Agenda & Packet

There will be a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at Kenilworth Village Hall, 419 Richmond Road; Kenilworth, IL. The public may attend in person or by utilizing the following link: TEAMS MEETING LINK If you do not have access to a computer, you may attend via telephone: +1 872-242-8055 Meeting ID: 151 767 049# Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 13, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. Kenilworth Village Hall, 419 Richmond Road I. Call to Order / Roll Call II. Approval of Minutes A. September 14, 2026 Meeting Minutes III. Public Hearing A. Continued Public Hearing to Consider a Variation at 235 Leicester Road Pertaining to Minimum Yard Requirements B. Continued Public Hearing to Consider a Variation at 336 Abbotsford Road Pertaining to Maximum Building Size and Maximum Building Coverage Requirements C. Continued Public Hearing to Consider a Variation at 167 Abingdon Avenue Pertaining to Maximum Building Size and Maximum Building Coverage Requirements (Continued to November 9, 2026) IV. Other Business V. Business from the Public Rules for Public Comment may be viewed at https://www.vok.org/DocumentCenter/View/1423/Rules-for-Public-Comment VI. Adjourn Village of The Village of Kenilworth is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the facilities are requested to contact the Village Manager at 847-251-1666 promptly to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. 1 VILLAGE OF 1 2 3 4 KENILWORTH, IL 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 6 Monday, September 14, 2026 7 8 Agenda Item I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 9 The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Kenilworth in the Kenilworth Village Hall, 10 Kenilworth, Illinois was held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 14, 2026. 11 Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 12 Attendance was as follows: 13 14 Zoning Board of Appeals Members Present: 15 Eamon Murphy Chair 16 Katherine Peterson Member 17 Tim Quigley Member 18 Emily Tzur Member 19 Lori Roeser Member 20 Jenelle Chalmers Member 21 Mark Hinkamp Member 22 23 A quorum was present. 24 25 Others Recorded as in Attendance: 26 Village Officials and Staff: 27 Heather McFarland Asst. to the Village Manager 28 Andrew Dunham Village Planner, Teska Associates 29 30 Others in Attendance: 31 Amy Burka Scott Simpson Design Build, 307 Melrose Avenue 32 Sarah Simpson Applicant, 307 Melrose Avenue 33 Todd Simpson Applicant, 307 Melrose Avenue 34 Vince Fiore Fiore Builders, 235 Leicester Road 35 Coskun Cavusoglu Applicant, 235 Leicester Road 36 Kader Cavusoglu Applicant, 235 Leicester Road 37 Diana Melichar Melichar Architects, 336 Abbotsford Road 38 Chip Conley Applicant, 336 Abbotsford Road 39 Charles Waddell Applicant, Remote, 167 Abingdon Avenue 40 41 Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES 42 The minutes of the regular Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting of August 10, 2026 were presented to 43 the members. Member Peterson suggested a minor correction to the minutes. 44 45 2 Village of Kenilworth Zoning Board of Appeals 2 September 14, 2026 2 Member Peterson made a motion to approve the August 10, 2026, meeting minutes as 1 amended. Member Roeser seconded the motion. 2 3 A roll call vote was taken as follows on the motion: 4 Yea: Murphy, Tzur, Peterson, Chalmers, Quigley, Roeser 5 Nay: None 6 Absent: None 7 Abstain: Hinkamp 8 9 The motion was approved 6-0. 10 11 Agenda Item III. PUBLIC HEARING 12 Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and swore in the applicants. 13 III. A Public Hearing to Consider a Variation at 307 Melrose Avenue Pertaining to Maximum Length 14 of Garage Door Openings Facing the Lot Line Abutting an Adjacent Street 15 Village Planner Andrew Dunham provided an overview of the request. Mr. Dunham explained that 16 the applicant has an existing garage with doors facing the street in excess of 20 feet. The applicant, 17 he further explained, plans to replace the garage with a new one, however, the width of the proposed 18 garage doors facing the street would total 27 feet. Mr. Dunham stated the replacement garage would 19 improve the setback from the neighboring lot lines. 20 Applicant and architect, Amy Burka with Scott Simpson Design Build, shared that the owners 21 purchased the home in 2020. The existing garage, she said, was built in 1920 and in poor condition. 22 Ms. Burka stated the owners explored an attached garage and side-loaded detached garage options; 23 however, the proposed design was found to be most appropriate. Ms. Burka further explained that 24 an attached garage would obscure views of the yard from the living space and would not look good 25 from a design standpoint. A side-loaded garage, she said, would require an 8-riser staircase that could 26 create a safety hazard for the family. 27 In response to a question from Member Hinkamp, Mr. Dunham confirmed that the existing 24 foot 28 garage door is non-conforming, and the applicants are not seeking any additional zoning relief. Mr. 29 Hinkamp asked for additional detail on the hardship . Ms. Burka re -iterated the rationale for the 30 request as previously stated, including the need to modernize an aging structure and to ensure safe 31 stair access. 32 Member Roeser asked if the individual doors could be narrowed. Ms. Burka responded that she 33 would not recommend that because vehicle side -mirrors would need to be folded -in. Property 34 owner, Todd Simpson, shared that it is currently difficult to fit cars in the garage and open doors. 35 Member Roeser noted that the request was modest. Member Quigley stated that the hardship is the 36 loss of function for the property, and that he appreciated the improved garage setback. Chair Murphy 37 expressed appreciation for the design. 38 Member Roeser made a motion to approve the request submitted by the petitioner, Amy Berka 39 of Scott Simpson Design Build, on behalf of owner Todd and Sarah Simpson, to permit 40 construction of a detached one and a half-story, three-car garage in the rear yard that exceeds 41 maximum total length of garage door openings requirements by 7 ft. and at 307 Melrose 42 Avenue in accordance with the materials included in this packet. Member Hinkamp seconded 43 the motion. 44 3 Village of Kenilworth Zoning Board of Appeals 3 September 14, 2026 3 1 A roll call vote was taken as follows on the motion: 2 Yea: Murphy, Quigley, Tzur, Peterson, Chalmers, Roeser, Hinkamp 3 Nay: None 4 Absent: None 5 Abstain: None 6 7 The motion was approved 7-0. 8 9 III.B P ublic Hearing to Consider a Variation at 235 Leicester Road Pertaining to Minimum Yard 10 Requirements 11 Mr. Dunham provided an overview of the next request for a rear yard setback to construct a garage 12 addition at 235 Leicester Road. Mr. Dunham stated that the applicant has proposed a two-story rear 13 addition to their home that would encroach into the setback by 9.75 feet. This would include the 14 applicant’s demolition of the existing detached garage and driveway realignment. 15 Property owner and applicant Coskun Cavusoglu stated that his family moved to Kenilworth nine 16 years ago. His daughter, he explained, was the impetus for the request as she has a genetic disorder 17 and needs an accessible way to access the home from the garage. 18 Member Quigley asked if the existing structure meets setback requirements. Mr. Dunham responded 19 that it does. Member Roeser asked for the width of the garage doors. The general contractor, Vince 20 Fiore, stated that the doors are 18 feet and 9 feet wide. Chair Murphy stated that he believed the 21 request was defensible, however, he would be more supportive if the second story on the addition 22 did not encroach into the setback. Member Tzur agreed. 23 Member Hinkamp stated that he was sympathetic to the applicant’s request ; however, he did not 24 see a land-based hardship. 25 After continued discussion, ZBA members expressed general support for the garage but maintained 26 concerns with the proposed second floor. Mr. Cavusoglu asked the ZBA to continue his request to 27 the next regularly scheduled meeting. 28 Member Peterson made a motion to continue the request to consider a variation at 235 29 Leicester Road pertaining to minimum yard requirements to the ZBA’s regularly scheduled 30 meeting on October 13, 2026. Member Hinkamp seconded the motion. 31 32 A roll call vote was taken as follows on the motion: 33 Yea: Murphy, Quigley, Tzur, Peterson, Chalmers, Roeser, Hinkamp 34 Nay: None 35 Absent: None 36 Abstain: None 37 38 The motion was approved 7-0. 39 40 III.C. Public Hearing to Consider a Variation at 336 Abbotsford Road Pertaining to Maximum 41 Building Size and Maximum Building Coverage Requirements 42 4 Village of Kenilworth Zoning Board of Appeals 4 September 14, 2026 4 Mr. Dunham opened the next agenda item and explained that the applicant was seeking 146 square 1 feet of floor area and building coverage relief to construct two one-story additions at 336 Abbotsford 2 Road. 3 Applicant Diana Melichar provided an overview of the building’s existing layout to demonstrate how 4 it currently functions. Ms. Melichar stated that the former mudroom is in the middle of the home’s 5 transition from the kitchen to family room, and does not function as intended. The proposed 6 addition, she explained, would allow for the creation of a functional mudroom at the corner between 7 the kitchen and family room. Ms. Melichar stated that the addition would not be visible from the 8 street, meets setback requirements, and would make a big difference in the family’s everyday living. 9 Chair Murphy questioned whether an existing covered porch had been included in the property’s 10 building coverage and asked for staff to reevaluate whether zoning relief was truly required. Chair 11 Murphy noted that had previously toured the home and thought the dining room location was in an 12 odd location. 13 Member Hinkamp stated that the request was based on owner preference and not hardship. 14 Members Roeser and Chalmers agreed. Ms. Melichar responded that she worked with the owner on 15 many iterations and has not found a viable alternative. 16 Chair Murphy stated that he understood the ZBA’s concern but believed the amount of relief 17 requested was reasonable. 18 Member Tzur expressed concern that if variations were based on lifestyles trends, projects would 19 creep up in size over time. Member Hinkamp suggested the applicant revisit the proposal. Member 20 Quigley asked for additional time so staff could verify the amount of relief being requested. 21 Ms. Melichar asked that the matter be continued to the ZBA’s next regular meeting. 22 Member Hinkamp made a motion to continue the request to consider a variation at 336 23 Abbotsford Road pertaining to maximum building size and maximum building coverage 24 requirements to the ZBA’s regularly scheduled meeting on October 13, 2026. Member Quigley 25 seconded the motion. 26 27 A roll call vote was taken as follows on the motion: 28 Yea: Murphy, Quigley, Tzur, Peterson, Chalmers, Roeser, Hinkamp 29 Nay: None 30 Absent: None 31 Abstain: None 32 33 The motion was approved 7-0. 34 35 III.D Continued Public Hearing to Consider Variation s at 167 Abingdon Ave Avenue Pertaining to 36 Maximum Building Size and Maximum Building Coverage Requirements (Continued to October 13, 37 2026) 38 Member Quigley made a motion to continue the request to consider a variation 167 Abingdon 39 Avenue pertaining to maximum building size and maximum building coverage requirements to 40 the ZBA’s regularly scheduled meeting on October 13, 2026. Member Chalmers seconded the 41 motion. 42 5 Village of Kenilworth Zoning Board of Appeals 5 September 14, 2026 5 1 A roll call vote was taken as follows on the motion: 2 Yea: Murphy, Quigley, Tzur, Peterson, Chalmers, Roeser, Hinkamp 3 Nay: None 4 Absent: None 5 Abstain: None 6 7 The motion was approved 7-0. 8 9 Agenda Item IV. OTHER BUSINESS 10 Staff confirmed the next meeting date: October 13, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. 11 12 Agenda Item V. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC 13 None 14 15 Agenda Item VI. ADJOURN 16 Member Hinkamp made a motion to adjourn, and Member Tzur seconded the motion. 17 18 A voice vote was taken as follows on the motion: 19 Yea: Murphy, Quigley, Tzur, Peterson, Chalmers, Roeser, Hinkamp 20 Nay: None 21 Absent: None 22 Abstain: None 23 24 The motion was approved 7-0. 25 26 The meeting concluded at 9:16 p.m. 27 28 Respectfully Submitted, 29 30 Heather McFarland 31 Asst. to the Village Manager 32 6 Request for Commission Action Agenda Item: III.A Staff Contact: Andrew Dunham, Teska Associates, Inc. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider a Variation at 235 Leicester Road Pertaining to Minimum Yard Requirements Petitioner: Vincent Fiore of Fiore Builders on behalf of owner Coskun Cavusoglu Location: 235 Leicester Road Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential Purpose: Request variations to permit construction of a new addition and garage to encroach into the required rear yard Applicable Regulations: §153.070 Minimum Yard Requirements (A) Introduction: The petitioner, Fiore Builders, is requesting a variation to minimum rear yard requirements on behalf of the homeowner to permit construction of a 2-story addition to the principal structure containing a three-car garage, laundry room, and second-story office room. This property is situated on the east side of Leicester Road between Oxford Road and Woodstock Avenue. The existing detached garage would be removed as part of the scope of work. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) heard this matter at the September 14th, 2026, meeting where the petitioners requested the case be continued to the October 13th, 2026, meeting. Re-Cap of Previous ZBA Meeting: At the September 14, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting, the petitioner presented a request for a variation from minimum rear yard requirements in order to construct a two-story addition to the principal structure, including a garage on the first floor. The ZBA noted that this request was to modernize the existing home and improve accessibility for a home’s family member. Additionally, it was noted that this addition would not impact the home’s appearance from the street. The applicant explained that the current detached garage presents accessibility issues, particularly during the winter months. Further, the applicant noted that the second-floor space would be used for a home office and other typical residential activities. Considered By: Date: Zoning Board of Appeals 10/13/26 Village of 7 The ZBA expressed concern over the impact of a second floor that also extends into the rear yard setback as it relates to the bulk of the structure. The ZBA suggested that the applicant revise the second-floor plans to conform to the setback requirements. Discussion: A 2.5-story brick home and detached 1-story garage are currently located on the 16,975 sq. ft. property. The current home, the principal structure on the property, is located 56 ft. from the rear lot line (compliant with the Zoning Code) and the detached garage is situated 8 ft. from the rear lot line (compliant with the setback requirements of accessory structures). The Zoning Code specifies that minimum rear yard depth equal the larger of 25 ft. or 20% of the depth of the lot. For this lot measuring 175 ft. in depth, the rear yard setback is 35 ft. (20% of 175 ft.). The applicant proposes removing the existing three-car garage and replacing it as part of a two-story addition to the principal structure. This addition would encroach 9 ft. and 9 in. into the required rear yard setback, resulting in a rear yard depth of 25 ft. 3 in. The second floor of the proposed addition would be compliant with the Zoning Code, maintaining a 35 ft. 3 in. distance from the rear lot line. • One 2-story addition to the rear of the principal structure is proposed. The addition would consist of the following. o A 2-car accessible attached garage replacing the existing detached 3-car garage. o A laundry room. o A home office or multipurpose space on the second floor. • The first floor of this addition would reduce the rear yard setback (56 ft.) to 25 ft. 3 in., less than the minimum 35 ft. required for this lot by Code. The second floor is compliant with setback requirements. • The variation is requested to modernize an existing home by improving accessibility to the garage and adding living and laundry space to the rear of the home. • As part of the scope of this work, the existing detached garage would be demolished, and the driveway would be reoriented to serve a side-loaded garage. • All other aspects of this proposed addition are compliant with the Zoning Code. Permit History: The permit and zoning request history of 235 Leicester Road is detailed in the table below. Year Type Purpose 2022 Plumbing Flood Control, Permit #2022-095 2015 Building Driveway Replacement, Permit #2015-113 2010 Fence Fence Replacement, Permit #2010-71 2010 Fence Fence Replacement, Permit #2010-70 2010 Tree Tree Removal, Permit #2010-16T 2006 Tree Tree Removal, Permit #2006-10T 2005 Building Reroofing, Permit #1035 2002 Building Interior Drain Tile, Permit #9447 2002 Plumbing Flood Control Valve and Sump Pump, Permit #9430 8 1999 Building Interior Renovation, Permit #8750 1995 Building Driveway, Permit #7869 1994 Building Family Room Addition, Permit #7717 1988 Fence Fence Installation, Permit #6525 1988 Fence Fence Installation, Permit #6515 1987 Building Garage Replacement, Permit #6407 1933 Building Garage, Permit #2330 1908 Building Construction Date Requested Variation: Variation– Minimum Yard Requirements Applicable Regulations: Section 153.070 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance The petitioner requests a variation from Section 153.070 (A) Minimum Yard Requirements. The petitioner proposes a decrease in the rear yard setback of 30 ft. 9 in. for a rear addition to the principal structure including an attached garage, reducing the rear yard setback from 56 ft. to 25 ft. 3 in., 9 ft. 9 in. less than the minimum required rear yard for this property. Section 153.070 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the required minimum rear yard of a residential building in the R-1 zoning district to be the larger of 25 ft. or 20% of the depth of the lot. For this lot measuring 175 ft. in depth, a 35 ft. minimum rear yard setback (20% of 175 ft.) is required. The following table illustrates the requested variation from the maximum rear yard requirements: Lot Depth Lot Depth 175 ft. Min Rear Yar Setback % Min Rear Yard Minimum Rear Yard Setback The larger of 25 ft. or 20% of the lot depth 35 ft. 100% Existing Rear Yard Setback 56 ft. 160% Variation % Min Rear Yard Proposed Variation 9 ft. 9 in. 27.9% Proposed Rear Yard Setback (first floor) 25 ft. 3 in. 72.1% Note: Second floor setback is 35 ft. 2 in., compliant with Zoning Code regulations. Example Motion for Consideration: I move to approve (with conditions) the request submitted by the petitioner, Vincent Fiore of Fiore Builders, on behalf of owner Coskun Cavusoglu, to permit construction of a 2-story rear addition to the principal structure of a single-family residence that encroaches into rear yard setback by 9 ft. 9 in. at 235 Leicester Road in accordance with the materials included in this packet. 9 Attachments: 1. 235 Leicester Road Zoning Board of Appeals Application, dated June 28, 2026 2. Narrative of zoning variation request provided by Coskun Cavusoglu, dated June 30, 2026 3. Zoning Compliance Worksheet, dated October 5, 2026 4. Copy of Plat of Survey, dated January 29, 2025 5. Architectural Drawings provided by Roman T. Holowka, dated October 10, 2026 6. Section 153.224 (E), Standards for Variations 10 Vi Wage of Address of Prope That is the Subject of this Application Attach Legal Description of Property that !S the Subject of this Application. Zoning District ________ Current Use SAe 4L1 L JUL 2 ZOZ6 Village of KenilwOj Applicant Information 4 Rchmor.ciRoa Prone847-251-i6. Kenirvarth. IL 60043 Fax 847-25-39C8 Zoning Board of Appeals Application General Information Date: _______ • Zoning Variations • Special Uses • Text Amendments • ZonIng Map Changes • Administrative Appeals Zoning Board of Appeals Jurisdiction Property Address L-Ei5r1L oiô PL) o-c9- OC) Appcart — I—— Name V ra _______ _______________________ _____ Address- ‘J( k t-y LL4. __________________________ Small S k 1L / __________ Owrer of Property (it di than,AppItcat Name C C S C) (‘ C L’ S L— ____ Atdress J3 - - 1 i I- Telephone 11 Primary Contact Person for Applicant Name ___________ ________ AddressEmal LQ1tJ Telephone 3’ cC q3___ Appitcants and Pnmary Contacts Relationship to Property: ,r i’ ri Check appropriate category and attach proof of ownership and all relevant additional ownership information to this application. ndMdual ______ Joint Tenants/Tenants in Common Land Trust Trust Corporation ______Limited Liability Company Partnership Ifproperty is held in atrust, also include a certified copy of the trust agreement or a simple affidavit (under oath before a notary) aS to who are the beneficiaries of the trust. Consulta nts (as icabie). - List any additional consultants and their contact information on additional sheets of paper and attach. ArchitectName ____ Company f2ri. Ac4-c-*c ________ Address 9ui _____________ i (>L>-1 Phone “‘ ()‘ E-mail Ai:) S cC ____ AttorneyName ________________ _______ ___ Company IL\1 1((/ Address \ Phone _____ ________ E-ma!i 12 Requested Action CheckallthatapplyandprovideonthisformorattachonseparatesheetsallinformationrequiredbytheSectionsof theZoningOrdnancelistedbelowforthetypesofreliefrequested: )(ZoningVariation(s)forTJU Q- SpecialUsefor_________________________ __________ ZoningOrdinanceTextAmendment Rezonngfrom__to_____-ZoningMapAmendment AdministrativeAppeal Other(describe) F.hngFees-- AllApplicationsrequirepaymentofanon-refundablefee:inaddition,applicationsforspecialuses,textamendments,andzoning maprequireaddionalfundsthatareheldinescrowforrecoveryofactualcostspursuanttoSections153.290—153293ofthe ZoningOrdinance Pleaseattachacheckwithyourapplicationandindicatebelowtheamountoffeesubmitted: $350M0 /.ZoningVariations) ‘ETies TextAmendments •ZoningMapChanges •AirConditioning Fences Admnstrab’.’eAppeals KenilworthCodeofEthics (3aSeparateSheetofPaper,tstandattachthename,addressandnatureandextentofanycurrentorpctentainterestthat anyvillageofficeroremployeemayhaveinorwithrespecttotheowner,theApplicantortheproperty. Itnone.Checkhere ______ Repeatpplication Hasanyothercppfcationforf.ispropertybeensubmittedtotheVll!cgethatseekssmfcrreterandhasbeendenedwfnthe lastbiioyears’?Yes _ No yes,attachastatementofthegroundApohoantbefevesustidese000sderaticr 13 Byexecutionofthisapplicationinthespaceprovidedbelow,theapplicantandowner(s)doherebycertify,acknowledge,agree andaffirmtotheVillageofKenilworththat. 1.TheVillageanditsrepresentativeshavetheright,andareherebygrantedpermissionandlicense,toenterupon property,andintoanystructureslocatedtherein,forthepurposesofconductinganyinspectionsthatmaybenecessaryin connectonwiththsapp!cation 2I(We)havecarefullyreadthisapplicationtheKenikvorthZoningOrdinanceandfrillyunderstandthetermsand prOVSionSofeach. 3.I(We)waiveanyrightstoexemptionfromdisclosureundertheIllinoisFreedomofInformationActofanyandall documentsandinformationsubmittednconnectonwhthsappltcaton. 4.1(We),inaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheKenilworthZoningOrdinanceagreetopayallapplicablefilingfees andberesponsb!eforthepaymentofatrembursableexpensesassociatedwiththeprocessngofthsapplcaton 5Thelnformatoncor.tanedinthisapp!catlonistrueandcorrect Applicant’sSignature(s) Sgoature ______ ________________ PrintedName: _________________________________________ Date ______________ __________ Signature: DrntHMm: Date: ________ Signature: PnntedName Date: Sgnature. PrintedName. flf 14 Required Matenals - Submit acompleted application with 9copies of the following materials: Drawings. itapphcabe, to Vanance Applicaton. 1 Existing Floor Plans- provide floor plans of all levels of the existing building 2 Demolitron Floor Plans— provde floor pns of at levels of the exstng huild!n.g and ndcate eyshn9 parts to he removed 3. Proposed Floor Plans provide floor plans of proposed additions to the existing building 4. Existing Extenor Elevations provide elevations of all existing extehor elevations That are to char, ge 5. Proposed Exterior Elevations provide elevations of all elevations that are altered Plat of Suey & Parcel(s) Legal Description, no more than 5 yea o!d — Title Policy or Deed Certified Copy of Trust Agreement. ifapplicable Simple Affidavit identifying Trust beneficiaries, ifapplicable Written Explanation of Request, on separate sheets of paper. Address the standards and reqvirements for the relief requested, and how they are satisfied by the request. Flling Fee- payable to the Village of Kenilwofth After this application and all necessary materials are submitted, the application will be put on the docket for a Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. It is recommended that the application for any matter requiring public notice be submitted 45 days prior to the Zoning Meeting. The Village will provide Applicant with a notification packet containing a notice is to be delivered to all property owners living within 250 feet of property. The Zoning Board of Appeals meets once every other month. In general, applicants should expect a hearing within 60 days of submitting an application Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. The concurring vote of 4 members of the Zoning Board shall be necessary to grant a variation or to reserve any order, requirement. decision or determination of the Village. or to decide in favor of an applicant for reief. No order granting a variation shall be effective for a period longer than six months unless a building permit is obtained and the constructon, alteration, or moving of the building covered by the order is started within such period. All Applicants are encouraged to read Sections 153.240— 153.249 of the Village of Kenilworth Zoning Ordinance. Authonzed • To vary any of the requirements with respect to minimum sizes of lots, maximum height of buildings and other structures, maximum and minimum size of buildings, maximum lot coverage by structures and other impervious surfaces, and minmurn depth and ‘Mdth of yards per Section 153 244 To vary any of the regulations contained in Sections 153 075 —153 086 (Supplemental Regulations Applicable to all Residential Districts). To vary any ofthe regulations contained in Section 153 185— 153.192(Off-StreetAutomobfe Par!cng Requrements). ‘a van,’ Sign Code regulatons per Section153 244 15 Ii[t rILJgtI[‘1I For Zoning Variations, please respond to the applicable standards listed below in the written explanation of the request.(1) The Board shaH not grant a variance from any of the regulations of Chapter 153: Zoning, as authorized by Subsection 153 244(D), unless itshaH make a finding of fact. based upon the evidence presented to itin aparticular case, that (a) In the case of property the principal use of which is for business purposes, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations applicable to the district in which it is located; (b) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; and (c) The vacation, tf granted, wli not alter the essential character of’ the localty. (2) For the purposes of supplementing the above standards, the Board, in mak;nq its determination whether the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and whether the variation, ifgranted, may alter the essential character of the locality, shall take into consideration the following factors to the extent they are established by the evidence and deemed relevant by the Board’ (a) The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the property in question would result in a practical difficulty or particular hardship upon the applicant for the variation, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, ifthe strict letter of the regulation were enforced; (b) The conditions upon w’hich the application for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property in the same dstnct, (c) The request for the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property; d) The alleged drtticutty or hardship has not been,, created by any person presentiy having an interest in the property, (e) The variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or sLibstantially increase tne runoff of storm water onto adjacent properties or public streets, or substantially increase congestion in the public streets or increase the danger of tire or otherwise endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. (3 For the purpose of further supplementing the above standards and factors in connection with requests for variations from the requirements of Section 153.068, the Board,fl rnakng its deterrnnatton, may also take into consideration the following factors, among other factors deemed relevant by the Board, to the extent they are established by the evidence and deemed relevant by the Board: ça) The effects of the proposed construction on the overall appearance of the size and bulk of the exsting structures on :he property when vewed from streets abottng the property arid from ao300ent properties (b) The proximity of the proposed construction to streets abutting the property and to adjacent properties; Ici The relative proximity of the proposed construction to streets abutting the property and to aiacent propsTesri ‘ojith the relative proximity of existing structures on other properties in the same vicinity: d The magnitude of the vanabon requested in absolute terms andri proport’or’ to rhe floc’r a-ac aic’ mpcri. ‘oc srfaces allowed ifthe strict iette of the regulation were enforced, 16 Section 153.244(E) – Standards for Variations Property Address: 235 Leicester Road Applicant: Coskun & Kader Cavusoglu Introduction This narrative is submitted in support of the requested variation from the rear yard setback requirements to permit construction of an attached garage at 235 Leicester Road. The request is based upon the unique physical characteristics of the property, the historic nature of the residence, and the accessibility needs of the homeowners' daughter. The requested variation represents the minimum relief necessary to reasonably accommodate these circumstances while preserving the architectural integrity of the home and maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 1. Standards for Variations 1(a) - Business Property Not applicable. The property is improved with a single-family residence and is not used for business purposes. 1(b)- The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. The hardship arises from several unique circumstances specific to this property. The residence was constructed in 1908, decades before the adoption of the Village's current zoning regulations. The home is recognized as a Centennial Home by the Kenilworth Historical Society , and the owners have intentionally preserved its original architectural character rather than substantially altering the historic structure. The original placement of the residence on the lot, together with the existing easement and required setbacks, leaves no practical alternative location for a functional attached garage. In addition, the homeowners' daughter has Morquio Syndrome (MPS IVA), a rare skeletal disorder resulting in significant bone fragility and mobility limitations. These accessibility needs further limit the available design alternatives and require a garage configuration that safely accommodates independent vehicle access. These circumstances are unique to this property and were not created by the current owners. 17 1(c)- The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed garage has been designed to complement the existing residence and maintain the architectural character of both the home and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed improvement will preserve the appearance of a historic Centennial Home while providing functionality consistent with modern residential use. The requested variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 2. Supplemental Standards 2(a) - Practical Difficulty or Particular Hardship Strict enforcement of the rear yard setback would create a practical hardship rather than a mere inconvenience. The homeowners are requesting an attached garage primarily to provide safe access for their daughter between the residence and her vehicle. Because of Morquio Syndrome, she is at an increased risk of serious injury from falls. During winter months, walking across snow and ice between the residence and a detached garage presents a significant safety concern. In addition, moving the garage farther from the property line would reduce the interior width available for parking. This would prevent her from fully opening the driver's side door while another vehicle occupies the adjacent parking space, making it difficult or impossible for her to safely and independently enter and exit her vehicle. The requested variation directly addresses these hardships. 2(b) - Conditions Not Generally Applicable The conditions supporting this request are unique to this property. Few properties combine: • a residence constructed in 1908, • historic preservation of the original structure, • existing easement constraints, • the need for an attached garage, and • documented accessibility requirements for a disabled family member. 18 These circumstances are not generally applicable to other residential properties within the Village. 2(c) - Request Not Based Upon Financial Gain The requested variation is not intended to increase the value of the property or maximize development. Rather, the request is intended to preserve the historic residence while providing safe and accessible accommodations for the homeowners' daughter. 2(d) - Hardship Not Self-Created The hardship was not created by the current owners. The residence was constructed in 1908 and its placement on the property predates the current zoning regulations. The owners have intentionally preserved the home's historic design rather than substantially altering or relocating the existing structure. The daughter's medical condition is permanent and independent of the owners' actions. 2(e) - No Adverse Impact Approval of the requested variation will not adversely affect neighboring properties. The proposed garage: • will maintain the residential character of the neighborhood; • will not materially reduce light or air to adjacent properties; • will not increase traffic; • will not create drainage concerns; • will not increase fire hazards; and • will not diminish surrounding property values. The garage has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing residence and neighboring homes. 19 3. Additional Standards 3(a) - Overall Appearance The proposed garage has been carefully designed to complement the architecture of the existing residence. Materials, rooflines, proportions, and detailing are intended to preserve the appearance of the historic home. 3(b) - Proximity to Adjacent Properties The proposed location represents the only practical location for an attached garage. The requested variation has been minimized to reduce impacts on neighboring properties. 3(c) - Comparison to Neighborhood The proposed construction remains compatible with surrounding residential development. The addition preserves the scale and character expected within the neighborhood while respecting the historic nature of the existing residence. 3(d) - Magnitude of Variation The requested variation represents the minimum relief necessary to accommodate the existing site constraints. The garage has been positioned to minimize the extent of the requested encroachment while providing the functionality required for safe vehicle access. 3(e) - Need for Additional Variations No additional zoning variations are requested. 3(f) - Reasonable Residential Use The requested variation allows the residence to continue functioning as a safe family home while accommodating the accessibility needs of the homeowners' daughter. Without the requested relief, the home cannot reasonably provide the safe vehicle access required for her continued independence. 3(g) - Efficient Use of Existing Structures The proposal makes efficient use of the existing residence by preserving the historic structure while incorporating an attached garage that accommodates the family's accessibility needs. The design avoids unnecessary demolition or alteration of the original home. 20 3(h) - Reasonableness of the Request The requested variation is reasonable because it balances several important public interests: • preservation of a recognized Centennial Home; • accommodation of a documented disability; • protection of public safety by reducing fall risk; • preservation of neighborhood character; and • the minimum relief necessary to accommodate existing site conditions. Conclusion The requested variation results from the unique physical characteristics of the property, the preservation of a historic 1908 residence, and the documented accessibility needs of the homeowners' daughter. The request is not based upon convenience or financial gain. It represents the minimum relief necessary to provide safe, accessible use of the property while preserving the architectural character of the residence and maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. For these reasons, the applicants respectfully request approval of the requested variation. Prepared by: Coskun & Kader Cavusoglu, Property Owners In consultation with: Roman Holowka, R.T.H. Associates, Inc. 21 Building I Planrring Division 419 Richmond Rd, Kenilworth, lL 60043 E: communit rl<,o P:847-251-1,666 x5253 ZONING COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET PAGE '1 OF 4 Completion of this worksheet is required for any construction that alters building floor area or existing impervious sudaces on a lot. See Section 6 for definitions of building coverage, impervious surfaces, and floor area, as well as samples of Complete each Section of the worksheet based on the proposed scope of work: Section 1 Property Data 2 Building Coverage 3 lmpervious Surfaces ams and calculations DArE:\o ,s ' zo b- complete for all projects - complete for changes to any roofed structure or impervious surfaces - complete for changes to any other impervious surfaces 4 Floor Area Calculations - complete for changes to any roofed structure 5 Required Minimum Yards - complete appropriate section for new construction 6 Diagrams and Calculations - definitions and examples of diagrams and calculations required for all projects 1: Pnoprnry Dara code 5153.033 STEEP SLOPE ZONE? Y N 1e: Using a current Plat of Survey, calculate the lot area in square feet. lf the lot area is noted on the Plat, input that number in 1e. . Lakefront Lot Area: extends to toe of the bluff (base of sea wall closest to the lake), or where bluff meets the beach if there is no sea wall. t (,e, at1(1 e Lot area* Sq. Ft. q1r x [1 ('lot width lot length 2: Butr-olr,rc CoveRaee code 5153.068(B) a< t[a. tal 2n: Complete the appropriate calculation for the lot area (1a), and enter product in line 2n For lot area < 5,716 s.f. Lor AREA x .3 Sq. Ft. For lot area 5,71 6 - '1 9,999 s.f . (lor AREA x .1 6) + 800 For lot area 20,000+ s.f Lor AREA x .2 =)) t2n Building Coverage: Maximum Allowed 2e: Enter the sum of numbers 2c-2r in line 2e. Submit diagrams with dimensions and square footage calculations per Section 6A. Sq.Ft. 2e Building Coverage: Total Existing + Proposed bl6b.q?- i I 2cTotal existing building coverage 2oExisting building coverage to be removed 2e New building coverage to be added Z17b,Z?-. sqFt Saq. l,< sqFt qbZ,ZO sq'Ft' 3: h'apenvtous SURFAcES code 5153.068(C) 3e: Enter the sum of 3c and 3D in line 34. lf 3D is a rieeative number, subtract rt from 3c.* .For single family attached dwellings, the maximum impervious surface allowed is: 196 + (.35 x lot area) - 3c Maximum impervious allowed*: LoT AREA x .25 = 4!Av3 { '," = 3a lmpervious Surfaces: Maximum Allowed. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 2A MTNUS 28 albQ 38: Enter the sum of numbers 3E-3G in line 3a. Submit diagrams with dimensions and square footage calculations per Section 68. ,- 3r Total existing impervious sur-faces 3p Existing impervious surfaces to be removed 3e New impervious surfaces to be added Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft Sq.Ft. 3a lmpervious Surfaces: Total Existing to remain + Proposed ATION WOR(SHEET Sq.Ft. = 22 Division 419 Richmond Rd, Kenilworth, IL 60043 E: cornmunity@vok.org P:847-251,-1666x5253 ZONING COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET PAGE 2 OF 4 PROJECT ADDRESS 4: Floon Anea s153.068(A) 6,21 4-' Sq,Ft. = 4e: Complete the appropriate calculation for the building type and enter product in line 4n New building or substantial alteration built after 1012212005 (Lor AREA x .21) + 1,200 Existing buildings built on or be'fore 1012212005 (Lor AREA x .24) + 1,2994a Floor Area: Maximum Allowed 4e: Enter the sum of 4c through 4r in line 4e. Submit diagrams with dimensions and square footage calculations per Section 6C. +\bb.<b Sq.Ft. Sq. Ft. 4e FloorArea: Total Existing to remain + Proposed 5rl2q,bo + I I t 4c Total existing floor area 4o Subtract existing floor area to be removed - 4e Subtract Zoning Credit (see Section 5 for description of applicable areas). 4n Add proposed new floor area | .-/ t\9, \ 54, , t < sq.Ft. t6vz.rR 5: Reoutneo Mlrulruuru Ynnos + Butr-orHe Hetour S153.067 + $153.070 + 153.085* Complete the appropriate information for the proposed scope of work. Submit with site plan or annotated survey showing dimensions to lot line. ROOFED STRUCTURES ALL OTHER EQUIPIVENT + SURFACES lnstalled at grade? Y N Screened from street view? Y N Wall mounted? Y N +r-t€D lnstalled at grade? Screened from street view? YN YN Distance to nearest lot line I G rb I * Addittonal sections of village code regulate distance of new inrpervious surfaces to lot lines and/or the public right of way. Principal Building: distance to lot line Air conditioning units: distance to lot line Accessory Structure (includes detached garage) Roof overhang Et-\€vrIEDEa- Other impervious surfaces* Distance to nearest lot line UI.AIION WORKSHEEI Sq,Ft. Sq.Ft. side I dESide Rear 23 24 A1.1 Roman T. Holowka - Architect RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 235 LEICHESTER RD. KENILWORTH, IL 10-5-2026 REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION N N C:\Users\rthas\Dropbox\2026 Architecture\Fiore Project\Kenilworth Residence 10-2-26.dwg, 10/6/2026 7:06:42 AM, _AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 25 A1.1 Roman T. Holowka - ArchitectRESIDENTIAL ADDITION 235 LEICHESTER RD. KENILWORTH, IL 10-5-2026 REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION N N N C:\Users\rthas\Dropbox\2026 Architecture\Fiore Project\Kenilworth Residence 10-2-26.dwg, 10/6/2026 7:06:43 AM, _AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 26 A2.1 Roman T. Holowka - ArchitectRESIDENTIAL ADDITION 235 LEICHESTER RD. KENILWORTH, IL 10-5-2026 REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C:\Users\rthas\Dropbox\2026 Architecture\Fiore Project\Kenilworth Residence 10-2-26.dwg, 10/6/2026 7:06:48 AM, _AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3 27 Request for Commission Action Agenda Item: III.B Staff Contact: Andrew Dunham, Teska Associates, Inc. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider a Variation at 336 Abbotsford Road Pertaining to Maximum Building Size Requirements Petitioner: Leah Conley Location: 336 Abbotsford Road Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential Purpose: Request variations to permit construction of a 1-story rear addition to the principal structure Applicable Regulations: §153.068 Maximum Building Size (A) Introduction: The petitioner, Leah Conley, is requesting variations to maximum building size on behalf of the homeowner to permit construction of a 1-story addition to the principal structure. This property is situated on the south side of Abbotsford Road between Kenilworth and Woodstock Avenues. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) heard this matter at the previous September 14th, 2026, meeting where the petitioners requested the case be continued to the October 13th, 2026, meeting. Re-Cap of Previous ZBA Meeting: At the September 14, 2026, Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting, the petitioner presented a request for two (2) variations: floor area and building coverage. The ZBA noted that this is a request to modernize the use of a historic home but expressed concerns about the existing size of the non-conforming structures on the site, and that the requested variation would further increase that nonconformity. Since this meeting, it was discovered that 34 sq. ft. of the proposed addition are currently counted toward floor area and building coverage, reducing the size of the request. Additionally, the proposed addition would not need a variation from §153.068 (B) Maximum Building Coverage (which was included in the September meeting), as a portion of the existing covered deck already contributed to building coverage. Discussion: A 2-story frame house and 1.5-story garage are currently located on the 17,500 sq. ft. property. The current building size (floor area) of these structures is 5,862 sq. ft., higher than the maximum allowed floor area per the Zoning Code (5,400 sq. ft.) creating an existing Considered By: Date: Zoning Board of Appeals 10/13/26 Village of 28 nonconformity. Existing building coverage is 3,473 sq. ft., lower than the maximum allowed building coverage (3,600 sq. ft.), and therefore compliant with the Zoning Code. • Two 1-story additions to the rear of the principal structure are proposed as part of this request. This addition consists of two components (1) a mud room addition to the family room, replacing part of the existing wooden deck and (2) an addition to the kitchen, replacing existing exterior stairs. The second addition replaces a covered deck already counted in floor area and building coverage calculations. • In total, these additions would increase building coverage and floor area by 112 sq. ft. o The mudroom would measure 112 sq. ft. o The kitchen addition would measure 34 sq. ft.; however, this area is already counted in existing building coverage and floor area calculations. • The existing home and garage exceed the Zoning Code’s maximum building size (floor area) requirements by 462 sq. ft., and the proposed variation would increase the nonconformity by 112 sq. ft., yielding a floor area that is 574 sq. ft. above the maximum building size. • The variation is requested to modernize an existing home by adding a mudroom (a common amenity in homes in Kenilworth) and creating a more usable kitchen space. • As part of the scope of this work, 112 sq. ft. of existing decks would be removed. This impervious surface would not be replaced elsewhere on the property, thereby reducing impervious coverage by 112 sq. ft. • All other aspects of this proposed addition are compliant with the Zoning Code. Permit History: The permit and zoning request history of 336 Abbotsford Road is detailed in the table below. Year Type Purpose 2014 Building Re-roofing, Permit #2014-22 2008 Building Garage Addition and Renovation, Permit #2008-218 2008 Zoning Zoning Variation Approved for Maximum Floor Area, approved 10/20/08 2008 Generator Generator Installation, Permit #2008-181 2008 Tree Tree Removal, Permit #2008-39T 2004 Building Lawn Sprinkler, Permit #10047 2004 Fencing Air Conditioner Fencing Installation #10039 2003 Building Construction of Two-Story Addition, Replacement of Garage #9662 2002 Zoning Zoning Variation Approved for Maximum Floor Area, approved 7/9/02 2000 Plumbing Sub Floor Drainage and Flood Control, Permit #9137 2000 Electrical Electrical Work, Permit #9126 1996 Building Interior Renovation (Kitchen), Permit #8044 1987 Building Demolition and Replacement of Garage, Permit #6432 1986 Building Air Conditioning Installation, Permit #6259 1972 Fencing Fence Installation, Permit #5164 29 1941 Building Dormer Window Installation, Permit #3189 1891 Home Construction Date Requested Variation: Variation– Maximum Size; Maximum Lot Coverage Applicable Regulations: Section 153.068 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance The petitioner requests a variation from Section 153.068(A) Maximum Building Size. The petitioner proposes an increase in the existing nonconforming building size (floor area) of 112 sq. ft. for a new mudroom and an expansion of the kitchen, totaling 5,974 sq. ft., 574 sq. ft. above the maximum allowable floor area. The proposed addition to the principal structure and garage will also increase the existing Code-compliant building coverage by 112 sq. ft., totaling 3,586 sq. ft., still compliant with the Zoning Code. Section 153.068 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the maximum floor area of a residential building to be calculated as follows: (Lot area X 0.24) + 1,200. No significant alteration has occurred since 2005, and therefore the property is not subject to lower floor area requirements. This lot measures 17,500 sq. ft., resulting in a maximum floor area of 5,400 sq. ft. The existing structures’ floor area measures 5,862 sq. ft., higher than the maximum allowed floor area; the proposed addition would increase floor area by 112 sq. ft., resulting in a proposed floor area of 5,974 sq. ft. The following table illustrates the requested variation from the maximum building size: Lot Area Lot Area 17,500 sq. ft. Maximum Floor Area % Max Floor Area Maximum Floor Area (Lot area X 0.24) + 1,200 5,400 sq. ft 100% Existing Floor Area 5,862 sq. ft. 108.5% Variation % Max Floor Area Proposed Variation 112 sq. ft. 1.9% Proposed Floor Area 5,974 sq. ft. 110.6% Example Motion for Consideration: I move to approve (with conditions) the request submitted by the petitioner, Leah Conley, to permit construction of a rear addition to the principal structure of a single-family residence and addition to the detached garage that exceeds maximum floor area requirements by 574 sq. ft. at 336 Abbotsford Road in accordance with the materials included in this packet. Attachments: 1. 336 Abbotsford Road Zoning Board of Appeals Application, dated July 15, 2026 2. Revised narrative of zoning variation request provided by Melichar Architects, dated October 13, 2026 3. Zoning Compliance Worksheet, undated 4. Copy of Plat of Survey, dated July 12, 2021 30 5. Revised Architectural Drawings provided by Melichar Architects, dated October 13, 2026 6. Section 153.224 (E), Standards for Variations 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 M E L I C H A R A R C H I T E C T S The Practice of Fine Architecture 207 EAST WESTM INSTE R, LAKE FORE ST, I L 60045 • 847-295-2440 • MELICHARA RC HITE CTS.COM CONLEY RESIDENCE – 336 Abbotsford Road Zoning Board of Appeals – October 13, 2026 The Conleys purchased their home in 2021 because they appreciated its architectural character, history, and the qualities that make the house distinctive. They lived in the home for two years before approaching Melichar Architects to address the dysfunctional aspects of the existing layout. Their experience living in the house made clear that these were not simply matters of preference, but recurring functional problems involving circulation, the mudroom corridor, kitchen working space and storage and the relationship between the kitchen and dining room. The central problem is the existing corridor “mudroom.” It is not a dedicated mudroom nor separate entry space, but a major circulation corridor with cubbies in it that connects the kitchen, main family entry, family room, living room, library/office, and communicating staircase serving all floors of the house. As a result, the space must function simultaneously as a mudroom and as a primary passageway through the house. This creates an everyday functional conflict. Coats, shoes, boots, backpacks, sports equipment and other items associated with entering from the garage inevitably accumulate in a space that everyone must use to move between the principal rooms. Family members must navigate around these belongings simply to move through the house. The problem becomes particularly apparent when using the kitchen: preparing dinner in the kitchen can mean carrying it through the mudroom/circulation area to reach the dining room. The kitchen itself presents another related problem. It is isolated from the principal living spaces, buffered by the internal adjacent room that was designed in 2002 as an office. The kitchen lacks sufficient countertop and storage area to function efficiently for contemporary family living. The dining room is located down the hall, remote from the kitchen, rather than directly connected to it. Together, these conditions create an interconnected problem involving kitchen function, circulation, entry, storage, and the relationship between the kitchen and dining room, and principal living spaces. These existing conditions do not reflect shortcomings in how the previous renovations served the previous homeowners. The 2002 additions were thoughtfully designed for their needs and respected the home’s architectural character. The issue is simply that, nearly a quarter century later, the home’s existing circulation and layout no longer function well for the day-to-day needs of a young family in 2026. 40 The Practice of Fine Architecture 207 EAST WESTM INSTE R, LAKE FORE ST, I L 60045 • 847-295-2440 • MELICHARA RC HITE CTS.COM In trying to address the functional difficulties in their home, the Conleys and Melichar Architects did not begin by assuming that an addition was necessary. In fact it was the opposite: we wanted to stay within the existing building envelope, and we studied multiple ways to address these problems. Attached, please refer to the different studies. We have included four main concepts in this packet. Of these four concepts, various iterations were considered, for a total of twelve different schemes that we studied and created between 2023 and 2025. Our studies demonstrated that solving one problem consistently created another: improving the kitchen affected the breakfast room or circulation; creating adequate mudroom storage compromised the family room; improving circulation affected the dining room; relocating the mudroom made it more remote from the family’s main entry; and other configurations either placed the butler’s pantry in an impractical location or required circulation through it. These studies demonstrate that the proposed addition is not simply a preferred solution. They document a genuine effort to avoid an addition and show that the existing home’s footprint cannot accommodate all of the necessary functions without compromising other important spaces. The 112-square-foot request is the result of that process, not the starting point. This request is not intended to establish a precedent for homeowners to add onto their homes simply because they want more space. The circumstances are specific to this house, its existing configuration, and the functional problems documented through the design studies. The Conleys have exhausted the practical alternatives within the existing footprint and are asking for only the limited amount of additional area necessary to make the home function properly. The final proposal is deliberately restrained. The requested 112 SF does not add a bedroom, enlarge the family room, eliminate the breakfast room, or create additional living space. Instead, it allows the entry, mudroom, kitchen, and circulation relationships to be reorganized while preserving the breakfast room, family room, and principal character of the house. The addition is located at the rear for convenient and appropriate access to the garage. The goal is not to maximize the house, but to make a very small and carefully considered change that allows the existing home to function more effectively. The Conleys respectfully ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider the specific physical conditions of this home, the documented design process, and the limited scope of the requested relief. The 112 SF addition is the smallest practical intervention identified after exploring twelve different schemes; and, it is intended to make this particular home function as intended while respecting its architectural character and history. 41 The Practice of Fine Architecture 207 EAST WESTM INSTE R, LAKE FORE ST, I L 60045 • 847-295-2440 • MELICHARA RC HITE CTS.COM APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR VARIATION §153.244(E)(1)(b) – “The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.” The home’s specific configuration—particularly the mudroom’s dual function as a primary circulation corridor, its relationship to the detached garage, and the separation of the kitchen and dining room—creates conditions specific to this property. §153.244(E)(1)(c) – “The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The 112-square-foot rear addition is subordinate to the existing residence, preserves its architectural character, and does not alter the character of the neighborhood. §153.244(E)(2)(a) – The physical conditions of the property would result in a “practical difficulty or particular hardship.” Twelve design schemes were studied within the existing footprint; the proposed 112 square feet is the smallest practical solution that resolves the existing functional deficiencies without compromising other important spaces. §153.244(E)(2)(b) – “The conditions upon which the application for variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property in the same district.” The difficulty results from the particular configuration of this residence, including its detached garage, existing mudroom circulation, and kitchen/dining relationships. §153.244(E)(2)(c) – “The request for the variation is not based exclusively upon the desire to make more money out of the property.” The addition addresses existing functional deficiencies and creates no additional bedroom, dwelling unit, or principal living space. §153.244(E)(2)(d) – “The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property.” The existing configuration and resulting functional deficiencies predate the Conleys’ 2021 purchase and were not created by the applicants. §153.244(E)(2)(e) – The variation will not impair light and air, substantially increase stormwater runoff, increase congestion or fire danger, endanger public safety, or substantially diminish neighborhood property values. The addition occupies the existing porch area, does not increase impervious surface, and its limited rear location minimizes impacts on adjacent properties and the neighborhood. 42 The Practice of Fine Architecture 207 EAST WESTM INSTE R, LAKE FORE ST, I L 60045 • 847-295-2440 • MELICHARA RC HITE CTS.COM §153.244(E)(3)(a) – The Board may consider “the effects of the proposed construction on the overall appearance of the size and bulk of the existing structures.” The small rear addition remains subordinate to the existing house and does not materially alter its size, bulk, or architectural character. §153.244(E)(3)(b)–(c) – The Board may consider proximity to streets and adjacent properties and the relationship to surrounding structures. The addition is located at the rear of the property, away from the primary street frontage, and occupies the existing porch footprint. §153.244(E)(3)(d) – The Board may consider “the magnitude of the variation requested.” The request is limited to 112 square feet—the smallest practical addition identified through twelve design studies—and does not increase impervious surface. §153.244(E)(3)(e) – The Board may consider the need for other variations and their nature and extent. The design has been deliberately limited to minimize zoning relief and uses one small addition to address multiple existing functional deficiencies. §153.244(E)(3)(f) – The Board may consider the need for the variation to allow “reasonable use” of a residence for family use and enjoyment. The addition provides a properly functioning mudroom and improves circulation, storage, and the relationships between the kitchen, dining room, and existing living spaces. §153.244(E)(3)(g) – The Board may consider “the efficient and advantageous use of existing structures” and floor area. Only 112 square feet of new area is used to significantly improve the function of multiple existing rooms and circulation spaces. §153.244(E)(3)(h) – The Board may consider “the reasonableness of the variation requested.” The 112-square-foot addition is the minimum practical intervention identified to resolve the existing design deficiencies while preserving the home’s important existing spaces and architectural character. 43 Building | Planning Division 419 Richmond Rd. Kenilworth, IL 60043 E: community@vok.org P: 847-251-1666 x5253 ZONING COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET ඘ඉඏඍ 1 ඗ඎ 4 ZONING CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7/12/2023 Completion of this worksheet is required for any construction that alters building fl oor area or existing impervious surfaces on a lot. See Section 6 for defi nitions of building coverage, impervious surfaces, and fl oor area, as well as samples of required diagrams and calculations. Complete each Section of the worksheet based on the proposed scope of work: Section 1 Property Data - complete for all projects 2 Building Coverage - complete for changes to any roofed structure or impervious surfaces 3 Impervious Surfaces - complete for changes to any other impervious surfaces 4 Floor Area Calculations - complete for changes to any roofed structure 5 Required Minimum Yards - complete appropriate section for new construction 6 Diagrams and Calculations - defi nitions and examples of diagrams and calculations required for all projects lot width lot length ච - =- - + + + = 2උ 3ඍ 3උ 2ඌ 3ඌ 3ඎ 2ඍ 3ඏ = = = = 3ඉ Impervious Surfaces: Maximum Allowed* 2ඊ Building Coverage: Total Existing + Proposed 2ඉ Building Coverage: Maximum Allowed 1ඊ Lot area* 1ඉ Project address 3ඊ Impervious Surfaces: Total Existing to remain + Proposed ඌඉගඍ: ඛගඍඍ඘ ඛඔ඗඘ඍ ජ඗ඖඍ? 1: Pක඗඘ඍකගඡ Dඉගඉ Y N 2: Bඝඑඔඌඑඖඏ C඗ඞඍකඉඏඍ 3: Iඕ඘ඍකඞඑ඗ඝඛ Sඝකඎඉඋඍඛ For lot area < 5,716 s.f. Maximum impervious allowed*: For lot area 5,716 - 19,999 s.f. For lot area 20,000+ s.f. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. 3ඉ: Enter the sum of 3උ and 3ඌ in line 3ඉ. If 3ඌ is a negative number, subtract it from 3උ.* 2ඉ: Complete the appropriate calculation for the lot area (1ඊ), and enter product in line 2ඉ 1ඊ: Using a current Plat of Survey, calculate the lot area in square feet. If the lot area is noted on the Plat, input that number in 1ඊ. * Lakefront Lot Area: extends to toe of the bluff (base of sea wall closest to the lake), or where bluff meets the beach if there is no sea wall. 3ඊ: Enter the sum of numbers 3ඍ-3ඏ in line 3ඊ. Submit diagrams with dimensions and square footage calculations per Section 6B. 2ඊ: Enter the sum of numbers 2උ-2ඍ in line 2ඊ. Submit diagrams with dimensions and square footage calculations per Section 6A. Total existing building coverage Total existing impervious surfaces Existing building coverage to be removed 2ඉ ඕඑඖඝඛ 2ඊ Existing impervious surfaces to be removed New building coverage to be added New impervious surfaces to be added Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. ඔ඗ග ඉකඍඉ ච .25 = ඔ඗ග ඉකඍඉ x .3 (ඔ඗ග ඉකඍඉ x .16) + 800 ඔ඗ග ඉකඍඉ x .2 *For single family attached dwellings, the maximum impervious surface allowed is: 100 + (.35 x lot area) code §153.068(C) code §153.068(B) code §153.033 336 Abbotsford Road, Kenilworth, Illinois 17,500 100' 175' 3,600 3,473 N/A 4,375 3,600 3,473 127 0 4,502 3,617 112 3,585 112 3,505 44 Building | Planning Division 419 Richmond Rd. Kenilworth, IL 60043 E: community@vok.org P: 847-251-1666 x5253 ZONING COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET ඘ඉඏඍ 2 ඗ඎ 4 ZONING CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7/12/2023 - - + 4උ 4ඌ 4ඍ 4ඎ = = 4ඊ Floor Area: Total Existing to remain + Proposed 4ඉ Floor Area: Maximum Allowed 4: Fඔ඗඗ක Aකඍඉ New building or substantial alteration built after 10/22/2005 Existing buildings built on or before 10/22/2005 Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. 4ඉ: Complete the appropriate calculation for the building type and enter product in line 4ඉ 4ඊ: Enter the sum of 4උ through 4ඎ in line 4ඊ. Submit diagrams with dimensions and square footage calculations per Section 6C. Total existing fl oor area Subtract existing fl oor area to be removed Subtract Zoning Credit (see Section 5 for description of applicable areas). Add proposed new fl oor area Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. (ඔ඗ග ඉකඍඉ x .21) + 1,200 (ඔ඗ග ඉකඍඉ x .24) + 1,200 ඘ක඗ඒඍඋග ඉඌඌකඍඛඛ §153.068(A) * Additional sections of village code regulate distance of new impervious surfaces to lot lines and/or the public right of way. Principal Building: distance to lot line Air conditioning units: distance to lot line Roof overhang Accessory Structure (includes detached garage) Other outdoor electrical equipment Other impervious surfaces* Front Side Side SideSide Side Side SideSide Rear Rear RearRear Distance to nearest lot line Distance to nearest lot line Height from grade Height Height Installed at grade? Installed at grade? Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Screened from street view? Wall mounted? Screened from street view? ක඗඗ඎඍඌ ඛගකඝඋගඝකඍඛ ඉඔඔ ඗ගඐඍක ඍ඙ඝඑ඘ඕඍඖග + ඛඝකඎඉඋඍඛ Complete the appropriate information for the proposed scope of work. Submit with site plan or annotated survey showing dimensions to lot line. 5: Rඍ඙ඝඑකඍඌ Mඑඖඑඕඝඕ Yඉකඌඛ + Bඝඑඔඌඑඖඏ Hඍඑඏඐග §153.067 + §153.070 + 153.085* 336 Abbotsford Road, Kenilworth, Illinois 5,400 146 N/A 5,862 6,008 (Village Information) No change in building height and side yards 45 Building | Planning Division 419 Richmond Rd. Kenilworth, IL 60043 E: community@vok.org P: 847-251-1666 x5253 ZONING COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET ඘ඉඏඍ 3 ඗ඎ 4 ZONING CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7/12/2023 ඍචඑඛගඑඖඏ + ඌඍඕ඗ ඊඝඑඔඌඑඖඏ උ඗ඞඍකඉඏඍ ඘ක඗඘඗ඛඍඌ ඖඍඟ ඊඝඑඔඌඑඖඏ උ඗ඞඍකඉඏඍ 6: Dඑඉඏකඉඕඛ ඉඖඌ Cඉඔඋඝඔඉගඑ඗ඖඛ Instructions: Diagrams + calculations showing existing conditions, demolition, and proposed conditions are required for all submissions. 1. Attach plans or diagrams showing existing conditions, area s to be demolished, and proposed additions 2. Identify each area with either a letter or number that is keyed to calculations showing the dimensions and total square footages. 3. Whenever possible, use either a graphic or color key to di ff erentiate areas on a diagram 4. Calculations are required showing how the square footages were determined. 5. Separate diagrams and calculations are to be included for each of the following: a. Building Coverage b. Other Impervious Surfaces c. Floor Area Graphic and color keys used in sample diagrams: 6ඉ: BUILDING COVERAGE: SAMPLE DIAGRAMS + CALCULATIONS Defi nition: Building Coverage includes all roofed structures + areas on the fi rst fl oor and at grade level; see Village zoning code for further information. (i.e. principal + accessory structures, roofed entries + porc hes, second fl oor projections, carports, gazebos, etc). Excludes Porte Cochere. Demo Area Description w l sq.ft. sq.ft. A Garage 21.95 19.90 436.81 B House 14.80 8.75 129.50 C House - Demo 14.58 11.92 173.79 173.79 D house 1.00 6.50 6.50 E house 35.77 26.06 932.17 F uncovered porch 8.95 4.00 35.80 1714.56 173.79 173.79 1540.77 Area Description w l sq.ft. H House - 1 story 5.00 1.50 7.50 J House - 1 story 14.50 7.75 112.38 K House - 1 story 7.00 16.25 113.75 L House - 1 story 8.50 4.25 36.13 M House - 1 story 13.50 3.75 50.63 N House - 2 story 13.50 8.25 111.38 431.75 1972.52 Total Proposed Bldg.Cov. Total Existing Bldg.Cov. Total Existing Bldg.Cov. to be demolished Total Existing Bldg.Cov. to remain Total Existing Building Coverage Total Proposed Building Coverage Total Existing to remain + proposed Building Coverage ඏකඉ඘ඐඑඋ ඓඍඡ: —›ÃÊ Ä›ó උ඗ඔ඗ක ඓඍඡ: yellow red green ›ø®Ýã®Ä¦ —›ÃÊ Ä›ó SAMPLE DIAGRAMS SAMPLE CALCULATIONS ›ø®Ýã®Ä¦ 46 Building | Planning Division 419 Richmond Rd. Kenilworth, IL 60043 E: community@vok.org P: 847-251-1666 x5253 ZONING COMPLIANCE WORKSHEET ඘ඉඏඍ 4 ඗ඎ 4 ZONING CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7/12/2023 ඍචඑඛගඑඖඏ + ඌඍඕ඗ ඎඔ඗඗ක ඘ඔඉඖ ඍචඑඛගඑඖඏ + ඌඍඕ඗ ඛඑගඍ ඘ඔඉඖ ඘ක඗඘඗ඛඍඌ ඎඔ඗඗ක ඘ඔඉඖ ඘ක඗඘඗ඛඍඌ ඛඑගඍ ඘ඔඉඖ Defi nition: Floor Area includes the areas listed below, see Village zoning code for further information: Principal Building fl oor area - Basement: any areas that are used for automobile st orage and/or garage. - First fl oor: all areas included under Building Cov erage section - see example diagram + calculations - Second fl oor: all area except half stories above the fi rst story with a fl oor to ceiling height of less than 5 ft. - Third fl oor: excludes half stories above the second fl oor Accessory Structures fl oor area - First fl oor and grade levels: all areas included under Building Coverage section. - Excludes half stories above the fi rst fl oor Zoning Credits for the following fl oor areas in single family homes where both the home and feature existed before 6/22/1990 - Bay windows, open porches, and covered entries. 6උ FLOOR AREA: SAMPLE DIAGRAMS + CALCULATIONS 6: Dඑඉඏකඉඕඛ ඉඖඌ Cඉඔඋඝඔඉගඑ඗ඖඛ Required for all submissions Area Description w l sq.ft. Total Floor Area Floor 1 1714.56 173.79 1540.77 Floor 2 P 14.80 8.33 123.28 Q 35.77 26.48 947.19 R 13.50 5.25 70.88 1070.47 S 13.50 8.25 111.38 111.38 1181.85 ϮϳϮϮ͘ϲϮTotal existing to remain + new Floor Area Existing 1st Floor Area Exist. to remain 1st Floor ^ĞĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ Total Existing 2nd Floor Area Total New 2nd Floor Area Total Existing to remain + new 2nd Floor Area Demo 1st Floor Area 6ඊ OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: SAMPLE DIAGRAMS + CALCULATIONS Defi nition: Other Impervious Surfaces includes all impermeable areas not listed under Building Coverage, (i.e. driveways, walkways, patios, decks). Includes Porte Coc here. See Village zoning code for further information. Demo Area Description w l sq.ft. sq.ft. A a/c pad 3.00 2.00 6.00 B stone steppers 54.80 C driveway 1578.10 D stoop 14.40 8.78 126.43 1 demo - edging 28.50 28.50 2 demo - edging 15.60 15.60 3 demo - patio 618.80 618.80 4 demo - steppers 19.40 19.40 5 demo - walkway 25.50 7.75 197.63 197.63 2431.00 879.93 879.93 1551.08 Area Description w l sq.ft. Ee d ge + stepper 31.10 Fe d ging 36.00 Ge d ging 13.80 H patio 670.50 J walkway 270.00 1021.40 2572.48 irregular Total Proposed Other Impervious Surfaces irregular irregular irregular irregular irregular irregular irregular irregular irregular irregular Total Existing to remain + proposed Other Impervious Surfaces Total Existing Other Impervious Surfaces tal Existing Other Impervious. to be demolished Total Existing Other Impervious to remain Total Proposed Impervious Surfaces Total Existing Other Impervious Surfaces SAMPLE DIAGRAMS SAMPLE DIAGRAMS SAMPLE CALCULATIONS SAMPLE CALCULATIONS 47 48 Additions and Renovations for the Conley Residence 336 Abbotsford Road Kenilworth, Illinois 49 Garage Location: Existing detached two-car garage is closest to the rear portion of the house. Entry Opportunity: The rear of the house provides the most practical location for a direct connection to the garage. Future Mudroom: A small mudroom addition in this location would provide a convenient and efficient connection between the garage and the house. Other Locations: Other sides of the house are significantly less suitable for establishing this connection. Ideal Connection Between Garage And Mudroom Proposed Mudroom 50 Existing Deficiencies Kitchen • Undersized for the house • Insufficient counter/workspace • Limited pantry and storage • Remote from dining and living spaces • Dining remote from kitchen Circulation • Poor flow between kitchen, dining, and living spaces • Passage through mudroom/hall to reach main living areas Mudroom / Storage • No dedicated mudroom • Insufficient storage for entry from the detached garage Study No natural light and ventilation 51 Addition Benefits • Enclosing porch squares off kitchen and allows for a functional plan. • Adding a small addition (112 S.F .)solves circulation, mudroom proximity to garage. • Maintains integrity of existing spaces. 52 Iteration #1 • Kitchen and dining room remain physically remote from one another. • Same relationship as before – go through hallway mudroom to access dining room. • Kitchen does not meet code for light and ventilation. • No breakfast room. • Kitchen is separated from the formal dining area, disrupting the flow of the house. • Kitchen becomes a circulation path, not a functional living space. • Traffic crosses the active kitchen work zone. 53 Iteration #2 • Butler's pantry is separated and remote from the kitchen. • Required storage is added, but its location is not functional. • Circulation to the existing living spaces requires passing through the butler's pantry. • No dedicated formal dining room; dining is combined with the family room in a manner that compromises the function of the family room. 54 Iteration #3 • Pantry and storage remains too remote from the kitchen. • Mudroom placement compromises the family room. • Kitchen remains dysfunctional due to inadequate counter space and storage. Layout is convoluted. • Dining room is too narrow. • Access to the living room is restricted. 55 Iteration #4 • Mudroom is incorporated into the family room and limited to shelving; it does not function as a proper mudroom. • Additional mudroom storage is remote from the primary entry. • Butler’s pantry is separated from the kitchen, is too small, and is accessed through the dining room. • Kitchen remains dysfunctional due to insufficient counter/work and space configuration. • Access to the living room is restricted by the narrow dining room. 56 Proposed Plan — Key Benefits Kitchen: Adequate counter and storage space, with a properly located butler’s pantry. Mudroom: Dedicated and contained, with direct and convenient access to the garage. Circulation: Improved flow between kitchen, dining, and family room. Dining: Properly sized, with clear passage to the living room. Breakfast Room: Maintained. Family Room: Existing size and configuration maintained. Addition: Limited to 112 S.F . — only the space necessary to resolve the existing functional deficiencies. Existing Spaces: No major living spaces are sacrificed to accommodate the mudroom or storage. House is properly zoned, so working spaces are separated from the living spaces. TO GARAGE 57 Existing Rear (South) Façade Image 58 Proposed Rear (South) Façade Rendering 59