Zoning Board of Appeals

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Tuesday, July 8, 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 June 10, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes D. New Business 1) Public Hearing - 564 N. Main Street, Zoning Setback and Size Variations to Allow the Construction of a Patio, Pergola and Outdoor Kitchen. E. Other Business 1) Zoning Board of Appeals Member Presentation by Community Development Director Henaghan and Village Attorney Stephanides. 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 33  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 7/8/2025 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: 2025-563 # 2025-563) Review and Approval of the June 10, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the June 10, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Analysis: Review and Approval of the June 10, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the June 10, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Attachments: 1. DRAFT June 10, 2025 ZBA Minutes Page 2 of 33  DRAFT 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. Page 3 of 33 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 Page 4 of 33 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 critera 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. Page 5 of 33 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. Page 6 of 33 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. Page 7 of 33 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 Page 8 of 33 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 Page 9 of 33 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. Page 10 of 33 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 Page 11 of 33  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board Meeting 7/8/2025 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: 2025-565 # 2025-565) Public Hearing - 564 N. Main Street, Zoning Setback and Size Variations to Allow the Construction of a Patio, Pergola and Outdoor Kitchen. Statement of the Issue: The petitioners are requesting four (4) zoning variations cited below to allow for the construction of an expanded paver patio, pergola and grill station located within the rear yard. The petitioners request a recommendation of approval of the following variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code: 1. Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(3)(C) to allow the construction of a pergola to be twenty-six feet (26’-0”) in length in lieu of the maximum allowed length of twenty feet (20’0”). 2. Section 10-5-5 (B(4)(3)(D) to allow the construction of pergola to be three hundred and seventy-seven square feet (377 sqft) in area in lieu of the maximum allowed two-hundred and fifty square feet (250 sqft). 3. Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(19) to allow the construction of a paver patio and other improvements that would have a total rear yard impervious surface coverage of 59.5% in lieu of the maximum allowed 50% impervious surface coverage allowed in the required rear yard. 4. Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(29) to allow the construction of recreation equipment (grill station) to be located ten feet (10’-0”) from the property in lieu of the required distance of twelve feet and eight inches (12’-8’) from the property line. Analysis: PROPERTY: 564 N. Main Street is a 127-foot and 3-inch (127'-3") wide reverse corner lot located at the northeast corner of N. Main Street and Cottage Avenue. PETITIONERS: The petitioner is American Gardens LLC representing Thomas and Mary MacDonald, the owners of the property located at 564 N. Main Street. ZONING/USE: The subject property and the properties to the north, east, and west are all zoned R2 - Residential District. 1st Presbyterian Church is located south of the property and is zoned R2 – Residential District. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the June 23, 2025, edition of the Page 12 of 33 Daily Herald, mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property, and a placard was placed on the property. ZONING HISTORY: There is no zoning variation history associated with this property. PERMIT HISTORY: Year Permit No.Type 2022 20220549 Fence EXISTING CONDITIONS: R2 Lot Requirements [10-4- Subject Property Data 8(D)] Lot Area 8,712 sft (0.20 acres) 24,532 sft (0.52 acres) Lot Width 80’ Corner Lots 127’-4” Front Yard 30’ to 50’ for new construction; 64.01’ from the front lot line to but no closer than the closest principal structure principal structure of the existing principal structures on adjacent lots on the same side of the street Interior Side Yard 6.5’ or 10% of the total lot width, 22.31’ from the north interior whichever is greater side lot line to principal structure. Corner Side Yard 30’ 52.06’ from the south corner side lot line to principal structure. Rear Yard 40’ 47.6’ from principal structure ANALYSIS: Variations 1 and 2: Variations from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(3)(C) and Section 10-5-5 (B(4)(3)(D)to allow the construction of a pergola to be twenty-six feet (26’-0”) in length in lieu of the maximum allowed length of twenty feet (20’0”) and three hundred and seventy-seven square feet (377 sqft) in area in lieu of the maximum allowed two-hundred and fifty square feet (250 sqft). The applicant is proposing to construct a 377-square-foot pergola in the rear yard of the property to act as an accessory shade structure to the existing backyard pool. The proposed pergola will be located north of the existing detached garage. The proposed pergola is intended to replace the existing pergola on the property in a similar location in the rear yard. Variation 3: A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(19) to allow the construction of a paver patio and other improvements that would have a total rear yard impervious surface coverage of 59.5% in lieu of the maximum allowed 50% impervious surface coverage allowed in the required rear yard. The applicant is proposing to remove an approximately 305-square-foot wood desk and replace the area with approximately 370-square feet of permeable pavers as an expansion of the existing paved Page 13 of 33 pool deck area. The Zoning Code defines permeable paver products that are less than 50 percent permeable as impervious surfaces. Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(19) of the Village code allows that 50% or less of the required rear yard may be an impervious surface in the R2 Residential Zoning District. When accounting for the existing detached garage area, concrete drive, swimming pool, existing concrete pool deck and the proposed new paved patio and grill station, the total impervious square footage being proposed by the applicant is 3,025 square feet or 59.5% of the total 2544 square feet of the required rear yard area. Variation 4: A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(29) to allow the construction of recreational equipment (grill station) to be located ten feet (10’-0”) from the property in lieu of the required distance of twelve feet and eight inches (12’-8’) from the property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a grill station structure as part of the proposed new construction. The proposed grill station is located at the western edge of the proposed new construction, 10-feet from the western property line. Recreational equipment is required to be 10% of the lot width or 12’-8” from the rear lot line. 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. Aerial Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Application - Zoning Variation 4. Applicant's Statement 5. Existing Conditions Rear Yard Conditions Plan 6. Proposed Conditions Impervious Surface Plan 7. Floor Plan of New Patio and Pergola 8. 564 N. Main Street Impervious Analysis - Revised 9. Link to Graphic Representation of Request Page 14 of 33  564 N. Main Street - Aerial Map Legend Subject Property 0 100 200 Print Date: 7/1/2025 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 15 of 33  564 N. Main Street - Zoning Map Legend Zoning and Development Zoning R2: Single Family Residential District Subject Property 0 150 300 Print Date: 7/1/2025 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 16 of 33  VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN Zoning Variation Application Packet Community Development Department 535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370 Page 17 of 33  APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIATION Date Filed: 5/21/2025 Application No: 2025-0009 Name of Applicant: American Gardens LLC Address of Applicant: 904 S. Riverside Drive Elmhurst, IL 60126 Phone: (630) 833-2600 Email: anthony.smith@americangardensllc.com Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative Name of Owner: Thomas & Mary Mac Donald Address of Owner: 564 N Main St Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Phone: Email: Contacts: Type Name Address American Gardens 904 S. Riverside Drive Petitioner LLC Elmhurst, IL 60126 American Gardens 904 S. Riverside Drive Web Administrator LLC Elmhurst, IL 60126 Thomas & Mary 564 N Main St Glen Ellyn, Parcel Owner Mac Donald IL 60137 Property Address: 564 N Main St Project Name: Web Project Project Description: Removing an existing wood deck which is adjacent to an existing pool deck. The wooden deck is in disrepair. The deck is surrounded by existing concrete pool deck. The wooden deck was part of an existing outdoor space that also contained a large wooden pergola that was removed after the owner moved into the home in 2021. We are looking to replace the wood decking in kind with a permeable paver patio and accompanying drywell below the paver to compensate for the perceived permeability of the wooden deck. We are also proposing an Page 18 of 33  Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential District Lot Dimensions: 127.2 x 192.9 Lot Area: 24537 Permanent Index No. (PIN): 05113020250000 aluminum pergola structure and ornamental screen to capture that area. An existing grill station in disrepair will also be removed and relocated. Legal Description of Property: The east 192.9 Feet of Lot 3 in Block 22 of County Clerks second assessment division in section 11, township 39 north, range 10, east of the third principal meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded July 3, 1906 as document 88052, in Dupage, County, Illinois Present Use: Single Family Residential Home Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 7/31/2025 Narrative Statement: The homeowners are requesting two variances. The first variance request is to allow for a pergola that is slightly larger and slightly longer than that allowed by code. In Section 10-5-4 Accessory Structure and Uses, Table 10-5-5(B)4, Item 3. c) allows for a pergola that does not exceed 20’ in maximum length and d.) allows for a pergola that does not exceed 250 square feet in area. The homeowner is petitioning to allow one that would be 26’ in length by 14’-6” in width. This would be a EVIDENCE RELATING TO ZONING CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: 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: The homeowners lot is a reverse corner lot. This is a relatively uncommon situation that requires that the entire rear and part of the corner side yards to be included in the lot coverage calculations. In this instance the entire garage and most of the driveway have to be included in the calculation and adversely weighs against the lot coverage total. In a Page 19 of 33  majority of residential lots the rear yard may only include a portion of the garage and often very little or none of the driveway therefor 2. 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) OR Provide evidence that the plight of the applicant/owner is due to unique circumstances relating to the property in question: When the homeowner moved into the property in 2021 there was a large existing pergola, the wooden deck area and a wooden walkway on the westside of the garage. The walkway was removed by the homeowner as well as the pergola as they were in disrepair. The deck area is also in disrepair and was the impetus of the project. The deck currently is built over a fairly compact gravel base. It is also surrounded by hardscape so it is basically landlocked and impervious. Installing another deck surr 3. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality of the property in question: When the homeowners moved into the residence there was an existing pergola. The requested variations will not alter the essential character of the property. 4. 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: As mentioned previously, the lot is a reverse corner lot. This is a relatively uncommon situation that requires that the entire rear and part of the corner side yards to be included in the impervious surface coverage calculations. In this instance the entire garage and most of the driveway have to be included in the calculation and adversely weighs against the lot coverage total. The grade elevation from the driveway to the back yard elevation at the pool deck is approximately 5’-6’ feet. 5. 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: Page 20 of 33  The reverse corner lot condition is not a common occurrence and is a significant reason for requesting the variances. 6. 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: The request for these variances is based exclusively on the homeowners desire to use their property for raising their family and enjoying the property. They are planning on living in the home for a long time. This request is not driven by desire for financial gain. 7. 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. The homeowner has not created this hardship. 8. 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. The granting of the variations would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The elongated pergola will provide a decorative screen for the church south of the property. 9. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposed pergola will be a minimal structure that is open to the air. Again the ornamental screen portion of it will not be solid and will allow ventilation. It is far enough away from the only direct neighbor to the west and it will not impact the enjoyment of their property. 10. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Substantially increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to the property in question or adjacent property. The substitution of a permeable paver patio versus a wood or faux wood structure will eliminate any fire concerns. The pergola structure will be entirely aluminum so it will not be a fire or maintenance concern. 11. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. The proposed variations will not impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of the Village. Page 21 of 33 12. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variations will not diminish or impair property values with the neighborhood. 13. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highway. The proposed variation will not have any effect on traffic congestion. 14. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Create a nuisance. The proposed variation will not create a nuisance. The ornamental screen portion of the pergola will help disguise the fact that there is a pool area. Although the yard is fenced according to code for the pool, the screen may decrease the attractive nuisance effect a pool may have. 15. Provide evidence that the proposed variation will not: Results in an increase in public expenditures. The proposed variations are personal expenditures by the homeowner. They will not result in any public expenditures. 16. Provide evidence that the variation is the minimum variation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The homeowner and landscape designers attempted to re-imagine the project to avoid the variance request. Regarding the lot coverage, again the reverse corner lot was the significant roadblock. The homeowner considered shaving existing pool deck patio on the west side of the pool. However that space is a minimum walkway and reducing it would create a safety concern. They also considered removing part of the pool deck to the northeast on the pool deck but this area is not in the rear yard and 17. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application: As part of this project the homeowner will be adding an area for compensatory drainage storage below the proposed permeable patio. The drywell will be 6’ x 6’ wide and 3’ deep. This sized drywell would account for 375 s.f. of impervious surface. The homeowner is requesting to approve 310 s.f. of permeable surface. The drywell is an additional cost to the project that the homeowner is offering to incur. Page 22 of 33 Page 23 of 33 Page 24 of 33 Page 25 of 33 Page 26 of 33 Page 27 of 33 Existing Conditions Exhibit MacDonald Residence 564 N. Main Street Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 40' Key REQUIRED REAR YARD 40' 127.2 X 40 = 5,088 SF 50% 2,544 SF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM SF EXISTING POOL DECK (CONC.) (640 SF) EXISTING SWIMMING POOL (720 SF) EXISTING WOOD DECKING (305 SF, NOT COUNTED AS IMPERMEABLE) EXISTING GRILL STATION (TO BE REMOVED) (40 SF) EXISTING PLANTING AREA TO REMAIN (61 SF) WOOD WALKWAY REMOVED (BY HOMEOWNER) EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE (670 SF) EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY (590 SF) TOTAL 2,660 SF 40' REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK LINE EXISTING REAR YARD CONDITIONS scale: 116" = 1' -0" As Shown date: 06.17.2025 project #: drawing #: P-1 Page 28 of 33 Proposed Conditions Exhibit MacDonald Residence 564 N. Main Street Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 40' Key REQUIRED REAR YARD 40' 127.2 X 40 = 5,088 SF 50% 2,544 SF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM SF EXISTING POOL DECK (CONC.) (640 SF) EXISTING SWIMMING POOL (720 SF) PROPOSED GRILL STATION (45 SF) PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVING PATIO (370 SF) CONCRETE UNIT STEPS (TO BE REMOVED, SUBTRACT 10 SF) EXISTING GRILL STATION (TO BE REMOVED) (40 SF) WOOD WALKWAY REMOVED (BY HOMEOWNER) EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE (670 SF) EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY (590 SF) TOTAL 3,025 SF 40' REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK LINE PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES scale: 116" = 1' - 0" As Shown date: 06.17.2025 project #: drawing #: L-1 Page 29 of 33  67'-6" TO NORTH PROPERTY LINE - existing pool - REMOVE EXISTING concrete STAIR TREAD REMOVE existing outdoor grill station existing plant bed existing fence - residence - - existing pool deck - 10' TO WEST PROPERTY LINE DN - existing walkway - DN EXISTING WALLS TYPICAL 26' x 14'-6" proposed pergola 8'-4" proposed outdoor grill station REMOVE EXISTING STAIRS existing solar panels west property line existing garage 8'-4" Landscape Development Plan N MacDonald Residence W E SCALE: 81"=1'-0" ..\..\..\..\Anthony Smith\Desktop\AG_full-logo (002).png S Address: 564 N. Main Street, Glen Ellyn, IL Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Date: 05/20/25 0 8 16 32 Page 30 of 33 Page 31 of 33 Youtube Video Link Enter the link below into your internet browser to view a graphic representation of the variance request. Thank you https://youtu.be/B2FOs6izsDU Page 32 of 33  Glen Ellyn Zoning Board of Meeting 7/8/2025 7:00 PM Appeals Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Presentation Prepared By: AGENDA ITEM (ID # 2025- DOC ID: 2025-564 564) Zoning Board of Appeals Member Presentation by Community Development Director Henaghan and Village Attorney Stephanides. Statement of the Issue: Community Development Director Henaghan and Village Attorney Stephanides will present an overview of zoning regulations, associated legal matters, and rules of procedure. Analysis: Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Attachments: Page 33 of 33