Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.