Village of Lombard Legistar System

The petitioner, Ruth Czyzyk, stated the request. She noted that she and her husband

are senior citizens and face the hardships of senior citizens. She stated that the

first-floor addition would allow for greater mobility by adding a first-floor bathroom, an

expanded kitchen, and bedroom/sick room.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No public comment

was given for or against the request for variation.

Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the house is

currently located within the corner side yard setback and that the proposed addition

would keep with the existing building line. Because the addition maintains the current

building line, there will be no further setback encroachments than what already exists. In

the report, he also noted that many of the neighboring properties did not maintain the

required twenty (20) foot side setback. Toth also made note of the reduced lot size on

the subject property, being only fifty (50) feet wide, the buildable area of the lot has been

greatly reduced.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the

Board Members.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that this particular variation is similar to many other past

cases in the Village. He also noted that the ordinances have changed over time and the

house did meet code when it was originally constructed. His last comment was to point

out that if the structure were to be destroyed and required to be rebuilt, it would have to

conform to the current zoning standards.

ZBA 06-27: 506 W. Maple Street

Requests approval of one of the following sets of actions on the subject property located

within the R2 Single-Family Residence District:

1. Relating to a detached accessory structure:

a. A variation from Section 155.210 (A) (3) (a) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to

allow the height of a detached accessory structure to exceed the height of the principal

structure; and

b. A variation from Section 155.210 (A) (3) (b) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to

allow the vertical distance from the average grade to the highest point on the roof for a

detached accessory structure to measure twenty-three (23) feet where a maximum of

seventeen (17) feet is permitted;

OR in the alternative:

2. Relating to a principal structure:

a. A variation from Section 155.406 (F) (3) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to

allow a principal building to be located three (3) feet from an interior side property line

where a minimum setback of six (6) feet is required; and

b. A variation from Section 155.406 (F) (4) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to

allow a principal building to be located three (3) feet from a rear property line where a

minimum setback of thirty-five (35) feet is required.

(DISTRICT #1)

Ada Vaughn, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. She stated that her

property is unique in that it borders the railroad. She noted that she would like to

replace the demolished garage at approximately the same location. She mentioned that

her house is a 1926 Sears Craftsman Bungalow with limited storage space, and they

would like to construct a larger garage for additional storage space. She noted that they

do not intend to use the garage for a business occupation or a second dwelling unit.

She stated that they would like the garage to mirror the design of the house by

incorporating a dormer. She also mentioned that the timeline in the staff report did not

include the inspection they had on October 31st. She noted that there was a

misperception in that they thought it was alright to proceed with the revised plans. She

also mentioned that she would be willing to reduce the garage height to twenty (20) feet

to bring it closer to code. She noted that she doesn't really care whether the garage is

attached or detached. Her main concern is the height.

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 petitioner

wishes to construct a garage located three (3) feet from the rear property line and three

feet (3) feet from the side property line with an overall roof height of twenty-three (23)

feet. She noted the two proposed options for constructing the garage and the variations

that were needed with each option.

Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the petitioner received a permit for a detached garage

approximately fifteen (15) feet in height to be located three (3) feet from the side

property line and three (3) feet from the rear property line. She noted that the driveway

access to the garage would be from the rear of the subject property. She explained that

the plat of survey submitted with the petition denotes a 30 foot alley right-of-way to the

rear of the subject property. She noted that the alley is unimproved and remains as

grass. She stated that adjacent to the alley is Glen Oaks Road which is actually located

within the railroad right-of-way. She mentioned that the driveway apron is off of Glen

Oaks Road and the driveway crosses the alley to the rear of the subject property. Ms.

Kulikowski noted that after receiving the building permit the petitioner decided that they

would like to revise the garage plan to build a taller garage, and the timeline relating to

the revised plans is noted in the Building Department's comments.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff does not find a substantial hardship related to the

subject property that warrants any of the requested variations. She noted that the

petitioner can construct a two-car detached garage that would not require any zoning

relief. She mentioned that the hardship is a personal preference for the proposed

design for a taller garage.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the detached garage height restrictions have been uniformly

applied throughout the Village, and the intent of the garage height restrictions is to make

detached garages clearly subordinate to the principal single-family residence. She also

noted that they help ensure that secondary uses on the property such as business

occupations and second residences are not being created within the Single Family

Residential District.

Ms. Kulikowski explained that the current height restrictions for detached garages were

established in 2004 (PC 04-12) after concerns were raised about the overall height of

detached garages and the formula used to determine the maximum height permitted.

She noted that the maximum height was fifteen (15) feet. However, the definition of

building height in the Zoning Ordinance states that the calculation of the building height

is determined by the mean height for pitched-roofs. She mentioned that roof pitches

could be manipulated to allow for a two-story garage that would meet the fifteen (15)

foot calculated building height limitation. She stated that the 2004 text amendment

limited the overall height for detached garages measured from average grade to the

highest point of the roof to seventeen (17) feet.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the first option for a detached garage with a height of

twenty-three (23) feet is inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance, especially

considering that the principal structure is only one story. She noted that a variation is

also needed for the garage height and to allow the garage to be taller than the principal

structure, which would not make the proposed garage to appear ancillary to the

residence. She mentioned that attached garages are considered part of the principal

structure and therefore do not have the seventeen (17) foot overall height limitation.

She stated that with the second option, the garage would technically be considered

attached, but it would appear to be detached. She mentioned that the three (3) foot

walkway covered by the pergola would be the only visible connection to the principal

structure. She stated that staff is not supportive of any setback relief that is needed for

a plan that attempts to circumvent the height restrictions within the ordinance.

Ms. Kulikowski introduced Keith Steiskal and Ted Klioris from the Building Department.

She noted that they will answer any questions that the Zoning Board of Appeals

members may have.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that he had already asked staff about the clear line of sight

regulations for through lots. He noted that staff explained that code would not require a

clear line of sight area for the subject property.

Mr. Young asked how far the garage was from the street. Jennifer Backensto, Planner

II, noted the distance from the rear property line to the sidewalk and from the sidewalk to

the curb of Glen Oak Road.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the alley was Village property. Ms. Kulikowski stated it

was Village right-of-way. Mr. Bedard asked if Glen Oak Road was a County street or a

Village street. Ms. Backensto stated it was a Village street.

Mr. Young confirmed that the reason they considered attaching the garage was to avoid

the height restrictions for detached garage. He asked whether the petitioner was aware

of the setback requirements.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the Building Department's timeline stated that she

asked about the type of attachment needed for an attached garage. He asked whether

the petitioner inquired about any other restrictions associated with the revised plans.

Mrs. Vaughn noted that they asked what they could do to achieve a taller height.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that they wanted to go around the regulation on a

technicality. Mrs. Vaughn stated that they wanted to know how they could be within the

rules and still get what they wanted.

Mr. Young referenced the room next to the parking area for the hot tub. Mrs. Vaughn

indicated that they plan to use that as a three-season room.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the parking area was approximately 24 feet by 24 feet

and the three-season room was approximately twelve (12) feet by twenty-four (24) feet.

He noted that the proposed garage appears to be closer to the rear property line than

the previous garage shown on the plat of survey. Mrs. Vaughn stated that the new

garage is bigger in every direction and she thought that it would be approximately 18”

closer to the rear property line.

Mr. Young noted that the petitioner was willing to revise the plan to reduce the garage

height to twenty (20) feet.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that there have been petitions in the past where the

structure was built and didn't meet code, and the Zoning Board of Appeals had made the

petitioners tear off the roof and bring it into compliance.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the petitioner was proposing two options. He asked the

Zoning Board of Appeals members whether they had any thoughts regarding the

attached option versus the detached option.

Mr. Bedard stated that he preferred the detached option with a roof height of twenty (20)

feet.

Chairperson DeFalco asked whether there was a hardship.

Mr. Bedard stated that he didn't feel that there was a hardhip, but he felt that the garage

height restrictions were established to minimize the impact on lots that are back to back.

He said he didn't see a problem with a twenty (20) feet garage in this circumstance

because there isn't a neighbor to the rear and the garage would help screen the railroad.

Chairperson DeFalco asked for further discussion as to whether there is a hardship

associated with the first option to construct a detached garage.

Mr. Bedard noted that there isn't a property owner to the rear that would be encumbered

by a taller garage. He also mentioned that the reasoning for the height restriction is

applicable in this circumstance.

Mr. Young stated that there isn't a hardship in this case but he agreed that there was a

unique situation with the property backing up to the railroad. He noted that the garage

would shield the railroad and serve as a sound barrier.

Mrs. Newman noted that the garage height would affect the neighbors on the side.

Mr. Young noted the orientation of the adjacent corner lot. He stated that the rear of the

residence abuts the side yard on the subject property.

Mrs. Vaughn also noted that the adjacent corner lot is heavily wooded.

Chairperson DeFalco asked Keith Steiskal and Ted Klioris with the Building Department

about room height for 2nd story garages.

Keith Steiskal stated that with a height of seventeen (17) feet there is only enough room

to crawl on the second story. He noted that you can get more room if dormers are

added, but a person can't really stand up.