Village of Lombard Legistar System

Mark Smalling and Connie Valentini, owners of the subject property, presented the

petition. Mr. Smalling stated that the house was built in 1921. He stated that because

the house is setback only three feet from the rear property line, there is a very unique

hardship on the property. He noted that because his family is growing, they need to

preserve the area to the west of the house as a de facto back yard. He added that if he

had to construct the garage next to the house, the children could only play near the

sidewalk and road. Mr. Smalling also mentioned that if the garage was to be pushed

back, more concrete would be needed, thus reducing vital open space. He added that

they wish to protect any open space areas.

Mr. Smalling stated that he understands why the ordinances are in place, but he feels

that his particular property has an evident hardship. He mentioned that if the garage

were to be connected to the deck on the west side of the house, it would create a

sandwich effect. He added that it would become very claustrophobic on the deck with

structures on both sides.

Mr. Smalling stated that the proposed garage would be located twenty-two (22) feet

behind the front of the neighbor's house, as to not block the view of the neighbors on

either side. He added that he spoke with all of his neighbors about the proposed garage

and they all supported the idea (Mr. Smalling then gave the members of the Zoning

Board of Appeals a petition signed by the neighbors, in favor of the project). Mr.

Smalling stated that the proposed garage would be architecturally similar to the house

and would keep with the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

Mr. Smalling then mentioned that if an addition were to be needed, the addition would

most likely extend to the south, which would better align it with the proposed garage.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment.

Barbara Dean (47 S. Westmore Rd.), neighbor of the petitioner spoke in favor of the

proposed detached garage. Ms. Dean stated that she has been a resident of her

current address in Lombard for 47 years. Ms. Dean added that the prior owners of the

subject property made some improvements to the property. She stated that the garage

should only be built towards the front of the property, as to preserve the space in the

rear of the property. Ms. Dean stated that the petitioners are very good neighbors and

their petition should be considered for approval. She added that she supports the

petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Toth stated that the

existing house located on the subject property was built in 1921 and currently sits three

feet from the current rear property line. He added that most of the entire house is

located within the required 35-foot rear yard setback. Mr. Toth noted that the

petitioner/property owner is proposing to construct a 624 square foot detached garage.

He added that because of the extenuating circumstances pertaining to the house

location, the proposed garage is to be placed in front of the house, which would require

a variation.

Mr. Toth then stated that the petitioner's house is currently setback three (3) feet from

the rear property line and 78 feet from the front property line. He mentioned that the

petitioner's house is considered a legal non-conforming structure. Mr. Toth added that

most houses within the R2 Single Family Residential District are not typically setback

that far from the front property line, but rarely are they ever setback only three (3) feet

from the rear property line. He noted that the rear property line abuts a private street for

the Kenilworth Court development.

Mr. Toth stated that the petitioner wishes to construct a 624 square foot detached

garage to be set back forty-nine (49) feet north of the front property line, forty-two (42)

feet south of the rear property line, and three (3) feet from the western property line. He

added that the petitioner is proposing to construct the detached garage in front of the

principal structure to maintain the open space on the northwest portion of the property,

which is currently under use as a de facto backyard. Mr. Toth mentioned that the

garage's proposed location would utilize the existing driveway. Mr. Toth then noted that

staff would like to mention that the detached garage would be located fifteen (15) feet

from the neighbor to the west.

Mr. Toth discussed alternative locations for the detached garage. He stated that the

property owner could technically expand the front portion of the house to accommodate

the requirements of the aforementioned provision (house in front of garage), which

would not require relief.

Mr. Toth stated that at the time of submittal, there currently is a four (4) foot building and

structure separation requirement within the Zoning Ordinance. He added that staff is

currently recommending the removal of this provision within the Zoning Ordinance, and

allowing for the building separation requirements as a function of the Building Code.

Mr. Toth noted that if this amendment were approved, the detached garage could

potentially be pushed back and attached to the deck, where it could be developed per

Code. Mr. Toth mentioned that the Building Department would have to make the

determination as to whether the garage could be attached to the deck. Alternatively, the

existing deck could be removed. He then stated that with the absence of a backyard, the

petitioner wishes to maintain that open space.

Mr. Toth then discussed past approvals. He stated that the regulation prohibiting

detached garages from being located in front of principal structures was approved in

2001. He mentioned that since that time, one petition for relief from this provision was

considered by the Village. Mr. Toth noted that at the September 28, 2005 Zoning Board

of Appeals meeting, relief was requested to allow an accessory structure in front of the

front wall of the principal building at 332 S. Edson Street (ZBA 05-16). He added that the

case was similar in that the principal residence was non-conforming in regard to the rear

setback.

Pertaining to the standards for variation, Toth stated that the proposed garage would

further increase the bulk of structures outside on the rear portion of the property.

However, staff finds that there is no demonstrated physical hardship, nor are there any

unique topographical conditions related to this property that would prevent compliance

with the ordinance. Mr. Toth mentioned that in light of recent text amendments, the

petitioner could construct a detached garage in the rear of the property - to the west of

the existing residence as a matter of right.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Young asked the petitioner when they purchased the property. Mr. Smalling

responded that they purchased the property in 2005.

Mrs. Newman asked the petitioner if they planned to attach the detached garage at the

end of the existing driveway. Mr. Smalling responded, yes.

Mr. Young then inquired as to why the house is setback only three (3) feet. Mr. Toth

responded that the lot was once a through-lot, whereas the northern portion of the

subject property was sold to allow for the Kenilworth Court development.

Ms. Dean added that the Kenilworth development was proposed to have 65 units, which

was undesirable to the adjacent property owners. Ms. Dean added that they neighbors

hired a lawyer to fight the excessive number of units to be placed in the Kenilworth Court

development. She noted that the number of units was reduced, but the project still

required many variations.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is always concerned

about preserving open space. He added that pushing the garage back would only

reduce the amount of open space. Chairperson DeFalco mentioned that the detached

garage complies with all setbacks and would be buffered by trees to the neighbor to the

west. Chairperson. DeFalco noted that if the present house were to be replaced, the

new home would be closer to the thirty (30) foot setback, which would allow for future

compliance. He added that there would be more hardship created by pushing it back.

Mr. Young added that we (Village) created the hardship with the development of

Kenilworth Court.

Mrs. Newman stated that this is a unique situation because of the rear setback. She

added that many attached garages in Lombard are located in front of the house.

Dr. Corrado agreed that there are many unique elements to the property.

Chairperson DeFalco added that should the petition be recommended for approval, the

50% rebuild condition should be attached.

The petitioner, Kathryn Wagner, stated that they wish to build a second-story addition

straight up from the existing first floor. The hardship is the existing setback of the

building. Structurally, it would be a nightmare to have the second floor inset from the

first floor, and aesthetically it wouldn't look right. The adjacent neighbor who would see

the addition the most has reviewed their plans and has no problem with them. The

neighbor would have attended the ZBA meeting, but he is a police officer who was on

duty that evening.

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.

Matt Tansley presented the staff report. He summarized the subject property and

surrounding area. The residence on the subject property currently has a setback of

seven and eighty eight-hundredths feet (7.88') from the northern property line where a

nine foot (9') setback is required. The nine foot (9') setback is required to allow for

driveway access to the detached garage behind the residence. The petitioner is

requesting a second story addition, which would maintain the existing building line

relative to the northern property boundary. Because this addition constitutes an

expansion of a non-conformity, a variation is required.

Despite the fact that the proposed addition will not further reduce the side yard between

the house and property line, a variation is required for the expansion of a

non-conforming structure. Section 155.802 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a yard as

an open area on the same zoning lot with a building or structure, unoccupied and

unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky, except as otherwise permitted in Section

155.212 of this Ordinance. Because a yard is a three dimensional space, a vertical

addition to the house is viewed as an expansion of a non-conforming structure. The

addition, while not affecting the width of the side yard, does further encroach on the

"yard space" above the non-conforming structure. As the home was built in 1955, prior

to the application of current zoning requirements, the residence is permitted to remain

as a non-conforming structure. However, any additions to the structure subsequent to

passage of those zoning requirements will be bound by the current regulations.

Staff recognizes that a strict enforcement of the regulation would impose a significant

hardship on the property owner. Applying the setback requirements to the second story

would require the petitioner to create a 1.2 foot offset from the supporting wall and

foundation of the existing residences. Aside from creating an undesirable aesthetic

appearance, the offset would also require significant modifications to the existing first

floor, as new supporting walls or columns would have to be installed to support the

weight of the proposed second floor.

Given the nature of the structural design and the limitations established by the Zoning

Ordinance, staff supports the request for a variation. The conditions for seeking a

variation are unique to this property and do not represent circumstances that would

apply broadly to other residents in the neighborhood. Staff does not view the granting of

the requested variation for this property to be detrimental to the welfare of surrounding

residents including: the disruption of natural light, the presence of an overbearing

structure, interference with proper drainage, or any harmful effect on neighboring

property values. Also, it is common for staff to support variations for single-family

residential structures that maintain their original building line.

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

Dr. Corrado agreed with the staff report, adding that the variation is necessary for the

petitioners to improve their home.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the subject property would be in compliance with the 50%

open space requirement after the garage is built. Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, stated

that the open space issue was being addressed as part of the building permit process

for the garage, and the petitioner has agreed to modify their plans to come into

compliance. The petitioner stated that they would be removing the current sidewalk and

wrapping it around the house and removing asphalt to reduce the width of the driveway.

The petitioner added that they will be incorporating permeable pavers that will also be

used to replace the existing deck, which will be more aesthetically appealing than all of

the paving.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the petitioner's proposed use of permeable pavers has

any effect on open space. Ms. Backensto stated that the permeable pavers can assist

with drainage issues but are not counted as open space. The petitioner stated that

speaking with staff had opened their eyes to the issues of drainage and green space.

They will be taking the opportunity to remove existing hardscape to create 52.5% or

53% open space. For what hardscaping they will have, they will be using the permeable

pavers because they like the idea of improving drainage.

Mr. Polley asked if the purpose of the new garage was for additional storage. The

petitioner stated that it was.

Mr. Polley asked if the garage would have a second story. The petitioner stated that it

would not.