Village Hall |
255 East Wilson Ave. |
Lombard, IL 60148 |
villageoflombard.org |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Greg Young, Val Corrado, |
and Ed Bedard |
Staff Liaison: Jennifer Backensto |
Chairperson John DeFalco, Val Corrado, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley and Ed |
Bedard |
Also present: Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II; and Michelle Kulikowski, AICP, |
Planner I. |
*B. ZBA 06-07: 429 S. Craig Place (Moved from VIII-D) |
Requests approval of a variation to Section 155.406 (H) to reduce the amount of open |
space on the subject property to 44.5 percent where a minimum of 50 percent open |
space is required, to allow for the construction of a detached garage and driveway within |
the R2 Single Family Residential District. (DISTRICT #5) |
Chairperson DeFalco re-opened the petition. Prior to the start of the testimony period, |
Dr. Corrado and Mrs. Newman confirmed that although they were not present at the last |
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, they had sufficiently familiarized themselves with the |
specifics of the case so that they would be comfortable voting on the petition. |
The petitioner, Daniel Mahal, passed out a revised site plan. The proposed garage was |
reduced from 24 feet wide to 22 feet wide, and was pushed one foot closer to the front |
of the property. The driveway width was reduced by six inches to pick up an additional |
53 square feet of open space, but it could not be reduced further due to its narrow width. |
The deck was originally shown at 464 square feet, but the actual size is 440 square feet. |
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's position remains unchanged from that |
explained in the staff report and the staff recommendation of denial still stands. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Chairperson DeFalco summarized the changes to the site plan and asked about the |
driveway in front of the house. The petitioner stated that the apron is shifted three feet |
from the driveway and they do not line up. Chairperson DeFalco noted that this paved |
area is almost the size of the requested variation. |
The petitioner stated that he has lived in this home for 11 years and has put a lot into the |
house. He wants to make it workable for both now and for the future. |
Chairperson DeFalco explained what is meant by a hardship and gave several |
examples. The petitioner stated that the garage was pushed as far forward as is |
workable. |
Mr. Polley asked about the degree of the variation. Chairperson DeFalco stated that the |
petitioner exceeded code by 240 square feet. |
Dr. Corrado asked if the petitioner would be willing to remove the pavement in front of |
the house. The petitioner stated that he would prefer to keep it as-is. |
Mr. Polley asked about the use of paver blocks. Chairperson DeFalco stated that they |
are similar to a deck in that a small amount of water can drain through, but they do not |
create a significant amount of open space. |
Mr. Polley asked if the paved area in front of the house was used for parking. |
Chairperson DeFalco reiterated that the petitioner has stated that it was used more as a |
basketball court. |
Dr. Corrado asked how many variations have been granted for open space. Ms. |
Backensto stated that she did not know the number offhand. |
Chairperson DeFalco gave an example of a recent case on Central Avenue. He noted |
that in the present case, the petitioner was able make small modifications to reduce the |
requested amount of the variation by almost half. He stated that there were other |
potential options to increase open space on the property. |
Mr. Bedard stated that he sympathizes with the petitioner, but the Zoning Board of |
Appeals needs to focus on the presented hardship. He stated that they can't reasonably |
justify a basketball court as a hardship. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Newman, that this matter be |
recommended to the Corporate Authorities for denial. The motion carried by the |
following vote: |
E. ZBA 06-08: 512 S. Craig Place (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests approval of a variation to Section 155.406 (H) to reduce the amount of open |
space on the subject property to 47.1 percent where a minimum of 50 percent open |
space is required, to allow for the construction of a deck within the R2 Single Family |
Residential District. The petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT |
#5) |
Michelle and Kevin Wesling, owners of the property, presented the petition. Mrs. |
Wesling stated that they bought the property in 1997. She noted that originally the |
property was a double lot, and a previous property owner sold one of the lots which |
reduced the size of the property in half. She stated that she understands the reasoning |
behind the open space requirement, but they just want to replace the deck that has been |
there for years. |
Mr. Wesling stated that the existing deck is rotting and is deteriorated. He noted that |
they use the rear entrance from the deck as the primary entrance to their home. He |
mentioned that the roof over the deck was needed for protection from bad weather |
conditions. He also mentioned that the roof could serve as a fire escape from his child's |
bedroom on the second floor. He noted that the house was originally designed with an |
attached garage on the side. The previous property owner demolished the attached |
garage and constructed a detached garage on the property. Mrs. Wesling noted that |
the existing detached garage is twenty-two feet (22') by twenty-six feet (26'), and the |
garage with the long driveway account for a large portion of their lot coverage. |
Mr. Wesling stated that he did not believe their proposed deck would decrease the |
degree of non-conformity. He mentioned that since they bought the property, they |
removed a ten foot (10') by twelve foot (12') shed and grassed in a small area of the |
driveway. He stated that they have actually decreased the degree of non-conformity |
since buying the property. He noted that the roof over the deck will not change the use |
of the deck. Mr. Wesling submitted an aerial photo to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He |
stated the variance comes down to two issues - density and drainage. He mentioned |
that drainage would not be an issue because they currently do not have any water |
problems. He stated that their house is modest relative to the new homes being |
constructed in Lombard. He mentioned that they are trying to improve the property and |
make it look nice. He noted that the deck is not excessively large and is of a reasonable |
size. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke for or |
against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the subject |
property currently maintains 47.1% open space and is considered legal non-conforming |
with respect to open space. She mentioned that the petitioners are proposing to remove |
an existing deck and replace it with a deck of approximately the same size and |
dimensions but also with a roof structure. She noted that once the existing deck is |
removed, any legal non-conforming rights associated with the deck are lost. She also |
noted that the removal of the deck would bring the property in compliance with the 50% |
minimum open space requirement. She stated that the petitioners request a variation to |
re-establish the legal non-conformity relative to open space, so that the deck can be |
replaced. |
Ms. Kulikowski provided some background information regarding the property. She |
stated that the original residence located at 512 S. Craig Place was built on Lot 44 with |
a small portion of the garage on Lot 45. In 1992, a previous property owner received a |
building permit to demolish the attached garage and construct a new detached garage |
on Lot 44. She noted that Lot 45 no longer had any structures (or portion thereof), and |
the property owner was able to sell Lot 45 as a buildable lot. She mentioned that in |
1993, a single family residence was constructed on Lot 45, which is now known as 508 |
S. Craig Place. She noted that when the building permit was issued for the detached |
garage in 1992, the zoning lot for the subject property consisted of all of Lot 44 and the |
Lot 45. The total area of the property (known as 512 S. Craig Place) and was used to |
calculate the open space requirement. She stated that at the time, the property far |
exceeded the minimum open space requirement. However, the sale of Lot 45 reduced |
the area of the property known as 512 S. Craig Place from 16,0000 square feet to 8,000 |
square feet, and the property no longer met the 50% minimum open space requirement. |
Ms. Kulikowski noted that the previous property owner was able to sell Lot 45 for |
development as a matter of right because it was a platted lot of record. She mentioned |
that the Village does not have any authority over the private sale of land and cannot |
deny a property from being developed on the basis of a nonconformity on an adjacent |
lot. She stated that at the time, the Village did not have any regulations to prevent this |
situation from occurring. She noted that the current Zoning Ordinance regulates that |
certain construction activity can only occur on a single lot of record. Homes built on two |
lots would be required to consolidate the lots in order to build an addition or large |
accessory structure. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff typically has recommended approval for open space |
variations when there is an existing legal nonconforming situation and the improvements |
will not increase the degree of nonconformity. She mentioned that the proposed deck |
includes a roof structure, and that the roof structure would increase the degree of |
nonconformity. She mentioned that even though the calculated percent of open space |
would essentially remain the same, staff finds that the roof element increases the visual |
impact of the structure. She stated that the intent of the 50% minimum open space |
requirement is to limit bulk and density as well as the volume of stormwater runoff. The |
roof structure would be completely impervious, whereas the deck would allow some |
stormwater to reach the ground through the spaces between the wood planks. |
Ms. Kulikowski reviewed the standards for variations as they apply to the proposed |
improvements. She noted that staff did not find any hardship for the roof over the deck. |
Staff did mention as an alternate consideration, that the Zoning Board of Appeals could |
chose to approve the open space variation so that the deck could be replaced without a |
roof structure. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Polley asked whether the roof would also serve as a second story balcony. Mrs. |
Wesling stated that it will be a gable roof and will only serve as a covering for the deck. |
Mrs. Newman asked whether they considered covering just a portion with a roof rather |
than the entire deck. Mrs. Wesling noted that the roof will not cover the stairs. She also |
stated that reducing the area of the deck covered by the roof would make it would look |
awkward because they were trying to tie in with the roof pitch of the house. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked whether about using a retractable awning or pergola and |
whether that would be allowed. Jennifer Backensto, Planner II, stated that a retractable |
awning would be allowed if it was not permanent. Mrs. Wesling stated that the problem |
with using an awning is that they are meant to provide shade from the sun, not |
protection from the weather. |
Chairperson DeFalco referred to the aerial photo that was submitted by Mr. Wesling. |
He stated that it is easy to distinguish which property belongs to the petitioners because |
of the large pavement area in the aerial. |
Mr. Wesling stated that they would consider removing a sidewalk in the front yard to |
come closer in compliance, but he wasn't sure if they could actually reduce it to fifty |
percent (50%). Chairperson DeFalco asked whether they considered reducing the |
dimensions of the deck. Mr. Wesling stated that they wanted the peak of the gable |
under the second story window, and they needed the deck to extend to the entrance |
door. |
Chairperson DeFalco discussed the percent of open space that would result from the |
removal of the sidewalk. For the purposes of calculating the lot area and amount of |
open space, Ms. Kulikowski explained the discrepancy between the “measured” lot |
depth and the “recorded” lot depth. She noted that the recorded number is always used |
for consistency purposes, and in this case, using the recorded lot depth results in a |
smaller lot area. |
It was moved by Bedard, seconded by Polley, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to conditions. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
1. That the petitioner shall construct the deck in accordance with the plans submitted as |
part of the petition. |
2. That the deck shall remain unenclosed. |
3. The petitioner shall remove one hundred twenty (120) square feet of pavement area |
in the front yard. |
4. That the variation shall be limited to the existing residence. 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 shall |
meet the full provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. |
F. ZBA 06-09: 332 South Martha Court (Waiver of First Requested) |
Requests approval of a variation to Section 155.406 (F)(4) to reduce the rear yard |
setback to twenty-one feet (21') where thirty-five feet (35') is required to allow for the |
construction of an addition within the R2 Single Family Residential District. The |
petitioner is requesting a waiver of first reading. (DISTRICT #5) |
Don Meyer, owner of the property, presented the petition. He stated that he would like |
to build a twelve and one-half foot (12.5') by twelve and one-half foot (12.5') addition. |
He noted that his property is located on a cul-de-sac and that his house's orientation on |
the lot is angled two different ways. He stated that he considered building the addition |
further to the north, but the addition would block windows to the bedroom. He noted that |
the proposed location functionally makes the most sense. The addition would be off of |
the living room, and an existing window would be replaced with a door. He mentioned |
that the only other way would be to build up, but because of his age, he did not want to |
add stairs to his home. Mr. Meyer stated that the front yard is sloped toward the street |
and the backyard is relatively flat. The runoff pattern would remain the same. He |
mentioned that he would also be doing construction at the front entrance which does not |
need a variance. He stated that his property is unique for a cul-de-sac, and if the |
variation was approved, it would not be setting a precedent for very many properties. |
He also noted that it is just the very corner of the addition that would be setback 21' from |
the property line, the rest of the addition would be setback farther. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in |
favor of or against the petition. He then requested the staff report. |
Michelle Kulikowski, Planner I, presented the staff report. She stated that the subject |
property is a “pie-shaped” lot located on a cul-de-sac with a depth that ranges from one |
hundred eleven feet (111') to one hundred fifty-nine feet (159'). She noted that the |
subject property is approximately twenty-six feet (26') wide at the front property line and |
one hundred forty one feet (141') at the rear property line. She mentioned that the |
existing residence is currently legal non-conforming with a twenty-eight foot (28') rear |
yard setback. She stated that the petitioner is proposing a one story addition to the rear |
of the home that would be setback twenty-one feet (21') from the property line, and |
because the proposed addition would expand the degree of non-conformity, a variation |
is needed in order to construct the addition. Ms. Kulikowski noted that the proposed |
addition is twelve and one half by twelve and one half foot (12.5'x12.5'). She mentioned |
that the proposed addition could be built meeting the rear yard setback if it were moved |
six feet to the northwest. However, the addition would be adjacent to one of the |
bedrooms, thus blocking the windows to the exterior. Building Code requires windows in |
bedrooms for the purposes of light and ventilation. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that staff has conducted a review of all the petitions for rear yard |
variations since 2000. She noted that staff has only recommended approval for rear |
yard variations in situations when the proposed improvement maintained the existing |
building line or where the depth of the lot was unusual (e.g., less than one hundred feet |
(100') in depth). She stated that staff remains consistent in its interpretation of the |
standards for variations and finds that the standards for variations have not been |
affirmed. She noted that the shape of subject property is typical for a lot located on a |
cul-de-sac and that the property has sufficient depth ranging from one hundred eleven |
feet (111') to one hundred fifty-nine feet (159'). She mentioned that there are not any |
unique differences between the petitioner's lot and others with the R2 Single Family |
District with respect to the depth of the property and the required front and rear yard |
setbacks. She stated that the 35-foot rear yard setback for R2 properties has been |
consistently applied throughout the Village. She noted that staff finds that the hardship |
has not been created by the ordinance, and the requested relief is needed due to a |
personal preference for an office addition to the existing residence. She noted that the |
granting of the requested relief will set an undesirable precedent. |
Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion by the Board Members. |
Mr. Bedard asked about locating the addition so that the addition maintained at least the |
existing twenty-eight foot (28') building line. |
Mr. Meyer stated that it wouldn't work because his property is an odd shaped lot. |
Chairperson DeFalco asked about moving the addition to the north so that it met the |
setback and constructing a hallway through the corner bedroom to access the addition. |
Mr. Meyer stated that the corner bedroom is already small and he wouldn't even be able |
to put a bed in the room if the room were made any smaller. |
Chairperson DeFalco noted that the petitioner's house is not visible from the Prairie |
Path. |
Mr. Polley stated that the intent of the ordinance would still be fulfilled because the |
petitioner's property is a unique lot. |
Chairperson DeFalco mentioned a previous ZBA case on Sycamore Court in which the |
Zoning Board of Appeals discussed the intent of the ordinance as it relates to the rear |
yard setback. He noted that the intent of the ordinance was to give a sense of |
openness in rear yards. He stated that in the Sycamore case the intent of the ordinance |
was not met, but in this case it would be. |
Mr. Meyer noted that there is a line of trees along the west property line. |
Chairperson DeFalco noted that there have been two rear yard variations granted in the |
past because the properties backed up to Glenbard East. He also noted that the |
properties located at 323 and 329 Garfield are the most impacted. |
Mrs. Newman stated that she agreed that those properties are the most impacted, but if |
the property owners were concerned, they would probably have come to the meeting. |
Chairperson DeFalco noted the Building Code requirement for windows that was |
mentioned in the staff report. He asked whether the Village would allow the petitioner to |
build the addition further to the north in compliance with the thirty-five foot setback. |
Ms. Kulikowski stated that the Village would not issue a permit for the addition to be |
located there. The addition would be blocking the windows to one of the bedrooms and |
would not comply with building code requirements for light and ventilation in bedrooms. |
Mr. Meyer stated that the proposed layout for the addition is the most appropriate for the |
interior. |
Dr. Corrado stated that the addition will have very little impact on the neighboring |
properties because it will not be visible. |
It was moved by Corrado, seconded by Polley, that this matter be Recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to one condition. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
1. That the variation shall be limited to the existing residence. 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 shall |
meet the full provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. |
On a motion by Polley seconded by Bedard the minutes of the April 26, 2006 meeting |
were unanimously approved by the members present. |
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. |
___________________________________ |
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Zoning Board of Appeals |
___________________________________ |
Jennifer Backensto, AICP, Planner II |
Zoning Board of Appeals |