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 |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed |
Bedard |
The following staff members were present: David A. Hulseberg, AICP, Director of |
Community Development; William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; and Michelle |
Kulikowski, Planner I. |
K. ZBA 06-02: 44 S. Columbine Avenue (Waiver of First Requested and Waiver of |
Fees) |
Requests a variation to Section 155.415(F)(4) to reduce the rear yard setback from |
thirty-five feet (35') to five feet (5') to allow for the construction of a deck over three feet |
(3') above average grade in the R2 Single Family Residential District. The petitioner is |
requesting a waiver of first reading and a waiver of fees. (DISTRICT #1) |
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. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Polley, that this matter be recommend to |
the Corporate Authorities for approval with conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
1. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the deck. |
2. That the variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Should the existing |
residence be damaged or destroyed by any means, to the extent of more than fifty |
percent (50%) of the fair market value of the residence, then any new structures shall |
meet the full provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. |
L. ZBA 06-03: 121 N. Lincoln Avenue (Waiver of First Requested) |
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. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Newman, that this matter be recommend |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval with conditions. The motion carried by |
the following vote: |
1. That the petitioners shall construct the porch in accordance with the plans submitted |
as part of the petition and dated December 16, 2005. |
2. That the petitioners shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed |
improvements. |
3. That the variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Should the existing |
residence be damaged or destroyed by any means, any new structures shall meet the |
thirty-foot front yard provisions. |
4. The roofed-over porch shall remain unenclosed |
M. ZBA 06-04: 935 E. St. Charles Road (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests that the Village amend the conditions of approval associated with Ordinance |
5508 that granted approval of variations to the minimum lot area and rear yard setback |
for the subject property located within the B4 Corridor Commercial Zoning District. The |
petitioner and staff are requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #5) |
Khadir Latifi, contract purchaser of the property, presented the petition. He described |
the previous approval granted by the Village for a strip commercial center on the subject |
property. The approval was based upon the submitted plans and building elevations. |
The petitioner wishes to amend the Ordinance of approval by providing an alternate |
building elevation plan set for Village consideration. |
The latest plan changes the proposed flat roof to become a hip roof with dormers. The |
proposed roof will be an aesthetic improvement to the building and would decrease the |
overall building costs, as it would not require additional load bearing capacity. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in |
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. |
It was moved by Polley, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be recommend to |
the Corporate Authorities for approval with conditions. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
1. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the building elevation plans |
prepared by Ekash Associates, Ltd., dated November 15, 2004 and submitted as part of |
this request. |
2. All other conditions associated with Ordinance 5508 not amended by this petition |
shall remain in full force and effect. |
On a motion by Young seconded by Newman the minutes of the January 25, 2006 |
meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. |
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. |
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. |
_________________________________ |
John De Falco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
_________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |