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: Angela Clark |
The following staff members were present: Angela Clark, AICP, Planner II; and Michelle |
Kulikowski, Associate Planner. |
ZBA 05-01: 340 W. Central Avenue |
Requests a variation from Section 155.406 (F) (4) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce the required rear yard setback to approximately 31.65 feet where thirty-five feet |
(35') is the requirement to allow for the construction of an addition in the R2 |
Single-Family Residence District. |
Seymour Turner from Airoom Architects presented the petition. He described the layout |
of the house on the property. He noted that the house is currently set back thirty feet |
(30') from the front property line and forty-eight feet (48') from the rear property line. He |
stated that the proposed addition would extend sixteen feet (16') from the house, |
creating a 31.65' setback. He mentioned that the design was clipped at the corners to |
reduce the visual mass of the addition. Mr. Seymour noted that the encroachment into |
the setback amounted to less than ten percent (10%) of the required setback. Mr. |
Seymour also presented signatures from neighboring property owners stating that they |
have no opposition to the proposed addition. He stated that with the thickness of the |
exterior wall, the interior space would only be fifteen feet six inches (15'6''), and |
adhering to the required setback would only allow for eleven feet six inches (11'6''). |
Mr. Turner referenced the standards for variations. He stated that the hardship was not |
the lot itself, but the way the house is positioned on the lot. He noted that the garage is |
right up to the thirty foot front yard setback, while the rest of the house is set back |
farther behind the garage. He mentioned that neighbors would not be affected because |
the rear of the house abuts an open field. He also noted that the neighbors had no |
objections to the addition. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated that the |
property owner is proposing a one-story to the rear of their home to serve as a family |
room. She mentioned that the house is currently forty-eight feet (48') from the rear |
property line and there is currently a patio that extends (14') feet from the house. She |
noted that a patio is a permitted obstruction in the required rear yard. She stated that |
the proposed 364 square foot addition would reduce the rear yard setback from the |
residence to 31.65 feet. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff is not supportive of this variation because the hardship |
presented is of a personal nature, not one based on the physical attributes of the |
property. She mentioned that in 2002, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended |
denial of ZBA 02-06, which was a similar variation request from the rear yard setback for |
a property located just one block south of the subject property. She noted an error in |
the staff report that states the Village Board of Trustees concurred with the |
recommendation given by the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the variation. She |
stated that in fact, the Village Board overturned the recommendation from the Zoning |
Board of Appeals and approved the variation request. |
Ms. Kulikowski discussed the standards for variations as they pertain to this case. She |
stated that the subject property does not have unique physical limitations that limit the |
owner from meeting the intent of the ordinance. She noted that the property is a |
rectangular shaped lot, approximately seventy-five feet (75') by one hundred twenty-five |
feet (125'). Ms. Kulikowski mentioned that the design and layout of the property is |
typical of any lot in the R2 Single Family Residential District. She stated that the house |
is a split-level design, which are common in Lombard. She noted that the thirty-five foot |
(35') rear yard setback has been consistently applied throughout the Village. She |
mentioned that the proposed addition could meet the setback requirement if it were to |
extend twelve feet (12') rather than the proposed sixteen feet (16') from the house. Ms. |
Kulikowski stated that staff believes that granting the requested relief will set an |
undesirable precedent. She stated that the Inter-Departmental Review Committee |
recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals make a motion recommending denial of |
ZBA 05-01. |
Mr. Young asked whether the similar case referenced in the staff report was on a |
cul-de-sac. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the referenced case was on Jeffrey Court. |
Mr. Polley asked what kind of materials would be used on the exterior. Mr. Turner |
stated that they were using brick veneer for the knee wall. He noted that they were |
trying to blend the addition with the existing house. |
Mr. Polley stated that the proposed family room addition seemed to be very large. Mr. |
Turner stated that they could entertain the idea of making the room narrower, but could |
not reduce it to the twelve-foot (12') depth that would be needed to meet code. He |
noted that with a narrow interior depth of eleven feet six inches (11'6'') the room would |
loose its function. |
Mr. Polley stated that granting this variance could result in a series of more requests. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the neighbor to the west appeared to be setback |
roughly thirty feet (30') from the rear property line. He mentioned that prior to the |
re-writing of the Zoning Ordinance, the rear yard setback was thirty feet (30'). Mr. |
Turner stated that the house to the west was set back approximately thirty-two feet (32'). |
Chairperson DeFalco asked how far the neighbor to the east was set back. Mr. Turner |
stated that the house to the east was roughly in line. Chairperson DeFalco noted that |
the current neighbors may not have a problem with the addition, but a future neighbor |
may have a problem with it. Mr. Turner mentioned that with the field behind the house, |
the change in the rear yard setback as a result of the proposed addition would be an |
imperceptive difference. Chairperson DeFalco noted that if a fence were placed along |
the rear property line, it would visually shrink the rear yard, creating a larger impact. |
Mr. Young noted that the neighbor to the east would probably want to see the addition |
because it would give them a nicer view. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that if the house to the west had a fire and wanted to |
rebuild on the same foundation footprint, they would need a variation. Mr. Young noted |
that the variation would most likely be granted. Chairperson DeFalco noted that |
neighboring house had substantial side yard setbacks, approximately twelve feet (12') |
and thirteen feet (13'). He stated that the current zoning ordinance would allow them to |
extend within six feet (6') of the side property line. Chairperson DeFalco noted that by |
extending the house all the way to the minimum required setbacks, a bigger house could |
be built with the ordinance than with the existing foundation. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that their decision is based on hardship. He asked the |
board to discuss whether a hardship existed. |
Mr. Polley stated that by looking at the floor plans, the addition seems to be bigger than |
any other room in the house. Mr. Turner stated that the room would serve two |
functions, as a family room and as a dining room. He mentioned that the property |
owners plan to reconfigure the kitchen as a future project. |
Mrs. Newman stated that the variance was needed because of preference for a larger |
family room, not because of a hardship. She noted that the property owners knew the |
limitations of the house when they bought it. |
Mr. Turner stated that they would loose six inches (6") of interior space with the masonry |
knee wall. He noted that they are trying to make the addition an attribute. |
Chairperson DeFalco also asked if the living room south of the proposed addition is a |
living room and family room. He noted that bay windows are a permitted encroachment |
in the rear yard. He asked how far bay windows could encroach. Angela Clark, Planner |
II, stated that bay windows could encroach three feet (3') into the required rear, front, |
and corner side yards. Mr. Turner stated that they could not do a bay window because |
of the first floor deck in relation to grade. He noted that they could do window seats, but |
that would not meet the client's needs. |
Mr. Polley asked whether the addition would be heated. Mr. Turner stated that it would |
be heated. He noted that the addition would serve as living space and essentially is an |
extension of the house. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked to revisit the question whether or not there is a hardship. |
Mrs. Newman stated that it is a preference, not a hardship. |
It was moved by Newman, seconded by Chairperson DeFalco, to forward to the |
Board of Trustees with no recommendation. The motion failed by the following |
vote: |
It was then moved by Young that this matter be recommended to the Corporate |
Authorities for approval. Due to a lack of a second, the motion failed. |
On a motion by Young and seconded by Polley, the minutes of the December 15, 2004 |
meeting were approved with the inclusion of a statement that staff was directed to create |
a definition of "decorative" and "ornate", that the 75 percent open restriction applied for |
fences over 4 feet, and that fences 4 feet or less would be subject to the current |
guidelines. |
On a motion by Young and seconded by Newman the meeting was adjourned at 8:33 |
p.m. |
____________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
____________________________ |
Angela Clark, AICP, Secretary |
Zoning Board of Appeals |