Zoning Board of Appeals
Regular MeetingGlen Ellyn, IL · June 10, 2025
Minutes
MINUTES
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, June 10, 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, Noureen Lakhani, Chip Miller,
Craig Pavlich and Christiane McKnight
Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager; 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 May 13, 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 McKnight moved to re-open the Public Hearing on 680 Grand Ave. Member Buckton seconded the motion and
the motion passed by voice vote.
D. Old Business
1. Public Hearing – 680 Grand Ave, Side Yard Setback Variation
Sworn in, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn, reintroduced the following variation request for 680
Grand Ave.
Daniel provided a review of what was presented during the May 13th meeting.
He stated that this application was originally presented in a public hearing at the May 13th, 2025, meeting of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. During the public hearing, the applicant requested that the application be tabled to the June 10th, 2025, ZBA meeting to
revise their presentation to address questions presented by the Board members. The applicant also presented a petition expressing
support of the application from three adjacent property owners. This petition has been included in the packet. The applicant has
submitted a revised presentation regarding their application. The presentation was included in the packet for the Board's review.
The draft minutes of the May 13th ZBA meeting are included in the packet for the Board's review. 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.
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 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.
Existing Basement Footprint slide along with overhead view rendering and front yard rendering shown to Board Members
Member Questions
Commissioner Pavlich- Staff report does not site any rule or violation for precluding them from doing this?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn-What the violation is for is the bulk of the structure; in the village
code it says bulk includes “all levels” and how we interpret that is all levels includes a basement. This is in the definition section,
when we were going through definitions to how to interpret/ regulate this, that is what we landed on. It states, “all levels”, so we
included basement in all levels in terms of bulk of property, that is how we made that determination.
Commissioner Pavlich- Does the terrace fit within the setback for a structure?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn- yes, the terrace would fit within the setback, it allows for terrace
to be within corner side yard setback, if it was not a terrace, and was an accessory structure then it would not be allowed or if it
was an extension of main building.
Chairperson Jones- could they put in a sub-basement if they want to? A basement underneath the basement according to the
code?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn – I am not sure but if all levels are within bulk regulations, then
perhaps yes.
Commissioner Pavlich- I did research that and you own all the property under your property unless you sell the mineral rights,
there is no statute in the Illinois law or our code that you can’t, presumably you can.
Public Comment
Sworn in Petitioners Nancy & Chris Desmond along with Daniel Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors
Petitioner Nancy Desmond- began with providing some background about themselves; state that they have lived in Glen Ellyn for
19 years raised two boys, used to live over by the dog park. When this property at Lake Ellyn came up for sale and we jumped on
chance to purchase home, but we did find that the home is a tight squeeze, cannot get our immediate family around the table for
Christmas, which is why we have decided to do the expansion. This is going to be our forever home and that is why we would
love to invest further into the home.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- Thanked the Board for coming back and hear their case. We appreciate the ability to present what our
hardship is, and we want to provide an overview of what we have done. A big piece is the topography and the elevation changes
on this very unique corner lot. Mr. Desmond explained that he would also go through the different areas of hardship. He
explained that they went over this plan with all of their neighbors and they are all in agreement, and would not bother them. They
had a petition signed by neighbors.
Petitioner explained that there is nothing that defines underground structures. He explained the research which he conducted on
nearby communities like Chicago and Inverness using chat gbt, and google. Described that they did find guidance for
underground structures and Chicago defines underground structures as a structure underground with nothing above ground in that
area, no buildable structure. Inverness also speaks to the same guidance as Chicago, including guidance for setbacks. Agrees that
there does need to be guidance in place with underground structures, agrees with New Codes written this Fall as there is a need
for guardrails but explains that for them, they are doing a single basement, beneath impervious surface. Reiterates that they are
going to comply with impervious surface setbacks for the patio, “we are keeping with the guard rails”.
Mr. Desmond explained the hardships which are the land. Pointed to green area on slide, patio already exists above ground,
which is permissible. We would not be here if it were not for the fact that we would like to build underground basement. It’s not
about square footage, it’s about setback, now its 30 feet side yard, we are asking for 13’9 for additional space for living and
storage. If we don’t get that, we have to get approximately 10.2 tons of gravel to put underneath that, it would be great for us to
be able to utilize that for expanding the footprint of the house. With approved variance, we have a buildable area underneath,
without it, it will be filled with gravel.
Grade change of nearly 20ft due to corner lot and proximity to the lake, zoom in on what we can build, setbacks are allowable,
perched on northeast corner of the yard, to build an addition we must go to the front of house, and it will not look great, grade
change is up to 10 feet. A hardship from our perspective. We were notified that we have a historically significant home in Glen
Ellyn, last thing we want to do is to add to the front of the house. Explained that they are going underneath for the build, so that
the neighbors don’t have a problem with the build.
Mr. Desmond when on to discuss the criteria to approve variations and referenced the two criteria listed in 10-10-12 (E). He
asked if both cases needed to be met, and Daniel read both criteria out loud which were also provided in part of the packet to call
Commissioners. Mr. Desmond then moved on to reference the 8 submittal criteria for granting variations listed in 10-10-12 (F) of
the village code.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Explained that after consulting with Village attorney, all 8 criteria do
not need to be met order to approve a variation.
Petitioner Chris Desmond – moved on to explain that they are looking to invest on the property and keep the historic nature and
not make a profit. that is why they are looking to build underground. The essential character of the locality will not be altered
because it is all below ground. He moved on to explain all of the 8 items and provided a reason as to why they met the variances-
this was also provided to all Commissioners as part of the packet. Explained that they meet 6 out of the 8 hardships.
The before and after photo shown, with and without variance is the same photo, no difference at all. We talked to our neighbors;
the only other neighbor is Glenbard West High School. Referenced signed petition and it was confirmed by Daniel Harper,
Village Planning Manager that it was included in packet that was published last week.
Commissioner Buckton- If variance is denied, do you still build under the area?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- This is how the whole thing started, it was the what if, by digging another 3
feet down, we can create the space. While you are looking at this image, this is actually the lower level here, these are decorative
walls, what we are talking about is this sliver here. The terrace that is there, we are actually going to be digging out. We are going
to backfill this whole site in order to support the terrace.
Commissioner Buckton- Let’s say you can’t have variance, and you decide to go ahead without this 13-16 feet, you decide not to
do that, do you still have to have 10 tons of gravel?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors -Yes because it’s a hallow void, because of the way the hill comes down, we
will need to pour retaining walls, we are grading and back filling it so it. Nothing is more than 30inches above the grade.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- I think what you are asking is, if it is denied, then what is the alternative? We would have to then fill
it up with the gravel underneath the patio.
Commissioner Buckton- What is the height of ceiling in the basement?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors-We are actually only at 8 feet.
Commissioner Pavlich- If I am understanding correctly, the main goal of the modification principally is to is to save back fill?
Petitioner Chris Desmond- backfill and to have a little bit more space, but to get more space we would have to build upfront and
that is where it does not make sense.
Commissioner Pavlich- Just trying to clarify that there is this back fill issue and you are deciding to leverage that, that is your
principal goal?
Petitioner Chris Desmond- Yes
Commissioner Pavlich- If they wanted to build another structure under any other permitted structure, that is not, not allowed,
correct? If they had any other area of their yard where they could build, it could be built, in the back yard or something like that?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- unless it is a defined accessory structure, we would have a stipulation
that says yes it would be allowed in the rear back set back or something like that.
Commissioner Pavlich- Presuming that an underground structure meets all of the bulk regulations, then its allowed. If it meets all
of the other regulations, we don’t have a rule that says that’s not counting because its underground, right. I’m just asking because
if it’s an expansion maybe there is somewhere else, they can place it. If it’s a problem that is unique to the topography then
maybe that is a bit different.
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- that is what does not make sense, because what you are referring to is
perfectly legal.
Commissioner Pavlich- I do have a question for Daniel, the remainder of modifications to house, do not require any variance?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- that is correct, when we were discussing with Jaime, we ran into lot
coverage, similar to when we talked about bulk and its structures of all levels, this would go into 21.9%, when we talked about
how to proceed, the route chosen was that we could do an administration variation if side back variation was approved and
granted by Village Board of Trustees. But that process does have a neighbor veto power, if any one neighbors objects, then it
comes back to board again.
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors - lot coverage was reduced to meet that requirement
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- the tolerance is if you are within 22% lot coverage.
Commissioner Pavlich- so the structure without the basement, the additional under terrace basement does meet lot coverage ratio,
if we count this as a structure, then it would be over but with an administrative variance you would grant that separately.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn-Yes, we would go through process of possibly granting that.
Commissioner Miller- the cases and questions are a test to support the hardship. What is the hardship, define your hardship for
me, tell me what your hardship is. Tell me why I should approve it. Not answering all these questions because these questions are
here to say this is why we can approve your hardship. I never heard a single thing that you said that you had a hardship. You were
doing your job in explaining all of this and I would like to hear why it is a hardship, not those 8 things or the 2 things.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- from my perspective, the lot we bought, while beautiful it is, its placement of home makes it difficult
to expand, and the hardship is that when you have the option to expand, the topography is the hardship. That is because the
options to expand are either to the front or to the side due to the placement of that house. The other hardship is because of the
corner lot; corner lots are hardships I believe in the Village of Glen Ellyn.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- a corner lot is not a hardship.
Commissioner Miller- it could be argued; corner lot could be a catalyst to the hardship but it is not the hardship. You don’t buy a
house and say oh it’s a hardship because it’s a corner lot
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- but if they were a builder, it is a loose of over 2,000 square feet of area
because of the corner lot. The technical code issues of this are hardship
Commissioner Miller- it’s been there since 1935 and it worked. I am asking the questions, I am not judging that I am just trying
to hear what the homeowners are saying is a hardship.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- We didn’t create this; this is not a hardship that we created. We think it’s a hardship created by
topography, by the placement of the house and having a corner lot. To try to manage the challenges is why we are going
underground so that we don’t encroach upon our neighbors, and for us that is important because we want to keep the historic
nature of the 1935 home which is beautiful. so those are key areas of hardships as we have read through the rules and areas of
items for hardships, for us those are key.
Commissioner Miller- so devils the advocate here, you bought the house, then you found out it was too small because you have
everyone over at Christmas, then you decide you are going to start putting in an addition. Now you are getting to do more and
you find this void because you are going to replace the terrace, right? What can we do with that space, so now you are adding
more space, why was this not part of the initial thought process or at least you are not explaining it that way? How is that a
hardship that you can’t have this that was not part of the we can’t fit our family in for Christmas?
Petitioner Nancy Demond- Some of it is storage, we are looking to maximize what we can, looking for storage as well. We have
many things right now that we can’t bring into our home; by adding more space we can bring those items out of storage.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- The closets and storage that they had in 1935 is very challenging, we don’t have a pantry, our pantry
in the kitchen is about one foot and a half wide and two feet deep. We are looking to find areas to have storage to be able to have
family events. We want to maximize our footprint but also be tasteful.
Commissioner Miller- you knew you would have storage issues when you bought the house.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- oh absolutely, we bought the house knowing what we had but now we are going to do the addition
and hoping to expand it; that is what we would like to have and we want to make sure we want to maximize the buildable space if
we could, quite honestly we didn’t think we had to be here, we didn’t think we had to seek a variance because when we were
reading through this, we didn’t see anything that precluded us from building what we are proposing today. It was not until we
proposed the plan and found out that The Village is interpreting the underground area to be part of the setback for the main above
ground house. We didn’t anticipate that being a let’s go and get a variance that was part of the plan that we submitted. Earlier a
commissioner asked “Where in the definition does it state that?” we think that is great, you can take the path of saying “hey
regardless of hardship, I don’t know if you guys need to even be here. But we went ahead on the path and said let’s pretend as
though we agree with The Village, we don’t but we understand that they need to put rules so that people don’t do what they want
to, we get that. We think there are two sides of the coin, if we look at this collectively from our perspective, we didn’t think we
had to be here but we are because we want to make sure we are doing the right thing.
Commissioner Miller- I think it’s brilliant, I think it’s a great idea, I think you eliminate a lot of the problems it’s definitely a
Jaime think outside the box kind of thing. It’s not our job to interpret the code, personally, I think you are at the wrong spot for
this. For me I struggle still with the hardship. But that definition of all levels I think what you need the Village to define because
then this goes away and then all. You have is you need to go see Daniel for something he can do. This is not something for us to
do. I will encourage that to the Village to take care of that not the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am being 100% honest with you, I
like what you are doing, I don’t feel like I can vote for it.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- that is the route we went through.
Commissioner Miller- I am not talking about them, I am talking about the guy at the end, and all of his counterparts, that board. I
think that they need to, and they are rewriting the code but there is nothing that says that they can’t make that definition a little
clearer. Again, I think it’s great and I hope you guys figure out a way to get it. I just don’t think this group is the people to do it.
Chairperson Jones- Jaime, I am looking at the bulk issues sort of speak, you have to build the concrete box underneath the patio
no matter what for that that to be structurally sound correct?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors -2/3rd for general terms, going an extra third deeper
Chairperson Jones- Daniel if he fills that in with concrete how is that not considered bulk?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- we would have considered it an impermeable terrace at that point. In
definition, it says structures of all levels that is how we got to the point that basement is the all levels. Terrace itself is given an
exception, in the supplementary regulations, it’s allowed to encroach into the set back
Chairperson Jones- That is almost similar to new construction porch where they can get the porch bonus but can’t have anything
above porch, and traditionally below the porch is filled in with gravel
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors -There are homes in town that have spaces under porches that are inside of the
front yard setback, I can name one on Montclair and Hillside, they have space under front porches even windows,
Commissioner Buckton- are these legal non-conforming?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors – it’s the sane condition as this, it’s going into a front yard setback.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- I think that the question is that it didn’t need a variance because when you submitted the plan and it
was approved, it was not perceived by the Village at that time as needing a variance
Commissioner Miller- that all levels could have changed, there has been a lot of things, you know that we have been here a
million times and things could have changed. There has been a lot of things that have changed
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors -There are other examples of garages that are buried up in front of homes.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- I think for our situation, we are not looking to go through all the things in the past, what we are trying
to do is do something that we think is reasonable, also with our research on what other communities have done with some
guardrails and that is our request from you. We want to keep it simple for that and we went through our hardships, I don’t know I
you have any other questions for us.
Commissioner Kelly- what was primary purpose of the project at the outset? Was basement contemplated as part of the overall
project? Or did that come later when you realized you had a void.
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors -It was developing the house, the foundation, but then we realized we had all
this space underneath there, to add that extra third of depth gets un a fantastic space. It is the smallest house in neighborhood by
far, even with calculating space of basement, it is still one of the smallest homes in radius.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- so, yes, we did plan for the basement.
Commissioner Kelly- so it was not ancillary to the project, were just going to do a patio and by the way we realized we have a
void, so let’s build a basement.
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- we were able to add some other things over into that area
Commissioner Miller- I think you guys are saying two different things, they are saying they planned on the basement but then
found the void would add more that is what you are saying but it was not in the initial plan, oh we are going to build that because
no one knew.
Petitioner Chris Desmond- what was initial is when we actually submitted the plan, is when it had the full basement in there.
When we were talking preplanning, yea we were trying to understand what is permissible and when we read the rules, we said
OK, we can expand out underneath and we wanted to keep the character of the house and that is why we did that. So, when we
submitted the plans, it did include the basement.
Commissioner McKnight- what is total square footage being added which does not require the variation?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors - the addition is under 1,000 square feet.
Commissioner McKnight -Basement buildout will go out to the front yard setback?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- it is short of it.
Commissioner Pavlich-In the past staff has reported those numbers, I have the lot area as 13,453 square feet, current build foot
print is 2650 square feet, with the additional basement as 408 square feet is that accurate?
Commissioner McKnight- additional basement is 561 square feet.
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors – described that everything in Yellow is the encroachment, leading to the side
yard, the 1200 is everything in grey which is all in the basement, but part of the basement is supporting a new front portico
Commissioner Pavlich- I apologize for my question, I was asking for the purpose of gross lot coverage, not necessarily the
encroachment.
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- birds eye view straight down is 22%.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- in my staff report I have total proposed as 2,956 square feet or 21.9%
Commissioner Kelly-that falls within the di minimis requirement?
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - correct?
Chairperson Jones- If you don’t get the side yard setback you don’t need the variation for LCR?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- we are under the understanding that we are all good.
Commissioner Lakhani- is there a financial hardship between adding the addition square footage of basement verses just adding
gravel? Does it cost more to do one or the other?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- gravel Is not cheap, bring out the Union labor is not cheap but I don’t have an
exact number to quote you
Commissioner Lakhani- I wonder if adding gravel verses building basement, the expense would count as financial hardship?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors – were not here to argue a financial hardship
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - as a point, the financial aspect cannot be considered as part of the
review
Commissioner Buckton-Do you plan to do project regardless of variation, is the addition something you are going to proceed
with regardless of what we decide here?
Petitioner Chris Desmond- we are going to do the addition of above ground for sure; it’s just a question of what we can do below
ground.
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors -The debate of hardship, from the technical aspect, it’s hard for me to
understand that question because there are 7 that we meet.
Commissioner Miller- so those are ways to meet it but a developer didn’t buy the land, it was bought by a family that has been
here for a while. When I found out what house it was and I looked at the address and I saw it was on a corner. I didn’t have to see
the house to know what it looked like, because I know the house, I think it’s a beautiful house. I would be disappointed if it gets
torn down, I am glad that you are keeping it for the modern times I just don’t see the hardship.
Petitioner Chris Demond- you can see that we are passionate about what we want to do; one of the things that you asked in the
last meeting was do you need to have the full variance, if we need to move further far away from side yard setback, that is
something we would be happy with if that would be an option. We would like to move forward, we hope that at least for our
situation, situation of hardship from our perspective combined with
Chairperson Jones- Jaime if they took like you said a straight line up, what would your side yard setback be?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors – I think it would be 18ft and one and a half is what we calculated instead of
being 13ft 9ftwould be 4.4 feet further in to the property. If that is amendable, we would be appreciative of that.
Commissioner Buckton- Question I asked last meeting was, would you be willing to go to the 30ft set back?
Jamie Simoneit, Z & O Architecture and Interiors- we would not be here then.
Seeing no further questions from the Board, Acting Chairman Jones asked a motion to close the public hearing.
Member Pavlich made a motion to close the public hearing and approve the Finding of Facts as presented. Member
Miller seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote. Findings of fact accepted.
Deliberation
Commissioner Pavlich- I want to start with a point of order for the new trustee as well as Chip, when it comes to the Zoning
Board of appeals, section 10-10-4 B 2 gives the Zoning Board of appeals specifically the power to interpret the zoning code, to
hear and decide appeals from any final order requirement or decision or determination made by an administrative official., i.e.
Daniel, charged with enforcement of this title. Just to be clear we are empowered to decide that it counts as a structure or not. I
just wanted that to be a point of order for the record. When it comes to this medication, I will say that my opinion is that they are
going to do huge modification on this lot anyway. I think that because of the very unique lot, topography and its location, in
particular it has a huge amount of green space that extends beyond the edge of the lot, huge tree lawns on a weird curvy road,
which sort of makes its apparent presentation to the street look like a lot bigger lot than it actually is in terms of their ownership, I
am supportive of what I think is a minor variation to their overall plan. Not the most necessary but considering that we are
already treading the ground and doing all this construction. I think that when it comes to its apparent impact on The Village
overall it’s negligible.
Commissioner Lakhani- I am supportive, I agree if I am interpreting what levels are, that is a grey area, I don’t consider basement
a level it’s not something that is considered overall in the city of Chicago or suburbs ever. I come from a Real Estate background
and so I see it the same way as well. The more important aspect of is that there is a maintenance of the overall character of the
house which is really important for Glen Ellyn especially in the location that you live in. I also agree that the topography is
unique, it’s great that you come up with a creative solution, I am supportive.
Commissioner Miller- I am struggling with what we already talked about, for me I don’t see the hardship. We still have a
variance going from 30ft to 13.9ft not that I don’t think it’s a great project, I just don’t feel like I have what I need to be able to
make the variation.
Commissioner Buckton- welcome Mr. Miller, you received a lot of information in a small time. I love this project but somebody
will come to Village board and say you passed this thing in the basement, it was 13ft why can’t I do it? That is why we are here, I
think you guys should be at the Village Board, I agree that a texted amendment should be brought up about this. Even though we
have the discretion to do so, I don’t think its correct in this instance to do so. This is a pretty go sized variance and the Village
Board could be saddled with this down the road. I appreciate what you are doing, I want to see project done, but this is not the
place for it.
Commissioner McKnight- I looked backed at section 10-10-12 E before the meeting, and as I read it ZBA shall not recommend a
variation, except in cases where there are practical difficulties or hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any
regulation and unless it shall make findings based on the evidence presented to it that either one or two that was listed in your
slides is met. So, I think regardless we need to find practical difficulties or particular hardship, and I think that is typically
considered to be an inability to make a reasonably use of the land. I don’t believe that there is a difficulty or hardship in the sense
of section 10-10-12 E. For that reason, I still intend to vote no
Commissioner Kelly- I certainly understand the counter arguments to approving the variance and I think there is a great deal of
legitimacy, hardship is kind of a squishy term, by not approving this does it impair your ability to rectify something like
functional opalescence probably not, but given that we do have discretion limited as it may be, to interpret code, I am inclined to
say yes with the caveat that….I am like Chip, the text amendment is available as an option, and I raised this at the initial meeting.
My inclination is to say yes, simply because according to code we have the authority to make nominal interpretations, I struggle
with it but… The slipper slippery slope argument doesn’t really resonate with me, if they do it’s a basement. There is no impact
to the building, so do I really care, add to the fact that we are going through a code update. I am sure that Daniel has red flagged
this for discussion. It’s a great project, did consider basement of initial project, I think is sufficient for me to say yes.
Chairperson Jones- When looking at bulk what will happen below ground will not change whether you fill it with furniture or
gravel. With the way code is, there is a difference that it either counts or doesn’t count. Structurally your bulk will remain
underneath ground, above ground it’s a great project, we have seen the house evolve a little bit with the garage and removal of
one drive way. The one issue I have is we give you this variance and you will also need another variance for lot coverage ratio.
Right now, if we don’t give you this variance, well you don’t need a variance for 21% lot coverage ratio. So, you are really
maximizing what is available to you on the lot without this part of the basement. The one thing that I would bring to The Village
is the bulk will be there whether you see it or not, you will never see, it’s just a question of what you can use it for. But
unfortunately, with the way it is, I’m still a no from last meeting to this. So, it looks like the motion will not pass.
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- This will be able to go to The Village Board and be discussed that.
Chairperson Jones – You will be able to go to The Village Board and discuss that. You will need 5 of 7 votes to pass the Board.
It’s a new Board, new president, please work with Daniel. Once again, I think above ground it’s a great project, below ground
your bulk is still there and it opens up obstacles for other people or challenges to the zoning, maybe it will be addressed in the
future by the board but as of right now with the building code that we do have, I just don’t see it.
Chairperson allowed for Petitioner to ask clarifying question regarding variance and administrative variance process request.
Commissioner Miller- administrative variance is still a variance, its one done by staff not The Board.
Member Buckton made a motion to close the deliberation. Member McKnight seconded the motion and the motion
passed by voice vote.
The members of the Board agreed to the merits of the application but found that the application did not meet the
standards for approval for a zoning variation.
A Motion to deny the application was made by Member McKnight and seconded by Member Kelly the motion passed
unanimously with four (4) votes yes and three (3) votes no.
E. Other Business
F. Chairperson’s Statement
No statement was provided by Acting Chairperson Jones.
G. Trustee Liaison Report
Trustee Steve Szymanski, reported the following:
• No board meeting, so nothing has happened.
• Some dedications of art that has gone in, College of DuPage a great site to see. Beautiful site.
H. Staff Report
Planning Manager Daniel Harper- Stated the following:
• June 26 next Plan Commission Meeting for Insula Aesthetics, beauty salon on Duane St. Beauty, looking to expand,
salons require a special use permit in the C5B district, expansion of special use permit
• Proposed Glenbard West addition that was tabled at last meeting, Plan Commission asked for more information on
ambient lighting on stairwell of building. Ambient from interior of all glass stairwell which was a concern as being a
nuisance to neighbors, questions about parking related issues.
• ZBA- July 8 application for expansion of deck and patio lot coverage variation, narrow corner lot
• ZBA -July 8 member training with the Village Attorney, 7pm during the meeting
• July Plan commission- application for drive through restaurant at formal Thai dry cleaner, franchise called Chicken
Salad Chik
• Sign variations going to Village Board
I. Adjournment
Member Buckton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Kelly seconded the motion and the motion passed by
voice vote at 8:41PM
Respectfully submitted,
Adriana Ohl-Zamora
Agenda
Agenda
Village of Glen Ellyn
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, June 10, 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. Public Comment
C. Approval of the Minutes
1) Review and Approval of the May 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Minutes.
D. Old Business
1) Continuation - Public Hearing - 680 Grand Avenue, Corner Side Yard Setback
Variation
E. Other Business
F. Chairperson's Statement
G. Trustee Liaison's Report
H. Staff Report
I. 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.
Packet
Agenda
Village of Glen Ellyn
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Tuesday, June 10, 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. Public Comment
C. Approval of the Minutes
1) Review and Approval of the May 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
Minutes.
D. Old Business
1) Continuation - Public Hearing - 680 Grand Avenue, Corner Side Yard Setback
Variation
E. Other Business
F. Chairperson's Statement
G. Trustee Liaison's Report
H. Staff Report
I. 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 76
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 6/10/2025 7:00 PM
Appeals Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Minutes
Prepared By: Daniel Harper
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-487
# 2025-487)
Review and Approval of the May 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes.
Statement of the Issue:
Review and Approval of the May 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes.
Analysis:
Review and Approval of the May 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes.
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
Review and Approval of the May 13, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes.
Attachments:
1. DRAFT_May 13, 2025 ZBA Minutes
Page 2 of 76
DRAFT 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.
Page 3 of 76
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.
Page 4 of 76
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
Page 5 of 76
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.
Page 6 of 76
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.
Page 7 of 76
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.
Page 8 of 76
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?
Page 9 of 76
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.
Page 10 of 76
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?
Page 11 of 76
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
Page 12 of 76
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.
Page 13 of 76
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.
Page 14 of 76
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.
Page 15 of 76
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.
Page 16 of 76
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
Page 17 of 76
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
Page 18 of 76
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:
Page 19 of 76
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
Page 20 of 76
Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 6/10/2025 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: 2025-488
# 2025-488)
Continuation - Public Hearing - 680 Grand Avenue, Corner Side
Yard Setback Variation
Statement of the Issue:
UPDATE: This application was originally presented in a public hearing at the May 13, 2025
meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. During the public hearing, the applicant requested
that the application be tabled to the June 10, 2025 ZBA meeting in order to revise their
presentation to address questions presented by the Board members. The applicant also
presented a petition expressing support of the application from three adjacent property
owners. This petition has been included in the packet.
The applicant has submitted a revised presentation regarding their application. The
presentation is included in the packet for the Board's review. The draft minutes of the May
13 ZBA meeting are included in the packet for the Board's review.
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
Page 21 of 76
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
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.
Page 22 of 76
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
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. Applicant's Presentation
2. 680 Grand Avenue Application
3. Zoning Map
4. Aerial Map
5. Average Grade Exhibit
6. As-Built Topographical Survey Exhibit
7. Petition Presented by Applicants at May 13, 2025, Public Hearing
Page 23 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: Agenda
1. Variance Overview
2. Topography Grade Change
3. Hardship
4. Neighbor support
5. Variance Summary
1
Page 24 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: Variance Request Summary
1. Our variance request meets most cases/conditions for hardship (details shown in later slides)
2. Additionally, we thoughtfully considered and researched options to provide “guardrails” on limiting underground structure
3. We researched neighboring communities (e.g., City of Chicago, Inverness, etc.) that kept with the following themes:
a. Structure must be entirely beneath an impervious surface
b. No occupiable building may exist above it, from ground level to sky
c. Must comply with existing impervious surface setbacks
d. Must not exceed 30 inches above the adjacent grade
4. Our proposed plan keeps within these “guardrails”
5. Seeking approval for variance based on the above
2
Page 25 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Side Yard Setback
Item: Patio Coverage
Rear
Yard
Setback
Proposed Patio
Within permissible
setbacks
(no variance needed)
3
Page 26 of 76
ront Yard Setback
13’ 9” Setback Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
(requested 30’ Setback Item: Underground Structure Variance Coverage
variance)
Rear
Yard
Setback
Total
Variance:
408 sq. ft.
4
Page 27 of 76
ront Yard Setback
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: No Variance Alternative
If Variance
Denied
10.2 tons
gravel
(408 sq.
feet of 6’
deep
gravel)
5
Page 28 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: Topography Grade Change
721.96
Current - 702.73
House
Placement 19.23 feet grade change
Non-Typical / unique
topography to build
6
Page 29 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: Current House Placement in Buildable
Area - Hardship View
1. The house, recognized as a “Historically Significant
Back Glen Ellyn Home” by the Citizens of Glen Ellyn, and
we want to preserve its historical character.
2. This steep grade severely limits the buildable
Current House envelope, given the original 1935 placement of the
Placement home on the northeast corner where more than a
third of the 2,686 buildable space is falling down
Front
the hill at the front yard.
3. Expanding square footage on the side and
underground will enhance the space without intruding
on neighbors and will maintain the historic
aesthetic and curb appeal of the home.
7
Page 30 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: Hardship Cases
Hardship 10-10-12. - Variations. (E) Cases
Requirement: Show demonstrate hardship for only one of two cases
Cases Comparison for 680 Grand Result
● The alternative option would be to start over with a new house so we can use the full buildable footprint of the lot,
1. That the property in question cannot however this 1935 home is recognized as a “Historically Significant Glen Ellyn Home” by the Citizens of Glen
yield a reasonable return if permitted to Ellyn and we would want to preserve the historic aesthetic of the home.
be used only under the conditions ● In keeping with this designation, we are pursuing an investment that preserves the architectural character and
allowed by the regulations governing the integrity of the home. The proposed project is not intended to generate financial return, but rather to maintain the
district in which it is located; and that the historic aesthetic—making the investment cost-driven rather than profit-driven.
variation, if granted, will not alter the ● The proposed structure will be entirely underground and will not be visible from the street or neighboring properties.
As such, it will not alter the essential character of the locality or impact the visual harmony of the neighborhood
essential character of the locality;
and not intrusive to the neighbors.
OR Topographical Constraints
● The subject property experiences a significant topographical challenge, with a 19-foot elevation change from the
front to the rear of the lot including the drop-off from the front steps.
2. That the plight of the owner is due to ● Unlike neighboring lots—which are relatively flat and allow for compliant development—this property faces unique
unique circumstances; and that the topographical burdens that prevent reasonable use of the land under existing zoning rules.
variation, if granted, will not alter the ● The only feasible area for expansion is within the side yard, where the requested variance would allow construction
essential character of the locality; that works with, rather than against, the natural terrain.
Character of the Locality: The proposed expansion will not alter the essential character of the locality. As the structure will
be 100% underground, it will be completely hidden from view and will not impact the visual or architectural continuity of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Result: Can meet both cases 8
Page 31 of 76
Hardship
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Requirement: Show demonstrate hardship for one of eight items Item: Hardship Variations
Item (10-10-12. - Variations. (F)) Comparison for 680 Grand Result
1. That the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved
Topographical conditions noted on previous slide create
would bring particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of
hardship by impacting buildable area
the regulation were to be carried out;
2. That the conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other Majority of properties in zoning district are on flater lands
property within the same zoning district; and do not have at least a 19 foot grade increase
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the In keeping with this designation, they are pursuing an
property; investment that preserves the historic aesthetic—making
the investment cost-driven rather than profit-driven.
4. That the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an Hardship was created 1) by nature; and 2) in 1935 when
interest in the property or by the applicant; home was placed on North East corner due to topography
with old zoning rules
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property Variance for structure is underground an zero impact to
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; surrounding properties
6. That the proposed variation will not: a) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; b)
Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property or adjacent property; c) Otherwise
Correct, proposed variation will not cause any of these to
impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village; d) Diminish
happen since its below ground
or impair property values within the neighborhood; e) Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and
highways; f) Create a nuisance; or g) Result in an increase in public expenditures;
7. That the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or N/A
N/A
structure;
8. In the case of a planned unit development, that the granting of the variation will not significantly compromise N/A
N/A
the character and concept of the planned unit development;
9
Result: Can meet majority of items (just need one) Page 32 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: Before & After Appearance
With Variance Without Variance
Note: There is no change to above ground appearance
10
Page 33 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: Neighbor Support
680 Essex
The Handals
684 Grand
The Plumb’s
665 Lake
The Petros
Signed Petition
from Neighbors
11
Page 34 of 76
Desmond Residence - 680 Grand Ave
Item: Variance Summary
Item Variance Analysis
Variance Ask ● 408 sq. feet underground structure (13’ 9” setback)
● Sits under proposed patio (no variance needed for
patio)
● Underground structure aligns with guardrails
Topography Grade Change > 19 ft grade change
Hardship Requirement = 1 of each
a) Cases a) 2/2 conditions
b) Variations b) 6/8 conditions
Neighbor Support Confirmed
12
Page 35 of 76
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 36 of 76
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 37 of 76
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 38 of 76
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 39 of 76
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 40 of 76
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 41 of 76
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 42 of 76
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 43 of 76
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 44 of 76
Page 45 of 76
Page 46 of 76
Page 47 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
Proof of Ownership
page.13
Page 48 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
Glen Ellyn Zoning Map
page.14
Page 49 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
Satellite Image - Owners Property + Adjoining/Adjacent Neighbors
page.15
Page 50 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
DuPage County Boundary/Topography Map
page.16
Page 51 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
Plat of Survey
page.17
Page 52 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
Existing Conditions - Front/South
page.18
Page 53 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
Existing Conditions - LH Side/West + SW views
page.19
Page 54 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
Existing Conditions - Front RH/East + RH/east + Back
page.20
Page 55 of 76
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 56 of 76
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 57 of 76
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 58 of 76
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 59 of 76
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 60 of 76
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 61 of 76
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 62 of 76
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 63 of 76
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 64 of 76
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 65 of 76
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 66 of 76
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 67 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
3D Study Model - Proposed
page.33
Page 68 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
3D Study Model - Proposed
page.34
Page 69 of 76
Desmond Residence
680 Grand Avenue
3D Study Model - Proposed
page.35
Page 70 of 76
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 71 of 76
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 72 of 76
680 Grand Avenue - Aerial Map
Legend
Subject Property
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 73 of 76
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 74 of 76
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 75 of 76
Page 76 of 76