Wednesday, March 22, 2006
7:30 PM
Village of Lombard
Village Hall Board Room
Zoning Board of Appeals
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
Meeting Minutes
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2006
Call to Order
Chairperson DeFalco called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson John DeFalco, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed |
Bedard |
Present:
Val Corrado
Absent:
Also present: William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner; and Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I.
Public Hearings
060133
G. ZBA 06-05: 262 N. Garfield Street (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests approval of the following actions on the subject property to allow for |
the construction of a second story addition on an existing legal non-conforming |
residence within the R2 Single Family Residential District: |
1. A variation to Section 155.406(F)(3) to reduce the setback for the northern |
interior side yard from six feet (6') to five and forty-one-hundredths feet (5.41'). |
2. A variation to Section 155.406(F)(3) to reduce the setback for the southern interior |
side yard when there is no attached garage constructed on the property from nine feet |
(9') to eight and thirty-three-one-hundredths feet (8.33'). The petitioner is requesting a |
waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #4) |
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. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Bedard, 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. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the proposed |
addition. |
2. That the variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Shall the existing |
residence be reconstructed due to damage or destruction by any means, the residence |
will meet the current zoning requirements and setbacks. |
3. That the second story shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted as |
part of the petition and shall hold the existing building line relative to the side yards. |
060134
B. ZBA 06-06 302 W. Loy Street (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests approval of the following actions on the subject property to allow for |
the construction of a single family residence within the R2 Single Family |
Residential District: |
1. A variation to Section 155.406(F)(2) to reduce the corner side yard setback |
to ten feet six inches (10'6") where twenty feet (20') is required. |
2. A variation to Section 155.406(4) to reduce the rear yard setback to thirty-one feet |
(31') where thirty-five feet (35') is required. (DISTRICT #1) |
Michael Lambert, with Arris Architects, presented the petition. He stated that he has |
been working with the Caputo's (property owners) for four years on the design for their |
own home just to the north of the subject property. He mentioned that the petitioners |
were concerned about the disrepair of the home on the subject property and had an |
opportunity to buy the home in December 2005. |
Mr. Lambert noted that originally they considered requesting a front yard variation |
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. |
Mr. Young stated that the footprint of the home was approximately two thousand three |
hundred twenty five square feet (2,325 s.f.). Mr. Lambert stated that the second story is |
not as large as the first story and the square footage of the whole house is under four |
thousand square feet (4,000 s.f.). |
Mr. Heniff stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals can vote on the two variation |
requests separately. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Newman, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval with conditions as to the |
variation to reduce the corner side yard setback to ten feet six inches (10'6") |
where twenty feet (20') is required. |
1. That the petitioner shall apply for and receive a building permit for the |
proposed addition. |
2. That the variation shall be limited to the existing residence. Shall the existing |
residence be reconstructed due to damage or destruction by any means, the |
residence will meet the current zoning requirements and setbacks. |
3. That the second story shall be constructed in accordance with the plans |
submitted as part of the petition and shall hold the existing building line relative |
to the side yards. |
The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
It was moved by Newman, seconded by Young, that this matter be |
recommended to the corporate authorities for denial as to the variation to reduce |
the rear yard setback to thirty-one feet (31') where thirty-five feet (35') is required.. |
The motion failed by the following vote: |
Aye:
Newman, Young and Bedard
3 -
Nay:
Chairperson John DeFalco and Polley
2 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
It was moved by Polley, seconded by Chairperson DeFalco, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for approval as to the variation to |
reduce the rear yard setback to thirty-one feet (31') where thirty-five feet (35') is |
required.. The motion failed by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco and Polley
2 -
Nay:
Newman, Young and Bedard
3 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Bedard seconded by Newman the minutes of the February 22, 2006 |
meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. |
Planner's Report
New Business
Unfinished Business
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. |
____________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
____________________________________ |
William Heniff, AICP, Senior Planner |