Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Lombard
Meeting Minutes
John DeFalco, Chairperson |
Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, |
Staff Liaison: William Heniff |
7:30 PM
Village Hall Board Room
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Call to Order
Chairperson DeFalco called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Roll Call of Members
Chairperson John DeFalco, Mary Newman, Eugene Polley, Greg Young and Ed |
Bedard |
Present:
Val Corrado
Absent:
The following staff member was present: William Heniff, Senior Planner.
Public Hearings
040053
ZBA 04-05: 341 S. Grace Street |
Requests that the Village take the following actions for the subject property located |
within the R2 Single-Family Residence District: |
1. Approve a variation from Section 155.406 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce the minimum required lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet; and |
2. Approve a variation from Section 155.406 (F) (3) of the Zoning Ordinance to |
reduce the minimum required side yard setback along the northern property line |
from 9 feet to 6.8 feet. |
The petitioner requested withdrawal of the petition. The Zoning Board of Appeals |
accepted the withdrawal. |
040051
L. ZBA 04-03: 310 W. Morris (Ordinance on Second Reading) |
Requests a variation from Section 155.406 (F)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the |
corner side yard setback from twenty (20) feet to sixteen (16) feet to allow for the |
construction of an unenclosed roofed-over front porch. |
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. |
It was moved by Young, seconded by Bedard, that this matter be recommended |
to the Corporate Authorities for approval subject to conditions. The motion |
carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
Enactment No: Ordinance 5480 |
1. That the property shall be developed in accordance with the proposed building |
elevations and floor plans prepared by Jakl Brandeis Architects Ltd., dated January 23, |
2004, and submitted as part of the petition. |
2. That the roofed-over porch shall not be enclosed. |
3. That the total square footage of the roofed-over porch into the corner side yard shall |
not exceed sixteen (16) square feet in overall size. |
040052
ZBA 04-04: 53 W. Ethel (Continued from March 24, 2004) (Request to Withdraw) |
Requests a variation from Section 155.406 (F)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the |
interior side yard setback from six (6) feet to four (4) feet to allow for the enclosure of an |
existing carport and a second story addition to an existing single family residence. |
It was moved by Newman, seconded by Polley, that this matter be tabled to the |
April 28, 2004 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as the petitioner failed to appear |
at the public hearing. The motion carried by the following vote: |
Aye:
Chairperson John DeFalco, Newman, Polley, Young and Bedard
5 -
Absent:
Corrado
1 -
Business Meeting
Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Young, seconded by Bedard to approve the minutes of the February |
25, 2004 meeting. The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote of the members |
present. |
Planner's Report
William Heniff, Senior Planner, had nothing to report.
New Business
Chairperson DeFalco reminded the ZBA members to file their Statement of Economic |
Interest forms that were sent to the ZBA members last month. |
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business.
Adjournment
On a motion made by Newman, seconded by Polley, the meeting was adjourned at 8:38 |
p.m. |