Village of Lombard Legistar System

Paul Bojan, 125 S. Stewart, presented the petition. He stated that he was not asking to

decrease the amount of open space. He purchased the home in 1994 and now wishes

to enclose a portion of the existing deck.

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, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting a

variation to decrease the required open space from 50 percent of the lot area to 45.6

percent of the lot area. The property is currently nonconforming with 45.6 percent open

space. The petitioner wishes to construct a three-season room addition over a portion

of the existing deck. The addition is considered an expansion to the existing

nonconformity and therefore requires a variation.

The Code requirement of 50 percent open space serves both to limit the density on lots

as well as the volume of stormwater runoff. Decks are typically pervious since rainfall

passes between the planks. However, the proposed addition over the deck would make

the lot more than 50% impervious. Therefore, the Private Engineering Services Division

recommends that the proposed addition be denied.

The 50 percent minimum percent open space requirement was added to the Zoning

Ordinance in 1990. At that time, the subject property was improved with a single-family

home, one-car garage, and driveway. In 1990, a permit was issued for a deck that met

the open space requirement. In 1991, a permit was issued for a two-car garage and

driveway extension that left the property with the 45.6 percent open space that exists

today. In 1999, the current property owner received a permit for and constructed a

second-story addition over the existing home. The nonconforming open space was

noted in April of this year when the petitioner applied for a building permit to construct a

one-story three-season room addition.

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. The Village's

Comprehensive Plan states “the existing visual and environmental character of

Lombard's various residential neighborhoods should be preserved and enhanced.” 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. Staff typically has only recommended approval for open space

variations when there is an existing legal nonconforming situation and the proposed

improvements will not increase the degree of nonconformity. Even though the proposed

addition would not change the calculated open space percentage, the building addition

is an expansion that would increase the visual impact of the structure and the overall

bulk on the property.

Although the previous property owners created the existing nonconformity with regard to

open space, the fact that the property does not currently meet code cannot be

considered a hardship in and of itself. The necessary 352 square feet of open space

could be created by removing pavement to create a ribbon driveway, installing

grasscrete, or making other modifications.

To be granted a variation the petitioners must show that they have affirmed each of the

“Standards for Variation.” The petitioner's property does not have unique physical

limitations that limit the owner from meeting the intent of the ordinance. The subject

property is 8,000 square feet in size, which exceeds the minimum lot size of 7,500

square feet in the R2 District.

Staff finds that the conditions are not unique to the subject property. The design and

layout of the petitioner's property is typical of any R2 Single Family Residential lot in the

Village and there is nothing inherently unique about the subject property that warrants

the open space relief. The hardship has not been caused by the ordinance and has

instead been created by the extent of the existing and proposed improvements to the

property, and granting the request could be injurious to neighboring properties because

overbuilding single-family lots contributes to a loss of the neighborhood's suburban

character.

Accordingly, staff recommends that this petition be denied. However, if the Zoning

Board of Appeals finds that the existing deck would meet the standards for variations but

the proposed addition would not meet the standards, the ZBA could grant approval of a

variation from the open space requirements in order to allow the deck to remain on the

property as a legal, conforming structure. This action would allow the petitioner to

replace the existing deck with a new deck of the same size if desired. Staff would not

object to this variation.

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

Mr. Young noted that the petitioner would not be reducing the amount of open space but

would be building over an existing deck. He asked if the deck would be considered

pervious. Ms. Backensto stated that while the spaces between the boards could be

included in an engineering calculation of pervious surface, pervious surface is not the

same as open space and is not a factor in the petitioner's variation request.

Mrs. Newman asked why the garage permit was issued in 1991. Ms. Backensto stated

that she did not know as the permit did not meet the open space requirements at that

time. Chairperson DeFalco noted that another permit, for a second-story addition, was

issued in 1999.

Mr. Polley stated that the proposed addition would add bulk to the property. Mr. Young

stated that the added bulk would be in the rear of the property and not directly visible

from the street.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that in a recent, similar case at 512 S. Craig Place (ZBA

06-08), the petitioner was requesting the variation in part to allow the rear entrance to be

covered as it was considered the primary entrance to the home. He asked if this would

be the case for the subject property. The petitioner stated that the primary entrance is

currently the door on the side of the house. If constructed, the new addition could serve

as a mudroom and become the primary entry.

Mrs. Newman asked if the open deck would be considered pervious versus the

proposed addition. Ms. Backensto stated that although the spaces between the boards

of the deck could be considered pervious, the addition would be completely impervious.

Chairperson DeFalco asked about the proposed dimensions of the addition. The

petitioner stated that it would be 16 feet by 18 feet, or approximately 288 square feet.

Mr. Young noted that the open space nonconformity currently exists, regardless of the

addition. Chairperson DeFalco stated that it was a question of bulk.

Mrs. Newman asked how high the deck was. The petitioner stated it was roughly five

feet high.

Mr. Bedard noted that although they would not be decreasing green space, they would

be increasing the bulk on the property.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that part of the hardship was the 1991 garage permit that

created the nonconformity. The petitioner stated that he was still not clear why this

issue did not come up in 1999. Ms. Backensto stated that staff's interpretation at that

time considered the second story addition to be in compliance as it was over an existing

permanent structure, but the proposed new addition would be over a more temporary

type of structure. Mr. Young stated that he disagreed with staff's differentiation between

permanent and nonpermanent structures.

Mr. Bedard asked about the proposed construction. The petitioner stated that it would

be frame.

Mr. Bedard stated that he was not generally in favor of adding to the bulk on the

property, but it would be difficult to deny the variation given the pervious permits that

had been issued in past years.

Mr. Polley asked if the addition would be used as an apartment. The petitioner stated

that it would not be an apartment, but rather an extension of his single-family home.

Robert Hurl, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. He stated that there

is an existing attached garage on the property. He mentioned he didn't know why it was

built so close to the property line, but it was grandfathered. He noted that he would like

a two car garage and the space from the edge of the existing garage to the bay window

is exactly enough room for a two car garage. He stated that his neighbors didn't have

any objection to the proposed garage.

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.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She noted that the subject

property is located in the Green Valley subdivision and is approximately 50 feet wide.

She stated that the existing residence currently maintains a 6.2-foot side yard to the

west property line and the attached one car garage maintains a 2.5-foot setback to the

east property line. She mentioned that the property owner would like to remove the

one-car garage and replace it with a two-car garage. She noted that the property owner

has represented that the proposed garage cannot be placed elsewhere on the lot due to

the layout of the house. She stated that the garage would be immediately adjacent to a

bay window, and the bay window is adjacent to the entrance to the home. She

mentioned that shifting the garage would block the window, and the Building Code would

not allow the garage to block the window because of requirements for light and

ventilation. She also noted that narrowing the garage below the proposed 18.5-foot

width would prevent its use as a two-car garage. She stated that with existing side yard

setbacks of 6.2 feet on the west and 2.5 feet on the east, there is not sufficient room to

allow for a driveway and detached garage in the rear of the property. Also, the Zoning

Ordinance would not permit a detached garage to be located in front of the house.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the layout of the house and its location of the house on the

subject property create a hardship. She noted that meeting the 6' side yard setback

would only allow the petitioner to have a 14' wide garage, which can only accommodate

one car, and without the requested relief, the property owner would essentially be

prevented from having a two-car garage. She mentioned that two car garages are not

uncommon within the Green Valley subdivision, so the request would not be

incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the property owner

does not have the option to construct a detached garage and that placing the garage in

front of the bay window would impair the adequate supply of air and light to the

residence. She noted that staff can also support the requested relief because the

proposed garage would maintain the same setback as the existing garage and would

not be increasing the degree of non-conformity. She also mentioned that there is

precedence in the Green Valley subdivision for variances to allow attached garages and

carports less than 6' from the side property line (ZBA 84-11: 118 Green Valley Drive,

ZBA 91-13: 213 W. Hickory Drive, ZBA 78-04: 108 W. Hickory Drive). She noted that

there are properties in the Green Valley subdivision that have legal non-conforming side

yard setbacks, and the proposed garage will not alter the essential character of the

neighborhood.

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

Mrs. Newman asked if a variation would be needed to construct an addition on the

existing garage. Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, stated that a variation would not be

needed because the new portion of the garage, or the addition, would comply with code.

Mr. Hurl stated that he can't do an addition because the existing garage is unsound

construction. He noted that he has to tear down the garage and start from scratch. He

mentioned that an addition probably wouldn't look good aesethicly. He also mentioned

that he plans to add all new siding and a new roof to the house once the new garage is

built.

Staff and the ZBA members discussed conditions of approval. Chairperson DeFalco

noted that there wasn't a condition tying the variation to the existing residence. He

asked if that should be included as a condition of approval.

Ms. Backensto stated that at the June 28, 2006 ZBA meeting, the members had voted to

recommend approval of ZBA 06-11, 415 Manor Hill Lane. However, as staff had not

recommended approval, there were no conditions suggested in the staff report and no

conditions were added to the ZBA's recommendation. She asked if the ZBA members

would object to the Board adding conditions that tie the variation to the submitted plans

and limit the variation to the existing structure. The members present stated that they

had no objections to the addition of those conditions to ZBA 06-11.

Ms. Newman requested that, for future cases, staff have the standard ZBA conditions

prepared for all cases so that any future recommendations of approval would also

include those conditions. Ms. Backensto stated that staff would have those conditions

on hand at future meetings.