Wednesday, October 26, 2005
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall Board Room
Zoning Board of Appeals
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2005
Call to Order
Chairperson DeFalco called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman and Eugene Polley
Present:
Greg Young and Ed Bedard
Absent:
The following staff member was present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner.
Public Hearings
050588
D. ZBA 05-17: 1105 E. Washington Boulevard |
Requests that the Village approve a variation from Section 155.406 (H) of the Lombard |
Zoning Ordinance to decrease the required open space from 50% of the lot area to |
40.2% of the lot area allowing the petitioner a total variation of 970 square feet of |
impervious area for the subject property located within the R2 Single Family Residential |
Zoning District. (DISTRICT #5) |
Ray Urban, owner of the property presented the petition. He noted that there has been |
a problem with parked vehicles being hit on Washington Boulevard. He stated that the |
Village has alleviated the problem by changing the parking restrictions to only allow |
parking on one side of the street. Mr. Urban gave a brief description of the property. He |
noted that his neighbor was not opposed to the proposed driveway expansion. He |
believes that the driveway expansion will not create a negative effect on the |
neighborhood. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that the variation |
request is to decrease the required open space from 50% of the lot area to 40.2% of the |
lot area, allowing a total variation of nine hundred seventy (970) square feet of |
impervious area. He mentioned that the property currently is legal non-conforming with |
forty six percent (46%) open space. He stated that the petitioner is proposing to add |
five hundred sixty three (563) square feet of additional lot coverage to widen the |
driveway. |
Mr. Heniff noted that the building permit records for the subject property indicate that all |
existing improvements counting towards lot coverage were completed prior to the 1990 |
zoning code revisions which instituted a fifty percent (50%) minimum open space |
requirement for the R2 Single Family Residence District. He stated that the |
improvements included a 480 square foot addition in 1964, a pool and patio amounting |
to 1,956 square feet of lot coverage in 1966, a 36 square foot shed in 1973, and an |
attached garage and driveway expansion amounting to 1,497 square feet in 1987. He |
also mentioned that a permit was issued in 2000 for a second story addition, which does |
not affect the calculated lot coverage on the subject property. |
Mr. Heniff stated that the standards of the Zoning Ordinance are set for the provision of |
open space, to preserve green space, and maintain the aesthetics of a suburban |
setting. He also mentioned that the open space standards within the R2 District help to |
achieve that goal by ensuring that lots do not have the appearance of being overbuilt |
and that a more intensive use of the property is prevented. He stated that the requested |
relief to reduce the open space to 40.2% is substantial. The proposed improvements |
will not be replacing anything, and will substantially increase the total lot coverage by |
approximately five hundred sixty (560) square feet. |
In review of the Standards for Variations, Mr. Heniff stated that staff finds that the |
petitioner's property does not have unique physical limitations that limit the owner from |
meeting the intent of the ordinance. He noted that the lot is not unusually small, being |
that it is 9,860 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet in |
the R2 District. He noted that the design and layout of the petitioner's property is typical |
of any R2 Single Family Residential lot in the Village of Lombard. Mr. Heniff stated that |
staff finds the hardship has not been caused by the ordinance and has instead been |
created by the expansive improvements to the property. He mentioned that granting the |
request could be injurious to neighboring properties because overbuilding single-family |
lots contributes to a loss of the neighborhood's suburban character. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members. |
Mr. Polley asked whether the driveway would be constructed of permeable materials |
such as brick. Mr. Urban stated he planned to construct the driveway with concrete. |
Mr. Heniff noted that whether it is a brick or concrete driveway, it would still count |
against the open space requirement. |
Mrs. Newman asked about the parking restriction being changed to only allow parking |
on one side of the street. Mr. Heniff noted that the Village Board received a |
recommendation from the Transportation and Safety Committee to allow for parking on |
one side of the street. A first reading of the draft Ordinance was approved at their |
October 20, 2005 meeting. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked whether anything else could be removed in order to reduce |
the lot coverage. Mr. Urban then described the various improvements on the property, |
noting that they either received zoning approvals for the improvements on the property |
or they built their improvements as required by code at the time of construction. Mr. |
Heniff noted that patios do require building permits to construct, but property owners are |
still required to construct their patios in a manner in which the property is still in |
compliance with open space requirements. Mr. Urban also noted that there was not a |
lot of possibilities to remove impervious surfaces on his property, but did note that he |
could make some modifications to the east side of his residence. |
Mr. Urban noted that a principal reason for the request was to provide for a two-car wide |
driveway that would alleviate the need to "jockey" cars in and out of the driveway. |
The Zoning Board of Appeals members then discussed whether they could recommend |
denial of the petition, but asked staff to work with the petitioner to address his concerns. |
Mr. Heniff noted that as the property already exceeds open space requirements, even if |
the driveway was expanded by one square foot, it would still need a variation. |
It was moved by Corrado, seconded by Newman, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Corrado, Newman and Polley
4 -
Absent:
Young and Bedard
2 -
050589
A. ZBA 05-18: 322 W. Central Avenue |
Requests a variation to Section 155.406(F)(4) of the Lombard Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce the rear yard setback from thirty-five feet (35') to thirty feet (30') to accommodate |
the construction of a one-story addition in the R2 Single-Family Residence District. |
(DISTRICT #2) |
Patti Grobe, owner of the property presented the petition. She stated that she is |
requesting a variation from the rear yard setback for four extra feet to construct a |
three-season room addition. She noted that her husband is confined due to his medical |
condition and a three-season room will allow him to get fresh air without leaving the |
house. She stated that they have made other modifications to the home to |
accommodate his wheelchair and would like to do the same with this addition. |
She stated that a rear yard variation was recently approved for another property in the |
neighborhood. She also mentioned that the back of her property backs up to Glenbard |
East High School. |
Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. |
William Heniff, Senior Planner presented the staff report. He gave a description of the |
property noting that the house is setback thirty feet (30') from the front property line and |
has a rear yard setback of forty-five feet (46'). The petitioner is proposing to add a |
three-season room to the rear of their house that would encroach into the rear yard. |
Mr. Heniff stated while the petitioner has presented a hardship with her husband's |
medical condition, this does pose a challenge for staff as the request is based upon a |
personal situation and not a hardship based on the physical attributes of the property. |
He noted that the property owner could construct a three-season room addition that |
would fulfill the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance by making the room slightly |
smaller. He noted that the house currently has a forty-six foot (46') rear yard setback, |
which would allow an addition to extend eleven feet (11') from the house and meet the |
minimum thirty-five foot rear yard setback. As such, staff did not meet the standards for |
a variation. |
Mr. Heniff stated that back in February of this year, a similar variation request came |
before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA 05-01) for a property three houses to the west |
of the subject property. He mentioned that the request was to reduce the rear yard |
setback from thirty-five feet (35') to thirty-one and sixty-five one hundredth feet (31.65') |
feet to allow for the construction of a family room addition. |
Mr. Heniff noted that staff's recommendation was for denial of the petition. He stated that |
the Village Board approved the variation based on the rationale that the property abuts |
the athletic fields for Glenbard East High School, and therefore the encroachment in the |
rear yard does not affect residential properties to the rear. He stated that staff |
recommends denial of the petition, but staff provides an alternative recommendation that |
includes conditions of approval should the Board chose to recommend approval. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion among the ZBA members. |
Mrs. Newman asked whether a sixteen-foot (16') width was needed for the room. Mrs. |
Grobe stated that architecturally it would work better if the room were square. She |
noted that they would like to add a recliner, table, chairs, as well as other equipment to |
the room. She stated that if the room were smaller it would be cluttered with the |
furniture and equipment. |
Mrs. Newman also asked how the disability issue affects their consideration of the |
petition. Mr. Heniff stated that in some cases, the nature of the disability forces a |
variation, such as when a ramp needs to be installed to provide access to a resident. In |
other cases, the accommodation is requested to supplement the disabled resident's use |
of his home, such as a spa. The role of the ZBA is to weigh the level of impact |
requested by the petition relative to the level of accommodation necessary to meet the |
resident's needs. |
In response to inquiries, Mrs. Grobe stated that the proposed addition will be lower than |
the existing rooflines surrounding the property and bushes would screen the addition. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked if the addition could be extended along the existing building |
so that the addition would not need a variance. Mrs. Grobe stated that if the addition |
continued along the building line, it would block the kitchen windows. |
It was moved by Polley, seconded by Corrado, to forward to the Board of |
Trustees with no recommendation. The motion failed by the following vote: |
Aye:
Corrado, Newman and Polley
3 -
Nay:
Chairperson John DeFalco
1 -
Absent:
Young and Bedard
2 -
Chairperson DeFalco made a motion to deny the petition. Due to a lack of a second, the |
motion failed. |
As the petition is being forwarded to the Board of Trustees without a recommendation, |
the members requested that it be placed at the top of the items for Separate Action on |
the Village Board agenda. |
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Newman seconded by Polley the September 28, 2005 minutes were |
unanimously approved by the members present. |
Planner's Report
Mr. Heniff stated that due to the Thanksgiving holidays the regularly scheduled |
November 23 meeting date should be changed. He suggested Wednesday, November |
16, as an alternative date and the members unanimously agreed. |
New Business
Setback Requirements for R2 District Properties Abutting CR District |
William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the workshop item. He noted that the Zoning |
Board of Appeals has seen several requests for variations from the rear yard setback for |
single family residential properties whose rear yards abut properties zoned CR |
Conservation Recreation District. With respect to the previously heard petitions, these |
cases were ultimately approved by the Village Board. In their approval, the Board noted |
that the setback relief was for a yard abutting a more passive land use, such as a school |
or park. Therefore, the impacts of the variation request would not be as great as if the |
adjacent property was developed with single family residences. |
In consideration of these petitions, staff is soliciting the thoughts of the members relative |
to rear yard setbacks for all properties that abut CR District properties. Staff would like |
to know whether the Zoning Board of Appeals feels that is appropriate to continue |
reviewing future requests on a case by case basis through the variance process or |
would like to codify the precedent through a text amendment. Staff would also like to |
know if the members would be supportive of a text amendment reducing the rear yard |
setback for R2 District properties when those properties abut properties in the CR |
Conservation District. If they were supportive, staff would want a recommendation to be |
forwarded to the Village Board for discussion. Then if the Village Board concurred, staff |
would prepare a text amendment for Plan Commission for consideration. |
To provide the members an overall scope of such an amendment, staff passed out a |
Village map showing those properties that would be impacted by such an amendment. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion among the members. |
Mrs. Newman raised concerns about a blanket amendment. She noted that in many |
cases the ZBA has looked at the impacts of the variation on the interior side properties. |
She preferred to review these petitions on a case by case basis. Her sentiments were |
also echoed by Dr. Corrado and Mr. Polley. |
Chairperson DeFalco then discussed the rationale for the 35 foot rear yard setback. He |
noted that this was added to a comprehensive code amendment in 1990. If the code |
were to be amended, perhaps all rear yard setback provisions should be reviewed. |
In conclusion, the ZBA members decided to not recommend a text amendment change |
to the Village Board for further discussion and consideration. |
Unfinished Business
Adjournment
On a motion by Corrado seconded by Newman the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. |
___________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
___________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Secretary |