Village of Lombard Legistar System

The Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing on September 26, 2007. The

petitioner, Chad Wooters, stated that staff is recommending approval of their request to

reduce the lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet. The interior side yard setback is existing.

The cross access they have with their neighbor is a gentleman's agreement, and it

would be difficult for either of them to navigate without using the other's driveway. If

their neighbor ever built a fence, they would have only 6.8 feet for their driveway. The

setback variation request would be for the possibility that the south side of the house is

destroyed but the north side is not.

Kirsten Wooters stated that the house is already narrow and conformance would make it

narrower. Their shared driveway would look bigger than their home. They are certain

that their neighbor would agree to a cross access agreement.

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,

stated that staff finds that the variation request to reduce the minimum lot width to 40

feet meets the Standards for Variations. The Zoning Ordinance permits redevelopment

on lots in the R2 District that meet 80% of the required lot width, or a minimum of 48

feet. The intent of this rule is to provide a higher level of review for nonconforming lots

platted before the 60-foot minimum lot width requirement. The subject property has a lot

width of 40 feet, which is 67% of the required width. As the petitioner's residence was

constructed on this lot in 1927, granting the variation would not further increase the

degree of nonconformity. There are unique physical limitations on the property in that,

due to the width of the subject property and surrounding lots, there is no practical way

for the petitioner to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The lots

immediately north and south of the petitioner's property are 40 feet wide and 50 feet

wide, respectively, so there would be no way for the lot to be brought into conformance

by purchasing land from a neighboring property.

Without the requested relief, the property owner would not be able to make any

additions to the property or rebuild the current home in the event it were destroyed or

damaged more than 50% of its value. The requested relief is not needed due to the

actions of anyone presently having an interest in the property as this subdivision

occurred in 1930. Granting the request would neither be injurious to neighboring

properties, nor would it change the visual and aesthetic character of the neighborhood.

Staff is therefore supportive of the lot width variation request.

The existing home is 6.8 feet from the northern property line, where the Zoning

Ordinance requires homes with detached garages to have interior side yard setbacks of

6 feet and 9 feet (in cases where the garage is not attached to the house) to allow for an

adequately-sized driveway. This ensures an adequate separation between structures

and also ensures that residents are not forced to drive on their neighbors' properties.

(Staff is unaware of any existing cross-access agreements pertaining to this property.)

No setback variations have been granted on the petitioner's block, so there is no

established precedent for zoning relief.

Furthermore, to be granted a variation the petitioner must show that they affirmed each

of the "Standards for Variation". Staff finds that the standards are not affirmed. The

proposed variation will decrease the visual open space between homes that is typically

protected by the required interior side yard setbacks. Setback requirements within the

R2 District are intended to prevent overcrowding and preserve the open space

characteristic of suburban single-family development. Granting this variation would

increase the likelihood of further encroachments and reductions in open space on

surrounding properties, thereby taking away from the spacious, residential character of

the neighborhood. Also, because of the unusually narrow lot width for this property, any

reduction in the required setbacks for this property would result in the appearance of this

lot being overbuilt. Granting a variation for the side yard setback for a future

reconstruction could, depending on the layout of the new home, create a rowhouse-like

appearance that may be inappropriate for the neighborhood.

The petitioner wants assurances that a home can be built on the property in the event

the existing home were destroyed. As the Zoning Ordinance requires interior side yard

setbacks of only 6 feet on both sides where there is an attached garage (versus 6 feet

and 9 feet), this variation would only be necessary in the event the new home did not

have an attached garage.

Rather than grant a side yard variation to accommodate future construction, staff

recommends that the request to reduce the interior side yard setback to 6.8 feet be

denied. The petitioner and any future owners of this property would retain the right to

construct a home within the buildable area of the subject property, assuming the lot

width variation is granted, and the existing house would retain its legal nonconforming

status. In the event the new construction does not meet the required setbacks, staff

feels it would be appropriate for the property owner to appear before the Zoning Board

of Appeals and the Board of Trustees at that time to request a variation for any future

building plans.

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

Mr. Young stated that if the neighbor's house were to burn to the ground and a new

house was built up to the allowable setbacks, the petitioner would have a problem.

Granting the lot width variation ensures that a structure could be build on the lot, and the

setback could remain grandfathered. It would make more sense for both the petitioner

and the neighbor to seek lot width variations. The interior side yard setback request,

though, is for a far-fetched contingency.

Mr. Bedard stated that, typically, relief is tied to a particular structure and not intended to

allow a nonconforming structure to remain in perpetuity. He stated that he is more likely

to support the lot width variation than the setback variation.

Mrs. Wooters stated that they learned about the noncompliance when they were

inquiring about their taxes. Someone suggested to her that they should either stop

paying their homeowner's insurance or get a variation. If they had known about the

nonconformities when they were purchasing the house, they might have had concerns.

It would be too stressful to ask for a variation at the time the house burns down. If both

variations are not granted it will be very difficult to sell the home. They want to preserve

the existing footprint, and meeting the setback requirements would be bad for Lombard.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if the footprint could be maintained if less than 50 percent of

the house were damaged. Ms. Backensto stated that it could.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that variations are usually tied to the home. Assuming the

lot width variation is granted, a replacement home with an attached garage could be

built on the lot. It could have a two-car garage, especially with a tandem garage design.

Mr. Young noted that the front yard setback is 25.5 feet. Ms. Backensto confirmed that

there is a 25.5-foot setback to the front porch, which would require relief if it were

enclosed. Mrs. Wooters stated that the porch had been enclosed.

Mr. Young stated that builders are adept at preserving the architectural integrity of a

neighborhood, and there are many possibilities that could work on this lot beyond the

existing footprint. Mr. Bedard stated that a 40-foot wide lot is not particularly attractive to

a builder, and he has concerns that a builder would negatively take advantage of a

reduced side yard setback.

Mr. Young asked if cross access is required to get a building permit. Ms. Backensto

stated that, for a shared driveway, the cross access is a private agreement between

property owners and not something that is required by the Village.

The Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a public hearing on September 26, 2007. Mr.

Bedard recused himself because he has a business relationship with the petitioner's

wife. Michael Bedarowicz, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. He

stated that the main purpose for building the addition was to add a ground floor bedroom

for his mother who is 83 years old. He noted that to make everything work, they would

lose the dining room, the current kitchen would be converted to a dining room, and a

new kitchen would be added. He mentioned that the addition can't be built without

moving or replacing the existing garage. He noted that the garage had to be pushed

forward to make up for the additional lot coverage from the addition, and they would lose

driveway space for parking.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or

against the petition.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

Michelle Velazquez, Planner I, presented the staff report. She described the existing

improvements on the subject property. She noted that the existing detached garage is

setback approximately 4 feet from the interior side property line. She explained that the

petitioner is proposing to demolish the existing garage and construct an addition which

would include an attached garage, approximately 21 feet by 46 feet, and some

additional living space. She stated that the attached garage would be setback

approximately 3 feet from the interior side property line. She explained that as an

attached garage is considered to be part of the principal structure, a 6 foot side yard

setback is required.

Mrs. Velazquez stated that setback regulations are intended to prevent the appearance

of excessive visual bulk on a property and in addition, setbacks provide for separation

between structures to prevent the risk of a fire spreading to adjacent structures and

allow for access to the side of a structure in the event of a fire or other emergency. She

noted that the Zoning Ordinance outlines separate setback requirements for accessory

structures and principal structures. She stated that detached garages are required to

maintain a minimum three foot (3') side yard setback and must also maintain a minimum

separation of twelve feet (12') from the principal structure on the adjacent property. She

explained that detached garages are typically placed closer to the rear property line, and

therefore have less of a visual impact from the street. She noted that the twelve foot

(12') separation requirement ensures that the detached garage and the principal

structure have the same minimum separation from the principal structure on the

adjacent property.

Mrs. Velazquez reviewed the standards for variations. She stated that the petitioner's

property does not have any unique physical limitations that limit the owner from meeting

the intent of the ordinance. She noted that the subject property is not substandard in

terms of lot width, and the existing residence maintains a setback of more than

twenty-three feet (23') from the northern side property line. She mentioned that there is

sufficient room to provide a two-car wide detached garage within code. She stated that

that the hardship has not been caused by the ordinance and has instead been created

by the petitioner's preference for the proposed design. She noted that staff believes that

the granting of the requested relief will set an undesirable precedent. She stated that

the proposed addition would create the appearance of excessive visual bulk when

viewed from the street and would have a significant impact on the adjacent property to

the north. She pointed out that a massive wall, approximately 8 feet in height and 46

feet in length would be located within three feet of their property line. She also noted

that if the variation were to be granted, the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for

permitted encroachments would permit the eave overhangs to extend all the way to the

side property line. She explained that only a nine foot separation would be provided

between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north known as 379 N.

LaLonde Ave. She stated that the proposed addition would increase the danger of fire

and referenced the comments in the staff report from the Fire Department/Bureau of

Inspectional Services.

Chairperson DeFalco opened the meeting for discussion among the members.

Mr. Young asked if a variation was needed for the portion of the addition that was to be

living space. Mrs. Velazquez stated that a variation was only needed for the attached

garage.

Mr. Young noted that the proposed attached garage is a four-car garage. He asked if

there would be enough room to keep the existing garage and build just the living space

portion of the addition. Mr. Bedarowicz stated that the addition would then butt up

against the garage.

Mrs. Newman asked if the addition could just attach to the existing garage. Mrs.

Velazquez noted that a variation would still be required.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that there is an existing 6 foot fence along the side property

line that would be only 3' from the proposed garage. He noted that there would be a

greater risk of fire spreading from the garage to the fence and then to the adjacent

house.

Dr. Corrado stated that he felt the Fire Department's comments were significant, and

they would have trouble getting to the side of the house if there was a fire.

Chairperson DeFalco asked if it were possible to push the detached garage further back

and build just the living space portion of the addition. Mr. Bedarowicz noted that too

much green space would be lost and the property would be at less than 50% green

space.

Mr. Young noted that the driveway could be modified to make up for the lost green

space.

Chairperson DeFalco asked about the net change in green space as a result of the

proposed addition. He referenced the lot coverage calculations on the site plan. He

stated that the proposed addition will bring the property to 46% green space, which is

more green space than what is currently on the property.

Chairperson DeFalco repeated Mr. Young's comment about modifying the driveway. He

noted that some people have used ribbon driveways to allow for more green space. Dr.

Corrado noted that grasscrete would also be an option.

The petitioner, Daniel Schmitt, stated that he has met with staff extensively to see how

green space could be added to the property. He is willing to sod the area behind the

garage and renovate both the front and back porches. This will not result in full

compliance with the open space regulations, but they are doing what they can. They

expect to keep the swimming pool for about 20 years. Also, they informed their abutting

neighbors about the variation request and those neighbors signed a petition in support

of the relief.

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,

stated that the subject property currently has 46.6% open space, which is below the

50% minimum open space requirement. The petitioner is requesting a variation to allow

for the installation of a 257.1-square foot above-ground swimming pool. The Private

Engineering Services Division notes that the Code requirement of 50% open space

serves to limit both the density on lots and the volume of stormwater runoff. The back

yard of this lot contributes to a known depressional area on the block. Since the

proposed pool would make the lot more than 50% impervious, the Private Engineering

Services Division recommends denial.

In addition, this petitioner previously permitted for, and constructed, a new garage and

driveway. As part of the permit requirements, a drainage system was installed to direct

runoff from the new impervious areas towards the right-of-way of St. Charles Place.

This system shall not be altered in any way. The exposed gravel in the drainage system

is, by design, pervious and thus if sod was placed over the gravel the water would drain

through the grass, through the gravel, into the pipe and drain away towards the

right-of-way. Thus the grass would not survive.

Ms. Backensto stated that the property as it exists today has 46.6% open space, which

is defined as "that portion of a lot or property maintained as lawn, garden, field, woods,

wetland, or other natural landscape area and is free of buildings, structures and

impervious surfaces." In 2002, the petitioner received a building permit for a residential

addition, garage, and driveway extension. The proposed improvements left the property

with 4,452 square feet of open space (50.9%), which exceeded the minimum amount

required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, due to the size of the new improvements,

the petitioner was required to install additional drainage improvements including a

plastic-lined stone trench behind the garage and along the entire western property line.

Since gravel areas are not included within the definition of open space, the 394 square

feet of gravel and curbing brought the property below the 50% minimum open space

requirement. The drainage improvements were required subsequent to the zoning

compliance review, so this nonconformity was not discovered until the petitioner met

with staff to submit an open space variation petition to allow for the installation of an

above-ground swimming pool. Although the proposed swimming pool is only 257.1

square feet, when combined with the required 2002 drainage improvements the property

would be left with only 43.4% open space.

The petitioner has stated that they would be willing to create additional open space on

the property. They have suggested adding sod over the gravel areas behind the garage

and along the western property line, which would add 351 square feet of green space

and compensate for the nonconformity created by the required drainage improvements.

However, as stated in their comments earlier in this report, the Private Engineering

Services Division has reviewed the petitioner's proposal and has concluded that it is not

feasible for sod to be installed over the required drainage improvements.

Ms. Backensto stated that the petitioner is also considering reducing the size of the

existing deck and porch to create additional open space. While this could bring the

property closer into compliance with the 50% open space requirement, the deck and

porch combined are not large enough so that their removal would bring the property into

full compliance.

The Zoning Board of Appeals could make three recommendations:

1. Recommend denial of the petition in its entirety;

2. Recommend approval of a variation to 48.7% open space to recognize the required

drainage improvements and denial of the additional relief for the swimming pool; or

3. Recommend approval of a variation to 46.5% open space, with a condition tying the

requested relief to the submitted site plan.

Staff believes that the drainage improvements required by the Village create unique

circumstances that warrant a variation. The drainage improvements are required due to

the stormwater drainage characteristics of the subject property and the surrounding lots

and are not generally applicable to other properties within the R2 District. Since it is a

Village requirement designed to address drainage problems that pushed the property

below the minimum open space, staff can support a variation to reduce the required

open space to 48.7%.

However, staff does not believe there is a hardship for the proposed swimming pool.

The property is subject to the same lot coverage requirements as every other property in

the Village, which property owners were made aware of at the time of their 2002 building

permit submittal. Furthermore, to be granted a variation the petitioners must show that

they have affirmed each of the "Standards for Variation." Staff finds that all of the

standards have not been affirmed. The petitioner's property does not have unique

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

is not unusually small. The lot is over 9,000 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot

size of 7,500 square feet in the R2 District. 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. 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. Granting the request could be injurious to neighboring

properties because overbuilding single-family lots contributes to a loss of the

neighborhood's suburban character.

As such, staff recommends that the ZBA approve the petition with a condition limiting

the requested relief to 48.7% open space. This will recognize the existing conditions on

the property and acknowledge that the unique circumstances regarding the drainage

improvements are appropriate in this case. The petitioner would be able to add the

desired swimming pool or other accessory structures provided that an equal amount of

open space is created elsewhere on the lot, but the property would be required to

comply with code in the event it is ever fully redeveloped.

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

The Zoning Board of appeals began to discuss the petition but had several questions

regarding the stated open space percentages. They requested that staff prepare a new

staff report incorporating the revised open space percentages that resulted from staff's

on-site meeting with the petitioner.