Village of Lombard Legistar System

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.

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.

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.

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.