Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.