease the degree of

nonconformity as it will be setback five feet four inches (5'4”) from the rear property and

the previous deck was setback three feet ten inches (3'10”) from the rear property line.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff requested variation does comply with the standards for

variations, and recommends approval of the petition. She also noted the two conditions

of approval outlined in the IDRC report.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Bedard noted that staff did a wonderful job with the research for this petition.

Chairperson DeFalco read the two conditions of approval outlined in the staff report.

Requests a variation to Section 155.415(F)(1) to reduce the front yard setback from

thirty feet (30') to twenty-three and one half feet (23.5') to allow the construction of a

front porch on an existing legal non-conforming residence in the R2 Single Family

Residential District. The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #1)

David Schroeder, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. Mr. Schroeder

stated that he would like to reconstruct his front porch. He mentioned that the existing

porch is made of concrete and is cracking. He stated that he would like to reconstruct a

wooden front porch to keep with the architectural style of the house. He noted that the

house is over 150 years old and is a “plaqued” house. He mentioned that the house is

nonconforming with the front yard setback. He stated that the wood porch would be the

same basic size as the existing porch, except that it will project fourteen inches (14”)

further from the front of the house.

The architect for the project, Fred Fosnot, also spoke on behalf of the petition. He

stated that the property owner's intention was to keep with the historic nature of the

house. He noted that if the house were setback at the minimum required thirty feet

(30'), code would allow a front porch extending five feet (5') from the house. He stated

that the proposed deck will only extend five feet (5') from the house, and Mr. Schroeder

is asking for no more than what would be allowed by code had the house met the front

yard setback.

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

residence on the subject property was constructed in 1852 and is considered legal

nonconforming with respect to the front yard setback as it is setback approximately

twenty-eight and one half feet (28.5') from the front property line.

She mentioned that the existing front porch consists of concrete steps and a roof that

projects eighteen inches (18”) from the front wall of the house. She noted that stairs

less than four feet above grade are a permitted encroachment within the front yard, and

roofed-over porches are also a permitted encroachment within the front yard provided

that they do not project more than seven feet (7') from the front wall of the principal

structure and maintain a minimum twenty-five foot (25') setback. She stated that the

setback for a roofed-over porch is measured from the edge of the roof. She noted that

the existing porch maintains a twenty-seven foot (27') setback and projects only (18”)

from the front wall of the house, and therefore, meets the provisions for front porch

encroachments. She stated that the petitioner is proposing to replace the existing

concrete steps and roof with wooden stairs and a roof that projects five feet (5') from the

front wall of the house. She noted that the roof of the proposed porch will only maintain

a twenty-three and one half foot (23.5') setback from the front property line, and

therefore a variation is needed.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the existing porch consists of concrete steps that are cracked

and in need of repair. She mentioned that the existing roof is more of an overhang as it

does not cover the entire landing and it is not supported by posts. She noted that the

petitioners could replace the stairs by a matter of right. She stated that the petitioners

would like to renovate the front entrance with a more traditional front porch that would fit

in with the architectural style of the house and are proposing a slightly larger landing

which would project fourteen inches (14”) further from the front wall of the house than

the existing landing. She mentioned that the proposed roof would extend over the entire

landing and would be supported by two posts.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that there is a precedent for setback variations to allow

roofed-over porches within required yards, as a variation was recently granted (ZBA

06-01) to allow a roof over an existing stoop within the corner side yard. She noted that

the requested relief is not substantial, as the proposed porch will be setback only one

and one half foot (1.5') less than what is allowed by code. She stated that the proposed

improvements will not increase the visual bulk within the front yard. She also mentioned

that the setback of the house itself will remain the same, and the proposed porch will be

unenclosed.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the proposed porch will not alter the essential character of the

neighborhood. She noted that there are only three houses east side of Lincoln Avenue

between Grove Street and Windsor Avenue. She mentioned that the residence to the

south of the subject property is only setback twenty feet (20') from the front property

line, and the residence to the north of the subject property has an enclosed front porch

which is only setback twenty-three (23') from the front property line. She stated that

both of the adjacent properties have more substantial encroachments within the front

yard.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the residence on the subject property was built in 1852. She

mentioned that the petitioners stated that they purchased the house a couple years ago

with the intention of restoring it. Ms. Kulikowski noted that the proposed roofed-over

porch exemplifies the principles of traditional neighborhood design and is consistent with

the architectural style of the residence. She stated that staff finds the proposed

improvements will enhance the aesthetic value of the house and neighborhood.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that requested variation complies with the standards for variations

and recommends approval, subject to the conditions in the IDRC report.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Chairperson DeFalco referred to the case presented at last month's Zoning Board of

Appeals meeting (January 25, 2005). He mentioned that one of the conditions of

approval was that the front porch shall remain unenclosed. He noted that this condition

of approval was also outlined in the staff report for the subject petition.

favor or opposed to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. In 2004, the Village approved

Ordinance 5508 granting a variations to reduce the required minimum lot area from

40,000 square feet to 16,994 square feet and a variation to reduce the required rear

yard setback from thirty (30) feet to ten (10) feet in order to allow for the construction of

a commercial strip center. As with most cases, the petition was tied to conditions of

approval. These conditions included that the petitioner develop the site pursuant to the

submitted plans and building elevations.

Since the date of approval, the property owner has sought to develop the approved

shopping center. With a contract purchaser in place, he would like to proceed with the

project. However, they are proposing modifications to the building elevations which will

provide for a hip roof with dormers rather than the approved flat roof design. As staff

has determined that this change is a significant change from the approval conditions,

staff is sending this petition back through the public hearing process accordingly. The

proposed site plan itself will not change from the initial approval. For reference

purposes, the IDRC staff report for ZBA 04-06 and Ordinance 5508 are attached for

reference purposes.

He noted that the revised building elevations are compatible with the surrounding land

uses. He also compared the proposed building elevations to the original elevations.

The overall building design incorporates architectural elements of both the commercial

St. Charles Road corridor and the residential Westmore-Meyers Road corridors. The

proposed hip roof is more compatible with the residential roofs commonly found along

Westmore-Meyers Road. Staff supports the petition, subject to the conditions in the

staff report.

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

Mr. Bedard asked if the second level would be used for business purposes. Mr. Latifi

that it would not be used for office or storage purposes.

Mrs. Newman asked about the proposed building height. Staff noted that the first level

building height will be about fifteen feet. The hip roof will add an additional sixteen feet

in height, but based upon the calculation of building height, the overall building height

will be twenty-three feet.

Mr. Polley confirmed the types of uses that could locate in the center. Mr. Heniff noted

that any permitted use in the B4 District would be permissible in the building.

Mr. Young asked questions regarding his participation in the vote for ZBA 04-06. Mr.

Heniff noted that he did not attend the May, 2004 ZBA meeting. To ensure that a

conflict of interest did not present itself in this petition, he confirmed that the petitioner

would not be using his employer, West Suburban Bank, in the financing of the project.

Sales Tax Presentation

David Hulseberg, Director of Community Development presented a PowerPoint

presentation regarding the sales tax referendum issue that will be placed on the March

21, 2006 ballot. He noted that the presentation is being made to all Village committees

so that the member will be informed of the issue should they receive questions

regarding the referendum.

He then showed the presentation to the members, which included an audio/visual

section and a narrative of the slides. The presentation described the proposed sales tax

referendum, noting that the tax would be a one percent increase in the sales tax for

goods purchased in Lombard. The tax would not apply to service activities, groceries,

drugs or for higher priced titled goods such as automobiles. The presentation focused

upon the rationale for the tax, stating that the funds would be used to pay for capital

infrastructure improvements in the Village. The tax would also allow the Village to utilize

the general funds, rather than capital funds, to address unfilled staff positions and to

fund personnel costs for Village employees. The presentation noted how the tax

increase compare to other communities with regional shopping centers, noting that

many of these communities currently have higher rates even if the referendum passes.

He then discussed that estimates show that over fifty percent of the revenue would be

paid from people not residing in the Village.

Lastly, he noted that the Village Board passed a resolution freezing the water rate for a

ten-year period should the referendum pass. He then showed examples and described

that the reduction and freezing of the water rates will offset any increase in the sales tax

rate.

Mr. Bedard asked about the various fees that comprise a water bill. Mr. Hulseberg

clarified that the freeze on the water bill relates to the water rate and not the capital rate.

He also noted that future tax bills would reflect this difference so that it would be obvious

that the water rate was frozen per the resolution.

Mr. Bedard asked about the projected revenues anticipated to be derived from the sales

tax increase. Mr. Hulseberg stated that about $8.5 million would be generated by the

sales tax increase.

Mr. Bedard then asked if vehicle stickers would be eliminated if the referendum passes.

Mr. Hulseberg noted that this issue was discussed by the Board in earlier meetings, but

the Board decided to tie the referendum to a reduction in the water bill rather than

affecting the vehicle sticker program.

Mr. Young asked about the increase that was approved by the Board in late 2005 for

Yorktown Mall - would this create a two percent increase for Yorktown Mall? Mr.

Hulseberg stated that the one percent increase approved by the Village Board last year

was associated with the creation of a business improvement district (BID) for the

Yorktown Mall area. The BID is a funding mechanism that allows the Village to collect

funds for use specifically at Yorktown Mall and must be used for public infrastructure

and transportation improvements. He noted that the existing infrastructure at Yorktown

is in need of replacing and the BID is a way to finance these improvements.