Sangamon Sun

Village of La Grange Zoning Board of Appeals met June 18.

Here is the minutes provided by the board:

A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of La Grange was held at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2020 via teleconference.

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chairman Pappas called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.

Verify Quorum

Upon roll call the following were:

Present: Edwards, Finder, Kerpan, Peterson, Pappas 

Absent: Tussing

In addition to the Commissioners the following people were in attendance on the electronic meeting. Trustee Liaison Beth Augustin, Director of Community Development Charity Jones, Village Attorney Mark Burkland, and Village Planner Heather Valone were also present.

II. APPROVAL OF MIINUTES

None

III. BUSINESS AT HAND

A. ZBA #630 – VARIATION FROM SECTIONS 3-110G5(b) and 3-110G5(q) (SPECIFIED STRUTURES AND USES IN REQUIRED YARDS) OF THE ZONING CODE WITHIN THE R-4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ROBERT HEATH TOW, 1501 W. 41ST STREET

Chairman Pappas then sworn in the applicant and any public members that were in attendance on the teleconference that were planning on speaking. He then called for a motion to open the public hearing.

Commissioner Edwards made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peterson to open the public hearing for ZBA Case #630. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Edwards, Peterson, Finder, Kerpan, Pappas

Nays: None

Motion passed

Staff Presentation

Mrs. Valone, Village Planner, said on December 16, 2019 the Village had received a complaint that two patios and trellises were being constructed on the subject property. The Village reviewed its permit records and found a permit had been issued on May 16, 2019 for the removal of a patio and replacement of a driveway in the corner side yard. A permit application for two new patios and trellis had not been submitted. The applicant was informed that he needed a permit to construct the accessory structures.

The single-family district in the Village does allow for patios to be constructed in the front and corner side yards. They are limited to only being the depth of seven feet within that required yard. The Village code also allows for trellises to be constructed in the front and corner side yards as long as no element of the trellis has a horizontal length of six feet and located a minimum of five feet from the front and corner side lot lines. The applicant submitted an application for the patios and the trellises on January 6, 2020. Staff reviewed the permit and found the patio and trellis in the corner side yard complied with the Zoning Code requirements. The patio in the front yard did not meet the Zoning Code and was constructed further into the required front yard than seven feet and closer than 20 ft. to the front lot line. The trellises were constructed with a horizontal element greater than six feet.

Mrs. Valone stated the applicant’s request is to encroach with the front patio 28 ft. into the required front yard and have a setback from the front property line of 6.9 ft. The applicant is requesting that the trellises be 15 ft. long on the west side of the patio and 16 ft. long on the south side. Staff did advise the applicant on potential alternatives for the design of the front yard patio and trellis and also provided him the option to apply for a variation. The applicant applied for the variation on February 20, 2020 to allow the patio and trellis to remain as constructed. The application was impacted by the Governor’s shelter in place order until the public hearing could be held electronically today. She indicated she could take any questions the Commissioners had.

Applicant Presentation

Heath Tow, applicant, thanked the Commission for their time. He would like to go through and explain how they got to where they are today. He purchased his home in September 2017 and at that time the landscaping was quite overgrown. The home was in good shape but there was not much curb appeal. He showed pictures of when he first purchased the home and as he made progress on clearing the landscape. He spent a year and half planting and coming up with a visual of what he wanted the home to look like.

After getting many estimates from different landscapers he had finally settled with Acorn Landscaping. They had reviewed the plans in great detail and she submitted the proposal. Roxanne Peterson from Acorn Landscaping had assured him that she was familiar with permits and zoning codes for the Village. One of the reasons why he choose her is she is local, she has done many projects in La Grange, and was certified for the Village. During the project there was a permit application that was submitted. He assumed it was for the project and it hung on the home for the length of the project. He had no knowledge that it did not cover the patios.

Mr. Tow stated they started the project in July. He was very happy with the outcome and that it gave the home functionality. There is not a backyard on the lot. The corner part of the lot is actually the front part of his home which faces 41st Street. He was not aware of any code violations until later. When they finished he was pleased that they had a private area for the family. It added great curb appeal and beauty to the neighborhood. He showed several pictures of the finished project including a picture at night showing the string of lights over the patio area. He has received multiple compliments and several neighbors in the area have signed a petition in favor of the variance. He apologized for asking for the variance after the fact, but he had trusted his landscaper to do their job and get the proper permits. He is available to answer any questions.

Chairman Pappas asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions for the applicant.

Commissioner Edwards asked staff to refresh the Commissioners on the difference between front versus side yards.

Mrs. Valone said in the Village the front lot line is defined as the property line that is adjacent to the public street. In the event there are two property lines adjacent to public streets, then the one that has the shortest frontage is considered the front lot line. In this case, along 41st the property width is only 62.5 feet and along Peck it is 134.87 feet. This makes 41st St. the front property line and the starting point for the front yard.

Mr. Tow thanked the Commissioner for asking that because he had no idea also prior to this meetings with the Village.

Commissioner Edwards asked if that is consistent throughout La Grange.

Mrs. Valone stated it is that way across the Village.

Commissioner Kerpan asked if he had submitted the proposal from Acorn Landscaping. Mr. Tow said he submitted the Acorn proposal with his permit application. Commissioner Kerpan asked if there were drawings submitted.

Mr. Tow stated yes and they are drawings he showed this evening.

Commissioner Kerpan asked if there were drawings for the front yard patio submitted to where it is currently built.

Mr. Tow said he is not sure if those drawings were submitted to the Village, but he does not believe so. The drawings were reviewed by himself and Acorn Landscaping.

Commissioner Kerpan asked if there was a provision stating who was responsible for the permit.

Mr. Tow stated it was unclear who was responsible for the permit. The driveway permit was obtained by 4C Construction which then was used for the entire project, which he didn’t realize until he talked with Village staff.

Commissioner Kerpan said on page 12 of staff’s packet is the proposal from 4C Construction. Within that document proposal on section G it states that the homeowner, at his own expense, will obtain all necessary permits. This is why he is asking if the proposal from Acorn also stated if the homeowner is also responsible for obtaining the permits.

Mr. Tow stated he is not aware of it and is not sure where it would have stated that. The 4C proposal was an addendum to the Acorn Landscaping contract.

Commissioner Kerpan said it would make a difference to him if he could see the proposal from Acorn Landscaping to see who had the obligation to get the permit.

Mr. Tow stated Acorn is saying it was his responsibility but they are not able to provide any documentation of that. He said he did not end on amicable terms with Acorn.

Commissioner Kerpan asked if he had any documentation which shows that Acorn agreed to secure the permit.

Mr. Tow said he does have a copy of the proposal and it is very vague as to who is responsible. Acorn is stating it was the responsibility of 4C and then him. The proposal he has provided only has the cost on it which he has submitted to the Village.

Commissioner Finder asked if he wanted to address any of the variation standards.

Mr. Tow stated for standard eight there were other alternatives given to him but he does not have the ability to put in a private area for his family in the other yards. The side yard is very narrow and the front of his home faces Peck. He is not sure what other alternative he would have to accomplish what he did with this side patio and trellis.

Commissioner Edwards asked if this is an aesthetic code or does it have to do with lot coverage as to why there is a depth restriction.

Mrs. Valone said because the corner side yards can butt up to other peoples’ front yards there are restrictions on what can be placed in the corner side yard. The intent is to prevent structures that would not negatively impact the view of someone else’s front yard or have some type of recreational area that would be directly adjacent to someone’s front yard. This is why the restriction for the patio depth is the same for both the front and corner side yards.

Commissioner Edwards asked if the trees that are planted a problem or just the patio and trellis.

Mrs. Valone stated there are no standards in the Single Family Residential Districts for landscaping besides being kept out of the vision triangle. Landscaping does not require a permit, so the only variation is for the patio and trellis.

Chairman Pappas asked how wide are each of the trellises. Mr. Tow said they are roughly about five feet.

Commissioner Kerpan stated on page six of staff’s report, staff presented three alternatives on where a patio can be constructed. He discussed all three alternatives and asked the applicant about his reasons for not selecting them and instead submitting for the variation application. Commissioner Kerpan noted that all of the alternatives would require the existing patio to be ripped out and reconstructed, which would cost additional money. He asked if the reason why Mr. Tow rejected those alternatives was because it would cost him additional money and be put in a different location.

Mr. Tow said it has nothing to do with the financial impact. It has everything to do with the functional space and the practicality. He does not believe the front of his home that faces the corner side yard is a good area to put a private outdoor area. The other yards are too narrow to put something there. He feels what he constructed and submitted as part of the proposal was the best option.

Commissioner Peterson asked if there were detailed drawings and materials submitted with the original application showing where he constructed the patio and trellis.

Mrs. Valone stated the applicant completed the work without a permit. When he did submit a permit on January 6th of this year he submitted a drawing very similar to Attachment 3 of the staff report.

Commissioner Peterson clarified that he did apply for a permit for the concrete driveway and apron, but did not apply for the other work.

Mr. Tow stated that is correct because it was part of his landscaper’s scope of work. He was not aware that the permit for the driveway was not closed out until December 2019. When he hired Acorn Landscaping to do this project, it was his understanding that the permits, materials, code and policies was all part of the project. This was a registered landscaper with the Village.

Chairman Pappas asked if there were any further questions from the Commissioners for the applicant. None responded. He then asked if there was anyone present from the public that would like to speak in regards to this public hearing.

Public Hearing

Paula West was sworn in. She said she lives next door and appreciates the landscape that Mr. Tow has done. She does not have any issues with it and feels it improves the curb appeal of the street. She lives on 41st Street and is adjacent to his house.

Mike Peth, 1509 W. 41st Street, stated he bought his home in 1986. He feels the applicant’s house has never looked better. He has learned a lot listening to this meeting. He did not realize that his address was 41st Street. He is surprised that the Village would want to put this patio in someone’s front yard by their front door. He also learned that the bushes that are around the patio is okay. The bushes do not obstruct the traffic. He doesn’t understand how the patio behind the bushes can be a problem. One of the Commissioners had commented about the backyard, but there is no backyard on this house. This is a very unusual situation on how the house is situated on the lot. He is very happy with what the applicant has done on the house and feels it would be a shame if he had to take it down.

Chairman Pappas asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak in regards to this public hearing. None responded. He then called for a motion to close the public hearing.

Commissioner Edwards made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Finder to close the public hearing for ZBA case #630. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Edwards, Finder, Kerpan, Peterson, Pappas

Nays: None

Motion passed

Zoning Board of Appeals Discussion

Chairman Pappas asked if there be a space in between the trellises and still be permissible under the code.

Mrs. Valone said the way the code is written is that trellises are limited to six feet in length. It does not specify a number, but based on the horizontal restriction there would need to be a spacing interval between the structures.

Chairman Pappas stated if you look at the aerial view of the houses on 41st Street, those are all front yards. The front of the houses line up if you look east to west. This is the reason for setbacks so we do not obscure the view. Corner houses can be confusing when it comes to determining what is the front yard. He asked if there were any codes regarding the string of lights over the patio.

Mrs. Valone said she is not sure if there are any building code requirements regarding the lights.

Commissioner Edwards asked why there was not a sidewalk along Peck.

Mrs. Valone stated there is not a sidewalk on Peck but she is not sure of the reason why.

Chairman Pappas said he will read through the standards and the Commissioners can provide any comments at that time.

Commissioner Finder stated in regards to standard two, Unique Physical Condition, when they look at the aerial view of the lots, the lot addressed as 1517 W. 41st St. is a mirror image of this lot. When compared to this lot, the applicant does not treat the front yard as his front yard. The front door does face east so that would be only unique physical condition that he would see with this property.

Chairman Pappas said the interior yard is less than 6.5 feet which is very narrow. There is no doubt that the house is pushed back to the west and to the north. He is not sure if that makes it unique.

Commissioner Kerpan stated he does not feel it is unique. There are three other locations where a patio can be constructed. He agrees it would be difficult to put anything on the west side, but he does not feel it makes it unique.

Commissioner Edwards said for standard three he feels the situation may have been self- created by going for a variance after the fact.

Commissioner Finder stated for standard four, if you look at it in the legal terms and how the lot is defined then no he is not being denied substantial rights. Most people are not enjoying large patios in their front yards. Since he does not have a back yard then he is being denied a space which typical is a back yard.

Chairman Pappas said he is not sure if this would apply to standard seven or not but the reason for setbacks is for aesthetic reasons and so neighbors can look down the street. He then asked for feedback regarding standard eight as far as no other remedies.

Commissioner Edwards stated he struggles with the corner lot, the way the house is situated, and the front door. If you put the same thing in the true side yard you will not get the same curb appeal and value of the neighborhood. The other options would be small narrow sidewalks.

Commissioner Kerpan said the code allows encroachment into the front yard up to seven feet and this proposal is 28 ft. which is 19 ft. more than what is allowed by code. This proposal would be greatly exceeding what is allowed by code. The applicant could propose the same patio closer to the building.

Chairman Pappas stated this Commission looks at setbacks a lot and mostly it is for porches. This particular case there is a 35 ft. required front yard for R-4. The proposed patio does not start until 13 ft. from the home. If that patio was to move up against the south side of the house and extended the same 15 ft. then he would be asking for a lot smaller of a variance. He stated that some variation requests require more relief from the code than overs. If the patio was constructed at the front of the house with the same 15 ft. depth it would only be a variance of eight feet. The request for eight or nine feet is much less than 19 ft. as proposed by the applicant. He asked for the Commissioners thoughts on a less variation request.

He stated that hearing no other comments asked if there were any further comments from the Commission regarding the variation request. None responded. He then called for a motion for recommendation.

Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation

Commissioner Kerpan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Finder to recommend to the President and Board of Trustees denial of the variation request for ZBA Case #630 – 1501 W. 41st Street. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Kerpan, Finder, Peterson, Pappas

Nays: Edwards 

Motion passed

IV. OLD BUSINESS

None

V. NEW BUSINESS

Mrs. Valone reminded the Commissioners to complete their Census form and to please spread the word to residents and neighbors to do so also.

VI. ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Pappas called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Commissioner Finder made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Edwards to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m. A voice vote was taken:

Ayes: Finder, Edwards, Kerpan, Peterson, Pappas

Nays: None

Motion passed

https://www.villageoflagrange.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2538