Village of Lombard Legistar System

Jonathan Grant, owner of the subject property, presented the petition. He stated that he

and his wife purchased the house in 1997, and now that they have two children, they

have outgrown their one story ranch home. He mentioned that he was working with an

architect on plans for a second story addition, and the architect noticed that the plat of

survey indicated that the existing home was legal non-conforming. Mr. Grant noted that

the existing home encroached approximately seven inches (7”) into the side yard

setback to the north and approximately eight and one-half inches (8.5”) into the side

yard setback to the south. He stated not only would it look more aesthetically pleasing,

but it would also be more economical to build directly on top of the existing exterior

walls.

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

favor or against the petition. He then requested the staff report.

Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the existing

residence on the subject property is setback five and forty one hundredths feet (5.41')

from the northern property line where a six foot (6') setback is required and eight and

thirty-three hundredths feet (8.33') from the southern property line. Because there is a

detached garage, a nine-foot (9') setback is required from the southern property line.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the nine-foot side yard is intended to accommodate the

driveway area for detached garages. She mentioned that the petitioners are proposing

a second story addition that would maintain the same building line relative to the

northern and southern side property lines. She noted that because this would be

considered an expansion of non-conformity, a variation is needed.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that even though the proposed second-story addition will not

encroach any further into the side yard than the existing home, a variation is needed

because the proposed addition is considered an expansion of a nonconforming

structure. She referenced the Zoning Ordinance definition of a yard, which denotes a

yard as having as having three dimensions. She noted that a side yard must then be

considered in terms of volume. Ms. Kulikowski stated that the construction of a second

story addition above the existing footprint would increase the volume of the residence

within the side yard, and by decreasing the open-air volume of the side yard, the degree

of non-conformity is increased.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff can support the requested relief. She noted that the

proposed addition will not be setback less than the existing residence. She stated that

the requested relief is not substantial relative to the six foot (6') and nine foot (9')

setback requirements, as both side yards will be decreased by less than one foot. She

mentioned that the proposed addition will not have a negative impact on the surrounding

properties. She also noted that staff has typically supported variations in the past for

additions that hold existing building lines.

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

Mr. Young referred to the Zoning Ordinance definition of a yard and asked whether

eaves were a permitted obstruction.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that the Zoning Ordinance outlines the permitted obstructions

within required yards. She noted that eaves projecting no more than 24” are a permitted

obstruction within the side yard.

Mr. Young asked if it was necessary to grant the variation to the precise one hundredths

of a foot. He stated that it be better to grant the variation to a slightly broader number to

allow room for leeway. He suggested wording the approval of the variation to limit the

second story addition to hold the existing building line.

Mr. Polley asked if the existing home was constructed of brick. The petitioner stated

that the existing home is constructed of brick, but the second story addition will be

constructed of siding and timber in an “Arts and Crafts” style that would match the

existing brick.

because the houses on Loy have irregular setbacks. He referenced other houses on

the north side of Loy Street that encroach into the thirty foot (30') front yard setback. He

stated that the proposed residence is designed in such a way to keep the large pine

trees on the property. He noted that after re-evaluating the location of the trees, the

house had to be shifted to the north causing the proposed residence to encroach within

the rear yard.

Mr. Lambert referenced staff's comments about the fourth bedroom. He stated that they

had done research to try and match the market. He stated that the market demand is

for four bedroom homes. He stated that the bedroom on the first floor is convenient for

elderly or disabled residences or can be used as an office. He stated that another

reason for having the bedroom on the first floor without a second story above it was to

provide architectural balance. He also referenced staff's comments about reducing the

sizes of the rooms and stated that the rooms could not be reduced smaller and still

accommodate furniture. Mr. Lambert also presented floor plans with furniture layouts to

demonstrate this.

Mr. Lambert noted that in designing the proposed residence for the subject property, the

Caputo's were particularly concerned with the rear yard and maintaining a view of the

park from their current residence. He stated that the house currently existing on the

subject property has been a neighborhood eyesore for a number of years. He

mentioned that he was impressed with the Caputo's efforts to beautify the

neighborhood.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment.

Tom Zilla, who resides at 253 W. Crystal, spoke in favor of the petition. He stated that

he has resided at his home for twenty nine years, and over the years has updated his

home three times. He noted that he has also seen the neighborhood change over the

years, and that the house at 302 W. Loy has been a neighborhood eyesore for a

number of years. He stated that the proposed home will greatly improve the

neighborhood.

Chairperson DeFalco then requested the staff report.

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

property is a corner lot approximately fifty feet (50') by one hundred fifty one feet (151')

deep. She noted that the petitioner owns the subject property and the adjacent property

to the north. She mentioned that he plans to construct a new home for his family on the

adjacent property as well as redevelop the subject property with a single family home to

compliment his anticipated home on the adjacent property. She stated that because the

subject property is only fifty feet (50') wide, the setback requirements would only allow a

twenty-four foot (24') wide house to be built, and in order to accommodate the

construction of a new home, the petitioner is requesting two variations to reduce the

corner side yard setback and to reduce the rear yard setback.

Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff can support the variation from the corner side yard

setback. She noted that the subject property is recorded as a fifty foot (50') wide lot of

record and with the required interior side yard and corner side yard setbacks, only a

twenty-four foot (24') wide house could be constructed. She mentioned that many of the

houses currently existing on fifty-foot (50') wide corner lots are considered legal

non-conforming as they were constructed during the post World War II era when the

Zoning Ordinance required a different side yard setback, usually ten feet (10'). She

stated that there is a precedent for variations to reduce the corner side yard setback on

fifty-foot (50') wide corner lots to allow for the construction of a single family residence

(most recently ZBA 05-03).

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the proposed residence will essentially have the same corner

side yard setback as the existing residence. She stated that the existing residence is

setback eleven and one half feet (11.5') and the proposed residence is setback eleven

and eight tenths feet (11.8'). She mentioned that only the proposed chimney projects

beyond the existing building line as it is setback ten and one half feet (10.5') from the

corner side property line, but because the proposed chimney does not meet the

provisions for allowing chimneys as an encroachment within the corner side yard, the

corner side yard must be reduced to ten and one half feet (10.5').

Ms. Kulikowski also noted that there are three very large coniferous trees existing in the

corner side yard, and that the proposed residence has been designed in such a way that

the trees do not have to be removed. She stated that these trees will substantially

screen the proposed residence thus reducing the visual impact of the encroachment

within the corner side yard. She also mentioned that the encroachment within the side

yard will have the greatest impact on the adjacent property to the north, which is also

owned by the petitioner and is where he resides.

In reference to the variation from the rear yard setback, Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff

does not support the requested variation. She noted that the subject property meets the

minimum 7,500 square foot lot area requirement for the R2 Single Family Residence

District, and staff finds that one hundred fifty one feet (151') is a sufficient lot depth to

construct a two-story single family residence even in consideration of the narrow width

of the lot. She stated that there are no conditions unique to the property that prevents

compliance with the rear yard setback requirements and that granting the requested

relief would set an undesirable precedent.

Ms. Kulikowski noted that the request is not based on a hardship but the petitioner's

preference for the proposed design. She stated that alterations can be made to the

design to bring the proposed residence in conformance with the rear yard setback. The

fourth bedroom on the first floor can be eliminated, or rather than have a two story

ceiling height over the living room, a fourth bedroom can be located above the living

room on the second floor. She also mentioned that the widths of the rooms can be

slightly reduced so as to total a four foot (4') reduction in the total width of the proposed

residence. She stated that the length of the rooms can be reduced and still provide

sufficient space.

Ms. Kulikowski also noted that an email was received from a resident after the Zoning

Board of Appeals packets went out. She summarized the email as part of the public

record. She stated that the email was from Joe Lamie who resides at 420 N. Elizabeth

Street. Mr. Lamie stated that he had reviewed the proposed architectural plans with

Tom and Cheryl Caputo and that he was in favor of the variation request. He noted that

the existing structure is not well maintained and had attracted transients with no

personal interest in the property. He mentioned that the proposed home would enhance

the value of the adjacent properties.

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

Mr. Young asked about time limitations as it relates to the expiration of a variation and

expiration of building permits. He also asked whether the petitioner plans to construct

the homes on the subject property and the adjacent property simultaneously.

Mr. Caputo stated that they would construct the home on the subject property first, so

his family could live there while their home was being constructed on the adjacent

property.

Mr. Polley asked about the pines trees that would remain on the property. He asked

whether the trees would be right up against the house and how that would affect the

neighbor to the west.

Mr. Caputo stated the trees would still be about ten feet (10') away from the house. He

stated that the previous owner had a dilapidated shed and a trampoline in the back yard.

He stated that the house is designed to provide visual interest on all sides. He said that

the neighbor was very happy that he had bought the property.

Chairperson DeFalco mentioned that a detached garage could be built in the rear yard

which would block more of the backyard than the proposed design.

Mr. Young stated that the proposed home would most likely be sold for profit. He stated

that he understands that the petitioner is trying to match the market, but most houses

being built don't require variances. He also noted that the Board of Trustees typically do

not grant “for profit” variations.

Chairperson DeFalco asked whether the board objected to the corner side yard

variation.

Mr. Young stated he did not have a problem with the corner side yard variation because

code would only allow a twenty-four foot wide house to be built.

Mr. Bedard stated that he also was concerned that the variations were to facilitate for

profit development.

Mrs. Newman stated that granting the rear yard variation would set a precedent. She

stated that the lot is big enough to build on, but maybe not the house that petitioner

wants to build. She noted that that is a condition of the lot.

Chairperson DeFalco also noted that the previous Zoning Ordinance only required a

thirty foot (30') rear yard setback. He mentioned that the proposed residence would

comply with the previous setback requirement.

Ms. Newman stated that the houses that being built now are also taller.

Mr. Caputo stated that the purpose of the project was not to gain a profit. He stated that

his primary purpose is to improve the neighborhood. He stated that he is not in the real

estate or construction business. He noted that if the property were sold to a builder,

they would just build a big box that could meet code, but would not be aesethicly

pleasing.

Mr. Lambert asked whether the Zoning Board of Appeals would consider a variation to

allow an encroachment to decrease the rear yard by a certain percentage provided that

they compensate by leaving an equivalent void space within the buildable area.

Chairperson DeFalco stated that the garage is setback thirty feet (30') from Loy Street.

He noted that the proposed design would require a variation from either the front yard or

rear yard setback.

Mr. Heniff stated that he does not recall any circumstance where a variation was

conditioned as such. He stated that he would be concerned with how the ordinance

would be enforced. He stated that it is easier to get creative like that with a Planned

Development. He also noted that while that provision would still provide equivalent open

space, the volume within the rear yard would not meet the intent of the rear yard

setback.

Chairperson DeFalco noted that the portion of the house encroaching within the rear

yard is only one story. He asked what the size of the 4th bedroom that encroached

within the rear yard.

Mr. Lambert stated that the room was approximately eleven feet six inches (11'6”) by

thirteen feet (13').

Chairperson DeFalco stated that approximately seven feet (7') of that room is

permissible by code.

Mr. Heniff stated that the area encroaching would be approximately four feet (4') by

thirteen feet (13') which equals fifty two square feet (52 s.f.). He said the Zoning Board

of Appeals does have the authority to add this type of condition.

Mr. Bedard stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has looked at “trading” open space

with variations from the fifty percent (50%) open space requirement.