ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 10, 2007

Transcription

1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 10, 2007 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Garrity at 7:35 p.m. Board members Gregory Constantino, Barbara Fried, Mary Ozog, Dale Siligmueller and Michael Waterman were present. Board member Edward Kolar was excused. Also present were Trustee Liaison Mark Pfefferman, Building and Zoning Official Dale Wilson and Recording Secretary Barbara Utterback Chairman Garrity described the procedures of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Variation requests for three properties were on the agenda: 461 Montclair Avenue, 342 Hawthorne Avenue and 735 Brentwood Avenue. Board member Fried moved, and Board member Siligmueller seconded, to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 461 MONTCLAIR AVENUE A REQUEST FOR TWO VARIATIONS FROM THE GLEN ELLYN ZONING CODE AS FOLLOWS: 1. SECTION (D)1 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY HOME WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET IN LIEU OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 50 FEET. 2. SECTION (B)4.25 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ONE- STORY, OPEN, ROOFED-OVER, FRONT PORCH WITH A SETBACK OF 20.5 FEET IN LIEU OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK OF 37.5 FEET. (Richard and Kathleen Sleckman) Staff Introduction Building and Zoning Official Dale Wilson displayed a site map and indicated the location of the subject property at the northeast corner of Montclair Avenue and Duane Street. He also displayed a site plan that showed the footprint of the proposed home. The property is zoned R2 Residential. The petitioners are requesting two setback variations to construct a new home. The first variation request is for a front yard setback of 30 feet in lieu of the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet. A front yard setback is determined by the adjacent neighbor(s) which, in this case, would be the house next door that is set back in excess of 50 feet (a 50-foot setback is the maximum setback allowed by code). Mr. Wilson stated that because the lot is 89 feet wide and 100 feet deep, the 50-foot front yard setback minus the 40-foot rear yard setback leaves a buildable area of 10 feet in depth. The second variation requested by the petitioners is for a front porch setback of 20.5 feet in lieu of the required 37.5 feet. Mr. Wilson explained that an open front porch and open roofed-over front porch are allowed to encroach up to 25 percent into a required setback

2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -2- APRIL 10, 2007 which, in this case, would be 22.5 feet. The proposed house complies with all other Zoning Code requirements. Petitioners Presentation Richard and Kathleen Sleckman, the petitioners, have owned the subject home since They stated that they enjoy their home and neighbors very much and do not want to move out of the neighborhood. Mr. Sleckman added that he grew up in Glen Ellyn which was a very positive experience. Ms. Sleckman pointed out some issues with their home that they would like to correct by constructing a new house. These issues include the current front door faces Duane Street rather than Montclair Avenue, the driveway slopes down into the garage and a retaining wall by the driveway blocks sight lines, both bedrooms are located over the garage which raises concerns regarding carbon monoxide, the rooms are small, there is no storage and no closets, and access to the back yard is around the garage or through the basement. Ms. Sleckman added that the garage is currently nonconforming and will be brought up to code with the proposed plan. Mr. Sleckman submitted a petition with six signatures of nearby neighbors in support of the proposed variation requests. Daniel James (Jamie) Simoneit, principal architect of Z + O, A.I., 504 Hillside Avenue, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, spoke on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Simoneit displayed a site plan of the existing and neighboring properties and referred to the 10-foot wide buildable area of the subject property that makes a variation necessary in order to construct a new home or an addition on the lot. Mr. Simoneit stated that the proposed house is not excessive in size and will conform to the neighborhood. He added that the home will be vintage in appearance and that the petitioners have expressed a strong desire for a front porch. Mr. Simoneit displayed photographs of homes similar in scale and style to the proposed home. Mr. Simoneit displayed the proposed footprint and described some details of the proposed home. Responses to Questions from the ZBA Mr. Wilson verified for Mr. Siligmueller that the proposed garage is considered to be a detached garage even though it is connected to the house by a covered walkway. Mr. Wilson further explained that a covered walkway/breezeway is considered to be an accessory structure. Mr. Wilson also clarified for Mr. Waterman that the setback for rear yard accessory structures along the corner side is 18 feet. He added that the rear yard accessory structure setback can be as close as 5 percent of the lot width to the rear property line or to the opposite property line on the interior side (approximately 4.5 feet). Mr. Waterman asked if the petitioners had taken into consideration the fact that the proposed garage will be much closer to the house to the east than the existing garage and will be located in front of the house next door and block their view to the west, and Mr. Simoneit replied that a decision was made to move the garage to that location to gain as much rear yard as possible for the petitioners and to orient the doorway into the

3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -3- APRIL 10, 2007 breezeway off the garage. Mr. Simoneit also added that the farther back the garage is placed on the lot, the steeper the driveway becomes. Mr. Siligmueller asked what the hardship is related to the front porch setback variation as he felt the porch could be reduced in size to meet the code. Mr. Simoneit replied that the size of the porch was designed to accommodate furniture arrangement but that the front yard setback could be reduced by two feet, if necessary. He felt, however, that reducing the depth of the porch to 6 feet would result in a porch that would be too small to be comfortable and offered 8 feet as a compromise which would bring the front yard setback to 22.5 feet. Mr. Wilson explained for Mr. Siligmueller how the ridge height of a building on a sloped lot is calculated. Persons in Favor of or in Opposition to the Petition Karen Mosher of 473 Montclair Avenue (the house next door that is set 50 feet back) was fully in favor of the proposed variation requests and wanted the Sleckmans to be able to remain in the neighborhood. Ms. Mosher stated that the only thing that her view would be blocked from would be the intersection which was not a problem. Eva Vevere of 674 Duane Street stated that she was in favor of the proposed project and wanted to keep the Sleckmans in the neighborhood. Ms. Vevere stated that she did not mind that her view to the west would be of the proposed garage. She added that she would be happy to see a beautiful new house on the subject property. Todd Mosher of 473 Montclair Avenue was in favor of the proposed variation requests and expressed approval that the project will not max out the lot coverage ratio and will blend in well with the neighborhood. Comments from the ZBA Most ZBA members were in favor of the proposed variation request for the front yard setback for the house because of the 10-foot wide buildable area. The ZBA members, however, were not in favor of the proposed front yard setback for the porch and requested reducing the porch by 8 feet to meet the 22.5-foot setback. Mr. Waterman expressed concern regarding the location of the garage near the street which he believed would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Constantino and Mr. Siligmueller expressed concern about the wall of building effect along Duane Street that would be created by the proposed plan. Motion Mr. Siligmueller moved, seconded by Ms. Fried, to recommend approval of the request for a variation from Section (D)1 of the Zoning Code to allow the construction of a new two-story home with a front yard setback of 30 feet in lieu of the minimum required

4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -4- APRIL 10, 2007 front yard setback of 50 feet. The ZBA members, however, recommended a variation from Section (B)4.25 of the Zoning Code to allow the construction of a new onestory, open, roofed-over front porch with a setback of 22.5 feet instead of 20.5 feet as requested by the petitioners in lieu of the minimum required setback of 37.5 feet which would meet the setback allowed per code. The recommendations for approval were based on the findings of fact that the size of the lot is unique, the requirement of a 50-foot front yard setback based on the setback of the house next door would not enable the lot to be developed and the essential character of the neighborhood will not change. The recommendation for approval was contingent upon the plans being carried out in substantial compliance with the plans as submitted at this public hearing. The motion carried with four (4) yes votes and one (1) no vote as follows: ZBA members Constantino, Fried, Siligmueller and Chairman Garrity voted yes; ZBA member Waterman voted no. ZBA member Ozog recused herself as she is a neighbor of the petitioners. PUBLIC HEARING 324 HAWTHORNE AVENUE REQUEST FOR A CONSTRUCTION-NECESSITATED VARIATION FROM THE GLEN ELLYN ZONING CODE, SECTION (C)1, TO ALLOW A NEWLY- CONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN WITH AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SETBACK OF 1.4 FEET IN LIEU OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SETBACK OF 3.6 FEET (4%) FOR A 90-FOOT WIDE LOT. (Juan and Camille Ortega) Staff Introduction Building and Zoning Official Dale Wilson stated that the petitioners are requesting a variation to allow construction of a driveway to remain that does not conform to the Zoning Code, and he displayed a location map of the subject property. As part of an addition project, the driveway to the existing detached garage at the rear of the lot was redone, and the final as-built engineering review indicated that the impervious surface of the driveway on the east side of the property was set back 1.4 feet from the property line instead of the required 3.6 feet. Mr. Wilson stated that the site plan originally submitted indicated that the driveway would be constructed 3.6 feet from the property line. Mr. Wilson added that staff recently discovered that no further engineering plans had been submitted by the Ortegas and, when contacted, Mr. Ortega decided to request a variation to allow the driveway to remain in its current location. Mr. Wilson displayed a site plan indicating the portion of the driveway that does not comply to the code. Petitioners Presentation Juan and Camille Ortega, the petitioners, were present to speak on behalf of their request for a construction-necessitated variation. The Ortegas have lived in Glen Ellyn since 1990 and have been in their current home since Mr. Ortega read from a prepared statement which explained that they chose to add on to their home rather than tear it down in order to preserve the character of the original house. Mr. Ortega explained that

5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -5- APRIL 10, 2007 an entrance and stairway was added onto the driveway side of the house and that after realizing the driveway width would be a problem, he decided to apply for a variation for the driveway setback after the addition was constructed. Mr. Ortega further explained that during the course of construction, the driveway approach was reconstructed and he understood from a conversation with the driveway approach inspector that his driveway could be built to the edge of the approach. Mr. Ortega then proceeded to construct the driveway per his understanding. (Per Dale Wilson, the inspector retired from the Village last year). Mr. Ortega distributed a letter from Larry and Lois Hoffman, their neighbors to the east (the driveway side) at 334 Hawthorne Street, in support of the variation request. Mr. Ortega stated that there is just enough space in the driveway to let their full-sized van pass by the stairs. Mr. Ortega explained that their family usually tries to back their vehicles into the driveway for safety reasons when exiting due to a steep incline in the driveway and students walking to and from the nearby schools. Mr. Ortega stated that if the variation is not approved, hardships they face would be not having enough room for vehicles to maneuver past the stairs in the driveway and having to remove part of the driveway. Mr. Ortega added that the current configuration of the driveway allows water to flow down the front of their property and away from their neighbors yard. Mr. Ortega apologized to the Zoning Board of Appeals for not acting more promptly to address the nonconforming driveway situation. Ms. Ortega stated that their family moved into their current home from another house on the block. She added the addition did not significantly change the appearance and character of the original house and that although the house has a front entrance, the family members enter and exit the house via the side entrance near the driveway and garage. Ms. Ortega reiterated that they prefer to back into the driveway for safety purposes. She added that their family has three teenage drivers whom she believes would be unable to back into the driveway if the driveway was narrowed. Ms. Ortega also reiterated that the neighbors would get water on their property if the Ortegas reduced the size of their driveway. She added that they also need a larger driveway because there is no parking available on Hawthorne Avenue. Responses to Questions from the ZBA Mr. Wilson responded to Mr. Waterman that, according to the survey, the original driveway was in conformance with the code and that as part of the addition project, a porch was added and the driveway was moved into the nonconforming setback. Mr. Ortega responded to Ms. Ozog that the exterior of the addition was completed before the driveway was constructed. Mr. Wilson explained the project submittals and review process for Mr. Waterman. Mr. Wilson clarified for Mr. Constantino that the Village engineering consultant had consistently raised the issue of the 3.6-foot impervious setback requirement in review comments. In response to Chairman Garrity, Mr. Wilson stated that materials that are 50 percent pervious can be used in a required setback. In

6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -6- APRIL 10, 2007 response to Ms. Fried, Mr. Wilson stated that driveway approaches are always wider at the street, and Ms. Ortega responded to Mr. Waterman that the Village had installed the approach. Mr. Wilson explained for Ms. Ozog that inspections are not required for flatwork on private property. Mr. Wilson explained the code regarding stairway width for Mr. Waterman. Mr. Constantino suggested that the Ortegas add a turnaround in their back yard so that they would not have to back into the driveway, however, Ms. Ortega responded that they are financially unable to do so currently. Persons in Favor of or in Opposition to the Petition Margaret DeLarosa of 612 Newton spoke in favor of the proposed variation request. She stated that her yard backs up to the Ortegas next door neighbor to the east. Ms. DeLarosa cautioned the ZBA against advising the Ortegas to create a turnaround in their back yard in order to maintain the character of the open area that spans several back yards. She also cited safety issues when pulling out of the Ortegas steep driveway, especially at night. Karen Kroon-Harris of 295 Hawthorne spoke in favor of the proposed variation request and commended the Ortegas for not tearing their house down when they purchased it. Ms. Kroon-Harris stated that she does not drive up the Ortegas driveway because it is too narrow. She stated that the driveway previously went right up to the house. Ms. Kroon-Harris also attested to the Ortegas honesty and believes that the driveway situation resulted because of a lack of communication. Comments from the ZBA Some concerns expressed by ZBA members regarding granting the variation were as follows: The Village Board is generally not in favor of granting post-construction variations, the petitioners knew what the required setback was from the beginning of the process, final approval was delayed by the petitioners until the Village initiated action to resolve the issue, and other options are available to the petitioners to correct the situation (i.e., use pervious material to extend the driveway and/or make the stairway more narrow to allow cars to pass by more easily). Two ZBA members in favor of granting the variation request felt that the confusion and miscommunication between the petitioners and the Village warranted approving the nonconforming driveway, there are safety issues upon exiting the driveway, the situation appears to be an honest mistake on behalf of the petitioners, a precedent will not be set by allowing the driveway to remain, no drainage problems will be created by allowing the driveway to remain, and the neighbors are in favor of granting the variation request. Motion Ms. Fried moved, seconded by Mr. Waterman, to recommend denial of the variation request for 324 Hawthorne Avenue to allow a newly-constructed driveway to remain with

7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -7- APRIL 10, 2007 an impervious surface setback of 1.4 feet in lieu of the minimum required setback of 3.6 feet because other alternatives are available. The motion to deny carried with four (4) yes votes and two (2) no votes as follows: Board members Fried, Waterman, Constantino and Chairman Garrity voted yes; Board members Ozog and Siligmueller voted no. PUBLIC HEARING 735 BRENTWOOD AVENUE REQUEST FOR A VARIATION FROM THE GLEN ELLYN ZONING CODE, SECTION (E)1, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-STORY, THREE-SEASON ROOM ADDITION THAT INCREASES THE EXISTING LOT COVERAGE RATIO FROM 19.7% TO 23.9% IN LIEU OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE RATIO OF 20%. (Brian and Kimberly Sammarco) Staff Introduction Dale Wilson, Building and Zoning Official, displayed a site map and described the location of the subject property. He stated that the petitioners are proposing to construct a one-story sun room addition off the rear of their home and that the additional square footage causes the lot coverage ratio to exceed the code requirement. The existing lot coverage ratio is 19.7% and the lot coverage ratio including the proposed addition is 23.9%. The existing house was constructed approximately in Petitioners Presentation Kimberly and Brian Sammarco, the owners of the subject property, and Tom Cherrington, their builder, of 400 Roosevelt Road, Wheaton, Illinois, were present to speak on behalf of the petition. Ms. Sammarco stated that they have lived in their current home for 16 years. She explained that the family does not use the patio in the back yard very frequently because of a proliferation of mosquitoes from large trees along the side of their home and from the government-protected wetlands across the street. Ms. Sammarco described serious health issues she has related to mosquito bites, bee stings and sun exposure and stated that a screened porch would enable her to enjoy the outdoors from a covered area. Ms. Sammarco stated that when their home was built, the maximum lot coverage ratio for a two-story house was 25% and she felt that their request was reasonable because it was in the mid-range between the previous lot coverage ratio and the current lot coverage ratio. Ms. Sammarco stated that the design of the addition is very attractive and she described some of the details. She stated that the addition was shifted from the patio to the west end of the house because roof lines interfered with a bedroom window in the original proposed location. Ms. Sammarco added that the proposed room will be an open air room and will not have a heating or cooling system. She also stated that another hardship

8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -8- APRIL 10, 2007 is that their attached garage cannot be converted to screened porch area because there would be no access for a detached garage. Ms. Sammarco stated that the proposed addition does not impose on lot lines, is not visible from the street, does not encroach on neighbors light or air, does not create a hardship for the Village and is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Sammarco presented letters in support of the proposed variation from neighbors Gregg and Cara Joesten of 729 Brentwood Court, Lou Taggert of 738 Glenbard Road, Rita and Marty Leamy of 711 Brentwood Court, Connie and Mark Wiedner of 738 Brentwood Court and Thomas and Judith Kuhlman of 744 Brentwood Court. Mr. Sammarco added that his home is significantly smaller and on a smaller lot than many other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Cherrington stated that he builds in several towns and thought that the lot coverage ratio for Glen Ellyn was 30 percent for a two-story home. He expressed surprise that the lot coverage ratio in Glen Ellyn is as low as 20 percent. Responses to Questions from the ZBA Mr. Constantino asked why the proposed addition wasn t designed to be smaller in order to require less of a variation. Mr. Sammarco responded that they originally planned to have the room the same size as the patio but were required to move the proposed room to the west due to the roof line. Mr. Sammarco added that they were not interested in building an addition smaller than the proposed size. Mr. Sammarco responded to Mr. Siligmueller that those homes in the area that are larger than the petitioners home were original construction without additions or remodeling. Ms. Sammarco also listed houses along Glenbard Road that have screened porches in the back. Mr. Wilson added that if the houses had been built when the lot coverage ratio was 25 percent, they most likely conformed to the code at that time. Persons in Favor of or in Opposition to the Request Tom Hull of 741 Brentwood Court read and then submitted a letter in support of the petitioners variation request. Mr. Hull stated that he has reviewed the plans and finds them to be acceptable in all respects. He feels that the addition will be attractive, will enhance the look and feel of the neighborhood and will be a welcome addition to the neighboring backyards. John Day of 750 Glenbard Road first commented on the advances in technology used for the meeting since he served on the Plan Commission 15 years previously. He appreciated the design of the proposed addition and felt it fits into the neighborhood. He also feels that Mrs. Brentwood needs a screened area for health reasons.

9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -9- APRIL 10, 2007 Comments from the ZBA The Zoning Board members felt that Mrs. Sammarco s health issues were a hardship, the mosquito population was overwhelming due to the nearby wetlands, and the proposed addition would not change the character of the neighborhood. They felt, however, that the increase in lot coverage ratio was excessive and the proposed screened porch was too large. Some ZBA members were concerned about setting a precedent with the large increase in lot coverage ratio. The ZBA members also pointed out that the Village Board does not look favorably on increasing the lot coverage ratio for proposed projects to existing homes to 24 or 25 percent. The members agreed that a room half the size of the proposed room would be an adequate size for a screened porch and they would be look more favorably at a smaller variation of 21 or 22 percent. They added that one factor to allowing some type of variation is that the home has an attached garage and there would be no access available if a detached garage was constructed. Motion Ms. Fried moved, seconded by Ms. Ozog, to continue the public hearing to April 24, 2007 in order to allow the petitioners additional time to re-design their plans to reduce the size of the proposed addition and variation request. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Trustee Report Trustee Liaison Pfefferman reported on variation requests recently heard before the Village Board. Staff Report Dale Wilson reminded the ZBA members to RSVP for the upcoming Commission brunch. There being no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Utterback Recording Secretary