Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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.