Zoning Board of Appeals

Regular Meeting

Glen Ellyn, IL · May 13, 2025

Minutes

MINUTES Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, May 13, 2025 at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room 535 Duane Street A. Call to Order and Roll Call Acting Chairperson Jones called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM. Acting Chairperson Jones explained the advisory nature of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and its process for deliberation and recommendation. He described the Public Hearing protocols and announced that the meeting was being recorded. Roll was called. Present: Acting Chairperson Matthew Jones and Board Members, Todd Buckton, Peter Kelly, and Christiane McKnight Absent: Board Members Craig Pavlich, Noureen Lakhani Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager; Jordan Frahm Associate Planner, Steve Szymanski, Village Trustee and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) None C. Approval of Minutes 1. Review and Approval of the April 8, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes Motion to approve- McKnight, Member Buckton Seconded the motion. Approval of the minutes was passed by a unanimous voice vote. Member Kelly moved to open the Public Hearing. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. D. New Business 1. Public Hearing – 551 Geneva Road, Accessory Structure Variation Sworn in, Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request for 551 Geneva Road: The Petitioner is the Glen Ellyn Historical Society; Zoned R2, single family residential adjacent lots are R2 and CR- Recreation District and C2- Community Commercial. This is a request for a zoning variation to allow accessory structures to remain on the lot without a principal structure. Principal structures are required for the accessory structures to remain. In demolishing the house and leaving the garage and shed, that becomes non-conforming and would not be allowed per Village Code. The applicant is seeking a variation from 10-4-1(c) to allow accessory structures (garage and shed) to remain on the property without a principal structure after the principal structure is demolished. The location of 551 Geneva was shown on the screen by Jordan along with site photos staff took. Jordan described the garage view looking south, along with shed both in conforming distance 10 ft behind garage. Both accessory structures are right sized, setbacks are slightly existing non-conforming for both garage and shed. A zoning variation originally approved on July 26, 2021; the variation was approved to maintain the accessory structures while the house is demolished. House is a gift from a donor, the variation expired 24 months after approval. Home to be demolished originally built 1890, garage 1995 construction. Member Questions Commissioner Buckton- What kind of shape is the garage in if the house is filled with mold? Commissioner Buckton- In previous the approval for variation, Chairperson Constantino asked if The Society was comfortable with the condition that if the property is sold somewhere down the road, the property would need to come into compliance with the zoning code. I am assuming that means that the other structures would have to be demolished at that time. Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn-If there was no principal structure to be built then I would assume that it would mean that those accessory structures would have to be raised yes Public Comment Sworn in Petitioner, Jeffrey Anderson- I am the Executive Director of the Historical Society, you had a question regarding how the garage is currently. The Garage has been used as storage for the last 10 years, we keep things in there; we go in every couple of weeks, it is fine. We accidentally cut electricity off to that section but as far as storage, that is fine. Commissioner Buckton- Same with the shed? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- I actually have not been in the shed, I don’t know if there is anything stored in the shed, it was just part of what was on previous petition, so I put it on there again. Commissioner Buckton-I am sorry where did you say that your documents and materials are being stored in the garage? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- we are storing things in the Garage. I have in two years not put anything in the shed but it was part of previously approved variation, so I left it in there. Chairman Jones-Currently you guys are paying the taxes on the property, correct? What was delay on having it teared down? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- Yes, we are paying taxes. The issue was the large expenditure to have the water cut off since it is on Geneva Rd would have required a large expenditure to have the road closed off, because the lines go quarter of the way under the road and the cost was not something the Society to take at the time which is why we were delayed. We worked out an agreement with the Village, the water has been cut off, that was the delay. Chairman Jones- Did anyone petition Milton Township to come look at the house to condemn the property to bring taxes down? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- Before I came on board, there was a request put in to have taxes lowered but it was denied, I don’t know if it was Milton Township, but it was denied. We do have records on the mold report that was also done, and the structure has issues where they said it was uninhabitable. This was 2019/2020. Chairman Jones- Do you have all the funding in place today for the demolition? If granted, when are you going to tear it down? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- to tear it down, yes. Contractor said the moment I have my demo permit we can begin, I am assuming quickly. I would like it done before September if possible. Chairman Jones- What is the long-term goal? Do you still anticipate selling the property? Petitioner- No, the donor’s intent was not to sell the property, but to have something built on it that would be connected to The Historical Society and that property would be donated to the Village and added to the History Park. That was the donor’s intent and the board supports it. Chairperson Jones-Why has property not been donated to Village already? If donated to the Village, Stacy’s Tavern would be the principal structure, and the garage would be secondary and then we wouldn’t be here. Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- We don’t have the funding to build the structure on the property, we only have the funds to demolish the existing house, that is why we have not donated it. We want to build something down the line, once we know what we want to build, we can donate it. Chairperson Jones- You wouldn’t be able to build something after the fact? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- I was told it would be more difficult if the property was not in our possession, we would have to go through the Village. Chairperson Jones- If they were to donate the property to the Village, they wouldn’t need a variance but if they want to build a structure on there for The Historical Society and its use how would they go through the Village to actually do that verses if they control it now? They could build within the zoning codes to build whatever they want; I am assuming. Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner Village of Glen Ellyn- The property is zoned R2. From the 2021 process, they envisioned the use for property as a heritage barn, not entirely sure if within the R2 District, the Historical Society can construct a Heritage Barn and have it be conforming to R2 code requirements. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager Village of Glen Ellyn sworn in- Addressing Chairperson Jone’s statement regarding variations, if it was Village Property after it is donated, the Village would still apply for variation if it required a variation per the zoning code an example of this is the Village is applying for zoning variations for reconstruction of Glenwood Parking Lot south of new multifamily structure there, the parking spaces being proposed by Public Works does not meet our zoning requirements and they are applying for a zoning variation and so I believe that we would still be going through a variation process.. Chairperson Jones- If they would want to build a gazebo, they would need a variation because there is no primary structure? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager Village of Glen Ellyn- Correct, that would be an additional accessory structure. Chairperson Jones- Thus if they were to donate the property to the Village and they wanted to build a barn that would change and R2 to a CR, would they still need a variance? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn-If it was a CR district, we would have to approve a special use permit because any new structure requires a special use permit on the CR Conservation District. Chairperson Jones- So if it was donated it would need a variance and if it wasn’t donated, they would need a variance? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Yes, it’s just a question of what the process would be and who would be applying for the application and what the end result would be. Chairperson Jones- If they came and asked us would it come through zoning or planned commission Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- If it was a village property zoned R2; it would go through ZBA, if it is zoned CR conservation that would be through the plan commission. I don’t know what the complete zoning would be but there would be a rezoning process to go along with it and that would push it to the plan commission as part of the process. Chairperson Jones- Probably go through the Historical Society or Historical Commission is that what it is called? Jordan Frahm, Planning Associate, Village of Glen Ellyn- It wouldn’t go through Historical Preservation Commission, everything residential application would go through Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioner Kelly-Is there a deed restriction on the property? You are all saying that it cannot be used for any purpose other than for the Historical Society? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson-Not that I am aware of. The property was donated out right to us, having conversations with the daughter, the donors’ intent is not to sell the property but long term to added it to Historical Park as an extension to Stacy’s Tavern. In the short term, it would give us a big grassy area for us to do programing on and that is our intent until we built something. Like Pioneer Days and things like that. Commissioner Jones- If we granted the variance with a stipulation that you cannot sell the property but only donated to the village in the future would you guys be ok with that stipulation? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson-I would have to go through my board but that is verbally what I have been told in the intent so I would assume it would be ok. Commissioner Jones- Daniel would we be able to put a stipulation that the property could not be sold only donated to Village or maintained by Historical Society? Daniel Harper Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- ZBA does not have the authority to make a condition like that for this property. The prevue of the ZBA for this application is within the scope of this application anything beyond that scope, I am not comfortable with ZBA offering such a condition. Public Comment Tim Loftus, President of Historical Society sworn in- some of your questions are valid, a little history on why it was maintained by Historical Society and not turned over to Village is that Historical Society was afraid that if they did not maintain ownership, it could never be sold for purposes other than extending the history park. Part of our plan is that eventually we would like to donate the property to the Village. The Village is great and helps us maintain the buildings, so we commend them for that. Our intentions right now are the demolition of the house; to do that, we require water and sewer be removed, the cost was very significant, historical society did not have the funding to do that. We were trying to find a way to build a water feature, fountain, springs, how to re-use water and sewer to avoid the cost of $60k to disconnect services and repair the road. We were informed last year that the Village or Township will be doing work on Geneva Road, and they capped the expense, as the road will be torn up and now, we don’t have the enormous cost, and we want to move ahead with demolition of the house. We have public entities that we also store their items. This is not the history of Stacy’s Tavern alone it is the history of Glen Ellyn moving forward. We want to keep garage structure to store and evaluate historical items from the Village, so the history of the Village continues. We also use it for Pioneer Days, the Antique Auto Fest that we run and we have a lot of items that we need to put on a program like that and we store those items there. Eventually, as part of our goals, once past the demolition, then we will start planning, based on funding what we want to do and what we can afford, to try to develop more of a history park. It is changing as time goes on due to funding, but we still want to move forward with expanding. Chairperson Jones- If you were to build a barn, would you tear the garage down or keep the garage? Tim Loftus- We have not decided that as a historical society. Building a barn that is to the era is not a cheap proposition, if that is chosen, we could also include some sort of storages. We don’t have a plan developed yet, until we can see what we have. If we can’t get the building demolished then we have to think of what the property can be used for. Right now, the building has been deemed uninhabitable. Chairperson Jone-If you were to keep the garage, do you have plans to change it? Tim Loftus-No plans to change it other than to add electrical. Chairperson Jones- Do you have a budget for what needs to be maintained and plan for proper maintenance? Tim Loftus-Yes. Chairperson Jones-If you keep the garage, your taxes will still be about 3,500 in property taxes compared to where you are at today. Vacant land is cheaper. Tim Loftus- Goal is to deed to The Village, we just want to protect it so that it does not get sold. Village has right to sell Stacy’s Tavern, 800 Main St, Stacy’s Park on corner, lot next door going west, all those lots are deeded to Village except for 551 property. If they wanted to sell it, they would have to go to Village Board to have landmark removed and they can sell it. I hope they would never consider selling it. Chairperson Jones- if they wanted to, if donated they could sell off the property? Tim Loftus- Yes, we are trying to avoid any possibility of that 551 property being earmarked for some other development other than history park. Commissioner McKnight- I saw the ordinance that was passed last time in our packet; there was a condition that if sold or transferred the accessory would have to be removed or brought into compliance with zoning code is that also a condition that we can include this time? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- Yes, we can include that condition, if it was sold or transferred the shed and garage would either be torn down if no principal structure exists or if principal structure is built, then accessory structures will be allowed to remain. Chairman Jones- Are you ok with that condition, variance if the property is sold or modified? Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- Yes, we are fine with that, and my board has no issue. It was in the last one, we are fine. Chairman Jones- I am not an attorney but it appears that if you built anything and then transferred it to The Village, with the way it as presented last time, you would have to tear everything down and hand them a vacant lot. Petitioner Jeffrey Anderson- If we are building a primary structure at that point we would be falling under Village Code. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Correct. Chairman Jones- Would a barn be considered a primary structure? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- It’s a hypothetical principal structure so I don’t know if staff would be totally confident answering that question. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- If they are building a new structure, it would be considered a class three of a nonconforming, the existing structure would be nonconforming, if we are issuing a class three permit that would necessitates that everything be brought into conformance, what this variation is to allow to existing conditions of the property is to allow after the principal structure is demolished is to allow for the barn and the shed to remain. If they were to come back in with a new plan to construct a new building, then the property would need to be brought into conformance. Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- That is due to the setbacks of those accessory structures that are nonconforming, lot coverage issues would have to be remedied or brought back in for variation. Instead, of dealing with hypothetical, the scope here is just the demolition and allowing accessory structures to remain. Chairperson Jones- If we approve it and it has secondary structures, could the Village pull that aspect off of it or would they have to leave that in and if we denied it then the attorneys could put any condition they want or would they have to leave that in? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- If the ZBA put a condition, the Village Board can consider the condition, but they can vote not to include any condition that the ZBA places and so it would be up to the Village Board ultimately to decide whatever condition that the ZBA places has merit or warrants the continuation acceptance of that condition. Seeing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Jones asked a motion to close the public hearing. Member Kelly made a motion to close the public hearing. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. Deliberation Commissioner Buckton- I don’t have a problem with it, as far as I am concerned, they got the variation before they couldn’t afford to do it, they are asking to do it again, I think that is the decision that is before us and I will vote in favor of it. Commissioner McKnight -I am in inclined to vote to recommend approval for the variation for the same reasons. I had asked the question about this condition that was placed in the ordinance last time, more because I was not sure if it was a legal requirement that maybe the variation could only run with the current ownership but I am not inclined to condition it unless it is something that is legally required. Commissioner Kelly-I am predisposed to approve it, as it was approved once before. My only concern is, have there been instances in the past where similar requests have come to ZBA and they have been denied? Leaving these accessory structures to remain lends itself to some sort of blight, has that been the case before? I can’t imagine that that’s going to be the case here but it’s something I’d like to consider. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- not to my knowledge. If we were concerned about the structural integrity, or the impact to the community’s health, safety or welfare of any of the structures on the property, then the owner of the property would be compelled to meet our code enforcement requirements in terms of health safety welfare and so that would be the standard of which these buildings would be held to. Commissioner Kelly- So the property maintenance still applies, keep grass cut, paint, etc.? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Yes Chairperson Jones- My concern would be people buying lots to keep a garage to store their cars, so if you take a wealthy person that does not like their neighbors but likes their garage, we will have less housing in Glen Ellyn. It did get approved; I am ok as passing as it was before. If it is transferred, building would have to come down, per this agreement you might be able to petition the Village and come back to seek guidance on keeping it, if you were to transfer the property to the Village. I would also make sure that when and if you improve anything on the property that you make sure that this does not prevent you from doing so. I will vote yes provided we give you exact same conditions as last time. Member Buckton made a motion to approve the Finding of Facts as presented. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. The members of the Board agreed to the merits of the application and found that the application met the standards for approval for a zoning variation. A Motion to approve the application with the same conditions as the previously approved variation was made by Member McKnight and seconded by Member Buckton. The motion passed unanimously with four (4) votes yes and zero (0) votes no. 2. Public Hearing- 680 Grand Ave, Corner Side Yard Setback Variation Member Kelly moved to open the Public Hearing. Member Buckton seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- presented a request for a variation for the property on 680 Grand Ave., a 13,453-square-foot lot located in the Glen Ellyn Springs subdivision from Section 10-4-8(D)(4)(a) of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code to allow the construction of a habitable basement under a proposed terrace to be setback thirteen feet and nine inches (13’- 9”) feet from the corner side yard property line in lieu of the thirty feet (30’-0”) required corner side yard setback. The homeowner would like to build expansion of basement of property, beyond footprint of home. Example of basement footprint slide and scope of underground basement. Proposed lot coverage- total proposed would be 2,956 sq. feet, within tolerances of applying for administrative variation approval, they have chosen to go that route. If set back variation is approved, then homeowner would apply for administrative approval process. If any objections from neighbors, then they would go towards ZBA. A front elevation of front of home slide shown to commissioners, Daniel explained that homeowners are seeking to maintain the architectural spirit of building while adding space with the basement. South elevation of basement setback and front of building facing Grand Ave slide shown to commissioners. Question we are talking about tonight is the underground structure, interpreting the basement as a continuation of the primary structure of the house. The request for a basement structure that extends beyond the footprint of the above-ground structure is a unique proposal and historical examples of similar projects within the village were not identified by village staff. Approximately 530 square feet of the basement is proposed to be located within the 30-foot corner side yard setback. The basement will be below ground and will not be visible from the right of way. The top of the basement will be covered by an outdoor terrace. Terrace structures are allowed in the corner side yard setback and have a required setback of 4-feet based on the 100-foot lot width. The topography of the site features a grade change of 19.23 feet from the northwestern corner to the eastern lot line. Commissioner Questions Chairperson Jones- Daniel the rooftop, the addition and everything there is no variance needed for that right? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- everything you see in above ground exhibit presented is in conformance with the Zoning Code.. The application is for 13’9” from corner side yard setback from southern property line facing Essex Road. Chairperson Jones- Could they build basement underneath terrace? Is the addition to code and everything to the street is not? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Yes, the above ground addition, is in compliance (Daniel using the slide pointed out to Commissioners above ground addition and outline of terrace) He described the 13 feet, structure of basement itself, described oval shape on slide which is terrace above ground and it would meet corner setback yard requirement. Chairperson Jones- Grand Avenue what is in front of the house, the basement could be built? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Yes because you have a maximum 50-foot front yard setback for R2 Zoning and this would be within the tolerance of front yard property line. Commissioner Buckton- What are we voting on tonight? Lot coverage with a basement? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- So we are not voting on a lot coverage, we are voting on the corner side yard setback. Commissioner Buckton- If variation passes, then they would move forward with administrative variance for lot coverage ratio? I’m sorry what is an administrative variance process? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- In village code, if you have less than 2% over the maximum lot coverage, you can qualify for going through an administrative variation process which includes a notification to the surrounding neighbors notifying them that this application has been submitted for a variation, posted on the website, provide a link to notice. If any objections are received within timeframe, then the administrative variation fails and if petitioner wants to pursue it, it comes to Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioner Buckton- all we are voting on is the side yard setback for the basement addition to the street? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- Correct. Chairperson Jones- if we were to approve this, we would not be able to approve the 21%? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- No, this item was not notified for a 21% lot coverage variation. Commissioner Buckton- Village staff can approve it Administratively after following the process? Chairperson Jones- If there were objections, it would come back to us? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- Correct. Commissioner Kelly- As I look at the Zoning Variation standards, it does not check any of the boxes; the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon; conditions upon which petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other properties in the zoning district, no it absolutely would, every property on the zoning district would be subject to a request of variation to extend the size of basement, so it does not apply in that case. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property, well yes clearly. The Petitioners created the issue and so while it does not check any boxes, my problem is that the code needs to be revised. We can recommend that the variance be approved, but I think long term a text amendment might be better to say something along the fact that lot coverage ratio and side setback requirements do not pertain to underground structures that don’t alter the above building. I think it’s ridiculous when these folks are coming in before us when in fact the above ground environment is not going to be impacted in anyway whatsoever. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- I think this is a unique situation, and there is a possibility that the code, when it was written didn’t contemplate something like this. The language however for setback variations is fairly standard statewide, I believe that there is probably boiler point standard language in the State of Illinois code that we are using here so I don’t think a text amendment would be remedy for that, but it’s up for the applicant to basically prove a hardship for the ZBA to approve a variation that runs with the land. Commissioner Kelly- It does not make much sense to me, it’s in congruous with this situation with the reality but as I go through standards, 1,2 and 4 it does not meet them, it makes no sense to me that we are restricting the proposed construction. Chairperson Jones- We are looking at it because it’s unique in some way, right? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- When this was brought to Village staff, we had conversations of “how do we review this” if we go to our requirements and definition of structure and bulk, and things like that, ok this basement is a structure covered on the property and so we counted it. The definitions of setbacks, it is including the definitions of the structure and so that is how we determined that the variation was required. Speaking to the findings of fact and the variation standards, just to iterate for you Mr. Kelly, all standards that you just mentioned are things that shall be taken into consideration with evidence or fails to establish the following acts favorably to the applicant so the way it has been interpreted is that an application does not have to meet every single item, if the ZBA thinks that it does not meet items 1,2 and 3 but we it does meet 4,5 and 6 then there could be a recommendation if that is what the ZBA interprets as establishing a hardship. Commissioner McKnight- The basement will go almost 17 feet into the side yard setback, is that right? it should have 30ft, but instead there is only going to be a 13ft setback, am I understanding that correctly? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- Yes. Chairperson Jones- How big is the terrace? Commissioner McKnight-It’s still an issue which is why we are here, are there any concerns about stability of the ground, or ground water? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- The stability of the ground, that would be handled by Engineering as part of building permit process. This has been looked at by Village staff. Staff has never really seen this before and it will have to be approved and stamped by professional engineers and architects testifying and verifying that it meets all of our codes and the DuPage County stormwater ordinance and everything we are required to meet. Commissioner McKnight-The lot is 100 by 135 feet. Those are the dimensions of the lot? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- Correct. Chairperson Jones- What is the terrace total distance? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- I believe it is 16’ 3”. Chairperson Jones- Terrace is legal, what is underneath the terrace is what we are considering? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village - yes, correct Chairperson Jones- What is this in back of the building, the 30 feet? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- the corner side setback is 30 feet. Petitioners Sworn in, Petitioners Nancy and Chris Desmond- Nancy described that they have been Glen Ellyn residents for almost 20 years, purchased a home in 2005, raised their boys here, went through school system, that they love Glen Ellyn. Stated that they hadn’t been planning to move, the only spot they ever considered moving too was Lake Ellyn, when this property became available, they jumped on it. A month, between seeing house and purchasing it, no regrets. Stated that they are fortunate, that they entertain all the time, and they have noticed that the structure does not accommodate them as well. Would want to be able to host for their friends and family. Petitioner Chris Desmond- thanks again for your time, house was built in 1935, houses built in 1935 are a lot smaller, even closets and pantry are super tiny, it is on a corner lot, super high grade due to Lake Ellyn, small buildable area. When you look at map of houses, our house is the smallest. Looking to expand the footprint a little bit more. Nancy and I both work from home and we are looking for additional space to be able to have that not only for storage but also because this will be our forever home. You can see from the drawings, we are being very careful, that is why we hire Jaime, we want to maintain the integrity of the beautiful Glen Ellyn home, we don’t want to put a huge monster home and that is part of the reason why we wanted to go from the underground space, maximize the use of it, what is interesting is that everything you see on the patio, that is where we are looking to build under we are not looking to go further than that. Sworn In Jaime Simoneit, Architect- this is a unique one, a lot of dialogue back and forth, between Daniel and I although I am in disagreement, with one statement made tonight that this is approximately 2600 square feet, to be exact that is 908.87 over, its 1,700 square feet of new physical basement that we are adding. Yes, that sounds like a large number but this is not that big of a project especially when you look at what the two neighbors are on both sides. It looks big, but again remember this is 100% below grade, what you see is unaffected by whether we are filling a vault with gravel or using it for a place for her boys to hang out. I have done a lot of variations here in town and yes this is probably the most unique and complicated one but it’s one that I actually personally disagree with why we are even here because I am of the belief that the way the code is written and what we are asking for does not lay claim to what we are doing here and there are examples, specifically in our commercial district of vaults and spaces that are under public property that are use privately. Most every storefront on Main Street has space underneath the sidewalk that does exactly the same thing and that is on land that they don’t even own. There are examples in town, some of them I have actually worked on, there are front porches, garages located on (Rightford Rd.) that have habitable spaces that are in the front and above them they have patios and terraces. It is unique but it does exist and it does exist around the country. We are actually here for a setback, setbacks are actually set to establish and control building bulk it is set to control monsters and this is actually a tiny home, we are not affecting anyone’s natural light or view. This is one of the most unique and creative projects that I have been part of but I can’t take credit for the idea of let’s try to use the underground space. We are adding storage and not changing the character of the property. Right now, nothing in our code that says we can’t do this, that means it is allowable. What you see is what you will get. If there are some explanations, everything you see is up to code, it’s a question of habitable space underground under a side yard setback. When you see the numbers of 1,210 square feet, what we are really only talking about is 500 square feet into that side yard which is smaller than the garage you were just talking about earlier. Happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Buckton- What is discrepancy between the number of 2600 square feet below ground you gave us verses what the Village provided us? Jaime Simoneit, Architect – I heard the number of 2,600 thrown out, the exact number is 1,770.13 square feet. That is 1,201. 3 that is under terrace which 530 square feet is what we are talking about today. Commissioner Buckton- Daniel could you help us with that, why is there a discrepancy? Jaime Simoneit, Architect -Explained the lot coverage with showing the basement slide. Will have heating and cooling in it which is why we are here because it will be habitable. We are behind all of the setbacks and our requirements. Conversation came up with Daniel, what if someone wanted to dig up their whole yard and build an armory? Well, they could. Some of those controls are not in our code and they are not in other communities as well because they have not been necessary. It is an amenity that would certainly add value to the home. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- So Commissioner Buckton, the discrepancy is that Jaime providing you the new total basement number, I am providing you the overall basement area. I am adding existing basement as part of whole basement. Jaime Simoneit, Architect- Again that is a 1950’s basement with low ceilings and as far as grading goes, yes that is part of the challenge, it’s the site and the way it does drop off, if you look at final design, the walls that you see there aren’t really required because my final grading will have all terrace level less than 30inches above adjacent grade, there as esthetics, natural gas lights. Commissioner Buckton- I saw in one of the drawings, an egress window, and also stairs coming out of the basement- do you think this is adequate for a 2600 square feet below ground that 9ft ceiling, stairs and an egress window are adequate? Jaime Simoneit, Architect- There is actually an oversized egress window existing right now. And what we are proposing to do is the other window that isn’t, we will be converting to match. I am the architect that worked with the previous owners on this, he had his woodshop that is where that egress window is, it was literally a set of French doors over the oversize window well that he could slide sheets of plywood and bring them slate pool table in and out. Commissioner Buckton- That was originally a garage? Jaime Simoneit, Architect- yes originally that was the variation that got tabled was at one point this whole side of the hill was missing and it had an underground one car garage that we converted over which is now currently working as an office. Commissioner McKnight- I am sort of struggling with what the practical difficulty or particular hardship is? Jaime Simoneit, Architect - Particular hardship is that we are the smallest house on block, trying to accommodate today’s lifestyle, the hardship is caused by the site but the site has an oversized front yard, actual foot print is below in proportion of the scale of a typical Glen Ellyn lot of 66x160 lot, ratio of buildable area is very small not a very big house, it becomes a bigger house with the footage hidden underground. Museums do this all the time in Chicago, Art Museum downtown, everything is underground, Grant Park Parking Garage, it is all underground. Commissioner Kelly- Did they require relief from code? The projects you just referred to? Jaime Simoneit, Architect - Not that I am aware of, I doubt it. Chairperson Jones- Jaime the new basement as proposed, looking at this, is that the media room? Jaime Simoneit, Architect - It is creating the family room that really does not exist upstairs. It is your family, AV media, bar entertainment social area, a bonus room. Proposed Basement Footprint slide referenced and shown to Commissioners, pointed out original house and the new underground addition which Jaime is pushing out. Chairperson Jones- If you didn’t get the variance what would you lose? Jaime Simoneit, Architect - we would lose the entertainment area, we will also be putting all storage back into the old part of the house basement. Chairperson Jones- Other houses in Glen Ellyn, that have garages and terraces and stuff that you were referencing, do you know if any of those houses needed a variance? Jaime Simoneit, Architect - not that I am aware of. That brings up a topic, about 15 years ago, I met Dale Wilson, head of building department to actually do an underground racket ball court on the top of a hill on Lake Road there is a faux Tudor that has a drive up garage it sits on the top of the hill, there is one more house at the top, we proposed to dig out the entire side of the house and put in an underground racquetball court and bury it and it was all in the rear yard and side yard and that was not going to be a problem in 2000, I am guessing. we didn’t need any variance. And actually Paula, saw those plans back in the day so again the code has not changed since then. Commissioner Kelly- In that instance, was there and encroachment to any of the setbacks? Jaime Simoneit, Architect- it was into the side yard and actually into the rear yard as well. Chairperson Jones- What variances were you going to need for that Jaime Simoneit, Architect- We didn’t. I went in and had the same conversations with Dale Wilson Chairperson Jones- So you didn’t have a side yard setback or code ratio variance that you needed? Jaime Simoneit, Architect- We didn’t because it was underground, it was both going to absorb and shed water at the same time. Chairperson Jones- if you are saying you didn’t need it. You didn’t need a variance for it your talking apple and oranges because this does need a variance. Jaime Simoneit, Architect- I am being told I need a variation, my opening statement was that I don’t believe we need one. Commissioner Kelly- So the code has not changed substantively Jaime since your project that you are referring it is just a matter of interpretation. Jaime Simoneit, Architect -I have also had conversations with Paula, there are these cool things called car docs, I don’t know if you have ever heard of Underground structures do not count as lot coverage. Think of a shipping container that gets buried in your front yard, two are put together, the whole thing lifts up and car drives out and the car doc goes sown and disappears. I have had conversations about three or four different locations on Crescent and I have not run into this before. The debate that Paula gave me back was when it’s open its creating mass and its really not. There are things of the future that are forthcoming. But the way that I read our current code, I am under the understanding that we need to be here tonight to get a variation in order to do that. Chairperson Jones- You are above the LCR, but you can get that through an administrative variation. Jaime Simoneit, Architect- Right now, underground structures do not account as lot coverage Chairperson Jones- to me it’s like if you are going to have basement where it is at, and you are going to be 13-14 feet off the lot, I can see somebody coming in and saying I want to put an addition on this house, I already got the 13 feet when the code says 30. Jaime Simoneit, Architect – There is a big difference between underground and above, if you look at the letter of the law and code, setbacks control bulk. And height restrictions also control bulk the two together. Chairperson Jones- If I wanted to build a house completely underground, should I be able to build it where you can’t see it? Lot coverage ratio would be 100% Jaime Simoneit, Architect- The way our code is set up, it is completely legal. I live in Glen Ellyn, I have lived three years, this makes perfect sense. Petitioner Chris Desmond- We are not trying to build a huge home; we are just trying to use what is available to us and I even talked to neighbors on both sides and they signed petition that they have no problems with this. When we showed the neighbors the before and after, they said, I can’t believe you have to go and talk to the Board about this but you know what it is part of the process and we understand. Signed petition was handed to Daniel Harper to include in the record. Jaime Simoneit, Architect- You have to look at what the scale of this is, look at the detached garage, if you go to the roof site plan, that is our Glen Ellyn 660 square foot detached garage, it’s as big as the house, the original house. What we are talking about is not that big a deal. I can see that sitting here and watching the slide it looks like a big Georgian Monster on the Potomac but it is not, this is a petite house. We are adding square footage which helps them out. Commissioner Buckton- Could you build this project with a 30ft set back? Jaime Simoneit, Architect -No I could not, because the hardship is the buildable area. This footprint is filling in the buildable area. Architect Simoneit was using slide to demonstrate why they could not build with a 30ft set back. Commissioner Buckton- Jaime can I ask the owner with a 30-foot set back? Petitioner Chris Desmond- if we were looking at a non-corner lot, yes there would be conversation on that, the way the project is put together we would have to redesign everything. Commissioner Buckton-Ok so you would have to redesign everything, that is why we design. Chairperson Jones- Jaime why not put the terrace behind the house towards the garage? Jaime Simoneit, Architect- because of excavating next to the other existing structure, there is also a screened in room that will have an office above it towards the back. Chairperson Jones-But if I came to you and said that is where I want it, and you would have to take the garage down, you could do it couldn’t you? Jaime Simoneit, Architect- For like 4 to 5 million dollars I could. Chairperson Jones-I am just saying that you could do it and you would not need a variance correct? Jaime Simoneit, Architect -No I would be asking for the same variation Chairperson Jones- What’s your rear yard setback compared to the house? How far back is the house from the yard Jaime Simoneit, Architect- Its one foot off it, standard 40 ft. Chairperson Jones- So you would need it either in the back or the front Jaime Simoneit, Architect- You know if you add the total square footage, it’s a little over 2,000 square foot home and right next door is a 5,000 square foot home. This is basically smaller than a three car garage the original house. Seeing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Jones asked a motion to close the public hearing. Member Kelly made a motion to close the public hearing and approve the Finding of Facts as presented. Member Buckton seconded the motion. Deliberation Commissioner Kelly- I understand Jaime’s point that there have been other instances where the code was interpreted differently but I am inclined to defer to Daniels current interpretation of the code which says we need a variance, there are sufficient potential hardships to consider granting the variance. Topography corner lot, zoning code that doesn’t necessarily appropriately pertain to the structure that was constructed in 1930ish, I am torn simply because at some point it will require text amendments or change to code. I am not inclined to agree with Jaime on the fact that because isn’t spoken too specifically to the code, no I am inclined to go the other way, unless its specifically excluded then it needs to be considered. With that all that being said, I just don’t see any significant adverse impacts to neighbors, to health safety and well-being of residents. For the occupants I’ll leave the engineering department to figure out whether water and run off is an issue. My inclination unless someone can persuade me otherwise is to say yes in this instance. Commissioner Buckton- This is an absolutely incredible project that you are working on, it’s fantastic, love the house, love the lot- like what’s going on over there and I like the solution. Unfortunately, we are not being asked to do anything but vote on a variation and in my estimation, there is no hardship; if you want to make the basement with a 30ft setback you can make it that way. In my estimation as well, being an advisory board it is not up to us to determine whether or not the code needs to be rewritten with our decisions that would send a message to the Village Board, because I think you are probably right that this is going to come up more and more in the future because there is nowhere else to build and everyone likes their lot coverage and so on and so forth. This is not the place for it, I will be voting no. Commissioner McKnight- This is a hard one, I think we are not being asked to do anything with regard to above ground part of this project which of course is beautiful and maintains the character of the property, the issue is whether we are going to approve and over 16ft extension basically of the side yard setback and I don’t see the hardship or difficulty here so I am inclined to vote no. Chairperson Jones- I think your project is great, I love everything above ground but when I look at plan and side yard setback, I mean it’s great that you will have the extra kitchen and what not in the basement but I really kind of think that it opens a can of worms for the Village and if the Village wants to approve it they can but I do think that if they approve it it’s going to be with the two thirds majority. With a denial they have to have a 5 of 7 Vote. Right now, we are down a member we hope to have that fixed and we have two members that are missing if those were filled and they vote yes, if you want, we can table this to next month you could do that but I couldn’t guarantee you who would or wouldn’t be here. If it were just a question of, can you put it underground, I would say yes, but when it comes to the side yard setback and I understand with the corner lot it makes it difficult but I don’t see the hardship. It’s unique but I don’t think it meets the letter of the law for receiving a variation at this time so I will be voting no unfortunately. But I think everything above looks great and what you are doing is great. Jaime Simoneit, Architect- Are you presenting us with the option of coming back next month knowing that I am down three votes? Chairperson Jones- yes you can do that, we have allowed that before Chairperson Kelly- Daniel correct me if I am wrong, in case of an adverse decision from ZBA, now they need a super majority of the board from approval? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village - correct Chairperson Jones- Did you want to think about tabling for next month or you want us to vote tonight? 5minute break taken Chairperson Jones- During the break Pete and I had a conversation about lot coverage ratio and I want to clarify with Daniel, that side yard setbacks, corner yards set backs that if you tore the house down you would be able to build 20% on the lot, if you start all over? Some lots prevent you from building 20% because you have to be so far off this lot line and that lot line and you can’t do it but our understanding from this lot, it is buildable at 20% in a way if you started over which is not what you are trying to do and the above structure meets all the requirements, it’s just the basement but if you want to elaborate or ask any questions on that we will open that up for you. Jaime Simoneit, Architect – To tear it down and extrude the buildable area up if nothing goes outside the setbacks, the house would end up smaller. I will be lucky if I get 20% inside buildable area, the buildable area is uncommonly small that is one of the hardships. Hardship is opportunity to add valuable space to a home, I don’t understand why this is not allowable. Chairperson Jones-The thing we were looking at is if you could build 20% on the lot without a variance. I would bring that to the Board and that might be part of your argument. For the Petitioners you are ok with us voting tonight? Petitioner Chris Desmond- If the votes are as they are and unfortunately the next two meetings with the board are when we can’t be here so we are wondering if it makes more sense to schedule the next one for when you have more membership and we can re- present then. If that was the case what would the next date be for the ZBA? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- The next date for ZBA would be June 10. Another thing about Village Board is that Jaime can represent you if you are not available, that is an option. Commissioner Kelly- before we do that, I would like to ask Daniel a question on the record, what is the process for text amendment in your opinion because I know it is not our place to interpret the code nor is it our place to make recommendations to have code change. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- A resident can apply for a text amendment, and it would take about three to four months as there would be a notification process, public hearing process, approval by Village Board Commissioner Kelly- And certainly an amendment can be made to this code basically saying basements do not apply. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- Yes but you would have to go through public hearing process and be approved by plan commission. Jaime Simoneit, Architect- That is interesting but at this snapshot in time they don’t, again its part of the frustration we are experiencing, it’s a weird conundrum Commissioner Kelly- It’s a roll of the dice and I’m counting votes up here and you don’t have it and even if two absent members vote yes you still don’t have it. I am just thinking outload but a text amendment might be your smoothest path. Jaime Simoneit, Architect- On the technicalities of the vote, so we walk out of here split 3 to 3 that is a non-recommendation; is it a no recommendation? Chairperson Jones- We would make a recommendation to deny as it would be a split vote because you don’t have 4 it would be a denial. You need four whether there is seven of us or four of us. Jaime Simoneit, Architect- so we need four no matter what, if we walk out of her with 3 to 3, we need a super majority, what is super majority? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- that is correct, super majority is 5 out of 7 Jaime Simoneit, Architect- 5 out of 7 I think that is doable, I have done it before. Member Buckton made a motion to table the item until this later in the evening to allow the applicants to discuss amongst themselves a meeting date to table the application to. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. Member Kelly moved to close the Public Hearing. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. The Plan Commission Reopened the public hearing of 680 Grand Avenue after the completion of the public hearing of the application regarding 265 S. Ott Avenue. Member Kelly moved to re-open the Public Hearing for 680 Grand Ave. Member Buckton seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. A Motion to Table the 680 grand Ave until the next ZBA meeting scheduled for June 10, 2025, was made by Member McKnight. Member Buckton seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. 3. Public Hearing- 265 S. Ott Ave, Front Yard and Side Yard Setback Variation Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- described the property 265 S. Ott Ave., as property zoned RO Single Family Residential Lot. Applicant requesting a recommendation of approval of the following variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-6(D)(1) – to allow the construction of a one-story attached garage addition to a single-family home with an existing nonconforming front yard setback of approximately forty feet (40’-0”) in lieu of the required front yard setback of fifty feet (50’-0”) continuation of existing front yard setback; and 2. Section 10-4-6(D)(3) – to allow the construction of a one-story attached garage addition on a single-family home that will result in a side yard setback of approximately eight feet and ten inches (8’-10”) in lieu of the minimum required interior side yard setback of sixteen feet and 10 inches (16’-10”). Plat of survey slide shown to commissioners, he explained that applicant received zoning variation approval in 2018 that allowed for Two-story addition, allowing a detached garage to remain, front porch setback and Class II Alteration. As part of the condition of that variation, they were allowed to keep the existing non-conforming garage and there was a condition that if you want to attach it together at the 9feet 2inches that variation can go forward without going back to the ZBA. When this application was presented to us, the application showed a side yard setback of 8 feet 10inches so we ae looking at a difference of about 4inches for the attached garage on the building. The attached garage is also requesting the existing non-conforming of 40 feet in lieu of required 50 feet. Property zoned R0 Zoning District upon its annexation in 1995. Most properties zoned R0 have that 40- foot side yard setback and so almost all of those properties are in existing non-conforming state and would require some type of zoning variation if they were to do a type 2 or type 3 construction on the property. Daniel moved on to explain that this is a proposed elevation of the existing home with the attached garage at the requested 8feet 10inches side yard setback. Showed elevation slides to commissioners. Applicant is requesting that this new construction be allowed at a similar set back to what was previously allowed in the previous variation but 4 inches closer to the side yard property line. Second variation is to allow for the 40-foot front yard setback allowing for the new addition to be in line with the existing single-family home. Chairperson Jones- I don’t have any questions Commissioner Buckton- No, I don’t have any questions Commissioner McKnight- no questions Commissioner Kelly- no questions Sworn in Petitioner Dagmara Kamionka-We are just trying to build same size of garage that we have right now, we just want it to connect to the house. There is a three feet gap between the house and garage and we just want to build a new driveway and connect garage to the house. Chairperson Jones- I was here seven years ago and you had spoken previously that maybe you might be back to build the garage incorporate it to the house? If I remember correctly, we were pretty much in favor of that Petitioner Dagmara Kamionka - yes that is correct. Our neighborhood is pretty unique, there are still some houses that need variations, some of them are only 50feet away and the lots are pretty decent so we need more space on driveway with teenage daughter Commissioner Kelly- only additional encroachment as I understand this is 4inches? Other than that, we are taking the existing footprint which is legal nonconforming, is that correct? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - Correct Chairperson Jones- or is it legal nonconforming or is it conforming because of the variance, no that was for the house, never mind. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn -That was for the house. Commissioner Kelly- So it’s legal non-conforming Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - Correct Commissioner McKnight- I don’t have any questions. Commissioner Buckton- Do you have floor plan of garage? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- No I do not, I only have the slide showing the elevation. Commissioner Buckton- Do you have something that shows the difference between the existing detached garages and existing home? You’ve built a structure between those two? Petitioner Dagmara Kamionka- No right now the garage is separate, there is a 3 feet gap between the home and garage, there is a walk way in between. We want to demolish garage and attach to the house. Commissioner Buckton- I am looking at the horizontal window between the house and existing garage Petitioner Dagmara Kamionka- that is existing, what is proposed is only the garage, petitioner described where the house ends the three-foot gap and the old garage using the slide. What we want to do is to demolish garage and attach to the house. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- so you can see that doorway that you see on the east elevation, that rear doorway, that is the stairs from rear doorway. Commissioner Buckton- My question was about the space between the house and the garage. Petitioner Dagmara Kamionka- Do you have first picture from the map view? There is a gap, maybe you don’t see it here but you can see the old roof of the garage and the roof of the house, and there is a gap. Commissioner Buckton- There is a gap and you are going to make that all one piece of property? Petitioner Dagmara Kamionka- Correct Commissioner Buckton- What is that distance of that room, what is the width of that room? Is it 10 feet I don’t see it here. I see a 27 by 27-foot garage next to that I see a gas curb between the mud room and garage. Is that the garage you are referring to as the mud room? Petitioner Dagmara Kamionka- No, the mud room is existing already, there is not going to be a new buildup of the house, the only build that we are going to be doing is the garage, see the gap between the house and the garage, that is the only 3feet walkway between the old garage and the house. Mud room is existing. Commissioner Buckton- The survey, that the variation is not 8ft 10 but 9 ft 3 is that correct? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- the side yard setback which was allowed to remain is 9’3” and that was part of variation that was approved in 2018 essentially that side yard setback can remain, however when this came in building review the proposed set back was 8’10” Petitioner Dagmara Kamionka- I am not sure if that was a mistake of previous survey. Chairperson Jones- I don’t have any questions, thank you. Member Kelly made a motion to close the public hearing and approve the Finding of Facts as presented. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. Deliberation- Commissioner McKnight- I am in favor of recommending approval, this is a pretty minor request, it’s a four-inch difference and the front of the garage that is proposed will align with the front of the house. It makes a lot of sense. Commissioner Kelly- the whole thing is a hardship because it was annexed in and it was built under county code, I don’t know if they have a Zoning Ordinance in some cases, they only have a subdivision code and yea it is relatively minor, given all the constraint I am inclined to voted yes Commissioner Buckton- I will be voting yes Chairperson Jones– I am also in favor; it is in line with what we had approved the last time with just a correct of the actual distance so I am a yes. Motion to close deliberation by Member Kelly, Member McKnight seconded the motion. A Motion to approve the application was made by Member McKnight and seconded by Member Kelly the motion passed unanimously with four (4) votes yes and zero (0) votes no. 4. Public Hearing- 603 N. Park Blvd., Lot Coverage and Side Yard Setback Variations Member McKnight moved to open the Public Hearing. Member Buckton seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village-Applicant requesting 2 variations: 1. Section 10-4-8 (E)(1) – to allow the construction of a new detached garage on a property with an existing nonconforming lot coverage of 21.7 percent in lieu of the required maximum lot coverage of 20 percent of the lot. 2. Section 10-5-4(A)(4)(c) – to allow the construction of a new detached garage with a side yard setback of one foot (1’- 0”) in lieu of the minimum required side yard setback of three feet (3’- Daniel explained that the garage goes 1’ 4” into neighboring property to the north. The applicant is proposing the construction of an approximately 352-square-foot detached one-car garage to replace the existing detached garage on the property. The proposed detached garage is proposed to be set back 1 foot from the northern property line. The garage is accessed via a shared driveway with the northern property, 607 N. Park Boulevard. Picture of garage shown, garage is proposed to be demolished, about 6ft between both garage structures. Meets rear and side yard setback. Hardship is unique shape of the yard. Proposed site plan shown and hardship was described. We did want garage to be constructed within the property line, so that we meet all other set back lot requirements. Elevations of proposed garage shown, constructed in similar manner to existing garage on site. Action is to consider a recommendation of variation, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Chairman Jones- Todd is adjacent neighbor to the property Commissioner Buckton- This is clarification, you mentioned during the Grand Ave hearing, petitioners could come to you with an administrative change for lot coverage ration since 21.7 is pretty close to 20, so here we are seeing basically the same thing; is it absolutely necessary that we approve this variation? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- We needed this variation because this is a construction of a new structure, so it’s a non-conforming structure with a non-conforming lot coverage and so the accessory building is allowed to be constructed but you can’t construct it on a non-conforming condition lot, they are not creating this condition, its already existing. Commissioner Buckton- Thank you for that clarification, that is all the questions I have. Commissioner McKnight- no questions. Commissioner Kelly- Quick question for Daniel, so we are actually rectifying the encroachment issue with respect to the adjacent property? Because that is being torn down and new structure would require variation from LCR and not encroach into the neighbor’s yard. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village - yes that is correct Chairperson Jones- if this garage burned down, they can rebuild? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village – the variation keeps with the property, if this were to burn down, they can construct with same footprint but anything different than that we are coming back. Sworn In Petitioner-Matthew Knighton- we share a driveway and the majority of the drive actually is on my neighbors lot which he graciously allows us to use, we have an easement to do that, essentially if we had to follow zoning code, we would need to build garage so far south that we would not be able to get the car in and out of it; I am not sure when the garage was built, the house was built in 1929. It’s a pretty small garage that is definitely going to need repair so we would like to just replace it. For consideration of hardship, right now we only have 35ft of backyard, if we shift it, we would shrink the back yard. Chairperson Jones- There is precedent over on Montclair- they had a one car small garage and they built a two-car tandem that went over the lot line by one foot. So, we have seen this before but I have no further questions. Commissioner Buckton -I have no questions. Commissioner Kelly- I have no questions. Commissioner McKnight- I have no questions. Chairperson Jones- Thank you for sticking around with us. Member Kelly made a motion to close the public hearing and approve the Finding of Facts as presented. Member Buckton seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. A Motion to approve the application was made by Member McKnight and seconded by Member Kelly the motion passed unanimously with four (4) votes yes and zero (0) votes no E. Other Business F. Chairperson’s Statement No statement was provided by Acting Chairperson Jones. G. Trustee Liaison Report Trustee Donna Jean reported the following: 1. We voted in and swore in our new board yesterday, we have Trustee Steve Szymanski, as new Liaison, we have reappointed Kelley Kalinich as Trustee and we also have another new Trustee Sonia Bhagwakar and we have a new president which is Jim Burkett. New Board will sit and have a proper meeting on May 27. 2. Did approve grocery tax, state take away grocery tax, it affects municipalities. We voted to continue the tax; it’s about a million dollars that we would lose in a year. All sister municipalities have also approved. The only one that didn’t was one that does not have a grocery store. 3. Passed ordinance for ebikes, they can’t be used in downtown, it’s the same rules for them as for other bikes, and any of the mobility devices. Member Kelly- I had a question on that, does the ordinance only pertain to only devices with speed of less than a certain voltage and speed of less than 15 miles per hour? If I have a scooter that does more than 15 miles per hour Trustee Donna Jean- then you are on the streets. Member Kelly- So the little ones can use the side walk Trustee Donna Jean- No you have to walk them, that is the point if you have a bike you would have to walk it on the sidewalk but then you can ride on street if you meet the requirements. Families were very upset because of single file ride, kept state rules. And it is 18 years and older. 4. Reminder- Hokusai exhibit is starting after Labor Day, there will be murals downtown and also on Roosevelt Rd, there are a whole bunch of special events accompanying to promote that and it’s supposed to be quite wonderful because it is stuff that has not been seen in the United States before, coming from special museum that has been collecting the art objects. 5. We actually approved funds to support maintenance on Stacy’s Tavern 6. Finally, the question I had last time with regards to the neighbors to Churchill driveway, the question that came up was why don’t we do something that affects all the neighbors who do they all have to come back and forth to us. I did speak with Mark Franz and what we decided was that it was something that needed to come to the new board. So, it’s been deferred a bit and there needs to be more research on that. Meetings with Churchill and they were not excited about paying for new fences. There probably needs to be some negotiation around that but the point is we are working on it. Chairman Jones- is it possible to waive variation fee if those properties come before us? Trustee Donna Jean- I don’t know, when it came before us, members of the board already said that we need to do something in conjunction with all of these neighbors, so the Board is looking at that, it is just not coming up formally in front of us yet. Trustee Steve Szymanski- just to add something as you know we had an opening for Village President, trustee Simon stepped up to fill that role as acting Village President during those months and made a significant impact to all of us I just want to thank you for all that you did. It was felt throughout my organization over at capital improvements and I have sensed it from other people I have talked to. Second point is, I want to thank you all for all the hard work that you do, this is not easy, this is stressful, this is challenging, all of us not only myself the board, the community thanks you for your dedication and service Chairman Jones- how long did you volunteer with the Village before. Trustee Steve Szymanski- On the Commission for seven years and Chairman for 2-3 years. I had a great group of people and I was very fortunate. Chairperson Jones- Thank you for stepping up and helping us for the next four years, I think you will be a great addition, I think you will be a great asset to the board as a trustee. I look forward to serving with you. H. Staff Report Planning Manager Daniel Harper- Stated the following: 1. 621 Bloomingdale Fence variation for Elementary School approved by Board of Trustees 2. Village Board will consider Crescent Glenwood parking lot. 3. Annexation of property on Acorn Ave on May 27th. 4. Planned Commission next week we will be looking at the proposed expansion of Glenbard West Highschool, Staff Report and all the plans posted on website on Friday. 5. 2 sign variations, one for food pantry and second for Five Corners Cleaners, existing nonconforming pole sign to be considered at Plan Commission 6. 515 Crescent Blvd, north side of building a walk-up ATM, has been seen twice and recommended a denial, a new design to try again. Trustee Donna Jean-The problem is that it destroys the facade Chairperson Jones- did Glenbard district 87 buy property across from football field? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- they own that property, as explained to me it’s the property right next to them that is feasible that they could acquire. No plans, future indications of what they will use for. Commissioner Buckton- now that the new board is in place; is discussion going to start about rewriting the code? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village -Yes, that is the next big project, we have implemented our new software for permit and zoning review, we are about 3 weeks into that and we are working out the kinks on it. Village Staff has requested to the Village Board to give them a couple months for a breather and then we can start the next herculean task of updating the Zoning Code. Trustee Donna Jean- There will be Training conjunctively between the Board of Trustees, yourself and plan commission so that everybody is on the same page. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village – When we start getting into the residential portions, I don’t believe the ZBA has any voting powers but it is going to be an item of discussion with the ZBA of offering recommendations and considerations but Planning Commissions is ultimate Board making recommendation to Village Board of Trustees. Discussion was made with regards to the 680 Grand Ave business item that was benched until next ZBA meeting. What the petitioner is allowed to present and not present. I. Adjournment Member Kelly made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote at 10:04PM Respectfully submitted, Adriana Ohl-Zamora

Agenda

Packet

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:00 PM Civic Center, Galligan Room Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend the hearing and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and participate, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, are requested to contact the Village at least 24 hours before the meeting. A. Call to Order B. Approval of the Minutes 1) Review and Approval of the April 8, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. C. Public Comment D. New Business 1) Public Hearing - 551 Geneva Road, Accessory Structure Variation 2) Public Hearing - 680 Grand Avenue, Corner Side Yard Setback Variation 3) Public Hearing - 265 S. Ott Avenue, Front Yard and Side Yard Setback Variations 4) Public Hearing - 603 N. Park Boulevard, Lot Coverage and Side Yard Setback Variations E. Chairperson's Statement F. Trustee Liaison's Report G. Staff Report H. Adjournment Dear Petitioner(s) and Interested Citizens: Once a variation request has been heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board may make a recommendation and minutes of the hearing are prepared. The variation, along with the minutes, summary report and all related material, is submitted for consideration by the Village Board at a regularly scheduled Village Board meeting. To confirm exact times and dates for Village Board consideration of a project, please call 630-547-5241. Page 1 of 155 DRAFT MINUTES Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room 535 Duane Street A. Call to Order and Roll Call Acting Chairperson Jones called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Acting Chairperson Jones explained the advisory nature of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and its process for deliberation and recommendation. He described the Public Hearing protocols and announced that the meeting was being recorded. Roll was called. Present: Acting Chairperson Matthew Jones and Board Members, Peter Kelly, Craig Pavlich, Noureen Lakhani and Christiane McKnight Absent: Board Member Todd Buckton Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager; Donna Jean Simon, Acting Village President and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) None C. Approval of Minutes 1. Review and Approval of the February 11, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes Motion to approve- Pavlich, Member Kelly Seconded the motion. Approval of the minutes was passed by a unanimous voice vote. Member McKnight moved to open the Public Hearing. Member Pavlich seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. D. New Business 1. Public Hearing – 861 Bloomingdale Road, Fence Height Variation Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, introduced the following variation request: This is a request for zoning variation of maximum fence height construct an 8ft fence in lieu of required 6ft maximum. The purpose of this is that the petitioner is requesting this zoning variation as a result of the construction of the neighboring property to the north and east of the property as part of the Church Hill Elementary School expansion project. All other zoning lots surrounding this lot are all zoned R2 single family residential. The location of 861 shown on the screen by Mr. Harper to provide an idea of what is being constructed to the north and east of the property with elementary school expansion. Mr. Harper described a new parking lot is being constructed on property, with a new access on Bloomingdale Road. He explained how as part of construction the grading of the site will actually be raised approximately 5 feet from current grade. He showed the landscape plan of Elementary School expansion and described how the elevation is also being raised on eastern part of property line. The plat of survey was shown with proposed location of fence on the property. The location of fence was shown, purpose that this is to act as buffer from the new addition and parking lot and to account for the raised bed and new elevation of the overall lot grading of the Church Hill Elementary site; the maximum that fence code allows is 6ft in height, petitioner is requesting 8ft in height to compensate for some of that change. The most impacted area, which is along the Northern side of the property, picture of elevation grade change of 1 foot on new access on Bloomingdale Road. Mr. Harper described how the ground is being raised to accommodate for a level entry surface for the new driveway; that counts for part of what the applicant is asking for to compensate for that change. The proposed fence material was shown; the applicant is proposing a White Vinyl Fence, an allowable material by our fence code. Heexplained that if petitioner would have come in to get a 6ft fence approved, it would have been approved per fence code. Mr. Harper explained that the consideration of the petition tonight and the request, was for the Zoning Board of Appeals to Page 2 of 155 examine request based on the findings of fact and the standards presented in the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code and make a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees. Member Questions Commissioner McKnight- Did the Village receive any objections? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn-We did not receive any rejections, the applicant did submit a letter recommending approval from the School District in support. The School District has been working with their neighbors’ requests and has been working hand in hand with them. Seeing no further questions for Village staff from the Board, Acting Chairperson Jones motioned for the applicant to provide testimony. Public Comment Sworn in Petitioner, Ed Ryan- He stated that because of the 5ft raise, he is looking for additional safety and security. Higher raise, it will be taller than most of people and from a distance it will provide more safety and security to our yard. Chairman Jones-Did the school district work with you at all as the possibility of them putting up a fence? Is the school board paying for the fence on their property and where does that stand right now? Petitioner Ed Ryan- They are putting up my fence and the fence is going to be on my property Commissioner Pavlich- So they (School District) are paying for this fence? Petitioner Ed Ryan- yes, they are. Chairman Jones announced that he had no further questions, asked if anyone else in audience had any further questions. Sworn in Paul Gonzalez- My backyard is where the new school is being built, stated that the elevation is literally, I need like a 15ft fence if I want privacy, you could look directly into me and my wife’s bedroom, because it’s that height looking into my window. You get a clear view of my backyard, I was just curious because nobody ever told me if they would put a fence because I just have a chain-link fence that they had put their years ago so I didn’t know what to do until I found out what was going on with the school, and a 6ft or 8ft fence would not do anything for me but I want to know if I would be capable of getting that too or what could be done? Chairman Jones- Are you to the north or the south Paul Gonzalez- I am to the south Commissioner Pavlich- you are in the village, correct? Paul Gonzalez- Yes, because of the elevation, from my back yard I am looking up to where they are putting the sidewalk where you go down the stairs and into the school. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – stated that the approved school district plan for their landscaping, they have a 6ft white vinyl fence, similar to what is being proposed here but it is only for 6ft along the entire perimeter of that eastern property line, expressed that Mr. Gonzalez would need to coordinate with school district just like our applicant here tonight. Reiterated that he could not provide any advice on height of fence but did reinforce that he knew that as part of the school’s plan, they would be constructing a 6ft high fence and anything else would have to be coordinated with the school district and come to the village as part of Zoning. Commissioner Pavlich- Donna Jean perhaps that is an option that Trustees can undertake for the impact of properties? Donna Jean, Village Trustee- I will make a note of that. Commissioner Kelly-Daniel there is no de minimis rule that would apply in this case is there? Is there a de minimis rule that we could apply? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- I don’t believe so based on how code is written. The School District applied for a suite of variations as part of their original construction plans for the addition, if they had added that as part of the Page 3 of 155 variation, then it would be a different story, as part of their plan they submitted a 6ft fence which is maximum allowed per our code. Seeing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Jones asked a motion to close the public hearing. Member McKnight made a motion to close the public hearing and approve the Finding of Facts as presented. Member Kelly seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. Deliberation Commissioner Kelly- stated that he went out and took a peek and grade change is significant, I can’t imagine that there is any adverse impact from allowing an addition 2ft on the fence and not allowing an additional 2ft. There are privacy issues, so I am entirely in favor of this variation. Commissioner Lakhani- I am in favor. Commissioner Pavlich- I am in favor as well; the zoning code does not make any provisions for properties that back up into commercial or non-residential properties unfortunately. Commissioner McKnight- I am in favor as well, this is kind of a no brainer, we have had a fence variation in the past that came before us which was a lot harder than this, obviously a hardship being caused by the construction going on with the school and you also have an interest with the privacy and it makes a lot of sense to approve it. Chairman Jones- I am in favor as well, it is unique, you don’t usually have properties that are impacted like you are and the hardship was not created by you, it was created by the school district working within code so I am in favor of providing the relief that you need to have this variance approved. The members of the Board agreed to the merits of the application and found that the application met the standards for approval for a zoning variation. Member Pavlich motioned to approve the findings of fact as presented. Acting Chairperson Jones seconded. Motion passed unanimously with four (4) votes yes and zero (0) votes no. A motion to approve the application was made by Member McKnight and seconded by Member Lakhani. The motion passed unanimously with four (4) votes yes and zero (0) votes no. E. Other Business F. Chairperson’s Statement No statement was provided by Acting Chairperson Jones. G. Trustee Liaison Report Trustee Donna Jean Simon reported the following: No board meetings for the last 3 weeks, not a lot of new information to report but we did just have an election and we have a New Village President Jim Burket, 2 new Trustees Sonya Bhagwakar and Steve Szymanski , a re-elected Village Trustee- Kelly Kalinich stated they all bring lots of new perspectives to the board and a lot of expertise. We are all looking forward to working together. H. Staff Report Planning Manager Daniel Harper- Stated the following: 1. Zoning variations working with 2 applicants right now; 1 had zoning variation approved in the past, for an addition to the house that made a 1 story home as a 2-story home. As part of that request, they were allowed to maintain a non- conforming garage, now they want to build a new garage and connect to the house. We also have an application for a shade structure gazebo that is larger than the maximum 250 sq ft allowed, working to try to convince to make a porch instead of a detached gazebo. 2. From March 10, Village Board Mtg. we had the Downtown event park given an approval from Village board for the zoning changes, zoning map amendments and special use variations. A parks district project, timeline is a little fluid, constructed in 2 phases, phase 1 demo and then regrading, making a passive park, put in retaining walls and fences, plant trees and then phase 2 will occur where the performance pavilion will be constructed. My understanding is that we are waiting on funding for actual performance pavilion itself. Page 4 of 155 3. April 14th Village Board Meeting, Ackerman park- special use permit for community gardens, on Southwest side of park on Lennox Rd, originally 74 community garden plots with 8 parking spaces, Plan Commission felt that was not adequate for the demand of what those garden plots might generate, they came back for second round, they reduce the number of garden plots due to financial constraints of building a larger parking lot, they reduced number of garden plots and have worked with Police Dept and neighbors to come up with a game plan if parking becomes an issue. 4. Sign variation for what was Glen Ellyn auto, existing pole sign not conforming based on code, they said they wanted to keep pole and add their name 5. Revision to previously approved exterior appearance just across the street from us. Currently being remodeled, after demolition and initial construction ran in to issues recognizing what they had originally anticipated was not going to be possible and so modifications to exterior appearance and going to Village Board again as modification. 6. Later this month Planned Commission will review a zoning variations request from our Public Works Department for the Crescent and Glenwood public parking lot just south of Glenwood Station. This public parking lot will be resurfaced and restriped, proposed parking spaces will not meet min parking space dimension requirements and so they are requesting a zoning variation to maximize number of parking spots. 7. College Of DuPage is requesting an amendment to their Master Sign Plan to allow for additional signage. The last time this was done was maybe 15 years ago. They have had a lot of construction at College of DuPage since then and they came in for another sign permit. 8. Approval of minor subdivision plat, proposed annexation, right now it acts as one zoning lot but it’s actually 4 properties with 4 PIN numbers. The person who owns this property wants to divide into 3 new lots and he will live on one and develop the other 2, if it meets the all the subdivision code, it still has to get approved by the Village Board however the Village Board is compelled to approve it based on IL State Law. 9. Anticipating the May 22nd Planned Commission Meeting as the Glenbard West expansion, to construct a new North West wing on top of the treed hill, where Victory Bell sits, redesign whole North West portion of the area. Commissioner Pavlich- provided an analysis on variation request discussed from 2024. They are as follows Last year we had exactly 12, 2 construction variations, 3 setbacks, 6 min lot requirements, 1 new construction encroach, 1 lot coverage. I can provide the information and discuss at a future meeting. Glenbard West Students were in attendance during the Zoning Board Meeting to learn how the meetings are held and driven. The process was explained to the students and were asked if they had any questions with regard to the process of the Board. I. Adjournment Member Kelly made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote at 7:42PM Respectfully submitted, Adriana Ohl-Zamora Page 5 of 155 Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 5/13/2025 7:00 PM Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Jordan Frahm AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-407 # 2025-407) Public Hearing - 551 Geneva Road, Accessory Structure Variation Statement of the Issue: The Glen Ellyn Historical Society (GEHS), the owner of the property at 551 Geneva Road, is seeking a zoning variation to allow for a garage and shed to remain on the property after the principal structure has been removed. GEHS was previously granted relief from Section 10-4-1(c) to allow for the accessory structures to remain on the property after the principal structure is demolished in July 2021; however, that zoning variation approval lapsed when the principal structure was not removed within 24 months of the variation approval. Analysis: Property: 551 Geneva Road is an interior lot on the south side of Geneva Road between N. Main Street and Highland Avenue. Petitioner: The petitioner is the Glen Ellyn Historical Society, owner of the property located at 551 Geneva Road. Request: The petitioner is requesting approval of the following variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. A variation from 10-4-1(c) to allow accessory structures (garage, shed and driveway) to remain on the property without a principal structure after the principal structure is demolished. Zoning/Use: Location/Use Zoning District North: Parks and Recreation CR – Conservation/Recreation District East: Glen Ellyn History Park C2 – Community Commercial South: Residential R2 – Single Family Residential West: Residential R2 – Single Family Residential Public Notice: Notice of this public hearing was published in The Daily Herald on April 25, 2025, Page 6 of 155 a placard was placed on site, and notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Zoning Ordinance History: The Village approved a zoning variation to allow an accessory structure to remain on the property without a principal structure with Ordinance No. 6887, passed on July 26, 2021. As no demolition permitting was approved prior to July 26, 2023, the granting of this zoning variation lapsed. The petitioner is seeking approval for the variation for the same purposes as the approved 2021 zoning variation application. Permit History: Village records indicate that the following permits have been issued for the subject property. Year Permit No. Type 1986 B8761 Electrical Service 1995 B15408 Garage 2012 20121265 Sewage Connection 2014 20140996 Sewer Repair 2014 20141858 Clearwater Compliance History: The Glen Ellyn Historical Society received the property located at 551 Geneva in 2014 as a gift to the organization from a private donor. The Glen Ellyn Historical Society originally planned for the property to be incorporated into the Stacy’s Tavern site as a “period barn” to honor local agricultural heritage, and to provide storage for the museum. There are no immediate plans for the site to be developed. The principal structure at 551 Geneva Road was used as the home of the GEHS’s Executive Director until 2018, when the house was found to have mold and structural issues making the house uninhabitable. The petitioner has indicated that the cost of remediating the mold and fixing the underlying structural issues are prohibitively expensive, and they are seeking to continue the usage of the extant garage to retain some utility capacity of the property. Proposed: The petitioner is proposing to demolish the principal structure located at 551 Geneva due to mold and structural issues while keeping the accessory structures on the property for storage. As shown on the Plat of Survey, the garage is approximately 450 square feet in area and 144 feet from the front lot line. The shed is 64 square feet in area and is located greater than 20 feet to the south of the garage at the far southeast corner of the property. Each of the accessory structures is compliant with the Zoning Code in terms of size, although they are considered legal nonconforming due to their placement from the property lines. The garage is 3.85 feet from the east lot line and the shed is 1.8-feet from the south lot line (at their closest points respectively), where a minimum setback of 5 feet is required (5 percent of lot width for the 100-foot-wide lot). The petitioner does not have the funds available to develop the property at this time but would like to keep the flexibility to sell the property in the future should they need to do so. Therefore, they are requesting a variation to allow the accessory structures to remain on the lot without a principal structure. In addition to storage, the lot will occasionally be used in conjunction with the museum site for special events (as it is used currently). The petitioner has stated that their current storage on Page 7 of 155 the History Center property is inadequate in size, so keeping the garage and shed located at 551 Geneva will give the Glen Ellyn Historical Society more room for storage and allow GEHS to carry out their organizational mission without having to incur greater expenses for off-site storage. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioner’s application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if a particular hardship exists and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for approval, approval with conditions, or to not approve the request in accordance with Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. 551 Geneva Zoning Variation Application 2. 551 Geneva Plat of Survey 3. 551 Geneva Road Aerial Map 4. 551 Geneva Zoning Map 5. 551 Geneva Public Notice 6. 551 Geneva Road Notification Map 7. Ordinance No. 6887 Page 8 of 155 Page 9 of 155 Page 10 of 155 Page 11 of 155 Page 12 of 155 Page 13 of 155 Page 14 of 155 Page 15 of 155 Page 16 of 155 Page 17 of 155 Page 18 of 155 Page 19 of 155 Page 20 of 155 Page 21 of 155 Page 22 of 155 Page 23 of 155 551 Geneva Road Aerial Map 0 300 600 Print Date: 4/22/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 24 of 155 551 Geneva Road Zoning Map Legend Zoning and Development Zoning C2: Community Commercial District CR: Conservation/Recreation District R2: Single Family Residential District 0 150 300 Print Date: 4/22/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 25 of 155 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Village of Glen Ellyn (“Village”) Zoning Board of Appeals will conduct a public hearing on May 13, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. at the Galligan Board Room, Glen Ellyn Civic Center, 535 Duane Street, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 on the application of The Glen Ellyn Historical Society (“Petitioner”), regarding the property located at 551 Geneva Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 (“Subject Property”), for the following zoning relief by the variation set forth below from the Village’s Zoning Code. The Subject Property is zoned R2 Single-Family Residential is comprised of approximately 0.44 acres, located on an interior lot west of the southwest corner of Geneva Road and Main Street, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137. The Petitioner seeks the following variations from the Village’s Zoning Code: 1. A variation from Section 10-4-1(C) to allow for an accessory structure to remain on a lot which does not have a principal structure. The Subject Property is legally described as follows: THE EAST HALF OF LOT 1 AND THE EAST 25 FEET OF THE WEST HALF OF LOT 1 IN LILLEY’S NORTH GLEN ELLYN, A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 IN COUNTY CLERK’S ASSESSMENT DIVISION OF BLOCK 1 OF P.W. STACY’S ADDITION PROSPECT PARK, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID LILLEY’S NORTH GLEN ELLYN, RECORDED APRIL 13, 1921 AS DOCUMENT 147662, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PIN: 05-02-322-017, 05-02-332-016 All interested persons are invited to attend the public hearing. To view plans related to the proposed project, please visit the Village website here: http://www.glenellyn.org/246/Public-Notice-Portal. Information related to the application is also available for public viewing at the Village’s Community Development Department, 535 Duane Street, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137. Questions related to the application should be directed to Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, at (630) 547-5371 or by email to jfrahm@glenellyn.org. The public hearing may be adjourned by the Zoning Board of Appeals to another date without further notice by public announcement at the hearing setting forth the time and place thereof. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend the hearing and who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and participate, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, are requested to contact the Village 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Page 26 of 155 551 Geneva Road Notification Map 0 300 600 Print Date: 4/22/2025 Notes ft 350 ft radius Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 27 of 155 Page 28 of 155 Page 29 of 155 Page 30 of 155 Page 31 of 155 Page 32 of 155 Page 33 of 155 Page 34 of 155 Page 35 of 155 Page 36 of 155 Page 37 of 155 Page 38 of 155 Page 39 of 155 Page 40 of 155 Page 41 of 155 Page 42 of 155 Page 43 of 155 Page 44 of 155 Page 45 of 155 Page 46 of 155 Page 47 of 155 Page 48 of 155 Page 49 of 155 Page 50 of 155 Page 51 of 155 Page 52 of 155 Page 53 of 155 Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 5/13/2025 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-408 # 2025-408) Public Hearing - 680 Grand Avenue, Corner Side Yard Setback Variation Statement of the Issue: The petitioners request a variation from Section 10-4-8(D)(4)(a) of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code to allow the construction of a habitable basement under a proposed terrace to be setback thirteen feet and nine inches (13’-9”) feet from the corner side yard property line in lieu of the thirty feet (30’-0”) required corner side yard setback. Analysis: PROPERTY: 680 Grand Avenue is a 13,453-square-foot lot located in the Glen Ellyn Springs subdivision at the northwest corner of Essex Road and Grand Avenue. PETITIONERS: The petitioners are Chris and Nancy Desmond, the owners of the property located at 680 Grand Avenue. ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the April 25, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. ZONING HISTORY: The property was subject to a variation request that was submitted by the previous owners of the property in 2018. The proposed variation was from Section 10-5-11(B)3 to allow a second driveway approach to remain on their lot, which is 100 feet wide in lieu of the 132 feet required to permit a secondary approach on the lot. The ZBA did not find a hardship regarding the request and voted to recommend denial of the request by a vote of four (4) to two (2). It appears that the application was withdrawn by the applicants after the ZBA decision, and the Village Board did not consider the application. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2024 20241974 Radon Mitigation System Page 54 of 155 2022 20220625 Basement Sump Pump 2019 20191925 Basement Full Bath 2019 20191836 Outdoor Fire Fixture 2019 20191753 Lawn Sprinkler 2018 20180532 Interior Remodel and New Detached Garage. PROPOSED: The petitioners are proposing to construct a basement that extends underground beyond the footprint of a proposed home addition on the south side of the home. The proposed addition above ground would add 488 square feet of lot coverage to the property and includes the reconstruction of a new outdoor terrace to be 6’-1” to the side yard property line. As part of this addition project, the petitioners are proposing a large basement addition of 2,679 square feet that will extend beyond the proposed east and south footprint of the above-ground portion of the building. The basement will be located in compliance with the 50-foot front yard setback but will extend into the 30-foot corner side yard setback, approximately 16’-3” and will be located 13’-9” from the corner side yard property line. The proposed basement addition that extends beyond the footprint of the above-ground building is still considered to be lot coverage per the definition of lot coverage provided in the zoning code. The total lot coverage being proposed by the project is 2,956 square feet or 21.9% of the lot. The applicants have requested to have the proposed lot coverage be considered for an administrative variation and will apply for an administrative variation approval per the procedures identified in Section 10-10-12 of the Village Code based if the corner side yard setback variation receives approval recommendation by the Village Board of Trustees. ANALYSIS: The request for a basement structure that extends beyond the footprint of the above- ground structure is a unique proposal and historical examples of similar projects within the village were not identified by village staff. Approximately 530 square feet of the basement is proposed to be located within the 30-foot corner side yard setback. The basement will be below ground and will not be visible from the right of way. The top of the basement will be covered by an outdoor terrace. Terrace structures are allowed in the corner side yard setback and have a required setback of 4-feet based on the 100-foot lot width. The topography of the site features a grade change of 19.23 feet from the northwestern corner to the eastern lot line. The applicant has claimed that this significantly limits the opportunity to expand the home outward above ground while maintaining the character of the existing home. The applicant has claimed that the unique proposal of adding significant square footage to the basement is balancing their desire to maintain the character of the existing structure with the need to update the home’s interior square footage. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Page 55 of 155 Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. 680 Grand Avenue Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Average Grade Exhibit 5. As-Built Topographical Survey Page 56 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN Zoning Variation Request Packet Zoning Variation Request (ZBA-Public Hearing) submittal no.1 2025-04.04 Community Development Department 535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370 X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.01 Page 57 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN 535 Duane Street Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 CLEAR PAGES (630) 547-5250 APPLICATION FOR VARIATION 680 Grand Avenue For the property at ____________________________________________ Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 ________________________________________________________________________________ Note to the Applicant: This application should be filed with, and any questions regarding it, should be directed to the Director of the Village Community Development Department. You may attach separate sheets of paper if additional space is needed for the following answers. ________________________________________________________________________________ The undersigned hereby petitions the Village of Glen Ellyn, Illinois, for one or more variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 3617-Z, as amended), as described in this application. I. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Note: The applicant must comply with Section 10-10-10(B) of the Zoning Code). Chris + Nancy Desmond Name: _______________________________________________________________ 660 Grand Avenue Address: _______________________________________________________________ Chris: 312.579.8535 Home Phone No.: Cell Phone No.: Nancy: 312.420.5213 Fax No.: _______________________________________________________________ Chris: cjdesmond1@gmail.com Nancy: nancyd@memoryweb.me E-mail: _______________________________________________________________ Ownership Interest in the Property in Question: single family private residence in joint ownership X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.02 Page 58 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue II. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 10-10-10(B) OF THE ZONING CODE, IF APPLICABLE: NOTE: All parties, whether petitioner, agent, attorney, representative and or organization et al. must be fully disclosed by true name and address in compliance with Section 10-10-10(B) of the Zoning Code. Disclosure forms are attached for your convenience. Name and address of the legal owner of the property (if other than the applicant): same as applicant Name and address of the person or entity for whom the applicant is acting (if the applicant is acting in a representative capacity): We the owners are the applicants w/ assistance and representation from our architect Daniel J. Simoneit (Jamie) of z+o architecture + interiors at 504 Hillside Avenue Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Is the property in question subject to a contract or other arrangement for sale with the fee owner? (Choose "Yes" or "No") YES NO If YES, the contract purchaser must provide a copy of the contract to the Village and must either be a co-petitioner to this application or submit the attached Affidavit of Authorization with the application packet. Is the property in question the subject of a land trust agreement? (Choose "Yes" or "No") YES NO If YES, (1) either the trustee must be a co-petitioner or submit the attached Affidavit of Authorization from the trustee to represent the holders of the beneficial interests in the trust and (2) the applicant must provide a trust disclosure in compliance with "An Act to Require Disclosure of All Beneficial Interests", Chapter 148, Section 71 et seq., Illinois Revised Statutes, signed by the trustee. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.03 Page 59 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue III. PROPERTY INFORMATION: 680 Grand Avenue Glen Ellyn, IL. 60137 Common address: _______________________________________________________ 05-11-212-034 Permanent tax index number: ______________________________________________ Legal description: LOTS 18 AND 19 (EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 40 FEET MEASURED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH LINES OF SAID LOTS) OF THE SECOND ADDITION TO GLEN ELLYN SPRINGS, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS R2 Zoning classification: _____________________________________________________ 100 Lot size: __________ 135 ft. x __________ ft. 13,500 Area: ____________ sq. ft. Present use: single family private residence IV. INFORMATION REGARDING THE VARIATION(S) REQUESTED: Description of the variation(s) requested (including identification of the Zoning Code provisions from which variation is sought) and proposed use(s): We are seeking a variation to: 10-4-8. - R2 Residential District. (D) Minimum yard and lot requirements: 4. Corner side yard setback: (a.) thirty feet We are seeking a corner side yard setback variation to allow habitable basement space under a proposed patio that is code compliant /allowed in the corner side yard setback as depicted in this package X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.04 Page 60 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue asap/summer of 2025 Estimated date to begin construction: ________________________________________ Names and addresses of any experts (e.g., planner, architect, engineer, attorney, etc.): Architect: Daniel J. Simoneit (Jamie) z+o architecture + interiors 504 Hillside Avenue Glen Ellyn, IL. 60137 Civil Engineer/s: Michael Anderson + Karl Novak Haeger Engineering 100 East State Parkway Schaumburg, IL. 60137 V. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: The following items are intended to elicit information to support conclusions by the ZBA or PC and the Village Board that the required findings/standards for a variation under the Zoning Code have been established and met. Therefore, please complete these items carefully. A. Standards Applicable to All Variations Requested: 1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Code: 1. The home was built in 1935, 67 year prior to the adoption of the current code 2. The property is a corner lot that reduces the sites buildable area 3. The front of the house sits in excess of the maximum R2 front yard setback of 50’ 4. The property has a very unique topography that makes adding on to the home both diﬃcult and expensive 5. The proposed basement has no eﬀect on the size or shape of the proposed project 6. Most importantly the footprint of the proposed patio as depicted is code compliant 2. a. Provide evidence that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Code (i.e., without one or more variations): The lot area of 13,500 sf yields a developable lot coverage of 2,700 sf. The existing home, detached garage and front portico total only 1,718.84 sf of coverage. Deducting 532.23 sf (32.32 sf porch + 500 sf detached garage bonus) yields a coverage of only 8% at 1,186.61 sf. This shocking low Lot Coverage ratio increase by only 4% by adding 408 sf for the proposed new west addition and 80 sf for the proposed new entry increases the lot coverage to 1,746.73 sf - only 12% on a property that is allowed 20% per current code. Thus….this variation request is not being made in the eﬀort to yield a return, reasonable or not. This request is being made in the eﬀort to enhance an existing home and improve the owners quality of life. OR X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.05 Page 61 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue b. Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: The corner side yard variation request is being made due to the unique circumstances created not by the homes owners but by the following: 1. Zoning that was adopted 67 years after the home was constructed 2. Unique property topography 3. Limited Buildable area with the buildable area due to the home being constructed 16.5 feet beyond the maximum front yard setback of 50 feet 4. The proposed patios’s brick clad bench walls + adjacent topography of the proposed (per code) west patio will require a 10 in. thick foundation wall w/ frost wall (48” deep) footings on the steep sloping site. By simply digging another four feet deeper an opportunity to gain valuable floor under the terrace/patio is created. 5. The size and shape of the proposed (per code) patio presents the unique opportunity to create much needed usable space with in a very small buildable area under a small home with a first floor foot print of only 1,620.44 sf 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: We are attempting to renovate/update this classic early Mid-Century Colonial home so that it will remain on the property under the same ownership for another 90 years…. if not more. B. For the purpose of supplementing the above standards, the ZBA or PC, in making its recommendation that there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, shall also take into consideration the extent to which the evidence establishes or fails to establish the following facts favorably to the applicant: 1. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: The home was constructed in 1935 and was recently renovated but currently sit in its original envelope on its original footprint. The corner lot property, unique/steep topography and excessive front yard setback create a buildable area hardship that severely limits opportunity to expand the home in the eﬀort to come close to 2025 Glen Ellyn living average. Upon completion of the proposed work the home will still be one of the smallest homes in it’s immediate Lake Ellyn neighborhood X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.06 Page 62 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue 2. Provide evidence that the conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district: The petition for variation is based on unique conditions on a unique site on a unique home. It is fair to assume that this 2-story private residence is one-of- a-kind in the village and will continue to be upon completion of the proposed interior remodel and additions 3. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property in question: This home is the Desmond’s principal residence and hopefully their forever/ retirement home. They are trying to expand a home with a project that adds only 488 sf of additional lot coverage while modernizing/upgrading it to a 2025 program that suits their 4 member family-work from home entrepreneurial lifestyle. This is not a flip for resale. 4. Provide evidence that the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property in question or by the applicant. There are no partners. The property is privately owned by the Desmond’s. There is no other person/s having any interest in our property 5. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property in question is located. None expected at this time. We are seeking a single variation for space that cannot be seen from the outside of the home. We are proposing a modest 2 story west addition (480 sf footprint) and an enclosed front entry (80 sf while replacing + replicating the existing west patio with a new version that is smaller than the original X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.07 Page 63 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue 6. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; The proposed (per code) west patio is at or no more than 30” above its adjacent grade. It is not enclosed. The projects appearance will not be altered by digging 4-5 feet deeper to create additional space below. Upon completion the below grade basement will have zero impact on the adjacent two story neighbor to the north b. Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property; None expected at this time. The closest adjacent/neighboring/north property will still be separated by more than 35 feet. c. Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village; None expected at this time. We believe that upon approval and completion of our proposed project that we will be greatly improving the property and thus the welfare of the neighborhood and the Village of Glen Ellyn d. Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; None expected at this time. We believe that upon approval and completion of the proposed project that we will be greatly improving the Desmonds’s property and thus improving neighborhood property values e. Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway; The proposed (per code) west patio w/ a new basement below will have zero impact on public streets and/or highways f. Create a nuisance; or None expected at this time. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.08 Page 64 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue g. Results in an increase in public expenditures. None expected at this time. 7. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The size, shape and location of the proposed west patio is per current zoning code. The Desmonds request is for approval of a basement below it. The (per code) patio will look exactly the same with or without the requested variation. 8. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. To make this home renovation and addition a success, we have explored multiple schemes and footprints in the eﬀort to create an excellent solution on a challenging site. The proposed 2 story addition, front entry + second floor oﬃce are assets vital to the Desmonds, both of whom work from home. Per the Village of Glen Ellyn “1 & 2 Family Dwelling Building & Zoning Worksheet” the total lot coverage comes in at only 12% - well below the 20% allowed. Setbacks are enforced to control building bulk and maintain the vernacular of a neighborhood. According to The Law Insider - Building Bulk or “Building Volume” is defined as the total amount of three-dimensional space occupied by a building. Bulk is controlled in the eﬀort to provide visual privacy, adequate sun and ventilation to the neighboring property. Building bulk is not an issue with the Desmond’s project. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc page.09 Page 65 of 155 Page 66 of 155 Page 67 of 155 Page 68 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue Proof of Ownership page.13 Page 69 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue Glen Ellyn Zoning Map page.14 Page 70 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue Satellite Image - Owners Property + Adjoining/Adjacent Neighbors page.15 Page 71 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue DuPage County Boundary/Topography Map page.16 Page 72 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue Plat of Survey page.17 Page 73 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue Existing Conditions - Front/South page.18 Page 74 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue Existing Conditions - LH Side/West + SW views page.19 Page 75 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue Existing Conditions - Front RH/East + RH/east + Back page.20 Page 76 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 unexcavated 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 ck 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 structure setba 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 ard setback 960.75 unexcavated gsf 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 west property line 10'0" interior sidey 30'0" corner side yard setback 5'0" accessory 4'0" impervious surface setback XFL.00 GENERAL NOTES: 03 1'0" accessory structure separation power lan + internet 40'0" rear yard setback vent buried 680 GRAND AVENUE hb.01 7'10.5" stack.01 hwh gfa furnace ac. laundry.00 mech. 66.72 SF 45.55 SF 5'9.5" drain.01 stack.02 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 DESMOND RESIDENCE 5'0" bath.00 50.94 SF 10'2.25" 24'7" av/media 333.60 SF vest. 55.84 SF UP bonus 133.48 SF architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 8'1" f 630.858.5828 gas 200 amp h20 EGRESS z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m 13'6" SYMBOLS: zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 hb.02 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM buried REGISTRATION utility NUMBER 184007431-0001 50'0" maximum front yard setback 00 MTG.07: 2025-03.07 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION Desmond Residence PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION / BASEMENT IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT N PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER DEMOLITION: FOUNDATION / BASEMENT 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A1.00 Existing - Foundation / Basement Plan page.21 680 Grand Avenue Page 77 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 8'0" 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 mud 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 84.00 SF ck 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 coats 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 99.57 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 structure setba 32.23 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 960.75 ard setback 22'10" detached garage gsf 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 452.86 SF 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 west property line 10'0" interior sidey 30'0" corner side yard setback 5'0" accessory 4'0" impervious surface setback 626.29 gsf 19'10" XFL.01 screened GENERAL NOTES: 03 1'0" accessory structure separation power lan + internet 40'0" rear yard setback 680 GRAND AVENUE hb.01 3'9.25" powder 24.51 SF ac. 13'8.75" kitchen 153.31 SF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 DN DESMOND RESIDENCE broom terrace 25'4" living coats 383.79 SF UP architecture + interiors 11'2" 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 dining p 630.858.5888 124.69 SF f 630.858.5828 entry z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m 15'4.5" 11'2" SYMBOLS: zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 hb.02 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 DN 50'0" maximum front yard setback 01 MTG.07: 2025-03.07 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION PRELIMINARY FIRST FLOOR IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT Desmond Residence N PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER DEMOLITION: FIRST FLOOR 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A1.01 Existing - First Floor Plan page.22 680 Grand Avenue Page 78 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 960.75 gsf 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 XFL.02 porch GENERAL NOTES: 03 680 GRAND AVENUE EGRESS 1'3" 3'3" laundry.02 cl.03 supply hall 6'1" bath.01 linen 70.22 SF 12'0" bedroom.03 DN 137.25 SF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 2'6" DESMOND RESIDENCE 7'4.75" broom 11'5.25" cl.02 6'6" bedroom.01 14'8.25" 175.82 SF bedroom.02 9'0.75" 10'6.25" architecture + interiors 118.75 SF 504 hillside avenue 9'11.25" bath.02 wic. glen ellyn,illinois 60137 45.13 SF 64.59 SF p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 EGRESS EGRESS z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m 10'0" 5'0" 11'2" SYMBOLS: 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 02 MTG.07: 2025-03.07 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE Desmond Residence NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION PRELIMINARY SECOND FLOOR IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT N PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER DEMOLITION: SECOND FLOOR 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A1.02 Existing - Second Floor Plan page.23 680 Grand Avenue Page 79 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 porch GENERAL NOTES: 03 680 GRAND AVENUE GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 DESMOND RESIDENCE architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m SYMBOLS: 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 ROOF MTG.07: 2025-03.07 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Desmond Residence DEMOLITION PRELIMINARY ROOF IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT N PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER DEMOLITION: ROOF 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A1.03 Existing - Roof Plan page.24 680 Grand Avenue Page 80 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 rd setback setback 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 unexcavated 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 4'0" impervious surface setback 30'0" corner side yard setback west property line 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 structure deya 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 10'0" interior si 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 5'0" accessory 960.75 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 06 VoGE - VAULT 01.31.25 02.14.25 unexcavated gsf 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 02.28.25 03.07.25 08 VARIATION.01 03.18.25 09 VARIATION.02 04.04.25 10 SD.08 + DD.09 05.09.25 DESMOND RESIDENCE XFL.00 680 GRAND AVENUE GENERAL NOTES: 03 1'0" accessory structure separation lan + internet power 40'0" rear yard setback buried vent hb.01 7'10.5" stack.01 hwh GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 gfa furnace ac. laundry.00 mech. 66.72 SF 45.55 SF 5'9.5" drain.01 stack.02 5'0" bath.00 50.94 SF 24'7" 10'2.25" av/media 333.60 SF vest. 55.84 SF UP bonus 133.48 SF architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 8'1" f 630.858.5828 200 amp gas EGRESS z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m SYMBOLS: h20 13'6" zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 hb.02 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM buried utility REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 50'0" maximum front yard setback 00 MTG.10: 2025-05.09 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DEMOLITION FOUNDATION / BASEMENT IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT N PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER DEMOLITION: FOUNDATION / BASEMENT 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A1.00 Page 81 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 8'0" rd setback ck 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 structure setba 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 mud 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 4'0" impervious surface setback 30'0" corner side yard setback west property line 84.00 SF 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 5'0" accessory deya 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 10'0" interior si coats 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 99.57 960.75 32.23 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 22'10" 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 detached garage gsf 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 452.86 SF 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 08 VARIATION.01 03.18.25 09 VARIATION.02 04.04.25 10 SD.08 + DD.09 05.09.25 asphalt drive concrete pad 626.29 gsf 19'10" DESMOND RESIDENCE DN XFL.01 680 GRAND AVENUE concrete walk DN concrete landing screened GENERAL NOTES: 03 1'0" accessory structure separation lan + internet power 40'0" rear yard setback hb.01 3'9.25" powder GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 13'8.75" 24.51 SF ac. kitchen 153.31 SF DN broom terrace 25'4" living coats 383.79 SF UP architecture + interiors 11'2" 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 dining p 630.858.5888 124.69 SF f 630.858.5828 entry z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m 15'4.5" 11'2" SYMBOLS: zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 hb.02 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 DN 50'0" maximum front yard setback 01 MTG.10: 2025-05.09 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT N PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER DEMOLITION: FIRST FLOOR 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A1.01 Page 82 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 ack ck 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 structure setba unexcavated 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 deyard setb 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 4'0" impervious surface setback 30'0" corner side yard setback 34.72 west property line 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 10'0" interior si 5'0" accessory 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 960.75 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 06 VoGE - VAULT 01.31.25 02.14.25 unexcavated gsf 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 02.28.25 03.07.25 22.22 08 VARIATION.01 03.18.25 09 VARIATION.02 04.04.25 10 SD.08 + DD.09 05.09.25 1,290.13 gsf DESMOND RESIDENCE FL.00 680 GRAND AVENUE GENERAL NOTES: 03 1'0" accessory structure separation lan + internet power 40'0" rear yard setback buried vent hb.01 stack.01 hwh GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 gfa furnace ac. MW0.05 MW0.06 laundry.00 mech. 66.72 SF 45.55 SF drain.01 stack.02 bath.00 50.94 SF MW0.04 64 x 114 in. 9' pool table EQ0.01 15'0" FO. unexcavated 15'4" 21'7" DN PF0.01 EQ0.02 PF0.02 av/media 24'7" 12'10.5" 333.60 SF MW0.01 vest. 55.84 SF UP bonus 133.48 SF architecture + interiors bar game 504 hillside avenue 322.77 SF 330.05 SF glen ellyn,illinois 60137 sump MW0.03 MW0.02 15'5" p 630.858.5888 EQ0.02 f 630.858.5828 7'6.75 200 amp z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m towels 13'6" DN 10'2.25" SYMBOLS: 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 vest. STATE OF ILLINOIS 5'0" 30 mech. DESIGN FIRM MW0.07 REGISTRATION bath.00 NUMBER 10'0" 184007431-0001 7'0" vest. 12'7.5" 8'5.5" exercise h20 8'6" 9'11.5" storage wine sump 5'2" plunge sauna gas utility 12'8.25" 10'4.25" 28'1" 50'0" maximum front yard setback unexcavated unexcavated 00 MTG.10: 2025-05.09 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY NEW CONSTRUCTION FOUNDATION / BASEMENT IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT N PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER NEW CONSTRUCTION: FOUNDATION / BASEMENT 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A2.00 Page 83 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 mud 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 84.00 SF 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 coats 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 99.57 960.75 80.00 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 06 VoGE - VAULT 01.31.25 02.14.25 detached garage gsf 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 452.86 SF 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 08 VARIATION.01 03.18.25 09 VARIATION.02 04.04.25 10 SD.08 + DD.09 05.09.25 asphalt drive concrete pad 625.75 408.00 gsf gsf DESMOND RESIDENCE DN FL.01 680 GRAND AVENUE concrete walk DN concrete landing shed GENERAL NOTES: 03 lan + internet power hb.01 3'9.25" powder GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 24.51 SF ac. kitchen 3'6" 282.89 SF DN broom terrace 22'1" living 25'4" formal DN coats 25'4" 354.25 SF 383.79 SF 9'0" UP architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 stack above 16'0.5 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 DN foyer z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m 15'4.5" 11'2" SYMBOLS: 02 zpluso.com balcony 01010101010101010101 hb.02 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 6'8.5 184007431-0001 entry 42 7'5" DN 01 MTG.10: 2025-05.09 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY NEW CONSTRUCTION PLAN FIRST FLOOR IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT N PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER NEW CONSTRUCTION PLAN: FIRST FLOOR 1/4" = 1'0" 04 KEY NOTES: 01 A2.01 Page 84 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 02 680 GRAND AVENUE 01 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 DESMOND RESIDENCE 00 west property line 30'0" corner side yard setback architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m ELEVATION: FRONT / EAST FACADE 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 MTG.07: 2025-03.07 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ELEVATION PRELIMINARY FRONT / EAST FACADE IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT Desmond Residence PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER 01 A4.00 Proposed - Front/South Elevation page.29 680 Grand Avenue Page 85 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 02 680 GRAND AVENUE 01 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 DESMOND RESIDENCE 00 architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m ELEVATION: RH SIDE / NORTH FACADE 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 MTG.07: 2025-03.07 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RH SIDE / NORTH FACADE PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS Desmond Residence IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER 01 A4.01 Proposed - RH/East Elevation page.30 680 Grand Avenue Page 86 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 680 GRAND AVENUE GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 DESMOND RESIDENCE architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m ELEVATION: BACK / WEST FACADE 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 MTG.07: 2025-03.07 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY BACK / WEST FACADE Desmond Residence IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER 01 A4.02 Proposed - Back/North Elevation page.31 680 Grand Avenue Page 87 of 155 PROJECT DATES DESCRIPTION: DATE: 00 SITE MTG./TOUR 09.30.24 00 PROPOSAL MTG. 10.30.24 01 PRO/SD.01 + DD.01 10.30.24 00 CONTRACT / RETAINER 10.31.24 02 SD.02 + DD.02 11.15.24 03 SD.03 + DD.03 12.19.24 04 SD.04 + DD.04 01.15.25 05 SD.05 + DD.05 / ELEVATOR 01.31.25 06 VoGE - VAULT 02.14.25 06 SD.06 + DD.06 / OFFICE 02.28.25 07 SD.07 + DD.07 / MAX.FL.00 03.07.25 02 680 GRAND AVENUE 01 GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 DESMOND RESIDENCE 00 architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 f 630.858.5828 z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m ELEVATION: LH SIDE / SOUTHTH FACADE 1/4" = 1'0" 02 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 STATE OF ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER 184007431-0001 EXPIRES: 2026-11.30 MTG.07: 2025-03.07 DRAWING TITLE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ELEVATION PRELIMINARY LH SIDE / SOUTH FACADE IN PROGRESS DOCUMENT Desmond Residence PROJECT NO.: 24.026 SHEET NUMBER 01 A4.03 Proposed - LH/West Elevation page.32 680 Grand Avenue Page 88 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue 3D Study Model - Proposed page.33 Page 89 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue 3D Study Model - Proposed page.34 Page 90 of 155 Desmond Residence 680 Grand Avenue 3D Study Model - Proposed page.35 Page 91 of 155 SITE: LOT COVERAGE architecture + interiors 504 hillside avenue glen ellyn,illinois 60137 p 630.858.5888 N f 630.858.5828 z p l u s o a i @ w o w w a y. c o m s.9: 2025-05.08 zpluso.com 01010101010101010101 5.25' 5.10' 31.75'' 5'0" accessory structure setback 4'0" impervious surface setback west property line 626.29 30'0" corner side yard setback gsf 99.57 40'0" rear yard setback 1'0" accessory structure separation 16.45' 48.0' 10'0" interior sideyard setback 5'0" accessory structure setback 6.1'' 480.00 960.75 gsf gsf 30.25' 16.45' 47.2' 22.22 34.72 135.00 FEET 80.00 1,210.13 gsf 50'0" maximum front yard setback 30'0" front yard setback 52.25' 67.4' 58.5' 66.5' 100 FEET DESMOND RESIDENCE 24.026 680 GRAND AVENUE GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 Page 92 of 155 680 Grand Avenue - Zoning Map Legend Zoning and Development Zoning CR: Conservation/Recreation District R2: Single Family Residential District 0 100 200 Print Date: 5/7/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 93 of 155 680 Grand Avenue - Aerial Map Legend 0 50 100 Print Date: 5/7/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 94 of 155 Plot Date: Jan 28, 2025 - 2:12pm Plotted By: mike-a LEGEND Manhole Catch Basin Inlet Stormwater Management Certification No.: 18-17-0015 Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer P.I.N.: 05-11-212-034 Fire Hydrant File Name: P:\2017\17192\Drawings\House Line\17192-Avg Ex Grade_2025.dwg Valve Box B-Box Sign Overhead Utility Line Electric Meter Air Conditioning Unit Utility Pole Curb & Gutter Depressed Curb Curb Elevation and Gutter/Pavement Elevation Pavement Elevation Sidewalk Elevation Ground Elevation Contour Line Deciduous Tree Coniferous Tree Ground = 716.8 Bush 10% Sideyard Setback Line = 10.0' Down Spout Ground = 714.5 pt lot 18 Ground = 717.1 Ground = 714.8 30' Corner Side Yard Setback Line pt lot 19 Average Existing Grade NE = 714.5 SE = 714.8 SW = 717.1 NW = 716.8 Average Grade = 715.8 Benchmark CP # 606 (See Survey) Description: Cross Notch Elevation: 701.59 NAVD 88 (Geoid 12A) CP # 608 (See Survey) Description: Cross Notch Elevation: 712.38 NAVD 88 (Geoid 12A) AS-BUILT CERTIFICATE: I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THE LOT GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLANS, AND THAT ANY DEVIATION FROM THOSE PLANS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. DATED AT Schaumburg ________________, ILLINOIS, THIS 15th ___________ DAY OF __________________ A.D. 19 November 20_____ _____________________________________________________________ ENGINEER Sheet Project No. Date: Engineer: Project Manager: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS HAEGER ENGINEERING consulting engineers land surveyors NORTH 2019-09-09 1 680 GRAND AVENUE 100 East State Parkway, Schaumburg, IL 60173 Tel: 847.394.6600 Fax: 847.394.6608 0 20 17-192 Illinois Professional Design Firm License No. 184-003152 1 TSK MLA GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS www.haegerengineering.com 1 11/15/2019 per Village of Glen Ellyn Review Comments Scale: 1" = 20' No. Date Revision C 2025 Haeger Engineering, LLC Page 95 of 155 Plot Date: Nov 15, 2019 - 3:50pm Plotted By: karl-n LEGEND Manhole Catch Basin Inlet Stormwater Management Certification No.: 18-17-0015 Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer File Name: P:\2017\17192\Drawings\House Line\17192-FG Asbuilt-Closing.dwg P.I.N.: 05-11-212-034 Fire Hydrant Valve Box B-Box Sign Overhead Utility Line Electric Meter Air Conditioning Unit Utility Pole Curb & Gutter Depressed Curb Curb Elevation and Gutter/Pavement Elevation Pavement Elevation Sidewalk Elevation Ground Elevation Contour Line Deciduous Tree Coniferous Tree Bush Down Spout Benchmark CP # 606 (See Survey) Description: Cross Notch Elevation: 701.59 NAVD 88 (Geoid 12A) CP # 608 (See Survey) Description: Cross Notch Elevation: 712.38 NAVD 88 (Geoid 12A) AS-BUILT CERTIFICATE: I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THE LOT GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLANS, AND THAT ANY DEVIATION FROM THOSE PLANS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. DATED AT Schaumburg ________________, ILLINOIS, THIS 15th ___________ DAY OF __________________ A.D. 19 November 20_____ _____________________________________________________________ ENGINEER Sheet Project No. Date: Engineer: Project Manager: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS HAEGER ENGINEERING consulting engineers land surveyors NORTH 680 GRAND AVENUE 2019-09-09 1 0 20 17-192 1 TSK MLA GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 1 11/15/2019 per Village of Glen Ellyn Review Comments Scale: 1" = 20' No. Date Revision C 2019 Haeger Engineering, LLC Page 96 of 155 Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 5/13/2025 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-409 # 2025-409) Public Hearing - 265 S. Ott Avenue, Front Yard and Side Yard Setback Variations Statement of the Issue: The petitioners request a recommendation of approval of the following variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-6(D)(1) – to allow the construction of a one-story attached garage addition to a single-family home with an existing nonconforming front yard setback of approximately forty feet (40’-0”) in lieu of the required front yard setback of fifty feet (50’-0”); and 2. Section 10-4-6(D)(3) – to allow the construction of a one-story attached garage addition on a single-family home that will result in a side yard setback of approximately eight feet and ten inches (8’-10”) in lieu of the minimum required interior side yard setback of sixteen feet and 10 inches (16’- 10”). Analysis: PROPERTY: The property is an interior lot on the east side of Ott Avenue between McCreey Avenue and Buena Vista Drive. The zoning and land use immediately surrounding the subject property is R0 and R2 single-family residential. PETITIONERS: The Petitioner is Dagmara Kamionka, owner of the property at 265 S. Ott Avenue. ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R0 - Residential District and improved with a single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the April 25, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. ZONING HISTORY: The property has been subject to multiple zoning variations in recent years due to the assignment of the property to the R0 Zoning District upon its annexation in 1995. Page 97 of 155 Year Ordinance No. Type 2018 6578 Two-story addition, allowing a detached garage to remain, front porch setback and Class II Alteration. 2015 6319 FY, SY, Front Porch (Expired) – 1 story addition 2016 6416 FY Setback – New home PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2021 20211044 Concrete Patio and Gazebo 2020 20200753 Public Sewer Connection 2019 20191764 Above Ground Pool 2018 20180203 Second Story Addition 2017 20171320 Drywall Removal 1999 B-18401 Public Water Connection PROPOSED: The applicant is proposing the construction of an approximately 730-square foot attached two-car garage to the existing home on the property. The proposed attached garage addition will be incorporated into the structure of the existing home and is proposed to have a front yard setback of 40 feet to match the existing home setback and a side yard setback of 8’-10”. ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be granted the following variations from the Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-6(D)(1) – to allow the construction of a one-story attached garage addition to a single-family home with an existing non-conforming front yard setback of approximately forty feet (40’-0”) in lieu of the required front yard setback of fifty feet (50’-0”). The existing house was originally constructed with a front yard setback of approximately 40 feet, as allowed by the DuPage County Zoning Ordinance. The property was annexed into the Village in 1995, along with 33 other properties in the Lambert Farms Subdivision, with an R0 zoning designation. The R0 District requires a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet. The properties surrounding this home all have the same (approximately) 40-foot front yard setback. It is likely that the homes were constructed this way to accommodate a septic field in the rear of the homes (since there was no municipal water or sanitary mains for the properties to connect to at the time the homes were constructed). The petitioner was granted a variation from the front yard setback requirement in 2018 to allow for the construction of a second-story addition to the existing home. The proposed garage addition is designed to be constructed in line with the existing home setback of 40-feet from the front property line. Because this is a proposed expansion to a nonconforming condition of the property, a variation would be required for construction at the 40-foot setback dimension. Page 98 of 155 2. Section 10-4-6(D)(3) – to allow the construction of a one-story attached garage addition on a single-family home that will result in a side yard setback of approximately eight feet and ten inches (8’-10”) in lieu of the minimum required interior side yard setback of sixteen feet and 10 inches (16’-10”). The petitioner was granted a variation to allow the existing detached garage to remain at approximately 9.13 feet from the side property line in lieu of the required side yard setback requirement in 2018 as part of the variations for the construction of a second-story addition to the existing home. The petitioner is now proposing to demolish the detached garage and to construct an attached garage with a similar footprint to the existing detached garage. The proposed setback of the attached garage would be slightly closer to the side yard property line, from 9’-2” to 8’-10”. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. 265 S. Ott - ZBA Application 2. 265 S. Ott - Aerial Map 3. 265 S. Ott - Zoning Map 4. 265 S. Ott - Plat of Survey 5. 265 S. Ott - Proposed Garage Plans 6. Ord. 6578 Page 99 of 155 Page 100 of 155 Page 101 of 155 Page 102 of 155 Page 103 of 155 Page 104 of 155 Page 105 of 155 Page 106 of 155 Page 107 of 155 Page 108 of 155 265 S. Ott Avenue - Aerial Map Legend 0 50 100 Print Date: 5/6/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 109 of 155 265 S. Ott Avenue - Zoning Map Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R0: Single Family Residential District R2: Single Family Residential District 0 150 300 Print Date: 5/6/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 110 of 155 Page 111 of 155 NEW ATTACHED GARAGE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AVAS ATELIER DESIGN 1835 WEBSTER LN, DES PLAINES, IL 60018 265 S. OTT AVE, GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 PH: 773-799-4616, FAX: 773-435-6616 GEORGE SIMOULIS ARCHITECT ∅ NEW ATTACHED GARAGE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 265 S. OTT AVE, GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 GENERAL NOTES & SITE PLAN 03/08/23 843.23 1.T1 Page 112 of 155 ATELIER AVAS DESIGN 1835 WEBSTER LN, DES PLAINES, IL 60018 PH: 773-799-4616, FAX: 773-435-6616 GEORGE SIMOULIS ARCHITECT NEW ATTACHED GARAGE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 265 S. OTT AVE, GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 03/08/23 843.23 2.A1 Page 113 of 155 ATELIER AVAS DESIGN 1835 WEBSTER LN, DES PLAINES, IL 60018 PH: 773-799-4616, FAX: 773-435-6616 GEORGE SIMOULIS ARCHITECT NEW ATTACHED GARAGE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 265 S. OTT AVE, GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 ELEVATION 03/08/23 843.23 3.A2 Page 114 of 155 Page 115 of 155 Page 116 of 155 Page 117 of 155 Page 118 of 155 Page 119 of 155 Page 120 of 155 Page 121 of 155 Page 122 of 155 Page 123 of 155 Page 124 of 155 Page 125 of 155 Page 126 of 155 Page 127 of 155 Page 128 of 155 Page 129 of 155 Page 130 of 155 Page 131 of 155 Page 132 of 155 Page 133 of 155 Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 5/13/2025 7:00 PM of Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-410 # 2025-410) Public Hearing - 603 N. Park Boulevard, Lot Coverage and Side Yard Setback Variations Statement of the Issue: The petitioners request the following variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8 (E)(1) – to allow the construction of a new detached garage on a property with an existing nonconforming lot coverage of 21.7 percent in lieu of the required maximum lot coverage of 20 percent of the lot. 2. Section 10-5-4(A)(4)(c) – to allow the construction of a new detached garage with a side yard setback of one foot (1’-0”) in lieu of the minimum required side yard setback of three feet (3’- 0”). Analysis: PROPERTY: The property is an interior lot on the east side of N. Park Boulevard, north of Hawthorne Boulevard. The zoning and land use immediately surrounding the subject property is R2 single-family residential. PETITIONERS: The Petitioners are Matthew and April Knighton, owners of the property at 603 N. Park Boulevard. ZONING/USE: The subject property is zoned R2 - Residential District and improved with a single-family home. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the April 25, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. ZONING HISTORY: There is no previous zoning history regarding this property. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No. Type 2020 20200318 Fence Page 134 of 155 2008 20081339 Fence 2002 B 21232 Rear Addition PROPOSED: The applicant is proposing the construction of an approximately 352-square-foot detached one-car garage to replace the existing detached garage on the property. The proposed detached garage is proposed to be set back 1 foot from the northern property line. The garage is accessed via a shared driveway with the northern property, 607 N. Park Boulevard. ANALYSIS: In order to proceed with the project as proposed, the petitioner will need to be granted the following variations from the Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-4-8 (E)(1) – to allow the replacement of a detached garage on a property with an existing nonconforming lot coverage of 21.7 percent in lieu of the required maximum lot coverage of 20 percent of the lot. The existing home as constructed occupies a footprint of 1,459 square feet and occupies approximately 21.7% of the lot. The maximum allowed lot coverage for two-story dwellings in the R2 zoning district is 20%. The existing lot coverage nonconformity was created by the passage of Ordinance 5035, which reduced the allowable lot coverage from 25% to 20% less than two months after the building permit application was submitted for the permitted rear addition in 2002. Although the proposed detached garage would qualify for the 500 square foot lot coverage bonus granted per Section 10-4-8(E)(3)(a), the proposed project would represent the continuation of a nonconforming lot coverage condition of the property. 2. Section 10-5-4(A)(4)(c) – to allow the replacement of a detached garage with a side yard setback of one foot (1’- 0”) in lieu of the minimum required side yard setback of three feet (3’-0”). The existing garage is located approximately 1.43’ north of the property applicant’s north property line. The proposed garage would be constructed entirely within the property and is proposed to be a setback 1-foot from the north property line. The basis of this request is that, due to the narrowness of the lot and the angled position of the existing home, the drive approach to the garage is severely limited. In order to access the garage, the property has requested the narrowest setback possible to allow for a vehicle to access the garage. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The ZBA should consider the testimony presented during the public hearing and review the written evidence presented as part of the petitioners’ application packet. The ZBA should make findings of Page 135 of 155 fact and determine if practical difficulty or a particular hardship exists for the requested variation and if the essential character of the neighborhood is maintained. The ZBA may choose to make a recommendation to the Village Board for the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the request per Section 10-10-12 of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg (1) 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. 603NPark-Survey 5. 24-154_Glen Ellyn Garage Page 136 of 155 VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN 535 Duane Street Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 CLEAR PAGES (630) 547-5250 APPLICATION FOR VARIATION 603 N PARK BLVD For the property at ____________________________________________ Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 ________________________________________________________________________________ Note to the Applicant: This application should be filed with, and any questions regarding it, should be directed to the Director of the Village Community Development Department. You may attach separate sheets of paper if additional space is needed for the following answers. ________________________________________________________________________________ The undersigned hereby petitions the Village of Glen Ellyn, Illinois, for one or more variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (Ordinance No. 3617-Z, as amended), as described in this application. I. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Note: The applicant must comply with Section 10-10-10(B) of the Zoning Code). Name: MATTHEW KNIGHTON & APRIL KNIGHTON _______________________________________________________________ Address: 603 N PARK BLVD, GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 _______________________________________________________________ Home Phone No.: Cell Phone No.: (512) 750-7661 Fax No.: _______________________________________________________________ E-mail: MATT@MATTKNIGHTON.COM _______________________________________________________________ Ownership Interest in the Property in Question: OWNERS X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 137 of 155 II. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 10-10-10(B) OF THE ZONING CODE, IF APPLICABLE: NOTE: All parties, whether petitioner, agent, attorney, representative and or organization et al. must be fully disclosed by true name and address in compliance with Section 10-10-10(B) of the Zoning Code. Disclosure forms are attached for your convenience. Name and address of the legal owner of the property (if other than the applicant): Name and address of the person or entity for whom the applicant is acting (if the applicant is acting in a representative capacity): Is the property in question subject to a contract or other arrangement for sale with the fee owner? (Choose "Yes" or "No") YES NO If YES, the contract purchaser must provide a copy of the contract to the Village and must either be a co-petitioner to this application or submit the attached Affidavit of Authorization with the application packet. Is the property in question the subject of a land trust agreement? (Choose "Yes" or "No") YES NO If YES, (1) either the trustee must be a co-petitioner or submit the attached Affidavit of Authorization from the trustee to represent the holders of the beneficial interests in the trust and (2) the applicant must provide a trust disclosure in compliance with "An Act to Require Disclosure of All Beneficial Interests", Chapter 148, Section 71 et seq., Illinois Revised Statutes, signed by the trustee. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 138 of 155 III. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Common address: 603 N PARK BLVD, GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 _______________________________________________________ 05-11-214-010 Permanent tax index number: ______________________________________________ Legal description: THE NORTH 50 FEET OF LOT 42 (MEASURED ON STREET LINE) IN COLLINS AND GAUNTLETT’S LAKE GLEN ELLYN, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 22 TO 29 INCLUSIVE, AND 33 TO 68INCLUSIVE IN JOHN A. BROWN’S ADDITION TO GLEN ELLYN, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID COLLINS AND GAUNTLETT’S LAKE GLEN ELLYN, RECORDED OCTOBER 21, 1914 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 118383, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, RESIDENTIAL Zoning classification: _____________________________________________________ 50 Lot size: __________ 138 ft. x __________ ft. 6900 Area: ____________ sq. ft. Present use: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IV. INFORMATION REGARDING THE VARIATION(S) REQUESTED: Description of the variation(s) requested (including identification of the Zoning Code provisions from which variation is sought) and proposed use(s): CURRENT GARAGE IS SITED 0.4 FT TO NORTH ON OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. OWNERS REQUEST IS TO BUILD NEW GARAGE 1 FT SOUTH OF CURRENT PROPERTY LINE TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO GARAGE VIA SHARED DRIVEWAY. 10-5-4(c) Structures greater than ten feet from principal structure: Accessory structures greater than ten feet from the principal structure shall maintain a distance equal to five percent of the lot width (and no less than three feet) from the side and rear property lines. However, I’m concerned that if they did do that, they would not be able to properly access the garage door. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 139 of 155 Estimated date to begin construction: AUGUST 2025 ________________________________________ Names and addresses of any experts (e.g., planner, architect, engineer, attorney, etc.): DAMIAN BABICZ LICENSED ARCHITECT BAU DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT 1302 SOUTH 5TH AVE DES PLAINS, IL 60018 V. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: The following items are intended to elicit information to support conclusions by the ZBA or PC and the Village Board that the required findings/standards for a variation under the Zoning Code have been established and met. Therefore, please complete these items carefully. A. Standards Applicable to All Variations Requested: 1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Code: OWNERS WOULD LIKE TO BUILD NEW GARAGE TO REPLACE CURRENT GARAGE. OWNERS SHARE A DRIVEWAY WITH NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH (607 N PARK BLVD) VIA EASEMENT. CURRENT ZONING CODE WOULD REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GARAGE TOO FAR SOUTH TO ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS VIA DRIVEWAY. CURRENT ZONING CODE WOULD ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE THE BACKYARD SPACE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS ALREADY VERY SMALL. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. 2. a. Provide evidence that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Code (i.e., without one or more variations): ZONING CODE WOULD REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GARAGE IN A LOCATION THAT IS UNACCESSIBLE VIA SHARED DRIVEWAY. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WOULD NOT HAVE ANY GARAGE SPACE. ZONING CODE WOULD ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY DECREAE THE BACKYARD SPACE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS ALREADY VERY SMALL. OR X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 140 of 155 b. Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: PROPERTY SHARES DRIVEWAY VIA EASEMENT WITH NO OTHER MEANS OF ACCESSING GARAGE. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: PROPERTY HAS CURRENT GARAGE BUILT AT THE SAME APPROXIAMATE LOCATION AS PROPOSED GARAGE. PROPOSED GARAGE DESIGNED TO MATCH CHARACTER OF NEIGHBOR’S GARAGE ON SAME SHARED DRIVEWAY. B. For the purpose of supplementing the above standards, the ZBA or PC, in making its recommendation that there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, shall also take into consideration the extent to which the evidence establishes or fails to establish the following facts favorably to the applicant: 1. Provide evidence that the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the property in question would bring particular hardship upon the applicant/owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the Zoning Code were to be carried out: PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 141 of 155 2. Provide evidence that the conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district: PROPERTY HAS SHARED DRIVE VIA EASEMENT WITH LIMITED ACCESS TO GARAGE. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. 3. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property in question: REQUEST IS TO REPLACE CURRENT GARAGE DUE TO AGE. 4. Provide evidence that the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property in question or by the applicant. REQUEST IS MADE BY OWNERS. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. 5. Provide evidence that the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property in question is located. REQUESTED GRANTING OF VARIATIONS IS TO BUILD SIMILARLY SIZED GARAGE ON APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LOCATION AS CURRENT GARAGE. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 142 of 155 6. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; REQUEST IS TO BUILD SIMILARLY SIZED GARAGE ON APPROXIMATELY SAME LOCATION AS CURRENT GARAGE. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. b. Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property; REQUEST IS TO BUILD SIMILARLY SIZED GARAGE ON APPROXIMATELY SAME LOCATION AS CURRENT GARAGE. BUILDER RECOMMENDING INCREASED FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING ON NORTH SIDE OF PROPOSED GARAGE. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. c. Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village; PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. d. Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; REQUEST IS TO BUILD SIMILARLY SIZED GARAGE ON APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LOCATION AS CURRENT GARAGE. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. e. Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway; PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. f. Create a nuisance; or PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 143 of 155 g. Results in an increase in public expenditures. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. 7. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. PLEASE SEE PLAT OF SURVEY, EASEMENT, AND PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS. 8. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 144 of 155 VI. CERTIFICATIONS, CONSENT AND SIGNATURE(S) I (We) certify that all of the statements and documents submitted as part of this application are true and complete to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. I (We) consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in the application by any authorized official of the Village of Glen Ellyn. I (We) certify that I (we) have carefully reviewed the Glen Ellyn Zoning Variation Request Package and applicable provisions of the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code. I (We) consent to accept and pay the cost to publish a notice of Public Hearing as submitted on an invoice from the publishing newspaper. I (we) understand that our request will not be scheduled for a Village Board agenda until and unless this invoice is paid. 3-15-2025 MATTHEW KNIGHTON Date Print Name Signature of Applicant 3-15-2025 APRIL KNIGHTON Date Print Name Signature of Applicant Date Print Name Signature of Applicant X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 145 of 155 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION I, __________________________________________________ owner of the property described as verify that is duly authorized to apply and represent my interests before the Glen Ellyn Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and/or Village Board. Owner acknowledges that any notice given applicant is actual notice to owner. ____________________________ Owner Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this _______ day of _______________, 20_____ ____________________________________ Notary Public X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 146 of 155 OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION Date: Address: Legal Description: LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK) Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % Name: Address: % X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 147 of 155 OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST Date: _________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________________ Legal Description: TRUSTEE: _________________________________________ TRUST NO.________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________________ LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES: Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ Name: __________________________ Address: ______________________________________ X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 148 of 155 Affidavit Affirming No Conflict of Interest The undersigned, being duly sworn and under oath, states as follows: 1. My name is ____________________________________, and I hold the position of _________________________ for ___________________________ (“Owner”). 2. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Affidavit, and if called to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto. 3. I am authorized by the Owner to make the representations and statements in this Affidavit on the Owner’s behalf in support of the application for development approval (“Application”) the Owner filed with the Village of Glen Ellyn (“Village”). 4. To the best of my knowledge, and as of the Application’s date, no individual that is employed by the Village or sits on an elected or appointed Village board or commission has a financial interest in the Owner, the Application, or the project proposed by the Owner. 5. To the best of my knowledge, and as of the Application’s date, no individual that is related to any person that is employed by the Village or sits on an elected or appointed Village board or commission has a financial interest in the Owner, the Application, or the project proposed by the Owner. 6. I will immediately notify the Village if the Owner learns of the material inaccuracy of any statement within this Affidavit. Further affiant sayeth naught. Name: Title: Owner’s Name: Subscribed and sworn to me this _______ day of ___________________, 20____. ________________________________ Notary Public X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Zoning Variation Request Packet FILLABLE 102523lg.doc Page 149 of 155 603 N. Park Blvd. - Zoning Map Legend Zoning and Development Zoning CR: Conservation/Recreation District R2: Single Family Residential District 0 100 200 Print Date: 5/6/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 150 of 155 603 N. Park Blvd. - Aerial Map Legend 0 35 70 Print Date: 5/6/2025 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 151 of 155 10407 West Cermak Roac KABAL SURVEYING COMPANY Westchester, Illinois 60H {708) 562-2652 Land Surveying Services Fax (708) 562-7314 email: kabal-surveying@comcast. :}$lat of website: KabalSurveyingCompany. Registration No. 184-003061 The North 50 feet of Lot 42 (measured on street line) in Collins and Gauntlett's Lake Glen Ellyn, being a Resubdivision of Lots 22 to 29 inclusive and 33 to 68 inclusive in John A. Brown's Addition to Glen Ellyn, being a Subdivision in Section 11, Township 39 North, Range 10, East of the Third med) Principal Meridian, according to the Plat of said Collins and Gauntlett's Lake Glen Ellyn, recorded October 21, 1914 as Document Number 118383, in DuPage County, Illinois. Address: 603 North Park Boulevard, Glen Ellyn C o.c ,-... ~ .... -0 0 CV) ~I") l.a..O "-" d Q) .9-~ a. Q) : C .. -= .c ....,._ .c 1:'0. :5 ,._ 0 .... .c ,._ z 0 zo z l"lz (JJ ,.... I!) .N co (JJ I!) o . ~ C'l ...... .... Q) .!: C -o ,..... .... "O C Ql ~;:: (I) io 0 .s -.J 0--/ I 0 I.LIO '-"O .... 0 coN 0 I 0, .-,,,:5 I ;g o!I ixi <S Ii? I 2 st- Q) ~ :::!E,...: Q) u (JJ I") ci ~ 0 ~ u C C d 0 Q) I.,.. Q) (I) ci u Q) 0 u Q) Un Q) C C . C 0 0,-. E ,._ 0 Q) La.. ...,0 ;:: Q) 0 La.. ,._ V) Q) ~ ,:is ~ La.. .... 0 Q) E..., 0 (I) Q) 5 :::!E ,._ 0 .!: u La..W (I) C (I) 0 Q) = .... C Page 152 of 155 ~~ ENERGY CONSERVATION STATEMENT GENERAL NOTES No. Description Date Zoning 01/16/2025 Review NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR: 1. THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD IS PROVIDING PLANS ONLY. NO OTHER TYPE OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE IS IS INTENDED OR IMPLIED. THESE PLANS ARE TO BE USED BY A COMPETENT LICENSED CONTRACTOR KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE BUILDING TRADES, WHO WILL CHECK AND I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THE ATTACHED PLANS VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM. ( x) FULLY COMPLY ( ) NEED NOT COMPLY 2. ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONTRACT WILL BE BY OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. THE CONTRACTOR AND THE OWNER SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROCESS MEANS AND METHODS AND JOBSITE SAFETY. 1302 South 5th Avenue 3. THE DRAWINGS INDICATE THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT - THE DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING, MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, Email: archdb26@gmail.com AND TYPE OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. THE DRAWINGS DO NOT DESCRIBE ALL THE WORK REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING THE Phone: (224) 388-8914 SIGNED: .......................................... PROJECT. BASED ON THE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ALL ITEMS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION AND (Arch. S.E. or P.E.) Illinois License Number: 001-023574 COMPLETION OF THE WORK. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SITE VERIFY THE CONDITIONS OF EXISTING Des Plaines, IL 60018 FOUNDATIONS UPON EXCAVATION AND DETERMINE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF ASSUMED CONDITIONS. IF ISSUES ARISE, CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION STATEMENT IS TO INFORM THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATLY. 5. DECISIONS OF THE ARCHITECT REGARDING THE ITEMS OF WORK INCLUDED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE FINAL AND BINDING ON THE CONTRACTOR AND THE OWNER. 6. THE CONTRACTOR MUST THOROUGHLY EXAMINE THE DRAWINGS TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE AND THE INTENT OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST VISIT THE SITE AND BECOME Design & Development INFORMED OF ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND TO LIMITATIONS UNDER WHICH THE WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED. IF ANY THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CONTRACTOR OF THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODE. MUST NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND OBTAIN CLARIFICATIONS BEFORE SUBMITTING HIS BID. FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OR OBTAIN CLARIFICATION WILL NOT BE CAUSE FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. 3D VIEW 1 7. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH SKILLED LABOR, MATERIALS, 4 EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES AND SERVICES, AND PERFORM ALL OPERATIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN A SAFE AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER WITHIN THE OWNER'S SCHEDULE. LOCATION OF EXISTING FRONT WALL OF GARAGE SIGNED: ............................................ 8. NOTED DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS - 138.00 3' - 0" Illinois License Number: 001-023574 Exp: 11/2024 11/2026 DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 9. ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT MUST BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TO ASPHALT DRIVE (SHARED) 1.00 FIRM LICENSE NUMBER: 184-007502 THE BEST INDUSTRY STANDARDS. D 22.00 10. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL AND PROPER 1' - 0" 21' - 0" DISPOSAL OF ALL DEBRIS GENERATED BY THE WORK. CLEAN UP IS 5.91 PROPOSED APRON ULEVAR 0.70 REQUIRED ON DAILY BASIS. BRICK LOCATION OF BACK 11. ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR 8.05 PROPOSED 1' - 5 3/4" BUMPOUT OF GARAGE 0.70 LISTINGS AND THE MANUFACTURER ’S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. A 1.06 0.70 20.38 16.00 GARAGE COPY OF THE MANUFACTURER ’S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS MUST 0.44 16.96 BE PROVIDED ON SITE FOR EACH INSPECTION. 13.01 Type Area Proposed 12.76 PARK BO 3' - 0" 50.00 50.00 7.95 4.61 LOT AREA 6,747 SQ FT 4.91 STONE 9' - 0" BUILDING FOOTPRINT 1,459 SQ FT BRICK 2 STORY FIRM LICENSE NUMBER: 184-007502 43' - 0 1 BRICK HOUSE CONC STAIRS FRONT AND REAR 149 SQ FT /2" DRIVEWAY 505 SQ FT 18.15 ECK BRICK FRONT WALK EXCLUDED (546) SQ FT 19.44 STONE REAR WALK EXCLUDED (184) SQ FT WOOD D NORTH REAR DECK EXCLUDED (142) SQ FT PROPOSED CONC APRON & LANDING 75 SQ FT 26.97 STONE PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE 352 SQ FT 0.40 12.11 N REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING GARAGE STO TOTAL SITE AREA COVERAGE 2,540 SQ FT NE ~37.6% 135.88 VILLAGE CODES PROPOSED - SITE PLAN International Building Code, 2018 3 603 N Park Blvd 1" = 10'-0" International Residential Code, 2018 DESIGN CRITERIA International Fire Code, 2018 International Mechanical Code, 2018 International Property Maintenance Code, 2018 International Fuel Gas Code, 2018 National Electrical Code, NFPA 70-20173 International Energy Conservation Code, 2021 (as amended by the State of Illinois) FLOOR = 40# LL 10# DL TYPICAL ALL AREAS Illinois State Plumbing Code, 2014 WALL = 60# PLF OR ACTUAL LOAD Americans With Disabilities Act, 2010 CEILING = 20# LL 10# DL ROOF SLOPES OVER 3 IN 12 Illinois Accessibility Code, 2018 ROOF = 30# LL 20# DL REMOVE PARTIAL DRIVEWAY DuPage County Countywide Stormwater Floodplain Ordinance, 2019 CATHEDRAL = 30# LL 15# DL ALL SLOPES FOR NEW APRON 138.00 4 EXTR. DECK = 40# LL 10# DL Village Code – Title 2, Chapter 8 - Architectural Appearance Commission EXTR BALCONY = 100# LL 10# DL EXTERIOR Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 1.43 (Appearance Guidelines Ordinance 5508VC) 0.61 ASPHALT DRIVE (SHARED) 19.37 Village Code – Title 4, Chapter 5 - Sign Code 3.11 Village Code – Title 4, Chapter 7 - Stormwater and Floodplain Regulations STRUCTURAL FRAMING LUMBER RK BOU Village Code – Title 4, Chapter 8 - Tree Preservation Regulations 5.91 FLOOR JOISTS, CEILING JOISTS, HEADERS, AND RAFTERS 0.70 14.35 Village Code – Title 7, Chapter 9 - Sewer Use Regulations 10.50 REMOVE LEVARD BRICK IN-GRADE BASE VALUE (USE NO MULTIPLIERS AGAINST BASE VALUE) EXTG Village Code – Title 7, Chapter 10 - Water System Regulations 8.05 0.70 0.70 20.38 GARAGE Village Code – Title 8, Chapter 1 - Streets and Sidewalks GRADE #2 SPECIES SPF CANADIAN BASE Fb = 875 1.06 0.44 16.96 3.11 Village Code – Title 8, Chapter 4 - Forestry Management GRADE #2 SPECIES SYP DOMESTIC BASE Fb = 875 (WOLM.) 19.35 Village Code – Title 8, Chapter 6 - Construction of Utility Facilities in Rights-of-Way 13.01 GRADE #1 SPECIES HEM-FIR BASE Fb = 1050 Village Code – Title 10 - Zoning Code MANUFACTURER: TRUSS JOIST MCMILLAN Village Code – Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations Code 12.76 PRODUCT: MICRO-LAM LVL 50.00 2.48 Other Applicable Regulations and Ordinances SIZE: 1 3/4" x (SEE PLAN) Fb = 2,600 PSI E = 2.0 DuPage County Food Service Design and Construction Manual 50.00 7.95 22.48 4' - 2 3 DuPage County Private Water Supply Ordinance WIND 115 MPH CATEGORY II 4.91 /4" STONE DuPage County Private Sewerage Disposal Ordinance 21.64 FROST LINE 42" BRICK 2 STORY ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 90.1-2013 PROJECT DESCRIPTION BRICK HOUSE Illinois Construction Site Temporary Restroom Facility Act (410 ILCS 37/) Illinois Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction NORTH Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Asbestos Abatement DATE: 18.15 ECK Illinois Environmental Protection Agency – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 01/16/2025 COPYRIGHT BAU DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT 2024 regulations for Industrial Discharge, Construction Activities, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems THE PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF DETACHED GARAGE 19.44 PA WOOD D (MS4) PROJECT: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Radon Resistant Construction Act (420 ILCS 52/) 24-154 Illinois Equitable Restrooms Act (410 ILCS 35/) 26.97 0.40 12.11 STONE N Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (220 ILCS 50/) (JULIE) Illinois State Fire Marshal, Boiler Regulations DRAWINGS LIST DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DB DB Illinois State Fire Marshal, Underground Storage Tank Regulations Illinois State Fire Marshal, Elevator Regulations DRAWING INDEX STO USEPA Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rule (Lead) NE Sheet Applicable Regulations of other Federal, State and Local Agencies and Public Utility Service Providers. (1) As amended by Village Code Title 4, Chapter 1 Number Sheet Name (2) As amended by Village Code Title 5, Chapter 2 COVER 135.88 (3) As amended by Village Code, Title 4, Chapter 2 (4) As amended by Village Code, Title 4, Chapter 7 A101 COVER (5) As amended by Village Code, Title 4, Chapter 3 A102 PROPOSED PLANS A103 ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. 2 EXISTING - SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" A101 Page 153 of 155 No. Description Date Zoning 01/16/2025 • 240 # Architectural Asphalt Shingles Over Underlayment Review • Roof Vents To Be Located On Back Slope Of Roof. Provide Eave And Roof Vents To Allow 1 Sf Of Free 3' - 0" 2' - 0" 12' - 0" 2' - 0" 1' - 0" A103 Ventilation For Each 300 Sq Ft Of Ceiling Area • All Roof Penetrations Are To Receive Proper Flashing And Roof Saddle If Required For Proper 3 Watertight Penetration. 16' - 0" • Roof Structure - See Schedule • Provide H8 18-Gauge Zmax Galvanized Hurricane Ties @ 16" O.C. 2' - 0" 12' - 0" 2' - 0" 1" RIGID CONDUIT TO HOUSE 18" DEEP PORTAL WALL 1302 South 5th Avenue AS SHOWN ON DETAIL 220 AMP SUBPANEL w/ Email: archdb26@gmail.com 3' - 0" 3' - 0" POWER DISCONNECT SEE SCHEDULE MAIN BREAKER Phone: (224) 388-8914 AF GFCI 2' - 0" (2) 1 3/4" x11 7/8" LVL HEADER 9' - 0" Des Plaines, IL 60018 RAFTERS - SEE SCHEDULE 6" 6" 6' - 0" 2 SEE SCHEDULE SEE SCHEDULE A103 2x10 @ 16" O.C. EQ 4 A103 Design & Development EQ EQ 8 8 A103 A103 CEILING OUTLET 1'-0" / 1'-0" PROTECTED BY 1'-0" / 1'-0" 22' - 0" 22' - 0" 22' - 0" 22' - 0" Sim 4 WALL GFCI RAFTERS - SEE SCHEDULE RAFTERS - SEE SCHEDULE A102 S S NOTE: THE FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE REDUCED TO 0 HOURS ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE (2) 2x10 1 HR FIRE WALL U305 UL 263 EQ INCLUDING EAVE EAVE OVERHANG IF FIREBLOCKING IS PROVIDED FROM THE WALL TOP PLATE TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF SHEATHING. (2) 2x10 THE FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE REDUCED TO 0 HOURS ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE PULL DOWN STAIRS SEE SCHEDULE RAKE OVERHANG WHERE GABLE VENT OPENINGS ARE NOT INSTALLED. AF GFCI AF GFCI N N N 16' - 0" ATTIC AREA: 352 SF ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES 1' 2' 4' 6' 10' FIRM LICENSE NUMBER: 184-007502 VENT REQ'D AREA: 1.17 SF Provide .8 vents = 2 vents GRAPHICAL SCALE 5 A103 LEVEL 2_ROOF PLAN LEVEL 1_ARCHITECTURE LEVEL 1_PROPOSED GARAGE SLAB 6 1 5 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING GARAGE Wall Schedule Roof Schedule Family Type Area Length Family and Type Area 603 N Park Blvd Basic Exterior Wall 112 SF 15' - 7 1/4" Basic Roof: Roof 560 SF Wall Basic Exterior Wall 195 SF 21' - 7 3/8" Floor Schedule Wall Basic Exterior Wall 197 SF 15' - 7 1/4" Comments Area Wall Basic Exterior Wall 170 SF 21' - 7 3/8" CONCRETE SLAB 352 SF 2x SEE SCHEDULE Wall CONCRETE APRON 78 SF FOR SIZING 1/2" PLYWOOD 2x SEE SCHEDULE Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIN. 3"X11.25" HEADER FOR SIZING NOTE: SHEETING - SEE SCHEDULE Length Of The Anchor Bolts Shall Not 1/2" PLYWOOD CONCRETE THICKNESS: 5" EXTERIOR MATERIAL Extend Less Than 7 Inches Into 2x SEE SCHEDULE - SEE SCHEDULE FASTEN TOP PLATE TO HEADER w/2 ROWS OF 16D Concrete And Shall Not FOR SIZING SINKER NAILS @ 3" O.C. TYP . Fewer That Two Bolts Per Plat Per 2018 TYVEK 2" x 6" 1000# STRAP BED OF CA-6 5" IRC FRAMING 1000# STRAP OPPOSITE STUD FRAMING - SEE SCHEDULE SHEATHING PERMITERER LEVELED CONCRETE TREATED SILL - SEE SCHEDULE FASTEN SHEATHING TO HEADER WlTH PARAPET WALL 5.5" 8D COMMON OR GALVANIZED BOX NAILS IN 3" CONCRETE SLAB - SEE SCHEDULE W/ 6x6 W 2.9xW 2.9 WIRE MESH SILL PLATE SEALER GRID PATTERN AS SHOWN AND 3" O.C. IN ALL - POLYETHYLENE FOAM FRAMING (STUDS, BLOCKING, AND SILLS)TYP . WOOD STUDS SIZE / VAPOR BARRIER 2x6 SLOPE UP CONCRETE TREATED PLATE SIZE BED BASE CA-6 GRAVEL 16" MIN. WIDTH FOR 1 STORY STRUCTURE AT ALL WALLS - SEE SCHEDULE 24" MIN WIDTH FOR THE USE IN MAX. HEIGHT 10' 1/2" DIA ANCHOR BOLTS x 10" LONG w/ WASHERS HEADER THE FIRST OF 2 STORY STRUCTURES WOOD STUDS SPACING 16" O.C. EXTEND INTO CONCRETE @ 1 FT FROM CORNERS MAX MIN. DOUBLE 2x4 POST AND AT 4' O.C. MAX DOUBLE TOP PLATE FOR A PANEL SPLICE, PANEL EDGES SHALL BE WALL SHEETING 7/16" OSB BLOCKED, AND OCCUR WITHIN 24" OF MID DATE: 6" HEIGHT. ONE ROW OF TYP. SHEATHING TO FRAMING NAILING IS REQUIRED. IF 2x4 01/16/2025 COPYRIGHT BAU DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT 2024 Finish Grade DOUBLE JACK STUD BLOCKING IS USED, THE 2X4'S MUST BE NAILED Reverse Board & Batten @ EXTERIOR OPENINGS TOGETHER WITH (3)16D SINKERS PROJECT: EXTERIOR MATERIAL Style Hardie Board 24-154 KING STUD MIN. 2x4 FRAMING MIN. 1000# TIE ROOF RAFTERS DOWN DEVICE DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SIZE/SPACING 2x8 @ 16" O.C. GRADE BEAM DB DB 1' - 0" SINGLE JACK STUD @ 3/8" MIN. THICKNESS WOOD STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEATHING INTERIROR NON BEARING OPENINGS NOTE: ROOF RIDGE/HIP 2x10 ALL 4 SIDES TO HAVE TWO (2) FRAMING @ 16 O.C. MIN. 1000# TIE DOWN DEVICE CONTINUOUS #4 REBAR SEE PLAN FOR FRAMING SIZE (EMBEDDED INTO CONCRETE Reinforcement support where provided in slabs-on- AND NAILED INTO FRAMING) ROOF SHEETING 7/16" OSB 1' - 8" ground, reinforcement shall be supported to remain in place from the center to upper one-third of the slab for SINGLE SILL PLATE PROPOSED PLANS the duration of the concrete placement. IRC R506.2.4. 1/2"Ø x lO" LONG GRADE BEAM ANCHOR BOLT SHEET NO. 2 SCHEDULE 4 DETAIL - FOUNDATION 7 DETAIL - HEADERS 8 GARAGE PORTAL FRAME DETAIL A102 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1/2" = 1'-0" Page 154 of 155 No. Description Date ELEVATION NOTES: GIRDER SPANS AND HEADER SPANS FOR EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS GIRDER SPANS AND HEADER SPANS FOR INTERIOR BEARING WALLS (MAXIMUM SPANS FOR DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH, HEM-FIR, SOUTHERN PINE (MAXIMUM SPANS FOR DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH, HEM-FIR, SOUTHERN PINE Zoning 01/16/2025 LVL FASTENING SCHEDULE Review AND SPRUCE-PINE-FIR AND REQUIRED NUMBER OF JACK STUDS) AND SPRUCE-PINE-FIR AND REQUIRED NUMBER OF JACK STUDS) MAXIMUM UNIFORM LOAD APPLIED TO SIZE OF SUPPORTING ROOF ONLY SUPPORTING 1 STORY ABOVE SUPPORTING 2 STORIES ABOVE ONE FLOOR ONLY TWO FLOORS EITHER OR BOTH OUTSIDE PIECES 1. CONFIRM ADEQUACY OF THE BEAM (DEPTH AND NUMBER OF PIECES) FOR CARRYING THE DESIGNATED LOAD. WOOD BUILDING WIDTH IN FT. BUILDING WIDTH IN FT. BUILDING WIDTH IN FT. BUILDING WIDTH IN FT. BUILDING WIDTH IN FT. (POUND PEER LINEAR FOOT) 2. STRESS LEVEL FOR NAIL AND BOLT VALUES IS 100%. INCREAES OF 15% FOR SNOW LOADED OR 25% FOR NON-SNOW • JELD WEN, CRESTLINE, OR EQUAL GLASS SIZES SHOWN ON ELEVATIONS GIRDER (12, 24, 36) (12, 24, 36) (20, 24, 36) (12, 24, 36) (12, 24, 36) LOADED FLOOR CONDITIONS ARE PREMITTED. • PROVIDE COUNTER FLASHING, WHERE REQUIRED, INCLUDING ROOF TO AND 16D NAILS 1/2" BOLTS SCREWS (NOTES 9) TRUSSLOK 3. TOP AND BOTTOM ROW CONNECTORS SHOULD BE 2" FROM THE EDGE. WALL INTERSECTIONS, CHIMNEYS AND SADDLES 20 G.A. (MIN.) HEADER 12 24 36 12 24 36 12 24 36 12 24 36 12 24 36 PIECES IN A B C D E F G 4. BOLT HOLES ARE TO BE THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE BOLT. EVERY BOLT MUST EXTEND THROUGH THE FULL THICKNESS OF • PROVIDE COUNTER FLASHING DIAGONALLY ACROSS MASONRY, STEP SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. SPAN N.J. MEMBER 2 ROWS 3 ROWS 2 ROWS 2 ROWS 2 ROWS 2 ROWS 2 ROWS THE MEMBER. USE WASHERS UNDER HEAD AND NUT. AND REGGLED INTO THE MORTAR 12" O.C. 12" O.C. 24" O.C. 12" O.C. 24" O.C. 12" O.C. 24" O.C. 5. FOR THREE-PIECE MEMBER, SPECIFIED NAILING IS FROM THE EACH SIDE. • ROOF VENTS TO BE LOCATED ON BACK SLOPE OF THE ROOF. NUMBER (2)2x4 4-0 1 3-1 1 2-7 1 3-3 1 2-6 1 2-2 1 2-8 1 2-1 1 1-9 1 4-1 1 2-10 1 2-4 1 2-7 1 1-11 1 1-7 1 2 505 760 505 1015 500 995 525 6. TO MINIMIZE ROTATION, FOUR-PIECE MEMBERS SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHEN LOADS ARE APPLIED TO BOTH SIDES, OR AND LOCATION SHALL BE BASED ON TOTAL AREA OF VENTS REQUIRED (2)2x6 6-0 1 4-7 1 3-10 1 4-10 1 3-9 1 3-3 2 4-0 1 3-2 2 2-8 2 6-1 1 4-4 1 3-6 1 3-11 2 2-11 2 2-5 2 COMPLETEY ACROSS THE TOP OF THE MEMEBER. EQUAL TO 1/300th OF ROOF AREA. 3 380 570 380 760 375 745 375 7. FOUR-PIECE MEMBERS MUST BE BOLTED OR ATTACHED WITH 6" SCREWS FROM BOTH SIDES. • NOTE: ALL WINDOWS BEING REPLACED MUST HAVE A U-FACTOR VALUE (2)2x8 7-7 1 5-9 1 4-10 2 6-1 1 4-10 2 4-1 2 5-0 2 4-0 2 3-5 2 7-9 1 5-5 2 4-5 2 5-0 1 3-8 2 3-1 2 1302 South 5th Avenue 4 NOT PERMITTED 340 675 330 665 335 OF 0.30 OR LESS. 8. FLOOR JOISTS MUST BE ATTACHED WITH APPROVED METAL HANGERS. (2)2x10 9-0 1 6-10 2 5-9 2 7-3 2 5-8 2 4-10 2 6-0 2 4-9 2 4-0 2 9-2 2 6-6 2 5-3 2 5-11 2 4-4 2 3-7 3 • WINDOWS AND SLIDING GLASS DOORS LIMITED TO NO MORE Email: archdb26@gmail.com 9. SCREWS ARE USP WS SERIES OR SIMPSON STRONG-TIE SDS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS. SCREWS THAN .O.3CFM PER SQUARE FOOT AIR LEAKAGE. SWINGING DOORS (2)2x12 10-7 2 8-1 2 6-10 2 8-6 2 6-8 3 5-8 2 7-0 2 5-7 2 4-9 3 10-9 2 7-7 2 6-3 2 6-11 2 5-2 2 4-3 3 A (NAILS) AND F (SCREWS) B (NAILS) FOR 3-PLY AND 4-PLY MEMBERS MUST BE FROM BOTH SIDES OF BEAM. LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN O.5CFM PER SQUARE FOOT. (SECTION R402.4.3) Phone: (224) 388-8914 TWO ROWS 12" O.C. THREE ROWS 12" O.C. 10. FASTENMASTER TRUSSLDK SCREWS FOR 2-PLY, 3-PLY, OR 6 ¾" LONG FOR 4-PLY, CONNECTIONS MAY BE DOUBLED FOR 12" (3)2x8 9-5 1 7-3 1 6-1 1 7-8 1 6-0 1 5-1 2 6-4 1 5-0 2 4-3 2 9-8 1 6-10 1 5-7 2 6-3 1 4-7 2 3-10 2 ON-CENTER SPACING. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMONDATIONS. DO NOT OVERTIGHTEN SCREWS. • 100 PERCENT (100%) OF THE LAMPS IN PERMANENTLY INSTALLED LIGHT (3)2x10 11-3 1 8-7 1 7-3 2 9-1 1 7-2 2 6-1 2 7-6 2 5-11 2 5-1 2 11-5 1 8-1 2 6-7 2 7-5 1 5-6 2 4-6 2 1 3/4" MULTIPLE PLIES FIXTURES SHALL BE HIGH EFICIENCY LAMPS. (SECTION R404.1) 12" O.C. 12" O.C. 2 PLY 3 PLY 4 PLY 4 PLY 4 PLY Des Plaines, IL 60018 (3)2x12 13-2 1 10-1 2 8-6 2 10-8 2 8-5 2 7-2 2 8-10 2 7-0 2 5-11 2 13-6 1 9-6 2 7-9 2 8-8 2 6-5 2 5-4 2 (2A CONNECTION) (3B CONNECTION) (4C CONNECTION) (4E CONNECTION) (2G CONNECTION) 1. ALL TYPICAL GIRDERS AND HEADERS FOLLOW THIS CHART WITH THE GIRDER AND HEADER SPANS FOR OPEN PORCHES 1. SPANS ARE GIVEN IN FEET REQUIRED NUMBER OF JACK STUDS, PROVIDING KING STUDS AT ENDS. (MAXIMUM SPANS FOR DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH, HEM-FIR, AND INCHES 2. SPANS ARE GIVEN IN FEET AND INCHES SOUTHERN PINE AND SPRUCE-PINE-FIR ) 2. TABULATED VALUES C BOLTS AND E (SCREWS) AND G 3. NO. I OR BETTER GRADE LUMBER SHALL BE USED FOR SOUTHERN PINE. D (NAILS) AND F (SCREWS) ASSUME #2 GRADE LUMBER, (TURSSLOK SCREWS - NOTE 10) OTHER TABULATED VALUES ASSUME #2 GRADE LUMBER. TWO ROWS 24" O.C. TWO ROWS 12" O.C. WET SERVICE AND INCISING 4. BUILDING WIDTH IS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO THE RIDGE. FOR SUPPORTING ROOF SUPPORTING FLOOR FOR REFRACTORY SPECIES. WIDTHS BETWEEN THOSE SHOWN, SPANS ARE PERMITTED TO BE 3. PORCH DEPTH IS MEASURED INTERPOLATED. SPAN 8 SPAN 14 SPAN 8 SPAN 14 24" O.C. 12" O.C. Design & Development HORIZONTALLY FROM 5. NJ = NUMBER OF JACK STUDS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT EACH END. WHERE (2)2x6 7-6 5-8 6-4 4-9 BUILDING FACE TO THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED JACK STUDS EQUALS ONE, THE HEADER IS CENTERLINE OF THE HEADER. PERMITTED TO BE SUPPORTED BY AN APPROVED FRAMING ANCHOR (2)2x8 10-1 7-7 8-5 6-4 FOR DEPTHS BETWEEN THOSE ATTACHED TO THE FULL-HEIGHT WALL STUD AND TO THE HEADER. SHOWN, SPANS ARE 6. USE 30 PSF GROUND SNOW LOAD FOR CASES IN WHICH GROUND SNOW (2)2x10 12-4 9-4 10-4 7-9 PERMITTED TO BE LOAD IS LESS THAN 30 PSF AND THE ROOF LIVE LOAD IS EQUAL TO OR LESS (2)2x12 14-4 10-10 11-11 9-0 INTERPOLATED. THAN 20 PSF. * CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING HEADERS AFTER DEMOLITION AND STRTUCTURE IS EXPOSED. REPLACE AS REQUIRED. * FOR NON-TYPICAL SPANS/SIZES SEE FLOOR PLANS FIRM LICENSE NUMBER: 184-007502 1' 2' 4' 6' 10' GRAPHICAL SCALE ROOF ROOF 17' - 6" 17' - 6" REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING GARAGE ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES - OWNER SELECTION T.O.WALL T.O.WALL 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 603 N Park Blvd EXTERIOR MATERIAL EXTERIOR MATERIAL - SEE SCHEDULE 8' - 0" - SEE SCHEDULE 36" x 80" 12' - 0" Level 1 Level 1 6" 0' - 0" 6" 0' - 0" Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 ELEVATION -SOUTH ELEVATION - WEST 2 3 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF ROOF ROOF 17' - 6" 17' - 6" 17' - 6" EQ " -0 1' "/ 1' -0 EQ -0 "/ 1' 1' -0 " ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES - OWNER SELECTION DATE: EQ 01/16/2025 COPYRIGHT BAU DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT 2024 T.O.WALL T.O.WALL T.O.WALL PROJECT: 17' - 6" CEILING JOISTS SEE PLAN 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 17' - 6" 9' - 0" 24-154 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DB DB 11' - 0" 9' - 0" EXTERIOR MATERIAL EXTERIOR MATERIAL - SEE SCHEDULE - SEE SCHEDULE ELEVATIONS Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 6" 0' - 0" 6" 0' - 0" 6" 0' - 0" SHEET NO. 8 Section 1 4 ELEVATION - NORTH 5 ELEVATION - EAST A103 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" Page 155 of 155