Village of Lombard Legistar System

The petitioner, Adolf Munoz, of Apex Homes, stated that they are proposing to demolish

the existing home and construct a new home on the premises as shown on the plans.

He said that they have been working with the Building staff to address code issues.

Once issue that remains is the proposed roofed-over porch which will be attached to the

front and side of the house.

He then described the proposed porch layout. He noted that the reason he is proposing

the porch and stairs to be located as depicted on the plans is to address the existing

evergreen tree currently in the front yard. He then submitted photographs of the subject

property. If the porch and stairs were angled toward the front yard, it would require the

removal of the tree. He said that neighboring residents like the tree so he was trying to

save it.

He then discussed the requested relief, noting that the proposed encroachment into the

corner side yard is much smaller than described in the public hearing request. The

house itself will meet all setback requirements. He also noted that the existing lot is 52

feet wide which does not provide for a great deal of flexibility in constructing a home -

particularly when the 20 foot corner side yard setback provisions are also applied to the

property.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for public comment. No one spoke in

favor or opposed to the petition. He then requested the staff report.

William Heniff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted the petitioner plans

to demolish the existing residence and construct a new house on the subject property.

The petitioner presented the proposed building plans which includes a roofed over,

wraparound porch which would encroach approximately four feet (4') into the corner

side yard.

Referencing the IDRC comments, Private Engineering Services noted that the new

house and drive will exceed the 500 square foot threshold for new impervious surface.

This may require that some sort of drainage improvements be installed with the new

house. This aspect will be fully reviewed by PES once the permit application is

submitted.

Mr. Heniff then discussed the zoning aspects of the petition. Roofed over, unenclosed

porches are allowed to encroach five feet (5') into front yards assuming that the porch

projects no more than seven feet (7') from the front wall of the house. He noted that this

provisions was approved as part of a 2002 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. In

consideration of the Ordinance change, he noted that the corner side yard already has

relaxed standards as compared to the front yard setback requirements.

Staff finds that the proposed porch can be constructed according to code by modifying

the proposed roof pitch and removing its encroachment into the corner side yard.

Referencing the standards for variations, staff finds that there are no physical or

topographical conditions affecting the subject lot that prevents the proposed home and

porch from meeting code. While the lot is fifty-two feet (52') wide, the home and

accompanying porch can be constructed to code on the subject lot. Staff finds that the

porch can meet code by shifting the orientation of the stairs and landing toward Morris

Avenue. The petitioner could also modify the building footprint as well. Staff finds that

the subject lot is comparable to the area found in other corner lots in the R2 Single

Family Zoning District. All corner lots are subject to the same requirements as those

imposed on the subject lot. Staff finds that the hardship has not been caused by the

ordinance, but rather the petitioner's choice of placement of the stairs and

accompanying porch. Staff believes that the granting of the requested relief will set an

undesirable precedent.

Chairperson DeFalco then opened the meeting for discussion and questions by the

Board Members.

Mr. Bedard asked for a clarification of the relief being requested. Mr. Heniff noted that

the variation is for the corner side yard to allow for a roofed-over porch. Referencing the

IDRC report, it is the triangular area between the proposed foundation of the residence

to the proposed staircase. The encroachment to the front yard is already permitted by

code.

Chairperson DeFalco then asked about the proposed distance between the porch and

the property line. The petitioner stated that it was about three feet into the yard, but then

after discussion, it was figured to be between three and four feet into the corner side

yard.

Questions then were raised and discussion ensued by the ZBA members about the

proposed stairs. Mr. Heniff noted that stairs for the entrance into the home could be up

to four feet in height. The petitioner noted that the stairs and porch are proposed to be

about 42 inches above grade where the relief is requested.

Chairperson DeFalco then asked about the ownership of the property. The petitioner

said that he intends to build the home and then sell it. The intent of the variation is to

create a home that will be attractive and will allow for the evergreen tree to remain on

the property. He noted that relief needs to be considered on a case by case basis - he

believes that the evergreen tree gives value to the property.

Mr. Bedard inquired as to whether the petitioner considered alternate plans, such as

having the walk out toward Elizabeth? The petitioner said he looked at that option but

that option would not be compatible with the proposed gable roof. Moreover it would

also require a column at the doorway that would interfere with access and would not

work well.

Mr. Young noted that corner side yards are troubling, particularly when they are applied

to very narrow lots even by Village standards. Mr. DeFalco then noted that the existing

house on the property is 5.8 feet from the corner side yard. The petitioner's plan would

provide a greater setback than what is found now on the property.

The ZBA members talked about the conditions of approval that should be added if a

motion to approve is made. Lengthy discussion then ensued about the overall square

footage amount that actually encroaches into the corner side yard. The petitioner then

shared his proposed building plans with the ZBA members so that they could determine

the amount of encroachment into the front yard was being proposed.