Village of Lombard Legistar System

Joseph G. Laspisa, attorney for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Laspisa stated

that the plans have been modified per the ZBA's request. The northeast corner of the

fence has been eliminated so that the fence now starts at the garage and extends

directly north to the property line. On the south side of the garage the fence has been

changed to run at an angle that would preserve the full 20-foot clear line of sight triangle.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one

present to speak for or against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, stated that the ZBA members have been provided with

revised fence plans that do not encroach into the clear line of sight area, and staff had

nothing new to add to the original staff report.

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

Mr. Young asked if the ZBA could vote on the requested pieces of relief individually so

that the fence height variations could be approved and the clear line of sight variation

could be denied. Ms. Backensto stated that they could either vote on the petition as a

whole or vote on the items individually.

Chairperson DeFalco asked about the clear line of sight requirements. Ms. Backensto

stated that a minimum clear distance of 20 feet is required on both sides of the

driveway, so the plans should reflect that.

Tomas Johansson, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. He stated that

he and his wife moved to Lombard in June and plan to stay in their current home for

years to come. He mentioned that they need to construct an addition to accommodate

visiting family. He noted that he understands that the intent of the 20 foot corner side

yard setback is so that cars parked on driveways are not blocking the sidewalk. He

mentioned that they have pictures of other corner properties in the neighborhood, and

his architect took setback measurements of those properties. He stated that the

purpose of the garage is to house their cars, and they wanted it at the proposed location

so that an old elm tree can be preserved.

Mr. Johansson also mentioned that they have a problem with stormwater because their

property is lower than the adjacent properties. He noted that because of their age, they

prefer to have everything on the ground floor level. He stated that the house enhances

the neighborhood. He mentioned that the design incorporates solar heating panels on

the garage which need to face south. He noted that there is a hardship due to the way

the house is positioned on the lot. There isn't enough room to do an addition in the

front. He stated that the only other option would be to tear down the house. He noted

that a three-car garage was to store two cars as well as a snow blower and yard tools

and equipment.

Tom Knapp, architect for the proposed addition, noted that three-car garages are

becoming more typical. Most people are looking for at least a two and a half car garage.

He stated that the two car garage is not really the standard anymore. He also noted that

many people are looking for one story additions, and master bedrooms on the ground

floor are becoming popular for additions and new construction.

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

property is located at the southwest corner of Harding Road and Elizabeth Street and is

approximately 65 feet wide and 188 feet in depth. She noted that the existing residence

is a split level house that is setback approximately 50 feet from the front property line

and 25 feet from the corner side property line. She mentioned that the petitioner is

proposing a one story addition which includes a master bedroom suite, living room, and

a three-car garage. She stated that the proposed addition would be setback 10 feet

from the property line, and therefore, the petitioner is requesting a variation to reduce

the corner side yard setback.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that it is difficult to demonstrate a physical hardship that is unique

to the property as the subject property is 12,220 square feet, which exceeds the

minimum required lot size of 7,500 square feet in the R2 District. She noted that even

though the existing residence is setback approximately 50 feet from the front property

line, there is still substantial room to the rear of the existing residence to build an

addition and comply with the setback requirements. She mentioned that there is a

buildable area of approximately 55 feet by 39 feet.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the hardship in this circumstance is a personal preference for

the proposed design for the addition. She noted that the portion of the proposed

addition that would encroach into the corner side yard would be a third bay for the

garage and storage area designated as a utility room and a laundry room. She

mentioned that the proposed addition would meet the setback requirements if the

three-car garage was reduced to a two-car garage and the storage areas were

reconfigured. She also noted that the petitioner also has the option to construct a

second story addition and/or a detached garage.

Ms. Kulikowski discussed the other corner properties in the neighborhood. She noted

that there are several corner properties that do not meet the current 20 foot corner side

yard setback, but staff did not find any corner side yard variations granted in the

neighborhood. She stated that these residences were likely built prior to the

establishment of the current corner side yard requirements and are considered legal

non-conforming. She noted that these properties would be required to meet the 20 foot

corner side yard setback should they be redeveloped in the future. She also stated that

there are also many corner properties in the neighborhood that meet the current 20 foot

corner side yard setback. She mentioned that it is difficult to make the argument that

reducing the corner side yard to 10 feet would be consistent with the character of the

neighborhood since there isn't a consistent pattern as it relates to corner side yard

setbacks. She noted the aerial photographs of the neighborhood that are included in the

Appendices of the staff report.

Ms. Kulikowski reviewed the standards for variations. She stated that the petitioner's

property does not have unique physical limitations that limit the owner from meeting the

intent of the ordinance. She noted that the lot is not unusually small and there is

sufficient room in the rear of the existing residence to construct a sizeable addition in

compliance with the setback requirements. She also noted that the conditions are not

unique to the subject property as the petitioner's property is the same size and

dimensions as other properties in the neighborhood. She also mentioned that the front

yard setback for the existing residence is consistent with that on neighboring properties.

She stated that the hardship has not been caused by the ordinance and has instead

been created by the petitioner's preference for the proposed design and the extent of

the proposed improvements to the property. She noted that the granting of the

requested relief will set an undesirable precedent.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the southeast portion of the garage is what needs the

variation. He also mentioned that the petitioner has the option to construct a two-car

garage and a separate storage shed for the yard tools and equipment. He asked how

close the shed could be to the garage.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that a 4 foot separation would be needed between a shed and a

garage. She noted that a shed would only have to have a 3 foot setback from the rear

property line and 3 foot setback from the interior side property line.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals has seen a lot of variation

petitions in the Green Meadows subdivision to allow existing carports to be enclosed.

He stated that those were only for one or two cars. He mentioned that this is the first

variation request involving a three-car garage.

Mr. Johansson distributed the pictures of other corner properties in the neighborhood to

the Zoning Board of Appeals members. He noted that the pictures showed many other

properties with sheds, but he did not want to put up a shed.

Chairperson DeFalco commended the petitioner for his research, but noted that the

pictures help demonstrate why the ordinance was changed to a 20 foot corner side yard

setback.

Mr. Johansson stated that only a small portion of the addition would encroach into the

corner side yard. He mentioned that they did not want to have one really long wall. He

noted that having the garage pushed closer to the corner side property line would help

break up the façade and add architectural interest. He stated that he did not feel that

the proposed addition set a bad precedent, rather a precedent of how a nice house

should look.

Mr. Knapp stated that ordinance is more written to address new structures, but does not

take into consideration the expansion of existing structures.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that he agreed, but the variance process does allow for

flexibility for additions if there is a hardship. He also mentioned that the Zoning Board of

Appeals typically adds a condition of approval to variations that would require the entire

structure to come into compliance should it be damaged to the extent of 50 percent or

more of the market value.

Mrs. Johansson stated that she has a problem with her feet and her 100 year-old

mother would likely be living with them. It would be difficult for them to use stairs. She

also discussed the difficulty of incorporating the stormwater cistern and solar panels if

they were to do a detached garage.

Mr. Knapp mentioned that they did look at doing a detached garage, but it would add a

lot of paving and leave little usable yard space.

Mr. Young asked the petitioner to explain the rainwater settlement tanks and how they

worked.

Mr. Johansson stated that the rainwater is collected and stored underneath the garage

floor. He noted that the heat from the solar panels is also stored underneath the garage.

Mr. Knapp added that there is a 10,000 gallon cistern under the garage. He mentioned

that all of the downspouts are directed to a drain tile which empties into the cistern. He

noted that the property is 5 feet higher at the south end and the connection to the

stormwater sewer is at the northeast corner of the property. He stated that all of the

neighborhood stormwater passes through their property.

Chairperson DeFalco mentioned that the proposed addition is within the clear line of

sight area.

Mr. Young noted that it can be resolved by modifying the driveway. He stated that if the

Zoning Board of Appeals chooses to grant the variation they should add as a condition

of approval that the driveway be modified to meet the clear line of sight area.

Chairperson DeFalco noted the front yard setback and that there was room to expand in

the front.

Mr. Knapp stated that it would be awkward to do an addition in the front with the way the

existing split level house was laid out. They would have to go up stairs and then back

down stairs.

Mr. Johansson noted that all of the houses on the block have a similar setback and it

would look odd to extend their house closer to the front property line.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that other houses on the block may be torn down in the

future and there may not be that straight building line on the block some day.

Mr. Bedard noted that they have granted corner side yard variations in circumstances

where the existing building line was being maintained. He said that he couldn't support

a variation in this circumstance due to the extent of the proposed construction. It is

almost as if it were new construction.

Mr. Corrado agreed.

Robert Ezerins, petitioner and architect for the project, introduced the property owners,

Yvette and Maris Jurevics. He stated that the porte-cochere was the inspiration for the

entire project, and Mrs. Jurevics has a disability that will be assisted by the

improvements. The first floor bedroom space will allow for accessibility and the ability to

age in place.

Mr. Ezerins stated that the porte-cochere will not be adding bulk to the property as it is

largely open and relief is only needed for the columns. The setback is no smaller than

necessary to protect the new entrance. They had considered an attached garage, but

decided it would not be appropriate for the subject property. The proposed deck follows

an existing building line and only requires relief due to its height. Although the size of

the deck could be reduced, a 7.5-foot wide deck would pose a safety hazard.

Mr. Ezerins concluded by stating that the porte-cochere was designed to accommodate

a future ramp. He also explained that the permit plans shown in Appendix A of the staff

report had only been submitted to allow them to get a building permit before the

variations had been approved and to provide an option in the event the petition is

denied.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment.

Yvette Jurevics, one of the property owners, stated that they purchased the 1921-built

house in 1990 and were only the third owners. She stated that access issues were their

primary concern.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The subject property is a

50-foot wide lot that is currently improved with a two-story single-family residence,

one-car detached garage, and frame shed. The petitioner is proposing improvements to

the property that include a one-story building addition, porte-cochere, two-car detached

garage, and deck.

On the northern side of the property the petitioner is proposing a porte-cochere that

would leave a 4-foot interior side yard setback where a minimum 9-foot setback is

required. The existing home is legal nonconforming with a 2.3-foot interior side yard

setback on the southern side of the property. The petitioner is proposing a 4.2-foot high

deck maintaining setback that would require additional relief as decks greater than three

feet in height are not permitted obstructions within required yards.

In July of this year, the petitioner submitted a building permit application showing the

proposed porte-cochere and deck encroachments into the interior side yards. Since that

time, revised plans have been submitted that comply with all setback regulations to

allow the addition and renovations to proceed in the event that this petition is denied.

However, the petitioner would prefer to receive the requested variations to allow them to

proceed with their original proposal.

Ms. Backensto stated that staff usually does not support setback variations unless a

hardship can be shown that pertains to the physical attributes of the property. In this

case, the petitioner has not demonstrated any hardship specific to this property or any

conditions that distinguish the subject property from others within the neighborhood and

within the R2 District in general. Although it is clear that the property owners have made

efforts to create an appropriate addition to their home in keeping with its architectural

style, there is nothing in this case that prevents compliance with the setback regulations.

Staff remains consistent in its interpretation for the standards for variations, which in this

case have not been affirmed. There is no demonstrated physical hardship, nor are

there any unique topographical conditions related to this property that would prevent

compliance with the ordinance. The proposed plans show an 11.5-foot wide deck on the

southern side of the property, encroaching into the required 6-foot interior side yard

setback by 3.7 feet. The petitioner can meet the interior side yard setback by

constructing a 7.5-foot wide deck. Similarly, the existing home is 18.8 feet from the

northern property line. As part of the overall renovations and additions, a porte-cochere

or other covered entrance could be constructed within the buildable area of the lot

without the need for any zoning relief.

There are not any unique differences between the petitioner's lot and others with the R2

Single Family District with respect to the width of the property and the required interior

side yard setbacks. Many properties within the older neighborhoods of Lombard and

specifically those within the vicinity of the subject property were subdivided as 50-foot

wide lots, so the lot width itself cannot be considered justification for a variation.

Although the current residence is nonconforming with regard to its setback, this

nonconformity in no way prevents the proposed improvements from complying with

code.

The hardship has not been created by the ordinance. The interior side yard setbacks for

R2 properties have been consistently applied throughout the Village. Since it would be

possible to construct the proposed improvements within the buildable area of the lot, the

relief is requested solely due to a personal preference for the proposed site plan. The

granting of the requested relief will set an undesirable precedent for other zoning relief

within this neighborhood.

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

Mr. Bedard asked if the property was currently a Lot of Record. Ms. Backensto stated

that both the improved lot and the vacant lot were each a recorded Lot of Record.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that a detached garage is allowed to be three feet from an

interior side lot line. Mr. Bedard stated that he was aware of that requirement.

Mr. Young asked if the addition would include a basement. The petitioner stated that it

would, and proceeded to explain the proposed deck and retaining walls as shown on the

plans.

Mr. Young asked if it would be possible to bring the deck into compliance through a

grade alteration. Ms. Backensto stated that it would theoretically be possible to meet

the zoning requirements that way, but there may be other engineering issues that could

prevent them from doing so. Tom Knapp, architect for ZBA 06-24 (303 W. Harding)

stated that was not a good way to solve the problem. The petitioner stated that option

was not a realistic alternative due to issues with the existing block foundation.

Mr. Young asked if the porte-cochere was essentially a carport. Mr. Bedard stated that

it was a carport and would allow covered access into the house. Mrs. Newman

referenced a previous case on Hickory where a covered entry was allowed.

Mr. Bedard noted that the porte-cochere would place pillars within the required setback

and not a solid wall.

Chairperson DeFalco asked how a porte-cochere would be constructed on the property

within code. Ms. Backensto stated that the currently proposed configuration of the

addition would make it difficult to do so, but the plans could be revised with a different

layout to incorporate a porte-cochere within the buildable area of the lot.

Dr. Corrado asked if the porte-cochere could be reduced in size. The petitioner stated

that it had been designed to be sympathetic to the existing building and also needed to

accommodate a nine-foot driveway between the entry staircase and the pillars.

Chairperson DeFalco verified the existing setbacks with the petitioner. The petitioner

stated that the columns are 20 inches wide for both aesthetic and structural reasons.

Chairperson DeFalco asked about the required setbacks. Ms. Backensto stated that,

because there was a detached garage, the property was required to provide one side

yard of at least six feet and one side yard of at least nine feet.

Mr. Young verified the proposed setbacks and roof overhang with the petitioner.

Chairperson DeFalco asked how far the neighboring house was set back off the side lot

line. Mrs. Jurevics stated that it was a wide lot. The petitioner stated that the setback

was eight to ten feet at a minimum. Mrs. Jurevics stated that her neighbors did not

object to the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if any of this could be an ADA issue. Ms. Backensto stated

that she did not think the ADA would apply to roofing elements. Mr. Bedard stated that

the Fair Housing Act applies to private residences, not ADA, but it would not be relevant

to this petition.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the structure would be very close to the south lot line

which could be an issue if the vacant lot were ever sold. The petitioner stated that they

don't want to consolidate the lots to ensure future marketability of the properties, but the

property owners intent to maintain it as open space.

Mr. Bedard asked if it would be possible for the owners to grant an easement to

themselves. Ms. Backensto stated that would be possible as a justification for a

variation, but it would not negate the need for a variation. Mrs. Newman stated that an

easement would likely also hurt the marketability of the property.

Chairperson DeFalco summarized the petition and suggested that the variations be

voted upon separately. He stated that there have been past cases involving covered

access to a house and referenced examples.

Mr. Bedard stated that he could support the variation for a porte-cochere on the basis

that it would be less of an obstruction than the existing nonconforming garage. Mr.

Young stated that the petitioner could construct the new garage regardless of whether

or not the porte-cochere variation is approved. The petitioner stated that, to be clear,

the ZBA members should be aware that they have a separate permit for the new two-car

detached garage that is shown on the plans.