Wednesday, March 28, 2007
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall Board Room
Zoning Board of Appeals
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Staff Liaison: Jennifer Backensto |
Meeting Minutes
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2007
Call to Order
Chairperson DeFalco called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Also present: Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II; Michelle Kulikowski, AICP, Planner |
I; and Michael Toth, Associate Planner. |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed |
Bedard |
Present:
Val Corrado
Absent:
Public Hearings
070178
Requests a variation from Section 155.212 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a central air |
conditioning unit as a permitted obstruction within an interior side yard in the R2 Single |
Family Residence District. (DISTRICT #1) |
Dean Frigo, owner of the property, presented the petition. He stated that he came in |
and spoke with Angela Clark (past Village of Lombard Planner) who gave him verbal |
confirmation that he could go ahead and place the second air conditioning condenser |
next to the larger preexisting condenser in the side yard setback. He then stated that he |
is before the Zoning Board of Appeals to ask for a variance to allow for the placement of |
the second air conditioning condenser. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. There was no one |
in the audience present to speak for or against the petition. |
Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the property |
owners completed a number of improvements to the subject property including a |
residential addition. He then noted that as part of the improvements, an additional air |
conditioning condenser was needed. Mr. Toth also noted that the contractor placed the |
new air conditioning condenser next to the existing condenser, which is located in the |
interior side yard. He then stated that air conditioning condensers are not listed as a |
permitted encroachment within side yards. He then stated that a variation is needed. |
Mr. Toth then moved on to state that the Zoning Ordinance lists air conditioning |
condensers as permitted encroachments within rear yards, but does not list them as |
permitted encroachments within interior side, corner side or front yards. He then |
declared that the intent was that air conditioning condensers within front and corner side |
yards would worsen the appearance of the streetscape and condensers within interior |
side yards could become a noise nuisance if it is placed too close to the windows of an |
adjacent residence. |
Mr. Toth stated that the air conditioning condensers on the subject property are located |
in the eastern side yard. He mentioned that the residence on the adjacent property to |
the east is located twelve feet (12') from the side property line that it shares with the |
subject property. Mr. Toth then noted that there is an eighteen foot (18') separation |
between the two residences whereas the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would |
require only a 12' separation between the two residences. |
Pertaining to lots in the R2 zoning district, Mr. Toth mentioned that the Zoning Ordinance |
states that those lots shall have a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet and a minimum |
lot width of sixty feet (60'). He then noted that the subject lot has a total lot area of 6,544 |
square feet and a lot width of only 46.74 feet. He mentioned that relief was granted |
through ZBA 03-16 allowing the reduction in lot width to 46.74 feet. He also mentioned |
that the subject lot was also granted relief through ZBA 03-12 to allow for twelve feet |
(12') where twenty feet (20') is required. Mr. Toth stated that because the lot is smaller |
than most typical R2 lots and is located on a corner, the efficient areas for the |
condensers to be located have been significantly reduced. There is adequate space |
between the residence to the east and also the fact that the subject lot is located on a |
corner allows the optimal amount of space for emergency response vehicles. He then |
noted that the additional condenser would not further hinder any access ways than what |
is already there. |
Mr. Toth stated that staff finds that there are no reasonable alternatives for relocating |
the air conditioning condensers in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He stated |
that placing the condensers in the rear yard would not be recommended because the |
efficiency would be greatly reduced due to the distance the line would have to extend to |
reach the furnace in the basement. He concluded the report by noting that because the |
subject lot is a corner lot, placing the condensers in either the front yard or western side |
yard (the corner side yard) would be aesthetically unpleasing. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Young asked if the variation pertains to both air conditioning condensers. He then |
asked if relief had ever been granted for the preexisting air conditioning condenser in the |
side yard setback. |
Michael Toth, Associate Planner, was unaware of any past relief granted for the |
preexisting air conditioning condenser. |
Mr. Young stated that it would be a good idea to grant relief to both units as a third |
condition of approval to ensure that if anything were to happen to either unit, the |
petitioner would not have to waste money to seek additional relief for the preexisting |
unit. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, noted that the condition of approval is tied to the existing |
residence. The air conditioners would have to come into compliance when the |
residence is damaged or destroyed, not necessarily when the air conditioning |
condensers themselves are damaged. |
Mr. Young stated that he would like to have the preexisting air conditioning condenser |
added to the variation as a second condition of approval. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Polley, that this matter be Recommended |
for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to the amended condition(s). |
The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
1. The variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Should the existing residence |
be damaged or destroyed by any means, any new air conditioning equipment shall meet |
the six foot (6') interior side yard provisions. |
2. Should either of the air conditioning condensers located on eastern portion of the |
property be damaged or destroyed, their replacement shall not be subject to any |
additional relief. |
070179
ZBA 07-04: 314 S. Brewster |
Requests approval of a variation to Section 155.406 (H) to reduce the amount of open |
space on the subject property to 46 percent where a minimum of 50 percent open space |
is required, to allow for the construction of a detached garage located within the R2 |
Single Family Residential District. (DISTRICT #1) |
Bob Janetka, owner of the property, presented the petition. Mr. Janetka stated that he is |
proposing to build a detached garage on his property that would be the same size as his |
current garage. Mr. Janetka mentioned that his lot is only 4,400 square feet, so he does |
not have adequate space available to construct a larger detached garage. He stated |
that the new garage will be the same footprint as the garage being replaced, but he said |
that he will also move the garage six inches (6”) in from the northern property line to |
meet the side yard setback requirement. Mr. Janetka also mentioned that the present |
detached garage is old and trees have fallen on it in the past, so it is not only very |
unsightly, but also very unsafe. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Park Basham wished to speak against the petition. Mr. Basham is a resident of |
Lombard and lives behind the petitioner's property. Mr. Basham stated that there have |
been some drainage issues on his property, which concerned the petitioner's property. |
He said that there haven't been any flooding issues in the twelve (12) years that he has |
lived there but the construction of new larger garage concerns him. Mr. Basham went |
on to explain to the Board that he had the opportunity to speak with the petitioner before |
the meeting and the petitioner explained to him that the new garage would be the same |
size as the original. Next Mr. Basham declared that he was no longer speaking against |
the petitioner's proposals. Lastly, Mr. Basham stated that the current garage located on |
the petitioner's property is in need of repair or replacement. |
Michael Toth, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the subject |
property currently has approximately 2,312 square feet of lot coverage, leaving 46 |
percent open space. He then stated that the petitioner is proposing to replace the 280 |
square foot detached garage with a new garage of a similar size, to be located on the |
northwest portion of the property. |
Mr. Toth mentioned that staff typically has not recommended approval for open space |
variations unless there is an existing legal nonconforming situation and the amount of |
open space is not being increased. Mr. Toth stated that in the case of the subject |
property, there will be no expansion of any non-conformity. Mr. Toth explained that the |
petitioner will actually be decreasing the amount of non-conformity on the property by |
bringing the side yard setback to the required three (3') feet, whereas it is currently only |
at two and a half (2.5') feet. |
Mr. Toth later stated that the subject property is only 4,400 total square feet. Mr. Toth |
explained that the petitioner proposes to replace the current detached garage, which is |
in poor condition not only for the safety of his family, but also to improve the |
characteristics of the neighborhood. Mr. Toth stated that after further reviewing the plat |
of survey, it was determined that there would be no better solution for the placement of |
the garage, due to the insufficient amount of space. Mr. Toth mentioned that the garage |
will only have enough space to accommodate one automobile at 280 square feet. Mr. |
Toth then stated that if the garage were to be demolished and rebuilt according the fifty |
(50) percent open space specification; the detached garage could only be 155 square |
feet, which is basically the size of a shed. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked Mr. Basham if his concern was with lot coverage. |
Mr. Basham stated that the only concern he has is related to drainage on the lot. |
Mr. Young asked that staff look into the drainage issue. |
Mr. Toth stated that these petitions are reviewed by Private Engineering Services and |
their comments are part of the IDRC Report. Mr. Toth then stated that P.E.S. made no |
comments pertaining to any drainage issues. |
Chairperson DeFalco made a comment relating to the deck located on the subject |
property. Chairperson DeFalco asked if the deck was built after the garage was |
constructed. |
Mr. Toth responded to Chairperson DeFalco's question by stating that there is no permit |
on record for the deck. |
Mr. Janetka stated that he plans to replace the deck in the future and understands that |
he will have to reduce the size of the deck to adhere to the lot coverage provision of the |
Zoning Ordinance. |
Mr. Bedard made the motion to approve the petition provided that a third condition is |
added. |
Chairperson DeFalco made the suggestion that the third condition states that the |
variation only applies to existing construction. He explained that if any of the structures |
were removed or destroyed beyond the fifty percent allowed, any lot coverage issues |
would be subject to a new variation. |
Mr. Janetka then asked if he would be able to replace his house if it were to be |
destroyed beyond the fifty percent. |
Chairperson DeFalco replied that in the instance the house were destroyed, the lot |
coverage would have to conform to Code. |
Mr. Young then asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals were approving the house or the |
garage. |
Chairperson DeFalco responded by stating that the approval of this petition only pertains |
to the garage being constructed. He then stated that any future construction projects |
shall conform to the fifty percent coverage provision outlined on the Zoning Ordinance. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Polley, that this matter be Recommended |
for approval to the Corporate Authorities subject to the amended condition(s). |
The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
1. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed detached |
garage. |
2. The petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with the plans submitted as part of |
ZBA 07-04. |
3. The approval related to this petition shall only apply to the existing construction. Any |
future construction on the subject property shall meet all current Code requirements. |
070180
ZBA 07-05: 208 S. Elizabeth Street |
Requests a variation to Section 155.406 (F) (1) to reduce the front yard setback from |
thirty feet (30') to fourteen and one half feet (14.5') to allow for the construction of a front |
porch on an existing legal non-conforming residence in the R2 Single Family Residential |
District. (DISTRICT #1) |
The petitioner, Barbara Esterly, shared a statement signed by four neighbors wherein |
they gave their support to the requested variation. She stated that there is now a |
six-foot stoop in front of their house and they just want to extend a porch out from there. |
They have already made numerous improvements to the house's windows, roofing, |
soffit, and foundation. There was previously a porch on the house but they could not |
find any pictures of it. |
Ms. Esterly then provided the Zoning Board of Appeals members with an older |
photograph of the subject property as well as the signed statement from her neighbors |
with an attached photograph of a porch that had previously existed on the house |
immediately to the north of the subject property. She stated that people get their |
driveway confused with their neighbor's driveway due to the location of the entrance. |
She noted that numerous homes in the neighborhood have porches. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. |
Shannon Vetter, 202 S. Elizabeth, stated that the petitioners have made a substantial |
investment in their home. She loves the characteristics of older homes. The previous |
owner remembered that there had been a porch on the house at one time. She is in |
agreement with the proposed new porch. |
Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report. |
Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, presented the staff report. The petitioner is requesting a |
variation to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 14.5 feet to construct |
a roofed-over, unenclosed front porch. The existing residence, which was built in 1926 |
according to Township Assessor's records, is legal nonconforming with a 20.5-foot front |
yard setback. |
Ms. Backensto stated that the existing residence is considered legal nonconforming |
relative to the front yard setback. Staff has generally been supportive of variations to |
construct additions that maintain an existing nonconforming building line. In this case, a |
smaller entry porch could be constructed to maintain the existing 20.5-foot setback. |
This smaller porch would create less of a visual obstruction than the proposed |
226-square foot porch. The hardship in this circumstance is a personal preference for |
the proposed design. |
Furthermore, to be granted a variation the petitioners must show that they have affirmed |
each of the “Standards for Variation.” Staff finds that the petitioner's property does not |
have unique physical limitations that limit the owner from meeting the intent of the |
ordinance. While the existing setback does present an obstacle, it does not create the |
need for a further reduction of the front yard setback. 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 of Lombard. Furthermore, |
the existing setback of the house on the subject property is very similar to the setbacks |
of the existing older homes to the north and south. Staff finds that the hardship has not |
been caused by the ordinance and has instead been created by the petitioner's |
preference for the proposed design. Staff finds 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. Granting the requested relief would |
set an undesirable precedent for further setback variations in the immediate area. |
Ms. Backensto stated that staff does not find any undue hardship in this case that would |
justify the requested setback variation. However, within the past five years there have |
been six other ZBA petitions requesting relief for roofed-over, unenclosed front porches. |
One of these cases, ZBA 06-17, involved a request to reduce the setback to less than |
50% of that required by the Zoning Ordinance. All six variations were ultimately granted. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Polley asked if the residence was currently nonconforming. Chairperson DeFalco |
stated that it was. |
Mr. Polley stated that there is a need for some shelter by the doorway, but the |
petitioner's proposal carries it a bit too far. Chairperson DeFalco noted that the porch |
would extend no closer to the property line than the existing stoop, but the porch would |
continue further to the south. |
Mrs. Newman noted that replacing a stoop with a larger, roofed-over porch would |
increase the bulk at the front of the property. |
Mr. Bedard asked if the six other variations mentioned in the staff report were replacing |
existing structures or increasing a nonconformity. Ms. Backensto stated that they were |
a mixture of both types of variations. |
Chairperson DeFalco discussed the case in ZBA 02-15, wherein the front yard setback |
was reduced to 26 feet to allow for a front porch. He mentioned that there had been a |
subsequent text amendment to allow for such limited encroachments into the front yard. |
Mr. Young referred to the garage shown in the photo provided by the petitioner and |
stated that it appeared closer to the front property line than the petitioner's house. The |
petitioner stated that the garage is actually in line with the front of their house. |
Mr. Bedard asked if they were certain that there was previously a porch on the subject |
property. The petitioner stated that they were sure of it but could not find any pictures. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that the ZBA has typically supported requests that maintain |
an existing building line and discussed how the petitioner could construct a covered front |
entrance without going further into the front yard. The petitioner stated that shifting the |
front door would hurt the interior flow of the rooms. |
Chairperson DeFalco stated that, in the past, the ZBA has allowed coverings over a |
door. The petitioner added that their neighbors to the south have a similar home except |
they have stairs going down to their own driveway. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval with conditions limiting the variation to |
the existing residence, requiring that the petitioner receive a building permit, and |
that the petitioner follow the submitted plans. The motion failed by the following |
vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Young and Bedard
3 -
Nay:
Newman and Polley
2 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
070180
ZBA 07-05: 208 S. Elizabeth Street |
Requests a variation to Section 155.406 (F) (1) to reduce the front yard setback from |
thirty feet (30') to fourteen and one half feet (14.5') to allow for the construction of a front |
porch on an existing legal non-conforming residence in the R2 Single Family Residential |
District. Trustee Gron requested that this item be placed on the consent agenda for |
approval. (DISTRICT #1) |
It was moved by Newman, seconded by Polley, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion failed by the following vote: |
Aye:
Newman and Polley
2 -
Nay:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Young and Bedard
3 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
As neither motion received four votes, the ZBA forwards this petition with no |
recommendation relative to the requested relief. |
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Polley and seconded by Newman the minutes of the January 24, 2007 |
meeting were unanimously approved by the members present with the following |
corrections as noted by Chairperson DeFalco: |
Page 3, second paragraph, second sentence, change the word "than" to "then" so the |
sentence reads: |
"He noted that if it is a bad ordinance, then it should be changed rather than having |
numerous petitions for the same zoning relief." |
Page 5, condition 1., second sentence, line 3, change the word "than" to "then" so the |
sentence reads: |
"Should the existing residence be damaged or destroyed by any means, to the extent |
of more than fifty percent (50%) of the fair market value of the residence, then any new |
structures...." |
Planner's Report
New Business
1. Administrative Variations |
Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, updated the Zoning Board of Appeals on a pending text |
amendment concerning the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The text |
amendment would establish an administrative variation process, whereby the authority |
to grant approval of variations, in selected limited cases, is given to the Zoning Board of |
Appeals. The proposed amendment establishes the types of relief that would be subject |
to an “administrative variation”, the process for approving such relief and the associated |
appeal process, if necessary. The intent of this amendment is to provide for a |
streamlined approval process for those variation requests that are deemed to be minor |
in nature and have traditionally been supported by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the |
Village Board. |
The proposed text amendment went before the Plan Commission at their March 19, |
2007 meeting. The Plan Commission recommended approval (4-0) of the petition, |
subject to final review of the text language by Village Counsel. The text amendment will |
be on the April 19, 2007 Village Board of Trustees agenda for first reading. |
The ZBA members discussed the proposed amendment and noted that it would have |
little if any impact on their decision-making process. They questioned the amount of |
time that each party would be given notice of such an administrative approval. The |
consensus of the group was that the new process would be generally beneficial to |
petitioners. |
2. Clear Line of Sight Regulations |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that she was preparing a white paper on the Village's clear line of |
sight regulations. This report would be presented at an upcoming Traffic and Safety |
Committee meeting. She proceeded to give a history of the Village's fence regulations. |
In the 1978 Zoning Ordinance, fences located in required front yards were limited to a |
maximum height of three feet and were required to be at least 50% open. While the |
Ordinance did not use the term “clear line of sight”, it did include provisions that |
prohibited fences exceeding three feet in height within twenty-five feet of two |
intersecting street lines. There were no regulations pertaining to fences located along |
driveways. |
In the process of re-writing the 1990 Zoning Ordinance, the sections regarding fences |
and view obstructions was discussed extensively. The Zoning Ordinance Update |
Committee felt that 4 foot fences may be appropriate in front and corner side yards due |
to the standard fencing sizes and to allow fences tall enough to restrict pets. Staff |
pointed out that the purpose of the lower height restriction (in the 1978 Ordinance) was |
to maintain an open appearance along street frontages. The Plan Commission |
suggested that the fence height regulations be modified to allow 4 foot fences in front |
and corner side yards provided that they were at least 50% transparent. |
The Public Safety Committee of the Board of Trustees worked with staff from the Public |
Works Traffic Division and prepared a report on recommended clear line of sight |
regulations. One recommendation was to increase the distance for clear visibility from |
25 feet to 30 feet along each right of way in order to give a driver 200 feet of |
unobstructed view (including the width of the right-of-way). The report also |
recommended limiting fences within front and corner side yards to 3 feet, noting that |
even with cyclone fencing, corners and angles will limit visibility. |
Ultimately the approved Zoning Ordinance established separate fence regulations for |
residential districts, business districts, and industrial districts as well as a new section |
pertaining to clear line of sight areas. The clear line of sight area was increased to a 30 |
foot by 30 foot triangle and the definition was expanded to include the intersection of |
residential driveways with public or private streets. Within residential districts, the |
maximum height for fences within front and corner side yards was increased to 4 feet. |
No opacity requirements were placed on fences in the front or corner side yard. |
However, fences were prohibited in any clear line of sight area. |
In 1999, staff began a review of comprehensive changes to the Zoning Ordinance as it |
pertained to fences and clear line of sight areas. Staff proposed a text amendment that |
allowed fences within a Clear Line of Sight Area provided that the fence remained of |
open construction. The text amendment also included definitions for open construction |
fence and solid fence. At least 75% of the fence surface area must be in open space |
which affords a direct view through the fence in order to be considered an open |
construction fence. Fences that have less than 75% of its surface area in open space |
are considered solid fences. |
The text amendment also addressed sight obstructions which were not previously |
considered for clear line of sight areas. The text amendment also specifically prohibited |
building and signs within Clear Line of Sight Areas with the exception that principal |
buildings in the B5 Central Business District were permitted within a Clear Line of Sight |
Area. Buildings (except in the B5 Central Residence District) and all signs became |
prohibited within clear line of sight areas. Furthermore, the text amendment reduced the |
required Clear Line of Sight Area adjacent to a driveway to 20 feet. Because the corner |
side yard setback in residential districts is only 20 feet, a house could meet the corner |
side yard setback and still be within the clear line of sight area. Staff found that this |
distance was still adequate to ensure driver visibility, as the distance from the rear |
bumper of the largest personal vehicle sold at the time (Ford Expedition) to the front of |
the driver's seat was only 12 feet. |
With the 1999 Text Amendments, staff proposed an amendment that would require a |
building permit to erect a fence. The Plan Commission recommended approval of all |
staff's proposed amendments, but during Board of Trustee review the requirement for a |
fence permit was removed. With the new text amendments in place, it was found that |
the fence regulations were easier to follow, but were still hard to enforce. Due to the |
increase in variations and number of complaints, in 2000 the Board approved a text |
amendment requiring fence permits. |
In 2005, staff proposed several amendments intended to make the fence regulations |
less restrictive. The amendments allowed 6 foot fences in corner side yards provided |
that the fence consists of decorative materials and met the open construction |
requirements. The text amendments also included provisions that allowed the maximum |
height to vary by up to three inches for grade changes, clearance under fences for |
maintenance, fence posts or decorative finials. |
Unfinished Business
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. |
________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
________________________________ |
Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II |