Sangamon Sun

Village of La Grange Zoning Board of Appeals met June 20

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of La Grange was held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2024, on the second floor Auditorium Room of the Village Hall, 53 S. La Grange Road, La Grange, Illinois.

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Chairman Finder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Verify Quorum

Upon roll call the following were:

Present: Bresnahan, DaValle, Kerpan, Sheehan, Finder

Absent: Datillo and Workman

Community Development Director Charity Jones and Village Trustee Peterson were also present.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A. March 21, 2024 – Regular Meeting

Commissioner Bresnahan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sheehan to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of March 21, 2024, with no changes. A voice vote was taken:

Ayes: All

Nays: None

Abstain: DaValle

Motion passed

B. April 24, 2024 – LaGrange Forward Workshop

Commissioner DaValle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kerpan to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of April 24, 2024, with no changes. A voice vote was taken:

Ayes: All

Nays: None

Motion passed

Commissioner Workman and Commissioner Dattilo both entered the meeting at 7:02 p.m.

III. BUSINESS AT HAND

A. ZBA #644 – VARIATION FROM PARAGRAPHS 3-110-C-1 (REQUIRED FRONT YARD), 3-11-C-3 (REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE YARD), AND 3-110-E-1 (MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE) OF THE ZONING CODE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FRONT PORCH WITHIN THE R-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, JACK NEAL, 815 S. CATHERINE AVENUE

Chairman Finder asked if anyone was planning on speaking this evening regarding this public hearing to please stand and raise his/her right hand. He then administered the oath. He called for a motion to open the public hearing.

Commissioner Workman made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dattilo to open the public hearing for ZBA Case #644. A voice vote was taken:

Ayes: All

Nays: None

Motion passed

Chairman Finder asked for staff to make a presentation.

Staff Presentation

Charity Jones, Community Development Director, said the owner of the property had requested a variation to construct an approximately six-foot deep, 190 square-foot front porch that would encroach into the required front yard and side yard. It would cause the property to exceed the maximum building coverage. She showed an aerial view of the proposed property to show where it is located on Catherine Avenue.

The R-4 District requires homes, including front porches, to observe a minimum front yard of 35 feet. The minimum interior side yard is 10% of the lot width or five feet, whichever is greater. The subject property is a lot width of 50 feet which results in a minimum side yard of five feet. The applicant’s proposed porch will have a 4.79-foot side yard. The maximum building coverage in the R-4 District is 30%, which for the subject property means a building coverage of 1,830.7 square feet. The applicant is proposing a building coverage of 1,870 square feet or 30.6% coverage, which represents 38.8 square feet over the maximum allowed in the R-4 District.

Mrs. Jones stated the staff memo includes a summary of the variation standards. The lot is a fairly typical size. The home was built in 1941 and was constructed with an attached one-car garage. In 1988, that garage was removed in favor of a detached two-car garage. In 2013, a rear addition to the home was constructed. There is information in the staff memo regarding the other front entry features of homes along Catherine Avenue, as well as prior variation requests. The Administrative Adjustment process is not available for the requested relief because that process is not an option for relief from the minimum side yard. The proposed front yard encroachment and the proposed addition building coverage would fall within the limits that are eligible for approval via the Administrative Adjustment process. The amount of relief in the side yard is not a significant amount but it is not one of the options available for relief through an Administrative Adjustment. This concludes staff’s presentation.

Chairman Finder asked if the side yard setback was reduced because of the eves.

Mrs. Jones said she believes it may be the post extends just beyond the edge of the home.

Commissioner Kerpan asked if the setback for the porch and stairs has to be setback 35 feet.

Mrs. Jones stated the stairs are a little different. Stairs, when they are uncovered, can encroach into the required front yard with limits.

Commissioner Kerpan asked about the concrete slab at the bottom of the stairs.

Mrs. Jones said it would be considered part of the stairs and would be allowed to encroach in the front yard. 

Commissioner Kerpan stated on the one plan there is a dimension of 28 feet three and a half inches. He asked what that dimension is.

Mrs. Jones said it was to the bottom of the stairs.

Commission DaValle asked if staff could clarify what it means in the staff report when it states the existing and proposed lot coverage complies with the R-4 maximum 45% coverage.

Mrs. Jones stated lot coverage is distinct from building coverage. The 45% is the maximum lot coverage. The applicant is seeking relief from the building coverage.

Commissioner Bresnahan asked since the Administrative Adjustment covers the front yard setback and building coverage, is the ZBA here for just the side setback.

Mrs. Jones said it is up to the Commission on how they want to view the application.

The applicant would have the opportunity for relief through the Administrative Adjustment process for the building coverage and front yard setback but not the side setback.

Chairman Finder asked if there were any further questions from the Commission for staff. None responded. He then asked the applicant to come up and make a presentation.

Applicant Presentation

Jack Neal, the applicant, stated the four by four posts coming up are not closer to the side. It is the decking of the porch that overhangs by two and inches. The column supports line up with the second floor and it creates nice clean lines. The reason for the depth is so he can have some chairs on the front porch and sit out there. There is also a bay window on the front of the home so they want to make sure it is comfortable to walk around.

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

None responded. He then called for a motion to close the public hearing.

Commissioner Datillo made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Workman to close the public hearing for Case #644. A voice vote was taken:

Ayes: All

Nays: None

Motion passed

Zoning Board of Appeals Discussion

Chairman Finder asked if there were any comments from the Commission regarding any of the standards.

Commissioner Kerpan said the essential character of the area is very critical for this request for the variance. He feels this request would impact the character because there were very few homes with covered porches and if the homed do have them, they are very small. It states in the staff report that there are no homes on the block that have the full width of the porch as proposed by the applicant. The applicant wants a porch across the front of the home and there is not another home like that on that block or the two blocks north or south of it. He feels if this is permitted then soon after everyone will want porches across the front façade which would be changing the character of the neighborhood. He has an issue that it is the full length of the façade and not smaller.

Commissioner Datillo stated he takes a different point of view. It states in the staff memo that 12 of the 20 homes on South Catherine have some form of front porch. He finds that a front porch is consistent with the essential character of the area.

Commissioner Workman said when she read the packet she thought this block was going to block of Georgian homes and this would be the one home where the front porch went into the front yard. What she discovered is that this block has a variety of homes with different architectural styles and she does not feel that this porch would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Sheehan stated there are letters of support from the neighbors which were included in staff’s packet. The neighbors feel that it will add to the beauty of the neighborhood.

Chairman Finder asked if there were any further comments. None responded. He then called for a motion for a recommendation.

Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendation

Commissioner Dattilo made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bresnahan to recommend to the President and Board of Trustees approval of Case #644 – Variation request from Paragraphs 3-110-C-1 (Required Front Yard), 3-110-C-3 (Required Interior Side Yard), and 3-110-E-1 (Maximum Building Coverage) for the construction of a front porch within the R-4 Single Family Residential District. A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Dattilo, Bresnahan, DaValle, Sheehan, Workman, Finder

Nays: Kerpan

Motion passed

IV. OLD BUSINESS

None

V. NEW BUSINESS

None

VI. PUBLIC COMMENT

None

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Finder called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Commissioner Dattilo made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bresnahan to adjourn the meeting at 7:26 p.m. A voice vote was taken:

Ayes: All

Nays: None

Motion passed

https://www.villageoflagrange.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3284