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, Planner I. |
D. ZBA 06-01: 151 E. Berkshire Avenue (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests a variation to Section 155.415(F)(2) to reduce the corner side yard setback |
from twenty feet (20') to six feet (6') to allow for the construction of a roof over an entry |
stoop on an existing legal non-conforming structure in the R2 Single Family Residential |
District. The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #4) |
Karen Herbert, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. She stated that a |
roofed-over entryway was needed for safety reasons. She noted that the roof would |
prevent ice from forming on the concrete stoop, and the railings would give her |
something to grab on to. She also mentioned that their neighbors had a similar |
roofed-over entry stoop. She stated that they liked the way that it looked and wanted to |
incorporate a similar roof over their entryway. |
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 subject |
existing house was setback approximately thirty feet (30') from the front property line |
along Garfield Street and ten and one-half feet (10.5') from the corner side property line |
along Berkshire Avenue. She noted that the house was built in 1955 and is considered |
legal non-conforming with respect to the corner side yard setback. She mentioned that |
the petitioner is proposing several renovations to the house, which include adding a roof |
over the existing entry stoop located within the corner side yard. Ms. Kulikowski noted |
that the existing stoop is a permitted encroachment in the corner side yard, but by |
adding a roof, the stoop will then be considered a roofed-over porch. She stated that |
the roofed-over porches are not a permitted encroachment in the corner side yard, and |
therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variation. |
Ms. Kulikowski described the proposed roofed-over entry stoop. She stated that the |
petitioner is proposing to replace an existing stoop with a stoop that is six feet (6') wide |
and projects four feet (4') from the house. She noted that the stoop will be one step |
above grade level and will have a gable roof supported by two columns. She mentioned |
that the gable roof will match the dormers that the petitioner is proposing on the second |
floor above the entry stoop. |
She noted that the adjacent property to the east (199 E. Berkshire Avenue) has a similar |
roof over the entry in the corner side yard, and the petitioner has stated that they liked |
the way the neighbor's entry looked and wanted to incorporate a similar entry roof with |
their renovations. She noted that staff was unable to determine when that entry roof |
was constructed and if it was originally part of the house. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the property owner of 199 E. Berkshire received a variation |
(ZBA 98-10) from the corner side yard setback requirements and a building permit for an |
addition. She noted that the plans submitted as part of the permit indicated that the |
entry roof was existing and that the roof shingles would be replaced in conjunction with |
the construction of the addition. She mentioned that their house is also legal |
non-conforming with respect to the corner side yard setback, as the house is only |
setback ten feet (10') from the corner side property line, and that code would require that |
the new addition meet the twenty foot (20') corner side yard setback. She stated that |
the variance was necessary in order to allow the addition to be built maintaining the |
existing building line. She noted that the variance did not grant any relief for the existing |
roofed-over entry stoop. She mentioned that the building plans for the addition show |
that the roofed-over entry stoop is five and one half feet (5.5') wide and projects |
approximately four feet from the house, thus maintaining only a six foot (6') corner side |
yard setback. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff is able to support the variation request for several |
reasons. She pointed out that all of the homes along Berkshire Avenue between Main |
Street and Grace Street are corner lots with their corner side yards abutting Berkshire |
Avenue. She mentioned that most of these homes are also legal non-conforming with |
respect to the corner side yard setback. She stated that the proposed improvements |
will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. She noted that there is a |
precedent for corner side yard variations in the area as the adjacent property (199 E. |
Berkshire) received a variation in 1998. She mentioned that the proposed roofed-over |
entry will be very similar in size and appearance to the entry on the adjacent property. |
She noted that while the requested relief is substantial relative to the twenty-foot (20') |
setback requirement, staff finds that the proposed improvements will not have a |
negative impact. She stated that the entry will remain unenclosed and will not add |
visual bulk within the corner side yard or impair supply of light and air to adjacent |
properties. She also noted that staff finds that the roof element over the entry stoop will |
be an aesthetic enhancement to the house. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members. |
Chairperson DeFalco suggested that a condition of approval be added that would |
prevent the property owner from enclosing the entryway. |
Mr. Polley agreed with the suggested condition and stated that enclosing the porch |
would have a different visual impact on the property and the neighborhood. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Newman, recommended 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 roof over the |
entry stoop. |
2. 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 |
twenty foot (20') corner side yard provisions. |
3. That the roofed-over entry-way stoop shall remain unenclosed. |
After final consideration of the petition was voted on, the petitioner and the Zoning Board |
of Appeals discussed the manner and method properties in the petitioner's |
neighborhood were addressed by the Village. William Heniff noted that there was not a |
past consistency to addressing corner properties. Frequently, the street name for the |
address is determined by the lot orientation, but that determination was not universally |
applied. |
On a motion by Newman and seconded by Polley the minutes of the December 28, |
2005 meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. |
On a motion by Polley seconded by Newman the meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. |
__________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
__________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |