The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/24/2000 ZBA agenda MAYOR ~ Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Sanonis TRUSTEES Village of Mo ntP spect v u, Wm, U ro Richard M. Lohrstorfer mso. Community Development Department ho e: g47/$ig-5328 Miehaele W. Skowron Fax: 847/818-5329 ~ana x. win~s 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 'rDr): 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Senior Center Thursday 50 South Emerson Street August 24, 2000 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 27, 2000 I. ZBA-05-2000 / Text Amendments to the Zoning Code 2. ZBA-22-2000 / Hejduk Residence / 604 Wilshire St. 3. ZBA-23-2000 / Zabest Commercial Group / 791 Rand Road 4. ZBA-24-2000 / Citgo Station / 630 W. Rand Rd. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. ZBA-26-2000 / Urban Retail Construction / 1740 Dempster Street / Conditional Use and Variations to construct a 7-11 and Citgo Station. ITEM DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 MEETING. B. ZBA-27-2000 / Shell Gas Station / 2 E. Rand Road / Variation to construct a canopy in a portion of the setback. WITHDRAWN C. ZBA-28-2000 / Femandes Residence / 1104 W. Central Rd./Variation to construct a 6' fence. Note: This Case is ZBA Final D. ZBA-29-2000 / Clevenger Residence / 521 N. Eastwood / Conditional Use for a covered front porch to encroach into the front setback NOTE: This Case is Village Board Final E. ZBA-30-2000 / AutoBarn / 333 W. Rand Rd. / Variations to remodel the building. ITEM DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 MEETING. F. ZBA-31SR-2000 / CVS Pharmacy / 1 E. Rand Rd. / Variation for multiple wall signs. Note: This Case is ZBA Final G. ZBA-32-2000 / Murray Residence / 411 N. Emerson St. / Conditional Use for a front porch to encroach into the front setback. NOTE: This Case is Village Board Final VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 84%392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: AUGUST 17, 2000 HEARING DATE: AUGUST 24, 2000 SUBJECT: ZBA-28-2000 - FENCE VARIATION 1104 W. CENTRAL ROAD (FERNANDES RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Petitioner: Rita Femandes 1104 W. Central Road Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Status of Petitioner: Property Owner Parcel Number: 03-33-417-020 Lot Size: 7,500 square feet Existing Zoning: RA Single-family Residence Existing Land Use: Single-family Residence Requested Action: Variation to allow construction of a six-foot perimeter fence. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED VARIATION The subject property is an existing residence on an interior lot in a single-family residential neighborhood. The house has an existing four-foot fence around the perimeter of the property. The applicant proposes to remove the existing fence and install a six-foot wooden, perimeter fence as shown on the Attachment A. A section of the fence would be located behind the 30-foot front setback, parallel to the front of the house. Section 14.304.D.l.e of the Zoning Code permits a five-foot fence. The petitioner states that the proposed fence is necessary because she bas a special needs child who requires a taller, sturdier fence to deter him from climbing the fence. The petitioner states that the proposed fence will ensure that the child stays in the yard. The child's neurologist has submitted a letter of support for the proposed Variation request. The neurologist agrees with the petitioner's assessment that a taller fence is needed to ensure the child's safety when he is playing in the yard. Staff reviewed the request with the petitioner and possible alternatives to installing a six-foot fence. Initial discussions focused on using landscape features such as trellises, plantings, or a combination of such means to deter the child from climbing the fence. The petitioner felt that these alternatives would not be effective. ZBA-28-2000 August 24, 2000 Meeting Page 2 To conduct its analysis of the proposed variation, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, visited the site, and spoke with the applicant. REQUIRED FINDINGS Required findings for all variations are contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. These standards relate to: rn 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; n intent of variation is not to increase financial gain; and n protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel is similar to other lots in the Village and is not unique in its surroundings, shape, or topography. The rationale for the proposed variation is related to the petitioner's child's quality of life, rather than economic factors. The proposed fence would not have a significant effect on public welfare or neighborhood character. Although the applicant's request for a taller fence and location is based on her child's needs, no real hardship related to the unique conditions of the site exists as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Based on the lack of a finding of hardship, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, Staff recommends denial of a variation from Sections 14.304.D.l.e and Sec. 14.304.D.l.e.(1) to install a six-foot wooden perimeter fence and its proposed location (behind the front setback) at 1104 W. Central Road, Case No. ZBA-28-2000. The petitioner's request does not meet the standards for a Variation as defined by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) indicates that reasonable accommodations are made for individuals when ADA regulations apply. If the ZBA grants the variation, Staff recommends that the variation be conditioned, as authorized by Sec. 14.203.C.11, to the petitioner only and that the six-foot fence be reduced to five-feet or removed when the petitioner moves from the property. The Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: AUGUST 17, 2000 HEARING DATE: AUGUST 24, 2000 SUBJECT: ZBA-29-2000 - CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN UNENCLOSED PORCH 521 N. EASTWOOD (CLEVENGER RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Joanne Clevenger 521 N. Eastwood Mount Prospect, IL 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER: Property Owner PARCEL NUMBER: 03-34-119-001 LOT SIZE: 6,419 square feet EXISTING ZONING: RA Single Family Residence EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence LOT COVERAGE: 38% existing 40% proposed 50% maximum per RA district REQUESTED ACTION: PROPOSAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH ADDITION WITHIN 25'10" OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE The subject property is an existing home located on a comer lot on a single-family residential street. The home is currently set back 29'10" from the front lot line. The applicant proposes to construct a 4'x19' unenclosed porch along the front of the house. The proposed porch will encroach 4'2" into the required front setback. The petitioner is seeking a Conditional Use to allow the portion of the pomh addition along the front of the structure to encroach 4-feet into the required front yard. As illustrated on the attached plans, the porch would be attached to the front of the existing home and set back 25'10" from the front property line. The petitioner is not proposing improvements other than the front porch, which she feels will improve the appearance of her home and add a desirable feature to the structure. ZBA-29-2000 ZBA Meeting of August 24, 2000 Page 2 To conduct its analysis of the proposed Conditional Use, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Conditional Use Standards The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of thc Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. These standards relate to: The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental effcet on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; [] Thc Conditional Use will not be injurious to the usc, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; Q Adequate provision of utilities and drainage and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and [] Compliance of the Conditional Use with thc provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The subject parcel for the proposed Conditional Use is a 7,620 square foot parcel developed with a single family home. The applicant proposes a porch that extends into the front setback. The encroachment of the porch into the front setback is listed as a Conditional Use in the RA district and meets all other zoning requirements. The proposal would have no negative impacts on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. The proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The essential character of the neighborhood - a single-family residential area - would not be affected by the proposed Conditional Use and the Conditional Use would not have any significant effect on the public welfare, RECOMMENDATION The proposed porch addition enhances the existing home and the Conditional Use request meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.$ of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a covered, unenclosed porch to encroach 4-feet into the required front setback for the residence at 521 N. Eastwood, Case No. ZBA-29-2000. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: AUGUST 18, 2000 HEARING DATE: AUGUST 24, 2000 SUBJECT: ZBA-31SR-2000 - SIGN VARIATION - 1 E. RAND ROAD (CVS) 'LILLE: 1 E. RAND ROAD - CVS PHARMACY VARIATION FOR MULTIPLE WALL SIGNS Background Information Petitioner: Collins Signs, Agent for CVS Amy Tellis 7730 Ravensridge St. Louis. MO 63119 Property Owner: CVS/Pharmacy (Zaremba Group) 14600 Detriot Ave. Suite 1500 Lakewood, OH 44107 Status of Petitioner: Sign Installer Existing Zoning: B-3 Community Shopping Requested Action: Variation to increase the number of permitted wall signs on the north wall ofthe building from one to three (Sec. 7.305.B. 1). ANALYSIS The subject property received a Conditional Use permit and approval of setback variations to construct a 10,880 square foot pharmacy with a drive-through facility. The property owner is in the process of demolishing the former Heilig-Meier site, and the redeveloped site will contain 20,880 square feet of commercial space, including the 10,880 sq.ft. CVS pharmacy. The approved building fronts onto three major thoroughfares, Elmhurst Road/Rt. 83, Rand Road/Rt. 12, and Kensington Road. The sign program for the CVS Pharmacy includes wall signs on the three frontages and a monument sign on Elmhurst Road/Rt.83. The petitioner is seeking relief from code requirements to allow the installation of three wall signs on the Kensington Road frontage (north elevation) to advertise that the CVS Pharmacy has a food mart and a drive-through. Section 7.305B1 of the Sign Ordinance permits one wall sign per street frontage with a maximum size for a wall sign of 150 square feet. The code states that the Director of Community Development may authorize additional signs for distinct uses within the establishment, provided there is a separate entrance from the exterior of the building. The petitioner's request for two separate wall signs, "Foodma~" (13.5 square feet) and "drive- ZBA-31SR-2000 August 24, 2000 ZBA Meeting Page 2 thru/pharmacy" (25.25 square feet) does not meet the criteria to allow such additional signage listed in the Sign Code. In addition, the combined size of the three proposed wall signs for the Kensington Road frontage exceed the 150 square foot maximum size permitted by code. The petitioner can fit the text of the three signs within the main signable arm and meet code requirements. The three signs could be placed together to create one-il5.5 square foot sign. Also, the petitioner could reformat the signs so "CVS" is the top line of siguage and "Pharmacy/Foodmart" is the second line (under the "CVS"), and the "24 Hours" square could be adjacent to the two lines, see Attachment A. The petitioner states that the "CVS/Pharmacy" is a registered trademark logo and cannot be altered. However, additional signs identify uses that are located in the CVS store and accessed through the main entnmce. Pursuant to Section 7.035 .B. 1, the Director may approve additional wall signs for distinct uses within an establishment provided that there is a separate entrance for that use from the exterior of the building. The uses described by the additional requested text do not have separate entrances, so a variation is required for the signs. Historically, the Village has not approved variations for multiple wall signs at a single business. Multiple wall signs have typically been peimitted only for separate entrances, as permitted by Section 7.035.B.1. The ZBA may approve Variations to the sign code based on the Variation Standards in Section7.725. Those Standards relate to: Hardships that prevent owners from reasonably idenfff-ying their business, that are unique to the property, and are not self-created; Protection of public welfare and neighborhood character; and Harmony with the spirit and intent of the regulations The proposed sign variation does not meet the standards for a variation bemuse the store is visible from three major streets, the petitioner will have wall signs on all three frontages, and the sign could be reformatted to meet code requirements. In addition, the "Foodmart" sign is not a distinct use that is accessible by a separate entrance as required by the Sign Ordinance. The main siguable area (where the proposed principal ID sign is shown) could accommodate the proposed siguage with minimal modifications and still use the trademark logo, see Attachment B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the request not meeting the standards for a variation as required per Section 7.725.A, Staffreeommends denial of sign variations to permit an increase in the number of permitted wall signs for Case No. ZBA-31SR-2000 at 1 E. Rand Road. The Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. William J. Cooney, AICP, Community Development Director Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: AUGUST 17, 2000 HEARING DATE: AUGUST 24, 2000 SUBJECT: ZBA-32-2000 - CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN UNENCLOSED PORCH 411 N. EMERSON STREET (MURRAY RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Kevin and Cheryl Murray 411 N. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER: Property Owners PARCEL NUMBER: 03-34-209-007 LOT SIZE: 7,620 square feet EXISTING ZONING: RA Single Family Residence EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence LOT COVERAGE: 28% existing 30% proposed 50% maximum per RA district REQUESTED ACTION: PROPOSAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH ADDITION WITHIN 26 FEET OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE The subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. The home is currently set back 31.10-feet from the front lot line. The applicants propose to construct a 5'x32' unenclosed porch along the front of the house. The proposed porch will encroach 4-feet into the required front setback. The petitioners are seeking a Conditional Use to allow the portion of the porch addition along the front of the structure (approximately 32-fect) to encroach 4-feet into the required front yard. As illustrated on the attached plot plan, the porch would be attached to the front of the existing home and set back 26.10 feet from the front property line. The petitioner is not proposing improvements other than the front porch, which they feel will improve the appearance of their home and add a desirable feature to the structure. ZBA-32-2000 ZBA Meeting of August 24, 2000 Page 2 To conduce its analysis of the proposed Conditional Use, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Conditional Use Standards The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Seceion 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. These standards relate to: [] The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental effece on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; [] The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; [] Adequate provision of utilities and dra'mage and design of access and egress to miffnnize congestion on Village streets; and cl Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The subject parcel for the proposed Conditional Use is a 7,620 square foot parcel developed with a single family home. The applicant proposes a porch that extends into the front setback~ The encroachment of the porch into the front setback is listed as a Conditional Use in the RA districe and meets all other zoning requirements. The proposal would have no negative impaces on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. The proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The essential character of the neighborhood - a single-family residential area - would not be affected by the proposed Conditional Use and the Conditional Use would not have any significant effect on the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION The proposed porch addition enhances the existing home and the Conditional Use request meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a covered, unenclosed pomh to encroach 4-feet into the required front setback for the residence at 411 N. Emerson Street, Case No. ZBA-32-2000. The Village Board's decision is final for this ease. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP, Direceor of Community Development