HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. Old Business 11/17/2015Village o' ` Mount Prospect Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: MICHAEL J. CASSADY, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2015
SUBJECT: PZ -25-151308 S. EMERSON STREET / VARIATION
The petitioner installed a sports court measuring nineteen feet (19') by thirty-eight feet (38') without a
permit, and is seeking variation approval to allow the structure to remain as is constructed. Per the
Petitioner's site plan, the sports court is located one foot (1') from the south property line (side yard)
and nine feet (9') from the west property line (rear yard).
An accessory structure such as a sports court is not a permitted obstruction in the required side yards,
but is a permitted obstruction in the rear yard, as long as a minimum setback of fifteen feet (15) is
provided between the rear property line and the near edge of the structure. The petitioner is seeking
variation approval from the side and rear yard setback requirements to allow the sports court to remain
as constructed.
During the discussion at the November 3rd Village Board meeting, several trustees expressed a
willingness to grant the variation requests so long as there were conditions put in place limiting the
approval to the constructed sport court. Staff discussed this matter with the Village Attorney who
drafted the following conditions for the Village Board's consideration:
1. The surface material shall be and remain as specified on Exhibit B (or its functional equivalent
with respect to permeability). No portion of the Sports Court shall be resurfaced with any other
material.
2. The size of the Sports Court shall not be increased beyond that shown on Exhibit B.
3. No permanently affixed equipment or structure shall be added to the Sports Court other than as
shown on Exhibit C; i.e. fencing, tennis net standards or the like.
The Village Board also questioned what the fine would be for starting work without a permit. Village
code requires a minimum fine of $250 and a maximum fine of $1,500 for conducting work without a
permit. Given the scope and cost of the work that was completed, the fine is $250 for this violation.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and
consideration at their November 17, 2015 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions
related to this matter.
',
William J, Pooney, AIC
Village of Mount Prospect MountPmspect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
- ----- . . . ..... . .... . ....
TO: MICHAEL J. CASSADY, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2015
SUBJECT: PZ -25-15 / 308 S. EMERSON STREET / VARIATION
The petitioner installed a sports court measuring nineteen feet (19') by thirty-eight feet (38') in the
summer without a permit, and is seeking variation approval to allow the structure to remain as is
constructed. Per the Petitioner's site plan, the sports court is located one foot (1') from the south
property line (side yard), eleven feet (11') from the north property line (side yard) and nine feet (9') from
the west property line (rear yard).
An accessory structure such as a sports court is not a permitted obstruction in the required side yards,
but is a permitted obstruction in the rear yard, as long as a minimum setback of fifteen feet (16) is
provided between the rear property line and the near edge of the structure. The petitioner is seeking
variation approval from the side and rear yard setback requirements to allow a sports court to be
located one foot (1') from the south property line (side yard), instead of the required five feet (5), and
nine feet (9') from the west property line (rear yard), instead of the required fifteen feet (15').
The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the requests on Thursday,
October 22, 2015 and by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval of the following motion:
A. Variation to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a
sports court, as shown in the site plan date stamped October 7, 2015 for the residence at 308 S.
Emerson Street.
Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing
are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village
Board for their review and consideration at their November 3, 2015 meeting. Staff will be present to
answer any questions related to this matter.
, �� -
William I Cooney, AI `P
\\VCI\vhlhcdSWLAWlaiming&Zoiwig COMM\P&Z2015\Villagc Matagcr Mcmos\PZ-25-153085 Emerson(Setback Variation).docx
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
CASE SUMMARY — PZ -25-15
LOCATION:
PETITIONERS:
OWNERS:
PARCEL #:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
REQUEST:
et ?F
308 S. Emerson Street
Sean Mitchell
Sean and Roberta Mitchell
08-12-126-015-0000
0.172 acres (7,500 square feet)
RA Single Family Residence
Single Family Residential
Variation — Side and rear yard setbacks for a sports court.
LOCATION MAP
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HEARING DATE:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
MEMORANDUM
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JOSEPH P. DONNELLY, CHAIRPERSON
LATIKA BHIDE, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER
OCTOBER 13, 2015
OCTOBER 22, 2015
PZ -25-15 / 308 S. EMERSON ST. / VARIATION (SIDE AND REAR YARD
SETBACKS)
A public hearing has been scheduled for the October 22, 2015 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review
the application by Sean Mitchell (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 308 S. Emerson Street (the
"Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking variations to the side and rear yard setbacks to allow a sports court.
The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the October 7, 2015 edition of the Daily Herald Newspaper. In addition,
staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250 feet and posted a public hearing
sign on the Subject Property.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the west side of Emerson Street, south of Milburn Avenue. The Subject
Property contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single
Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA district.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The attached exhibits illustrate the Petitioners' improvements. The Petitioner installed a sports court, nineteen
feet (19 feet) by thirty-eight feet (38 feet) in the rear of the property this summer without a permit. Per the site
plan, the court is located one foot (1 foot) from the south property line (interior side), eleven feet from the north
property line (interior side) and nine feet (9 feet) from the west property line (rear side).
GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE
The Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations and is considered non -conforming.
The Plat of Survey indicates the existing home does not comply with all of the required setbacks. The home is
setback twenty-one feet and nine and three -fourth inches (21.75) feet from the east property line (front) when the
Village Code requires a minimum of thirty (30) feet. The home is setback four feet and eleven inches (4.91) feet
from the north property line (interior side) when the Village Code requires 5 feet. The south (interior side) and
west (rear) setbacks are conforming. The Subject Property is in an area of the Village that was annexed in 1917.
The Subject Property was likely developed in the mid-1950s.
PZ -25-15
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 22, 2015
Page 2
Accessory structures are not permitted to be located in a required side yard. However, patios (a sports court is
considered a patio) are permitted to encroach into the required rear yard, as long as a minimum setback of fifteen
(15') feet is maintained. Per the site plan submitted by the petitioner, the sports court is located one (1') foot from
the south property line (side yard), instead of the required five (5') feet and nine (9') feet from the west property
line (rear yard), instead of the required fifteen (15') feet. Therefore, a variation for the side yard and rear yard
setback requirements is required.
Besides the variation requests for the side and rear yard setbacks, the proposed improvements would comply with
the RA bulk requirements, including floor area ratio and overall lot coverage. The following table compares the
existing and proposed improvements to the RA Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. The
italicized text denotes items that require zoning relief from the Village Code's bulk regulations.
Staff conducted a site visit to the property on October 6, 2015. During the visit, staff noted that the post for the
basketball hoop is approximately nine (9") inches from the west property line and the edge of framing for the
court is approximately sixteen (16") inches from the (west) property line. Also, staff noted that the edge of
framing for the court is approximately eight feet six inches (8.5') from the west property line.
VARIATION STANDARDS
The standards for a variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven
specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. The following list is a summary of these
findings:
• A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not
generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person
presently having an interest in the property;
• Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and
• Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character.
RA Single Family District
Requirements
Existing (without
sports court)
Proposed
Setbacks (Principal
Structure):
Front (east)
Min. 30'
21.75'
No Change
Interior Side (north
and south)
Min. 5'
4.92' and 9'
No Change
Rear (west)
Min. 25'
77.12'
No Change
Setbacks (Accessory
Structure):
Interior Side (north
and south)
Min 5'
1'
Rear (west)
Min 15'
9'
F.A.R
Max. 0.5 (3,897.25 sq. ft.)
0.39 (3,016 sq. ft.)
0.39 (3,016 sq. ft.)
Lot Coverage
Max. 50% (3,897.25 sq. ft.)
32.39% (2,525 sq. ft.)
(3,247 sq. ft.)
Staff conducted a site visit to the property on October 6, 2015. During the visit, staff noted that the post for the
basketball hoop is approximately nine (9") inches from the west property line and the edge of framing for the
court is approximately sixteen (16") inches from the (west) property line. Also, staff noted that the edge of
framing for the court is approximately eight feet six inches (8.5') from the west property line.
VARIATION STANDARDS
The standards for a variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven
specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. The following list is a summary of these
findings:
• A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not
generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person
presently having an interest in the property;
• Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and
• Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character.
PZ -25-15
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 22, 2015
Page 3
Per the Petitioner, the other parts of the property are not suitable for installation of the court. They have indicated
that moving the court south would require costly grading and the removal of a large maple tree and root system.
The petitioner has stated that the subject property is unique because of the slope of the yard as well as the location
of the maple trees.
Staff has reviewed the Petitioner's request and finds that the standards for a variation have not been met. The
Subject Property's characteristics are not unique and unusual, and would be applicable to other property in the
Village. The Variation request does not meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined
by the Zoning Ordinance. The location of the trees and the slope of the yard, which is not excessive, do not
constitute hardships. The Petitioner has the option of locating the sports court so that it meets the required five
(5') feet side yard and fifteen (15') feet rear yard setback as permitted by Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on staff's analysis, the Variation request does not meet the standards for a variation contained in Section
14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons noted above. Therefore, Staff recommends that the P&Z
recommend denial of the following motion:
"To approve a variation to allow a one (1') foot side yard setback and a nine (9') foot rear yard setback for a
sports court, as shown in the attached plans dated October 7, 2015 for the residence at 308 S. Emerson Street"
The Village Board's decision is final for this case.
I concur:
William J. ooney, A ] (' '
Director of Community )evelopment
/it HVLANTIanning & Zoning COMMT Z 2015\PZ-25-I5 308 S Emerson Street (VAR- Sports Court).docx
Angell, Lisa
From: Cooney, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:54 AM
To: Angell, Lisa; Agoranos, Karen
Subject: FW: request for waiving of second reading
FYI
From: sean mitchell [mailto:smitch308( ghoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:57 AM
To: Cooney, Bill
Cc: Roberta Mitchell; Sean Mitchell
Subject: request for waiving of second reading
William J. Cooney, AICP
Director of Community Development
Village of Mount Prospect
50 S. Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
or
Via fax: 847/818-5329
or
Via email: bcoonevZ-mountorosr)ect.ora
Dear Mr. Cooney,
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of our variance of a side and rear yard
setback for use of a sport court only by a 7-0 vote. Our request is scheduled to go before Village
Board for the ordinance's first reading Nov 3 2015.
We are requesting that the Village Board waive the second reading, tentatively scheduled for
November 17 2015, and take final action at the November 3`d meeting. We are anxious to receive
final word on these matters.
I appreciate your assistance in facilitating this request. Should you have any questions, feel free to
contact us at 847-253-5180 (home) or 847-927-934 (cell).
Many thanks,
Roberta and Sean Mitchell
308 S. Emerson St
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Scanned by the Symantee Email Security.cloud service.
1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ -25-15
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Hearing Date: October 22, 2015
308 S. Emerson Avenue
Sean Mitchell
October 7, 2015
08-12-126-015-0000
Variation — Side and rear yard setbacks for a sports court
Thomas Fitzgerald
Keith Youngquist
Jeanne Kueter
Sharon Otteman
Norbert Mizwicki
Joseph Donnelly, Chair
Agostino Filippone - Associate
William Beattie
Consuelo Andrade, Deputy Director of Community
Development
Latika Bhide, Development Review Planner
Sean and Roberta Mitchell, Ed and Chris Warden
1
Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Fitzgerald made a motion to
approve the minutes of the August 27`h, 2015 meeting; Commissioner Younquist seconded the motion.
The minutes were approved 6-0 with Commissioner Otteman abstaining. After hearing one (1) additional
case, Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ -25-15 308 S. Emerson Avenue and stated it was Village
Board Final.
Ms. Bhide stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Emerson Street, south of Milburn
Avenue and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Property is zoned RA
Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA district.
Ms. Bhide stated the Petitioner installed a sports court, nineteen feet (19') by thirty-eight feet (38') in the
rear of the property this summer without a permit. Per the site plan, the court is located one foot (1') from
the south property line (interior side), eleven feet (11') from the north property line (interior side) and
nine feet (9') from the west property line (rear side).
Ms. Bhide stated that accessory structures are not permitted to be located in a required side yard.
However, patios (a sports court is considered a patio) are permitted to encroach into the required rear
Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15
Joseph Donnelly, Chairman
2
yard, as long as a minimum setback of fifteen feet (15') is maintained. Per the site plan submitted by the
petitioner, the sports court is located one foot (1') from the south property line (side yard), instead of the
required five feet (5') and nine feet (9') from the west property line (rear yard), instead of the required
fifteen feet (15'). Therefore, a variation for the side yard and rear yard setback requirements is required.
Ms. Bhide summarized the standards for a variation as the following:
A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific
property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by
any person presently having an interest in the property;
• Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and
• Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character.
Ms. Bhide stated that Staff has reviewed the Petitioner's request for variation and finds that the standards
have not been met. The Subject Property's characteristics are not unique and unusual, and would be
applicable to other property in the Village. The location of the trees and the slope of the yard, which is not
excessive, do not constitute hardships. The Variation request does not meet the standards for a Variation
because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner has the option of locating
the sports court so that it meets the required five feet (5') side yard and fifteen feet (15') rear yard setback
as permitted by Code.
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the
findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend denial of the following motion:
"To approve a variation to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback
for a sports court, as shown in the plan dated October 7, 2015 for the residence at 308 S. Emerson Street"
She stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Commissioner Filippone asked about lighting for the court. Ms. Bhide stated that there are no lights
currently installed, but the petitioner can address if lighting is put up temporarily. Commissioner
Mizwicki asked if the basketball hoop would be located nine inches (9") from the property line. Ms.
Andrade confirmed the distances of the hoop and the court. Commissioner Mizwicki said that was
awfully close.
Chairman Donnelly swore in Sean Mitchell and Roberta Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell stated that he was not
aware that a permit would be required. He stated that they put a basketball hoop in the yard a few years
ago. Earlier this summer, they removed the tree near the hoop as it had suffered some damage. Mr.
Mitchell stated that they had received some light weight tiles and thought that these would be perfect to
lay on the ground in the dirt. Because the ground was not entirely flat and because they believed that they
had to manage stormwater, they graded the yard. He said that they removed the grass and filled the area
with crushed stone; the depth was approximately 1.5 inches. Mr. Mitchell showed a video comparing
hosing water over turf and the court. He stated that in his opinion, it was not the same as a patio because
the sports court was permeable and allowed the water to go through. He showed pictures of surrounding
properties and stated that the neighbor's garage is on the fence line without a setback. Mr. Mitchell
Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15
Joseph Donnelly, Chairman
3
showed several other pictures of surrounding properties with accessory structures on lot lines. He stated
that he had four (4) children and that Emerson Street was a busy street. Mr. Mitchell presented a signed
petition from the neighbors in support of his request. He stated that when he has company over he has run
a cord with lights across the tree, but never past 10:00 pm in the summer. He said that it was a temporary
light.
Chairman Donnelly stated that even with the addition of the court, the property was under the maximum
allowable lot coverage. Commissioner Youngquist clarified that a patio (even if permeable) would add to
the lot coverage.
Commissioner Youngquist asked about the required setbacks on a fifty foot (50') wide lot.
Commissioner Otteman stated that she lived at 312 S. Emerson and that her garage is on the lot line. She
stated that she cannot move her garage without impacting a large tree and would need a variation when
rebuilding her garage. Commissioner Filippone asked if the petitioner has received any complaints from
the neighbors to the south and west. Mr. Mitchell stated that all the immediate neighbors are in favor and
have signed the petition, and the only complaint was from the neighbor that was two lots to the north.
Chairman Donnelly stated that they had received a letter signed by six (6) people asking the Planning and
Zoning Commission to not approve the variation.
Chairman Donnelly swore in Mr. and Mrs. Worden, 304 S. Emerson Street. Mrs. Worden stated that she
is concerned with the water run-off. She stated that when there are heavy rains, the water stagnates, the
grass dies and they get mosquitoes and she is concerned that this will have a negative impact. She stated
that having so much play equipment in a small yard would bring down their property values. Mrs.
Worden stated that the children routinely make noise 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. and she is required to keep
the windows closed in summer and anticipates this to be more of an issue over time. Mr. Worden stated
that the letter speaks for itself and he did not have anything to add. Mrs. Worden added that zoning codes
are there for a reason.
Mr. Mitchell said that the kids go to bed at a reasonable hour and they are not there until 10:30 p.m. or
11:00 p.m. He said that immediate neighbors who may be affected by the run-off if any have signed the
petition in support. He said that if the court was moved (to meet the setbacks) it would be closer to 304 S.
Emerson.
Chair Donnelly confirmed that the Engineering Division does not have any concerns with the court. He
asked staff if there was a limitation on the number of play equipment on the property. Ms. Andrade stated
that there is a limitation on the number of detached structures. Up to two (2) detached accessory
structures are permitted, but that it would not apply to the sports court in question. Chair Donnelly stated
that any noise after 10:30 p.m. would be a police issue, not a zoning issue.
Commissioner Youngquist asked if the garage was in the front of the property. Mr. Mitchell answered
that it was an attached garage and they had initially thought to attach the hoop to the garage, but were
worried about the safety of the children if the ball rolled onto Emerson Street. Commissioner Youngquist
said that because of the attached garage they do not have a driveway going to the rear of the property like
a lot of the neighbors.
Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15
Joseph Donnelly, Chairman
4
Chair Donnelly asked for confirmation that the variation would apply to the sports court only. Ms.
Andrade responded the variation would be specific to the sports court. Commissioner Jeanne Kueter
asked about the lighting. Ms. Andrade stated the Village Code did not allow light trespass or direct glare
onto adjacent properties. Any lighting would be subject to the code provisions. Commissioner
Youngquist stated that a construction lamp without a canopy would not meet the Code provision. He said
that any light must be directed directly into the yard.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked how far the court would have to be moved to meet setbacks. Ms. Bhide
said that the court would have to be moved 6 feet east and 4 feet to the north. Mr. Mitchell stated that the
root system of the big maple tree that was removed would make moving the court six feet (6') east
difficult. The slope of the yard would also make it difficult.
Commissioner Kueter asked why they would not make the court smaller to meet the setbacks. Mr.
Mitchell said that they could, however it made sense to keep it in its current location because of where the
hoop was located.
Chair Donnelly asked if anyone else had anything to add before closing the hearing.
Commissioner Youngquist stated that a lot of homes in Mount Prospect have detached garages in the
back with basketball hoops and people play on the asphalt surface at all times. He said that they don't
have that (possibility) here, and there is no lot coverage problem. Commissioner Otteman said that
Emerson was a very busy street and people are often racing down (the street). She said it was a great
block to live on, but that they could not be in the front yard. She stated that because their kitchen was
located behind the garage, they could not make the garage as a pass-through.
Commissioner Filippone said that he was trying to balance the petitioner's need and the resident concerns.
He said that this petition was a Village Board final and they would have an opportunity to express their
concerns to the Board. Commissioner Otteman discussed the reason for the stagnant water, but she stated
that it was not related to the court. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if there was a utility easement along
the back of the property. Ms. Andrade said that there was no easement outlined on the Plat of Survey.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said that because of the power lines back there, if someone wanted to work
there on the power lines, they could. Mr. Mitchell said that they could move the tiles like carpeting.
Commissioner Youngquist made a motion seconded by Commissioner Otteman to approve the following
motion:
"A Variation to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a
sports court, as shown in the plan dated October 7, 2015 for the residence at 308 S. Emerson Street."
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Filippone, Fitzgerald, Otteman, Youngquist, Kueter, Mizwicki, Donnelly
NAYS: None
The vote was approved 7-0 with a positive recommendation to Village Board.
Commissioner Otteman made a motion seconded by Commissioner Kueter and the meeting was
adionmed at R-15 nm_
Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15
Joseph Donnelly, Chairman
Latik' 3hide, Development Review Planner
Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15
Joseph Donnelly, Chairman
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Community Development Department — Planning Division
50 S. Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Phone: (847) 818-5328
Fax: (847) 818-5329
Zoning Request Application
Mount
OFFICIAL USE, ONLY (To be completed by Village Staff)
Case Number: P&Z - - Date of Submission: Hearing Date:
Development Name/Address:
I. SUBJECT PROPERTY
Address(es): --?OS S. E Me rsart &I -
Zoning District (s): 114 Property Area: SQ.Ft.
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): Of- !d Id wj—
Adjacent Zoning Districts: Adjacent Land Uses:
To the North: To the North: 7(A.� VAC
To the South: To the South:
To the East: To the East:
To the Vilest: To the West:
ll. ZONING REQUEST(S) (Check all that apply)
❑ Conditional Use: For
R'Variation(s): From Chapter 14, Section(s)�
❑ Zoning Map Amendment: Rezone From to
❑ Zoning Text Amendment: Section(s)
❑ Other:
Official Use Only To be completed by Village Staff): ❑ Administrative, ❑ P&Z Final, ❑ Village Board Final
III. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION(S)
.va
Hours of Operation:
IV. APPLICANT (all correspondence will be sent to the applicant)
Name ��- n �'}�j� l�_ Corporation:
Interest In
Property:
(e.g. owner, buyer, developer, lessee, architect, attorney, etc...)
Address:;
Work Phone: Cell Phone: I V 7-1f 7
Fax
Email
V. PROPERTY OWNER
Check if Same as Applicant
Name:
Corporation:
Address:
Work Phone:
Cell Phone:
Fax:
Email:
VI. EXISTING SITE INFORMATION
VII. PROPOSED SITE INFORMATION
el- c_i r-4 vt t4
Building Size: P
��..�— Sq. Ft.
t ovr
�i �� � % Sq. Ft.
Tenant Space Size:
L)
Sq. Ft.
TenaTt e -Size:
Sq. Ft
Land Use:
t
Land Use:
Building Setbacks: (N)
J
Feet, Inches
Building Setbacks: (N)
Feet, Inches
(S)
Feet, Inches
_S,1 -,►/e_ (S)
Feet, Inches
(E)
`
Feet, Inches
(E)
Feet, Inches
(W)
Feet, Inches
(W)
Feet, Inches
Lot Coverage:
��
Lot Coverage:
3/
Sq. Ft.
(Overall Impervious)
-3
Sq. Ft.
(Overall Impervious)
Parking Provided-
Standard
Standard
p
Accessible
Accessible
VIII. DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT PROFESSIONALS
1. Developer Name:
Address:
Email:
Phone:
Fax:
Z. Architect Name:
Address:
Email:
Phone:
Fax -
3. Engineer Name:
Address:
Email:
Phone:
Fax:
4. Landscape
Architect Name:
Email:
Fax:
Email:
Fax:
Email:
Fax:
In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that
approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property.
The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agent's
permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property.
I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are
true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant: Date: �/k�/ T
(Signature)
c r<
(Print Name)
If applicant is not property owner:
I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the zoning request(s) described in this
application and the associated supporting material.
Property Owner: Date:
(Signature)
(Print Name)
VARIATION
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of
the specific property involved, a specific hardship to the owner would result, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations was to be
applied;
Other parts of the land are not conducive for this court. Moving the court south and/or
east would require costly leveling of the land as well as large maple tree and root removal.
This is a permeable surface on a small bed of crushed stone. There is no change to the
direction of water flow.
2. The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the
property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other
property within the same zoning classification;
This property is unique to other properties because of the angle/hill/ slope of the yard, as
well as location of very large maple tree and roots.
3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase financial
gain;
No financial gain will come of this sport court. The property is not for sale or rent. This is
for the use of our family, as living on the busy section of Emerson, we prefer to not play in
the front.
4. The alleged difficulty or hardships is caused by this Chapter and has not been created by
any person presently having any interest in the property;
Difficulty and hardships would be caused by this Chapter because it would require the
removal of very large maple tree, roots, and costly leveling of property.
5. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located;
Granting this variation will in no way be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
other property or improvements in the neighborhood.
6. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;
The granting of this variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is
frequently enjoyed by surrounding neighborhood families.
7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or
increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on
adjacent properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
This court is flat on the surface of the yard. No light or air supply, have been impaired. No
congestion has been created on the public streets. There is no increase of fire danger.
There is no public safety endangerment. No impairment to natural drainage has been
caused. This surface is permeable. The plastic tiles have holes in them and are on top of a
%Z inch layer of crushed stone which is on the dirt surface.
s S -Pe-c-X7 Qe7 ti 1 i v:�r7L
Vv" Lovi--i Svr C
r%'' cr(aAe- x '1�kl7e-
,� �=.,,,.,�,,�C ''�►��Yy, .gyp ,% f * i _ �. �;s' , + f `..,'i
. r M� � ' Jf{_'"�.`.~�-71. �f f. `�y. • ;. ; �..�z-...r;.,,.,%, .jam,. �.
yr�
V� •� �'9 � i j ink a,� �.-�.•'�
A. Si � �..Y � .� � •r 2 i" �tjIvy
1
Jot
.a
0
1To i , ♦�
iri+�ia� .rir�rrr� ► ��1 ► � ,,�� rai INI
iia � "riH�iii, ..iri ♦i i j �� � ���� ��`,
.iaa iia/ i
t e riau iN
RE: Case No. PZ -25-15
RECEIVED
OCT 1 6 2015
Village of ML Prosped
Community Development
Octob'
Dear Members of the Zoning Commission,
Do not allow allow the property located at 308 S. Emerson Street a variance for a
private outdoor sports court.
Do expedite the demand for the immediate removal of the illegally installed private
outdoor basketball court at 308 S. Emerson Street.
I request that the variance for a private outdoor sports court (POSC) at the subject property
not be approved. I, and other concerned nearby residents, will be adversely affected by such
variance if it is approved by the Zoning Commission. We have already been adversely
affected with undue hardship resulting from the illegally installed POSC that currently exists at
this time at the subject property.
Additionally, due to the undue hardships experienced from the illegally installed POSC, and
for public safety concerns, we implore the commission to expedite the demand for an
immediate removal of the illegally installed POSC that currently exists at this time at the
subject property.
As you already know, Lions Park, a beautiful public park, has soccer, football and baseball
fields as well as basketball courts for public use. Lions Park is situated in a location that has
been approved for such activity. Lions Park is approximately two blocks away from the subject
property requesting the variance. Lions Park provides an adequate solution for basketball
play and any and all other play for the other items currently in the subject property backyard.
What you do not know, which I am writing at this time to notify you, are the concerns of
nearby residents. We deeply oppose an approval of the requested variance by the property
owner where the POSC is located.
a) Conditions particular to that property are causing a hardship. We believe the lot size,
shape, current configuration, or any known or unknown modified configuration of the lot, will
not adequately provide for a POSC and at the same time also provide for the proper water
runoff that it creates. Adequate and proper water runoff is important for our health and
property values, and we have concerns for our health and and property values. Residents are
concerned for the flooding of surrounding yards and basements. Flooding of yards may result
in the creation of an environment that is favorable for increased breeding of dangerous
mosquitoes and other pests. Flooding of basements will result in lowered property values. If
the POSC is allowed to remain, or to exist with Zoning Commission permission, then the
hardships as described will likely be experienced as flooding already occurs of a neighboring
yard. Therefore, we concerned residents request the homeowner pay for and obtain an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) from a neutral, approved and qualified party to create a
report and provide the findings to the Zoning Commission before the Zoning Commission
gives any further consideration of variance at this time. We believe it is in the best public
interest for the entire community that the Commission do its due diligence of obtaining an EIS
as described prior to further consideration for variance. Until an EIS is obtained the Zoning
Commission has no true understanding of the consequences of the effects of approving the
POSC. We believe anything less than doing full due diligence that may have a negative
impact on the people of the community is not sound governance.
b) The property owner has self-created a hardship. He is only now, after the fact, requesting
approval to have a POSC on his property by way of requesting a needed variance after he
built the POSC that requires a variance. That is not a valid reason to be provided a variance.
c) To our understanding, the homeowner did not follow ordinance by first obtaining a Permit
prior to building the POSC. This results in public safety concerns. If the zoning requirement
for Permit(s) to build have been ignored, then the installation of a POSC and accompanying
pole mounted stadium lighting around the yard perimeter prior to obtaining valid Permit(s)
from the Zoning Commission in and of itself is sufficient reason to have the POSC
immediately removed. We request that the immediate removal of the POSC to occur at this
time if the POSC has been erected without being Permitted properly as required, and also
inspected at required stages of construction by authorized and qualified Public Works
Official(s) as required by law. Building codes help ensure the public safety and if the periodic
inspections have not occurred then we have a concern for public safety. Permit to build is
typically obtained with a plat of survey with proposed building design(s) prior to Permit being
approved. To our knowledge and until proven otherwise, this has not been completed,
submitted, or approved by the Commission or by Public Works to have Permit(s) issued.
Therefore, if Permit was not approved and issued, and if inspections for the safety of the
public have not been performed by an authorized party at Public Works, then before variance
approval should even merely considered, we find it quite necessary and correctly so to have
the existing structure be completely and immediately removed and have the lot returned back
to its original condition as required by village ordinance. Only then if the homeowner desires
to have a POSC installed in that location they may proceed using the proper channels and
legal means, including variance request with public opposition opportunity prior to the
construction of a POSC, the issuance of Permits, and finally inspections during construction if
all of the aforementioned are approved in good and proper order.
d) Property value impact. Currently the yard has several items that are not necessarily outside
of ordinance, however we believe the items as a whole constitute a "Playground Park". We
believe adding more "Playground Park" items to this already full yard is unreasonable and will
reduce property values. Property values have not yet improved to baseline since the 2009
housing drop. We would appreciate if one neighbor does not reduce property values again
because they would like to have more "Playground Park" items in their yard. A full-sized
trampoline, a tree swing and two climbers seems reasonably sufficient to put in the yard of a
persons home with its current lot size and existing improvements. If more items are required,
and subsequently approved by the Commission, such as allowing the pole mounted yard
perimeter stadium lighting to remain and allowing for loud sporting events occurring late into
the night on a POSC, then we're convinced that will lower our property values in a way that
would be considered unjust. The small downtown lot with the "Playground Park" atmosphere
including perimeter stadium lighting and a POSC is not congruent with the rest of the
neighborhood to such a degree that we believe it adversely affects our property values. We
would like to request at this time from the Zoning Commission to confirm the stadium lighting
was Permitted and installed by a licensed and/or qualified as per ordinance electrician. If not,
then we request the proper officials instruct that to be removed by a qualified electrician to
protect the public safety from this lighting.
e) Disturbing the peace. There are often 10-15 children in the yard with seemingly little to no
supervision. I have no problems with children playing and having fun, and I encourage it. But,
having 10-15 children at all times of the day and at times late at night with the stadium
lighting, loud music, and fireworks reduces my quality of life. I have to leave the windows
closed during nice weather. The 10-15 children can play and scream at Lions Park and have
the same level of fun without the need to mimic a Lions Park in their backyard. The level of
noise that occurs at times past 10:30 while I have to sleep with earplugs in so I can work the
next day is correctly described as disturbing the peace.
Please help in every way by refusing a variance and by demanding that the POSC be
removed.
Sincerely,
Vvt
o�
���M Q o °Eco
Hello Neighbor
The Mitchell family at 308 S. Emerson has installed a sport court in our backyard. This
temporary and permeable surface"s location is currently being reviewed by the village zoning
oommiu)on. If you are comfortable with us keeping the court where it is currently installed,
Please sign the form below to show your support for us in our upcoming board review.
Many thanks
NAME ADDRESS
VI Y' AJ In
'
Lcl u,
JV
rl
_
60�4��
Lr
60�4��
Lr
Ile
a 11M■OM.
d m,
• ' X
1.■ M
C C
-F IL
,"
I
P771
I
E71
-(Tr
�
. r%a
4d
N
Ilk
w
r
*4
R 4
4
•�
M
.m
,—, I,
40
14MEW
i
mom
« ter►.
r 6
T
ti
k
w d4
n1W
IN
�w
w
yaw ww�♦
0
„
4 i
��
w
_
„ _ a�
�u ,� � r � wrry � R .M
�_"
� "
, ry y •.
R
�
wr
i
7
ti
� r
r
r � ,
+f
h
J
70PMt�
� \� � � ' \� �`.
-14
-1 --
0IbL
x
i
il
W k
ryry �h.
YV-
F
p
e
4
mar
r.
I�
I�
WAJu w
rl,
A
le
Nk
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS (SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS)
WITH CONDITIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
308 SOUTH EMERSON STREET MOUNT PROSPECT ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, Sean and Roberta Mitchell (Petitioners), have filed a petition for Variations to allow a one foot (1')
side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for property located at 308 South Emerson Street
(Property) and legally described as:
LOT 20 IN WALDEMAR KRAUSES'S ADDITION TO MOUNT PROSPECT, IN THE EAST HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Property Index Number 08-12-126-015-0000; and
WHEREAS, the "Petitioners" seek Variations to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9')
rear yard setback for a Sports Court as shown on the Petitioner's Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" for the
property located at 308 South Emerson Street; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of P-5-15 before the
Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 2 `4 day of October„ 2015, pursuant
to UI legal notice having been published in the Da 1y Herald N'ewsoaoer on the .nth day of October 2015;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the
Mayor and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ -25-15; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the
request herein and have determined that the request meets the standards of the Village and that the granting
of the Variations to allow with certain conditions as set forth below, a one foot (1') side yard setback and a
nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a Sports Court would be in the best interest of the Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE
POWERS:
SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the Mayor and
Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect grant Variations to allow
a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a Sports Court as shown on the site
plan subject to the following conditions:
1. The size of the Sports Court shall not be increased beyond that shown on Exhibit "A".
2. The surface material shall be and remain as specified on Exhibit "B" and depicted in Exhibits "B-1"
and "B-2" (or its functional equivalent with respect to permeability). No portion of the Sports Court
shall be resurfaced with any other material.
3. No permanently affixed equipment or structure; i.e. fencing, tennis net standards or the like, shall
be added to the Sports Court other than as shown on Exhibit "C".
SECTION THREE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this
Ordinance and Exhibits "A", "B", "B-1 ", "B-2" and "C" with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County.
SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval in the
manner provided by law.
1 OFA
010
MOUNT PROSPSCT
APO 23 AM
BUILDING DIVISION
,�/a,-J4,—
309S, �TE.E'Sc�/V . ST.eEc�T
EA
o�
�n
�w
iss n
.a
.L rr
A
5
• 2
3
7
n
E
9
m
Guide Specifications for FLEX COURT® Basketball / Multi -Sport Surface
Form No. 225
PART I — GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION
A. Scope of Work
Furnishing of materials of the flooring system described
herein, including the interlocking suspended synthetic
(polypropylene high impact copolymer of proprietary
formulation) modular the system and complete
installation thereof, and application of game lines, as well
as maintenance instructions for the system.
B. Related Work Specified Elsewhere
1. Installation of concrete, bituminous, or wood substrate.
2. Preparation of substrate to provide a medium dense
finish with level tolerances of (+) or (-) 1/4" in any 10' radius.
3. Membrane waterproofing as determined by project
engineer. NOTE: Flex Court@ surfaces are not affected by
moisture.
1.02 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Acceptable Installer
1. FLEX COURT representative shall supervise the flooring
installation as per the installation instructions of the
manufacturer.
2. Successful bidder must submit a minimum of (3) three
completed projects of similar magnitude and complexity
within the last (2) two years. List of projects shall include
name, address, phone number, and contact person.
1.03 STORAGE
A. Storage of Material
1. The general contractor shall provide a secure, clean
and dry location for storage of material.
1.04 JOB CONDITIONS
A. Schedule of Installation
1. FLEX COURT@ shall preferably not be installed until all
other trades are completely finished in the area
2. Substrate shall be level to specified tolerances, free of
debris and materials, and broom -clean.
B. Outdoor Requirements
Substrate shall be coated with sealer material as
specified by the manufacturer's installation guide.
1.05 WARRANTY
A. Manufacturer's Limited Warranty
Flex Court@ court surface shall be warranted by the
manufacturer for any defects in materials and
workmanship for a period of 15 years from the date of
purchase as set forth in the manufacturer's standard
limited warranty.
PART II — PRODUCT
2.01 MATERIALS
A. FLEX COURT-rm Basketball and Multi -Sport Surface
1. Description: open grid design shall be 10" x 10" x 3/4"
(25.4cm x 25.4cm x 18mm), high impact polypropylene
copolymer suspended modules with open support
structures for drainage. The tiles shall interlock without
being in constant tension for proper expansion ability.
B. Underlayment
1. An underlayment shall NOT be required if the floor is
being used for outdoor use, however may be stipulated
as an option for use as indoor tennis and multi-purpose
game court.
C. Line Striping
A. Integrated Lines
Preferably, as many sports lines as possible to of 2"x10"
integrated line the of same material as the 10"x10" tiles
B. Paint
1. Primer Recommended primer is Flexible Bonding
39861 by SEM or Plastic Adhesion Promoter 6246 by
NAPA
2. Paint: aliphatic polyurethane paint
C. Ink
For large, colorful logos, special ink is recommended,
protected with a layer of clear polyurethane coating
PART III —PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
3.01 MATERIAL TEST RESUTLS
A. Rockwell hardness (ASTM D 785): 65
B. Heat deflection@ 66 psi (ASTM E 648): 180
C. Flaming at 1000mm (ASTM E 648): 4 min 30s
IL
03
�Mk�14 �` spy w
r.
a�rflaysa4a� �� a +N�Yrw r
M
tA
'Iry
a ,
w et4
p4VNrMMMM4NF�b �l'lb�w� a
d
i
VA I
�A�
p
r
W"lZi, w
p
�� mr. ,. +r. '^ ,� _�yra,, y��} " r fpr w �.., • ..
•A k wa.+ +a-
,� rc«'*MOM •44eW� 4iq �" mn„
a� � r.. n »• «�. ,�arw' � ... �wrTM , rw.w rH.rw. �
1r, � rr �...wuattkl�aWr. as �� A✓Yw.rM+n�,mw,���r� /!�
Ilia A,
5"i
urr.w,rprr�e a+w,,,r „,err ',�wr •r,eMr„,,,.e„
n� w rr }+ �. ,'�.. "✓�, .. w ,,rrw yr'rk W r- mM .m�"'
#OLOA
r«,w
7;,—.
�� ,' ..
Owl
" Mir 'r •_' _
L'«^
r
WM6 Q,