The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. NEW BUSINESS 2/5/02 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEBRUARY 1, 2002 ZBA-34-01 VARIATIONS FOR THE SIZE OF SHED & ITS LOCATION AND 1'1" TO 4'1" FROM THE LOT LINE) 1801 BOULDER DRIVE (HENNIGAN RESIDENCE) The Planning and Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to deny Case ZBA-34-01, a request for a 192-square foot shed to be located in an easement, with setbacks vaD'ing from 1'1" to 4'1" from the lot line, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 24, 2002 meeting. The subject property is an existing home located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The subject property is triangular shaped and is located between a Citizens Utility easement and the Wisconsin Central Rail Road easement. Similar to another variation case, the petitioner replaced a shed without obtaining a permit and is seeking variations to allow the over'sized shed to remain in its current location. The petitioner said that the previous shed was damaged in a storm and that the new shed is the same size and is in the same location as the previous shed. (The property was annexed into Mount Prospect in 1971 and the shed was most likely built when the property was under Cook County jurisdiction.) The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the petitioner's request and noted that the location of the shed was adjacent to utility easements and that the petitioner had obtained sign-offs from Citizen Utility Company. Planning and Zoning members discussed that the shed was hardly visible from the street and that it was smaller than the previous request for an over sized shed. The Planning and Zoning Commission said that the location and size of the petitioner's shed had minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood, but the request failed to meet the standards for a variation as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the request for variations for a 192-square foot shed, located in an easement, I' 1" to 4' 1" from the lot lines for the property at 1801 Boulder Drive, case no. ZBA-34-01. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 5, 2002 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William H:\GENXPLANNING~Planning & Zoning COMM~P&Z 2002WiEJ Memos~ZBA-34-O1 1801 Boulder - Hennigan Shed.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. ZBA-34-01 PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 24, 2002 Helen Hennigan 1801 E. Boulder Dr. January 9, 2002 Daily Herald Variations to: (1) allow a shed with a setback of 1' I" to 4' 1"; (2) locate a shed in an easement; (3) increase the size of a shed from 120 s.f. to 192 s.f. Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Helen Hennigan Teresa Maglione-Hamilton Gary & Nancy Strahinic ~Enric P. Solans Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m. Ms. Juracek welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is comprised -of the former Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. She introduced new members Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commissioner, Matthew Sledz. At 8:09, after hearing Case Noi ZBA-32-01 and Case No. PC-14-01, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-34-01, a request for Variations to the size and location of a shed. She said that this case is Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject property includes an existing home located on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road, Citizens Utilities, and another single-family residence. Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioner did not obtain a building permit when'she replaced an existing shed and that the new shed does not comply with zoning regulations. She said that the new shed is located 1' from the side lot line and 4' from the rear lot line. It is 192 s.f., which is larger than the 120 square feet permitted by code. In addition, code requires that the shed be located no less than 5' from the lot lines and does not permit structures, which includes sheds, in an easement. Ms. Connolly reported that the property owner was notified that the shed did not comply with zoning regulations and that the homeowner is seeking variations for the size of the shed and its location. The petitioner states that the existing shed is the same square footage as the previous shed and that it is in the same location as the old shed. Ms. Connolly said that it is possible that the previous shed was constructed when this section of the Village was unincorporated and under County rule. She said that the previous shed might have been larger than 120 s.f. and not met current setback requirements, but that the Zoning Ordinance would recognize it as a 'legal non-conforming structure' and allowed it to remain. The non-conforming shed could be repaired and maintained, but a new shed, which is what the petitioner installed, has to meet current code requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission ZBA-34-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the petitioner also states there is insufficient storage on site and that a larger shed is needed to store household items. The petitioner's application includes letters from two neighbors expressing their support of the larger shed and a letter from Citizens Utility dated June 21, 2001 authorizing the applicant to replace the previous shed with the current shed. Ms. Connolly said that the letter does not indicate the exact location of the shed or the size of the new shed. Staffhas been in contact with Citizens Utility and received a letter dated January 14, 2002, which states that the company will allow the shed to remain, but that the company is not responsible for any loss incurred as a result of having the shed in the easement. Ms. Connolly explained that in order to grant a variation, the request has to meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the standards are the same as the previous case and relate to: 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; 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. Connolly said staff had reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site aRer the new shed was constructed. She said that the parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The property is approximately 11,000 square feet; not in a flood zone, and is a triangular shape. Ms. Connolly said the applicant constructed an oversized shed in an easement and the shed does not meet the minimum 5' setback, requirements. The shed does not appear to be permanently attached to the ground and can be relocated out of the easement and meet setback requirements. However, the shed is larger than the maximum size that is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the shed is screened from the 'curb-view' and is adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road & Citizens Utilities, but the shed is visible from other backyards. In addition, she said that the location of the she.d is a concern because it is in an easement. The homeowner is at risk if the utility companies or the Village nefed to do work in the easement and a structure in an easement could disrupt drainage patterns. Ms. Connolly noted that, similar to the previous case, the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character. However, the cited justifications for the variations of limited storage and replacing a non- conforming shed do not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, staff~recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a 192 s.f. shed to be located in an easement and be 1'1" and 4'1" from the side and rear lot lines for the residence at 1801 Boulder Drive, Case No. ZBA-34-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Helen Hennigan was sworn in and testified that her property backed up to a cul-de-sac and was the closest house to the railroad tracks and high-tension electric wires. She stated that the Citizen's Utilities property is to her right, and a home that is occupied by her daughter is next to the Citizens Utility property. She showed a picture of the shed and said it could not be seen from the street. She said that her neighbors approved of the shed and its location and that Citizen's Utilities have no objection to the shed. Ms. Hennigan stated that Citizens Utilities has given her a key to their property, which she maintains for them. She said the size of the shed is necessary to keep patio furniture, a lawn tractor, and a snow blower. There is no room in her garage because it houses two cars and a refrigerator. She also said her husband had passed away December 16 and that obtaining a permit for the shed was over looked because she was focusing on her husband's health and another home improvement project (which she had a permit for before starting the work). Leo Floros asked why she had not obtained a permit. Ms. Hennigan said she did not know a permit was required to replace an existing shed. Richard Rogers asked about the location of the shed, which was in an easement. Ms. Hennigan said Citizen's Utilities has not used the easement for thirty years and that she has maintained the property for them for thirty years. lanning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson ZBA-34-2001 Page 3 Ms. Juracek asked if the shed was on a foundation. Ms. Hennigan said she did not know, that perhaps it was on a brick base. Gary Strahinic, 1503 Boulder, was sworn in and said he had no objection to the shed, which he said was nice looking and practical. He said that he did not know there was an easement where the shed was located because Ms. Hennigan maintained the property. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Leo Floros pointed out that this was the second case of the evening in which a shed had been built without a permit; that the sheds were oversized and located in an easement. He said he could not see any alternative but to vote no. Richard Rogers moved to approve the request as presented by Case No. ZBA-34-01, Variations to: (1) allow a shed with a setback of 1;1" to 4'1"; (2) locate a shed in an easement; (3) increase the size ora shed from 120 s.f. to 192 s.f. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: NAYS: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Youngquist, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek Motion was denied 7-0. At 10:02 p.m., after the Planning and Zoning Commission heard another case, the Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made motion to commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS:None Motion was approved 7-0. Chairperson Juracek announced it was necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to the Commission. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers, Merrill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Rogers Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention. As there were no other "housekeeping" items discussed, at 10:05 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary J~(c~ C6fi~, ~efiior ~]an~r ~ PAGE Part of the C£tlzens Utili&~ Family Date: Time: Pages: TO: TELECOPIER TRANSMf~AL "£~ YOU DO NOT R. ECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL A.S.A.P. " , ~ ,, . (including cover shce~). ,-, COMP ANY: Thi~ mcasage is i~:¢~ded o_n. ly for the ur~ of the individual or entity to which it. is addres,~ed. This ~ ~,$sag¢ infom~ation from t,!ir, zen~ Water R.~,our~:~ ,fi?at may ~ ptiv.iLegeA,.~nlident~al z.nd .exempt from a~to~.~?. al~¢licabl¢ law. If ~e reader offl:~ messag* ~ not ~ mte'oc~o t~:tp .~L~t. or the employee of.. allot ~9~ ~or (f¢liveriag the mes,.ag¢ to thc impaled rec~,~mt, you ~trc h~c~by ~otd'~d, tt~at ,any ~[s,~m:ma~ ,t~on ~ COpyillg Of ~ e.x;v:Bnllxoioatitna is strit~'dy [l~o/al'bited, If yon have'mewed tKis commtm~ataoa tn error, r, det'fy us immediat.¢ly at the telc'Ohonc tmirllXx lib*ed abow. We will be happy to arrange for tbe retm~ to ua o£ this rnes,~age via thc Ur. ired States P&stal Serwioe at no cost to you. ' ~,L~$SAGE: 01/02 Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois I000 lnternafionale Parkway / Woodrtdge, Illinois (:;0~17 Telephone: (~$0) 739-8810 / Fax: (630) 739.,0477 01/24/2002 14:50 530?398877 ClTIZSNS OPSR~TIOHS PA65 02/02 Janua~21,2002 Village of Mount Prospect: This letter is to advise that we are giving permission to Helen Maglione Hennigan of 1801 Boulder Dr in the city of Mt. Prospect to instatia new shed. The shed is to be installed in the backyard next to a Citizens Water Resources facility. She has been a very good customer for close to 30 years, she has taken care of the site by trimming the bushes and seal coating the driveway. In addition, we have given her a key to the. gate so she can park her pop up camper in the fenced in yard. If you should have any questions, please call me at 630-739-8852, ThankYou, Dean Thorsen North Operations, Foreman Citizens Water Resources Tuesday, November 27, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: The storage building in the baekyard at 1801 E. Boulder Drive, Mount Prospect is barely visible from our propen'y at 1803 E. Boulder Drive. We also consider it an improvement over the one it replaced, and believe our neighbors should be allowed to keep it as is. Gary and Nancy Strahinic (847) 699-8188 ecember 2, 2001 To whom it may concern; I am writing this letter regarding the shed at 1801 Boulder Drive. The shed is an improvement to the neighborhood. We live at 1800 East Boulder Drive and have no objections to the shed. Teri & JeffHamilton Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARYNG DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER JANUARY 17, 2002 JANUARY 24, 2002 ZBA-34-01 - VARIATIONS: 1) SIZE OF SHED 2) LOCATION OF SHED (LESS THAN 5' FROM LOT LINE & IN AN EASEMENT) 1801 BOULDER DRIVE (HENNIGAN RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: Helen C. Hennigan 1801 Boulder Drive Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owner PARCEL NUMBER: 03-25-309-033 LOT SIZE: 11,064.6 square feet EXISTING ZONING: R1 Single Family Residence EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence LOT COVERAGE: 33% existing (includes shed) 45% maximum per R1 district REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATIONS 1) TO ALLOW A SHED WITH A SETBACK OF 1' 1" TO 4' 1", 2) LOCATE A SHED IN AN EASEMENT, 3) INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SHED FROM 120 SQ. FT. TO 192 SQ. FT. BACKGROUND The subject property includes an existing home located on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road and another single-family residence. The petitioner replaced an existing shed with a 12'x16' shed and located it one-foot from the side lot line and four feet from the rear lot line (no permit was applied for). An inspection conducted by the Building Division confirmed the size and location of the shed. The property owner was notified that a Building Permit was required to construct a shed and that the existing shed did not comply with Zoning regulations. The homeowner is seeking variations for the size of the shed and its location: 1) in an easement and 2) less than five-feet from the rear and side lot lines, which is the minimum setback permitted. ZBA-34-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 2 In the attached application, the petitioner states that the existing shed is the same square footage as the previous shed. It is possible that the original shed was constructed when this section of the Village was unincorporated (Village records indicated that this area was annexed in 1971, and under Cook County jurisdiction). While the previous shed may have been larger than 120 square feet and did not meet setback requirements, the Zoning Ordinance would allow it to remain and recognizes it as a 'legal non-conforming structure'. As such, the shed could be repaired and maintained, but a new shed would have to meet current code requirements (Sec. 14.402.C). In addition, the petitioner states that they have insufficient storage on site and need the larger shed to store household items. The petitioner's application includes letters from two neighbors expressing their support of the 192 square foot shed and a letter fi.om Citizens Utility dated June 21, 2001 authorizing the applicant to replace the previous shed with the current shed. The letter does not indicate the exact location of the shed or the size of the new shed. During a follow-up conversation with the applicant, staff was unable to determine if the shed was installed before or after the applicant received the letter from Citizens Utility. As a result of this zoning case, Staff has been in contact with Citizens Utility and received a letter dated January 14, 2002 addressed to the applicant. The January 2002 letter states that the company will allow the shed, but is not responsible for any loss incurred as a result of having the shed in the easement. To conduct its analysis of the requested Variations, staffreviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site after the new shed was constructed. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations ar~ 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: 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. The subject parcel measures 11,064.6 square feet. It is out of.any flood zone and is triangular shaped. The parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The applicant constructed a 12'x16' shed in an easement and the shed does not meet the minimum five-foot setback requirements. The shed is not permanently attached to the ground and can be relocated out of the easement and can meet setback requirements. In addition, the shed is larger than the maximum size that is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Although the shed is screened from the 'curb-view' and is adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road, it is visible from other backyards. In addition, the location of-the shed is a concern because it is in an easement. As noted in other staff memos, placing a structure in an easement puts the homeowner at risk if the utility companies or the Village need to do work in the easement: the structure may be knocked down and the homeowner is responsible for all associated costs of repairing or replacing the structure. Also, placing a structure in an easement could disrupt drainage patterns. BA-34-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the justifications for the variations of limited storage and replacing a non-conforming shed do not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a 192 square foot shed to be located in an easement and be 1'1" and 4'1" from the side and rear lot lines for the residence at 1801 Boulder Drive, Case No. ZBA-34-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: SENIOR PLANNER JUDY CONNOLLY PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK LINDELOF JANUARY 4, 2002 ZBA-34-01 (1801 BOULDER DR.) We have completed our review of ZBA-34-01. We have no comment concerning the size of the shed, however, we do not support the requested variation to allow the shed to be located in a public utilities and drainage easement. The plat of survey shows the proposed shed extending across the side lot line onto the neighbor's property. The shed must be located on the applicant's property, the encroachment shown on'the, plat cannot be permitted. It should also be noted that Village policy prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement. Although the Village does not have any public sanitary Sewers or water mains located in this easement, other utility companies (Citizen's Utilities, ComEd, AT&T, etc.) may. Consequently, even if the variation is granted, the shed still cannot be approved until all utility companies having rights to the easement have also approved the location of the shed. It must be stressed that the easement was granted for the maintenance of public utilities. Allowing the shed to be located within the easement does not supercede the · rights of access for the utility companies to maintain their utilities. If at any time in the future maintenance work is necessary on any utility in the area, it would be the property owner's responsibility to remove and replace the shed. Neither the Village, nor the utility companies would be responsible for any damage to the shed resulting from the maintenance. (It should be noted that this is consistent with the Village's policy concerning fences installed within easements.) Furthermore, Village policy prohibits the location of any structure, or the placement of any fill within five feet (5') of a side or rear property line. This policy was adopted to preserve existing drainage patterns. It has been our experience that placing obstructions within this "buffer area" creates the potential for disrupting existing drainage pattems, and creating or aggravating backyard flooding problems. age 2 ZBA-34-01; 1801 Boulder Dr. January 4, 2002 Finally, no reasons have been presented explaining why the shed cannot be located outside the easement, at least 5' from any property line. Thus, we cannot support the applicant's request to locate shed as it is shown on the plan. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Chuck Lindelof X:\FILES\ENGIN E E R\R EV-ENG~ZBA~001 \1801 Boulder. DOC Re: ZBA-34-01 (1801 Boulder, 24-Jan-2002) With property within 100 feet of the petitioner's 'shed', I was invited to submit comments regarding the case. Other than my displeasure to view from my yard a shed the size of a single car garage, I have no objection to the variation. After all, it is not my code/regulation that is the object of such obvious contempt. I have no desire to be the bad guy. For better or worse, it's your code and your rather unpleasant job. When the shed was under construction, and I inquired into the governing regulations, I was informed by the Engineering Department, that the primary justification to build in non-conformity to the zoning was 'extreme hardship'. In this case, the only hardship I can detect is entirely brought upon by the petitioner by ignoring the mandated procedure to apply for a permit before construction. I doubt that is what was meant when the code was adopted. Ignorance of the code could be a defense, however, that would be doubtful in this case where a permit was secured for a much larger (and visible) house addition in the same period. If you follow the considerable precedent and recommend the variation, please be aware the message such action communicates to others. A variation granted of an 'after-the-fact' nature signals residents that their chances of building in non- compliance with the coi:le~are greatly enhanced by ignoring the ordinance and taking your chances if the violation is discovered afterwards. It makes absolute saps of those who follow the rules and make application prior to construction. Most of all is says that Mount Prospect officials have more contempt for the code they were elected/appointed to enforce than those who ignore it. If you do affirm a variance, may I suggest you could avoid embarrassing reoccurrences by accompanying the recommendation to the Council with a recommendation to remove the regulation from the Village code? If not, I see no reason in applying for a permit for .my next building project, with the knowledge of which path has the greater chance of approval. Al Engberg 1801 Hopi 847.824.0966 _01:14/02 i1:10 FAX 630 739 0477 CITIZENS UTILITY ~002.'002 CITIZENS Sanuary 14, 2002 Ms. Helen C. Hermigan 1801 Boulder Drive Mount Pro,peet, IL 60056 EASE.14EsYT ENCROACHMENT FOR 1801 BOULDMR DRIVE Dear MS: Hennigan: Citizens Water Resources ~_as reviewed your request for encroachment upon the utility easement located along the Northwest property line at the referenced address, legally described as LOT 15 IN' THE RESUBDiVBION OF LOTS 65, 66, 67, 68 & 69 ANq3 PART OF LOTS 92 & 93 & .ALL OF LOTS 130 TO 142, BOTH LNCLUSIVE, ANrD VACATED STREET, AND VACATED HOLLY DRIVE .AND I-FEATE1ZR LAN'E, ALL IN FOREST IvL&NOR UNIT#2, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SW ~5 ANTO THE SE ¼ OF SEC. 25, T.42N, R. 11E. OF THE 3a~ P.M. D,r COOK COU.'NTY, IL. CMzens Water Resources will allow the encroachment upon the above-mentioned easement for the installation of the existing shed~,Except waiving its right {o sue to remove this encroacl~nent, Citizens Water Resources does neither waive nor nullify any of its rights as to fl]is easement You shall indemnify m~d save harmless Citizens Water Resources from all claims, dm'nages, suits, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, real or personal, caused by or arising out of the use or construction of said encroachment by you or your agents, employees, contractors, successors, or assigns. In the event the property is transf~Ted, you will be req~fired to notify the mew owners of tb/s Agreement so ~har a new Letter of Agreement may be executed. Please sigrt and retain one copy of this letter m me. If you have any questions, please contaCt me at (6.30) 739-8831. ~Respeet fully, CITIZENS WATERRESOURCES JMA:Ic:/JMA Lett~xt0l EMMNTYes Mt. Pr0$~¢tDOC I hereby acknowledge receipt ofthSs letter and agree to all terms stated herein: Daze: Wit, ness: [11-14-02 12:10 RECEIVED FROM:fi~O ?~9 0477 P.02 VILLAGE OF MC UNT PROSPEC, T ~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request The Zoning Board of Appeals has final administrative authority for alt petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed ~wenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW ~1 Village Board Final ~l ZBA Final Development Nme/Address Date of Submission ...... Hearing Date Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) Tax I.D. N~umber or County Assigned P~Number(s) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) Telephone (day) Telel~hofie (evening) F~x -- Pager ode Section(s) for which Vari~ .a(s) is (are) Requested Summary and Ju~atign for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attach.ed ~Standards for Variations Please note'that the application will not be accepted until this petition has bee~ fully completed and all requh'ed plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appoint'neat with the appropriate Village staffso that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. 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 the~ agents 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 y knowledge. best of~}: / Applicant ,~ Date JJ'- ~, ~ - ~ / If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate .the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting mate~'l. ~ Mount Prospect Deparmaent of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 t_ . A T r Gw. o Yo E-Z COPYRIGHT, MENARDS Ii' Fascia Trim 1999 Window Not Included, Option: Prior to beginning construction, the area selected for the shed location must be leveled and cleared of obstructions. ~2' INVENTORY )~ Separate all lumber, hardware, etc. into individual stacks of like items. 2"x4" Upper and Lower Roof Frame Member Roof Low Roof Overhang 11' Frame Member Treated 2"x4" Bottom Frame Member l"x4"x6" long gusset plate at bottom fold location 12'-0" E-Z BUILD BARN FRAME r3. FRAME PREPARATION '%.. Unfold each frame, setting aside two frames to be used as end walls. From 1'x4" Pine boards, cut Gusset plates 6" long · 24 pieces for a12' building · 32 pieces for a 16' building · 40 pieces for a 20' building Apply gusset plates on each side of the top and bottom fold locations. Frames to be used as end walls require only one gusset plate top and bottom on the side opposite of the metal plate, and to the inside of the building. Use four 8d naris on each plate. See Figure 1. PLEASE NOTE: Th~ shed construction aid ~s intended ~. We suggest you check with your local long gusset plate at top fold location Lumber listed as nominal sizes 2"x 4'x12, studs cut to fit. 2"X 4"nailers. cut 22-1/4" 20-l/2" 20-1/2" 20-1/2' 20-1/2' 12' -0' 2"x 4"x 10' Endwall studs, cut to fit Toe nail studs into place 2"x 4" Gable studs cut to fit at 2"x 4"x 10' Header cut to fit __.2"x 4"x 8' door frame, cut to fit [ '~ 12'-0" 94" ~ t 1-I/2" rrrdts are not required for s, mall storage buikii~gs, but it s best check with your local offtcials.'V ~^cK W~LL [ Figure 4. Place siding on frame --mark and cut to fit. 3-48'x 48" .siding pieces cut as shown 3-48"x 96" Siding ( 4. BACK WALL FRAMING-[ Using one frame selected as an end- wall,....measure and mark stud locations according to dimensions shown in Figure 2. Place the proper length 2x 4 studs at those locations. Mark required length and angles and cut to fit. Toe nail studs into place using (2) 8d nails top and bottom. See Figure 2. Cut 2x4 nailers and install at dimensions shown in Figure 2. (5. FRONT WALL FRAMINGTM[ Using the remaining endwall frame, repeat Step 4, using Figure 3 as a guide. NOTE: When using a roll-up door, the door[ opening must be framed to the exact size of the[ door. Example: 8x7 Roll-up door will have a inished opening of 96"x 84". 6. SIDING BACK WALL Cut two 4'x 8' sheets of siding into four 48'x48' pieces. Use three full 4'x 8' sheets and three of the 48'x 48" pieces. Cut each piece as required. Nail siding pieces onto back wall frame w/th 8d nails every 8" on center. See Figure 4. 7. SIDING FRONT WALL Cut one 4'x 8' sheet of siding into two 'pieces 48'x 48'. Cut one 4'x 8' sheet into two pieces 24'x 96'. Cut each piece as required. Nail siding piece.s onto front wall ,frame with 8d FRONT WALL Figure 5. siding pieces cut to fit scrap pieces to fit .2--24"x 96" siding pieces cut to fit uesday, November 27, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: The storage building in the backyard at 1801 E. Boulder Drive, Mount Prospect is barely visible from our pro~p:y at 1803 E. Boulder Dri,~e. We also consider it an improvemmt over the one it replaced, and believe our neighbors should be allowed to keep it as is. Gary and Nancy Strahinic (847) 699-8188 ecember 2, 2001 To whom it may concern; I am wrking this letter regarding the shed at 1801 Boulder Drive. The shed is an improvement to the neighborhood. We live at 1800 East Boulder Drive and have no objections to the shed. Teri & JeffHamilton une 21, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: ,, ~ ;eAer is to advise that we giving permission to Helen Maglione Hennigan of 1801 ~... ,~-:~ Dr in the cJty of Mt. Prospect to remove her shed and install a new one. The sh~ ,s to be insta!led in the backyard next to a Citizens Water Resources facility. If you sl ,oulci have any que.~tion$, please celt me et 630-739-8552. Thank You, Dean Thorsen North Operations, Fore 'nan Cftizens Water Resources Wolf Road 170, O' 1714 24 ~7~7~ '82~ ~erlta~ 1724 820/ ~7~ 818 i ~ 1731 ~ 827 1705 ,. ~ .~ ,707 ~70, ~707~ ~ 823 1709 1750 810 = ~ ~~ 171~ 1780 ~ ! 1835 ~ ~813 ~39 ~.~ ~t ~m' 1827 ~ ~*~ ~ ~ ~1829 WL 1130102 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1801 BQULDER DRIVE WHEREAS, Helen C. Hennigan (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 1801 Boulder Drive (hereinafter referred to as the "SUbjeCt Prop'erty") and legallY descril~e~'~'falloWS! Lot 15 in the Resubdivision of Lots 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69 and part of Lots 92 and 93 & all of Lots 130 to 142, both inclusive, and vacated street, and vacated Holly Drive and Heather Lane, all in Forest ManOr Unit #2, being a Subdivision in the SW ¼ and the SE ¼ of Sec. 25, Township 42N, Range 11 E. of the 3rd Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number: 03-25-309-033 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations to allow an existing 192 square foot shed to encroach onto an easement, and less than five-feet from the rear and side lot lines, as required in Section 14.306.B of the Mount Prospect Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held On the requeSt for Variations being the subject of ZBA Case No. 34-01 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount ProsPect on the 24th day of January, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Daily Herald on the 9 day of January, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation of denial to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variations would be in the best interest of the Village. Page 2/2 1801 Boulder Drive NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the~¥illage of Mount Prospect do hereby grant Variations, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow an existing 192 square-foot shed to encroach onto an easement, and to be located four-feet (4') from the rear lot line and one foot (1') from the side lot line as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, apprOval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Timothy J. Corcoran Mayor Pro Tem Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\GEN~file$\WIN\ORDINANC~Vadation 1801 Boulder Dr, shed,Feb 02.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIs, VILLAGE MANAGER ~, ~ D CTOR OF DE LOPME Z[ IOZ. FEBRUARY 1, 2002 ~ z ^-36-01 - CONmTIO ^L USE ( ViE?m ^ PL 'Z'aD Umm LO NT) 400 E. GREGORY HARRY SCHMIDT, PRESIDENT OF CHRISTIAN LIFE COLLEGE - APPLICANT The Planning and Zon'mg Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case ZBA-36-01, a Conditional Use request to amend a Planned Unit Development for the Christian Life College, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 24, 2002 meeting. The subject property is located along Rand Road, north of Gregory Street and south of Gregory Park. The petitioner proposes to amend the Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development to include constructing student housing, a Library, an Administrative Student Center, a 950-seat Sanctuary, and converting the existing chapel to a multi-purpose room upon completien of the Sanctuary. If future funding allows for it, the petitioner plans to build an archive area in the basement of the Library and Administrative Student Center. The Pla~ing and Zon'mg Commission discussed the impact of the development on the adjacent properties, access to the site, detention requirements, and the materials and design of the proposed student housing build'rags. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted %0 to recommend approval of the Conditional Use request to amend the Planned Unit Development for the property at 400 E. Gregory with the following eonditious: 1. Development of the site in conformance with the site plans prepared by Roberts Construction, dated January 29, 2002; 2. Submission of a final landscape plan meeting all requirements of Article XXIII Landscape Code of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code and also includes the following: · Phase I shall include the addition of five percent landscaping to the interior of the existing parking lot; · a continuous three-foot hedge of varying species along the perimeter of the east, south, and portions of the west property lines, without creating sight triangle obstructions and allowing for flexibility along the north lot line; · foundation landscaping on the west and south elevations of the new buildings; · pine trees along the east area of the Phase V parking area that screen the entire parking area; 3. Submission of a Lighting plan as required by Sec. 14.2219 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. Submittal and approval of final Engineering Plans meeting all Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · All Development Code requirements be met in Phase I with particular concern paid to the impacts of storm water management; · Loop the water supply if the Engineering Division determines that a looped~ design is necessary to eliminate 'dead end' water mains that service the new student housing units and the required fire hydrants; BA-36-01 memo to Village Manager February 1, 2002 Page 2 · All phases of the development shall be designed and submitted for review and approval with the Phase I improvements to ensure compatibility between the phases. 5. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements whichinclude but are not limited to: · The access road is to be constructed in accordance with Development Code requirements (paved) and without gates; · Provide hydrants on-site as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works; · Buildings are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems; · Ail construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. 6. The petitioner shall make an application to IDOT for access off of Rand Road, work with Village Planning and Engineering staff to establish the best access point from Rand Road, and close the curb- cut off of Owen Street; 7. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. 8. The basement storage remains as storage space and is not used for office space, a meeting room, or any other use that would require parking as required by the Village Zoning Ordinance. 9. All phases of the project shall be completed in five years, from the date the building permit is issued. Based on direction for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the petitioner revised the site plan and reconfignred the Student Housing buildings. The Student Housing buildings have been scaled back to accommodate a maximum of 64 students and will be located 60-feet from the west lot line and 40-feet from the north lot line, (addressing part of condition #1 and #11). In addition, the revised site plans indicates the location of the dumpster (condition #10), access from Rand Road, and closing access from Owen Street. The number of parking spaces has been reduced to 330, but continueg to meet zoning reqff~rements for peak usage (Sunday service). Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 5, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. MINUTES OF THE REG~ ~EETING OF THE PLANNING & Z6~i~ ~6~SsiON CASE NO. ZBA-36-01 PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 24, 2002 Christian Life Church 400 E. Gregory January 9, 2002 Daily Herald Conditional Use to amend an existing Planned Unit Development Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Harry Schmidt Greg Cashman Lawrence Dell ~AI Engberg Dennis & Ged Granahan Ken Kitzing Daryl Merrill Larry & Pat Pezen Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m. Ms. Juracek welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is comprised of the former Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. She introduced new members Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commission member, Matthew Sledz. At 8:34, after hearing Case No. ZBA-32-0i, Case No. PC-14-01, and Case No. ZBA-34-01, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-36-01, a request for a Conditional Use to amend a PUD. She said that this case is Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject property was originally the Northside School and later sold to the Christian Life Church. In 1992, when the church wanted to expand and include a college, they applied for a ConditiOnal USe for a Planned unit Development. She said that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) provided for a larger church, a college, and a library that would be built at a later date. Ms. Connolly said that the PUD was amended at the petitioner's request in 1993 to allow for a new 750-seat sanctuary and conversion of the 532-seat chapel into a multi-purpose room when the sanctuary was complete. As part of that PUD approval, the petitioner was allo~ved to do the improvements in phases. The chapel addition was completed in 1994. Ms. Connolly explained that the current request to amend the PUD is a five-year plan that includes constructing student housing, a library, an administrative student center, a 950-seat sanctuary, and converting the existing chapel to a multi-purpose room upon completion of the sanctuary. She said that the petitioner plans to build an archive area in the basement of the library and administrative student center if funding is available at a future date. Planning and Zoning Commission ZBA-36-01 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly described the phases of the project, how each structure would be used, the proposed building materials, and setbacks. She said that in order to approve changes to the planned unit development, the project must meet the standards for a conditional use and standards for planned unit development with other exceptions. She cited the conditional use standards: that the request may not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; that 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; that adequate provisiou of utilities and drainage and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and compliance of the conditional use with the provisions of the comprehensive plan, zoning code, and other Village ordinances. Ms. Connolly explained that the required findings for planned unit developments that do not comply with the requirements of the underlying district regulations are allowed when the exceptions are consistent ~vith the standards for planned unit development with other exceptions listed in the zoning ordinance. She said that these standards relate to: any reduction in the requirements of this chapter is in the public interest; the proposed exceptions would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property; that such exceptions are solely for the purpose of promoting better development which will be beneficial to the residents or occupants of the planned unit development as well as those of the surrounding properties; that all buildings are located within the planned unit development in such a way as to dissipate any adverse impact on adjoining buildings and shall not invade the privacy of the occupants of such buildings; all structures located on the perimeter of the planned unit development must be set back by a distance sufficient to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent existing uses; ail structures located along the entire perimeter of the planned unit development must be permanently screened with sight proof screening in a manner that is sufficient to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent existing uses. Ms. Connolly described the existing conditions of the subject property as 7.12 acres with a chapel, classrooms, and a parking lot. She said that there is significant, green space along the Rand Road frontage and the west property line. The site is accessed from one of three curb-cuts offer Gregory Street. The subject property is adjacent to single family residential, a park, and across the street from single family. She said that the petitioner is seeking to amend an existing Planned Unit Development in addition to relief from setback regulations for the parking areas. Ms. Connolly discussed the Comprehensive Plan designation and stated that the Village's General Land Use Map designates the property as 'Industrial/Office'. She said that although the proposed expansion contains elements of the Land Use Map designation, the proposed project is an institutional use and is not entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At one time, it may have been thought that the Kensin~on Business Center or a similar type development would expand across Rand Road on the subject property. Ms. Connolly said that staffis in the process of updating the General Land Use Map and that the Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to revisit this property regarding whether the Industrial/Office designation is still appropriate for this site. With regards to the proposed setbacks, Ms. Connolly said that the buildings comply with setback regulations, but sections of the parking area do not. She said that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot setback for parking lots and that the petitioner is seeking relief for the parking setback along the noah and east lot lines since a 9-foot setback is proposed along the north lot line and a 7.5-foot setback is proposed for sections along the east lot line (Rand Road). Ms. Connolly said the petitioner's plan shows that the parking spaces will be installed in a manner that is consistent with implementation of each phase of development. At the completion of the project, 353 parking spaces will be installed, including two handicap spaces. Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioner is required to provide at least 439 parking spaces for each individual use, but most of the uses do not require their own parking on a constant basis. For example, the school is not open on the weekends thereby freeing-up spaces for worshippers. She said that the sanctuary would be used on the weekends and would require a maximum 317 parking spaces. Since the students who live in the Student Housing buildings need parking all the time, the 40 spaces for the units cannot be shared, but these same students attend the university and the services. She said that due to the fact that the school and the church are interrelated, the maximum number of spaces required during a peak time would be 357 (40 for Student Housing and 317 for the maximum number of worshipers). However, it is likely that 40 spaces would be freed from the worshiper Planning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson ZBA-36-01 Page 3 requirement since the students who live on-campus would also attend the servme and be counted as a worshiper. Therefore, the petitioner meets the intent of the parking requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner's plans show that 70% of the site will be paved at the end of the project and that amount of lot coverage complies with zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner did not submit a detailed landscape plan, but their site plan shows where new trees and bushes will be planted. She said that the subject property is located along one of the Village Commercial Corridors and that requiring the petitioner to install a continuous three-foot hedge around the east, south, and sections of the west property lines is consistent with previous approval for developments and redevelopments along commemial corridors. In addition, the increased landscaping will help mitigate the impact of the new buildings, parking setbacks less than ten-feet, and improve the appearance of the site. She said that installing additional landscaping such as pine trees along the east parking area during Phase V and foundation plantings by the Library and Student Center would screen the view from the adjacent properties. Ms. Connolly reported that the Engineering Division performed a preliminary review of the proposal. She said that Development Code requirements that had to be met for the site are detailed in the staff memo, but basically, Phase One triggers all Development Code requirements. Also, the petitioner has to obtain permits from the appropriate jurisdictions where necessary, loop the water service, and submit alt phases of the project for review when they apply for a building permit. Ms. Connolly said that the Fire Prevention Bureau performed a preliminary review of the proposal and required that all construction meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. She said that this includes, but is not limited to, paving the access road along the north lot line and that the access road is not 'gated-in'; that the project includes hydrants as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code and Fire Prevention Bureau; and that the buildings have automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems. ~ Ms. Connolly said that although the petitioner's plans do not show modifying access to the site, staff has discussed a curb-cut off of Rand Road with the petitioner. She said that a 950-seat sanctuary will generate more trips to the property for services and that the petitioner has agreed to contact IDOT to determine if a curb-cut is possible. Ms. Connolly .said that should IDOT agree to the ne~v Rand Road curb-cut, the petitioner agreed to close the Owen Street curb-cut, off of Gregory Street. She said that modifying access to the site will reduce the impact of the development on the adjacent residences. Ms. Connolly said the impact of the development would be mitigated by the additional landscaping and possible curb- cut offofRand Road and closing curb-cuts along Gregory Street; Therefore, the development will have limited impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. She said that the proposed development will provide 30°/'o green space, which is more than the amount required by the Zoning Ordinance, and that the buildings comply with zoning setbacks. She explained that the petitioner is seeking relief from parking setback requirements for the parking areas located along Rand Road and Park District property (Gregory Park). Increasing the screening will minimize the impact of a lesser setback and improve the appearance of the subject property, which is in the public interest and would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property. In addition, reducing the parking setbacks allows the development to provide the maximum amount of parking and create a high quality development. Ms. Connolly said that based on the above analysis, the Planning & Zoning Commission can make positive findings with respect to the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing PUD with the following conditions: 1. Development of the site in conformance with the site plans prepared by Roberts Construction, dated December 17, 2001 as revised by staff and labeled Staff Exhibit 'A' (which shows the increased landscaping and the access off of Rand Road); 2. Submission of a final landscape plan meeting all requirements of Article XXIII, Landscape Code of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code, and also includes the following: Planning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson ZBA-3 6-01 Page 4 · a continuous three-foot hedge of varying species along the perimeter of the east, south, and portions of the west property lines, without creating sight triangle obstructions and allowing for flexibility along the north lot line; · foundation landscaping on the west and south elevations of the new buildings; · pine trees along the east area of the Phase V parking area that screen the entire parking area; 3. Submission of a Lighting plan as required by Sec. 14.2219 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. Submittal and approval of final Engineering Plans meeting all Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · All Development Code requirements be met in Phase I; · Loop the water supply if Engineering determines that a looped design is necessary to eliminate 'dead end' water mains that service the new student housing units and the required fire hydrants; · All phases of the development shall be designed and submitted for review and approval with the Phase I improvements to ensure compatibility between the phases. 5. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · The access road is to be constructed in accordance with Development Code requirements (paved) and without gates; · Provide hydrants on-site as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works; · Buildings are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems; · Ail construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. 6. The petitioner shall make an application to IDOT for access off of Rand Road, work with staff to establish the best access point from Rand Road, and close the curb-cut offof Owen Street; 7. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D; 8. The basement storages remain as storage space and is not used for office space, a meeting room, or ar~y other use that would require parking as required by the Village Zoning Ordinance. Arlene Juracek asked for confirmation that the setback Variation was being sought just for parking, not a structure. Ms. Connolly said yes. Richard Rogers asked about the percentage of landscape area for the parking lot. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner would submit a detailed plan at a later date that showed it met the 5% requirement. Daryl Merrill, pastor of Christian Life Church and chairman of the board of the college, was sworn in. He presented a history of the Church and college, their academic accreditation, student profile, and their building plans. He introduced Harry Schmidt, president of the Christian Life College. Mr. Schmidt was sworn in. He addressed the Planning and Zoning COmmission and said that the Christian Life College had an Open House for area residents on January 17. Mr. Schmidt said that they sent invitations to 72 addresses and that 14 residents attended the meeting. He summarized the meeting and the neighbors feedback on the project. Greg Cashman, architect with Roberts construction, 849 E. Washin~on in Madison, Wisconsin was sworn in and said that he has been working with the college for two years to develop a master plan. He said that today's presentation was the culmination'of two years planning that included 12-14 months working with the planning staff. He reviewed the various site plans and elevations, and explained the phases of development in detail. Planning and Zoning Commissioners had questions pertaining to the proposed timetable for completion of the five phases, construction materials, the location of the dumpsters and garbage removal service. In addition, they inquired about the existing parking lot, proposed landscaping, and basements in the proposed buildings. Mr. Schmidt said that Village staff approved their current landscape plan in 1992. He said that they share the Village's desire to soften the impact of the paved parking area and create less of a "shopping center" look along Rand Road. He said that they created the large water retention area during an earlier phase of improvement and installed the berming around it. He said that they receive many favorable comments from the neighbors about the area. Planning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracok, Chairperson ZBA-36-01 Page 5 Leo Floros asked if the college was ready to proceed with construction, should the Village Board approve the changes to the PUD, or did the college need to raise funds to pay for the project. Mr. Schmidt said they have funding available now for most of the project and that they were comfortable with a five-year implementation timetable. He said they would like to do Phase I & II concurrently and that they have met with American Charter Bank officials and see no problem in obtaining financing for this endeavor. Ken Kitzing, 415 N. Elm St., was sworn in. He said that in 1953 the entire area was farmland, with no flooding problems. Since the school was built, his property and his neighbors' back yards flood three or four times a year. He said he felt the proposed plans did not include proper water retention. He also objected to the height of the 2-story building. He felt that the hip roof actually made the building 3-stories and was too high to be just 30' from his lot line, as he would have no privacy in his yard. Mr. Kitzing was also concerned with the proposed increase in the number of students in the area aud th~ no!se they would generate. Mr. Floras asked him if he got water in the house. Mr. Kitzing said no because his house is built on a 15' rise, but that it takes 2-3 days for the water to recede in his yard and he is unable to use portions of the yard during that time. Ms. Juracek suggested that the amhitect could address the water problem by chang'rog the location of the buildings. Mr. Cashman said the water problem originates in Gregory Park and that it runs across the Christian Life property. Ms. Juracek asked that he work with staffon calculations on water retention to assure neighbors there will be no flooding problems. Dennis Granahan, 319 N. School St., was sworn in and testified he was concerned with the increased traffic that would occur through the residential area and that he thought access should be provided from Rand Rd. Ms. Juracek said that the Rand Road access is a state issue and would need to be approved by IDOT. After reviewing the staff exhibit that showed creating an access from Rand Road and closing access from Owen Street, Mr. Granahan said that this would help reduce the amount of traffic that would spillover into the residential neighborhood~ Further discussion ensued regarding storm water detention, the order of completion of the building phases, and the possibility of reeonfiguring the arrangement and location of the various buildings. Mr. Schmidt reminded the group that the water was from Park District property north of the college and said that the college would work with staff for an appropriate solution. He said that they would consider a "flip-flop" of the buildings and parking by the Student Housing as suggested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:58 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the request as submitted by Case No. ZBA-32-01, a Conditional Use to amend an existing Planned Unit Development, with the conditions listed in the staff memo and several additional conditions: (1) add additional landscaping to the existing parking lot at the time Phase I is initiated; (2) Complete all Phases of construction within five years; (3) identify the garbage/dumpster location, following screening requirements listed in the Code; (4) follow Engineering Department requirements for water detention to retain the water runoff originating from the Park District property so the water does not pass to the neighbors; (5) Locate the residences and parking further from the Elm Street properties. Matthew Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Youngquist, Rogers, Sledz and Juraeek NAYS: Motion was approved 7-0. At 10:02 p.m., the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made a motion to commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS:None lanning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Motion was approved 7-0. Chairperson Juracek announced it would be necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to the Commission. ZBA-3 6-01 Page 6 Keith youngquist nominated Richard Rogers, Merrill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Flores, SIedz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Rogers Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention. As there were no other "housekeeping'' items to be discussed, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 10:05 p.m., seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion Was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~arbara Swiatek, 161anning Secretary ~]y Connoll~,~Se~ior ]~l~hner '~ H:\GEN~PLANNrNG'd?Iaaning & Zoning COMMXMinule~BA-36-01 ~hrist inn Life College 400 E Gregory.dec Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER JANUARY 17, 2002 JANUARY 24, 2002 ZBA-36-01 - CONDITIONAL USE (AMEND AN EXISTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) 400 E. GREGORY (CHRISTIAN LIFE COLLEGE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Harry Schmidt, President Christian Life College 400 E. Gregory Street Mou~ht Prospect, IL 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER: Property Owners PARCEL NUMBER: 03-34-206-004 LOT SIZE: 7.12 acres EXISTING ZONING: RI PUD Single Family Residence Planned Unit Development EXISTING LAND USE: College and church LOT COVERAGE: 70% proposed (includes all phases of expansion) 75% maximum per R1 district (Sec. 14.905.C.2 non-residential conditional use) REQUESTED ACTION: AMEND EXISITNG PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT STUDENT HOUSING, STUDENT CENTER~mRARy/ADM~STRATIVE SPACE, EXPAND THE CHAPEL, AND CREATE ADDITIONAL PARKING. BACKGROUND The subject property was originally the Northsite School. It was built in 1962 and later sold to the Christian Life Church. A Church is a permitted use in the R1 Single Family Zoning District but special approval was required when the church wanted to expand and include a college in 1992. The Planned Unit Development provided for a larger church, a college, and a library that would be built at a later date. The PUD approval provided for land banking some of the needed parking stalls and required that the parking be built when the demand warranted it. Those spaces have not been constructed. ZBA-36-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 2 In 1993, the PUD was amended at the petitioner's request to allow for a new 750-seat sanctuary and conversion of the 532-seat chapel into a multi-purpose room when the sanctuary was complete. As part of that PUD approval, the petitioner was allowed to do the improvements in phases. The chapel addition was completed in 1994. 2002 PUD AMENDMENT REQUEST The current request to amend the PUD includes constructing student housing, a Library, an Administrative Student Center, a 950-seat Sanctuary, and converting the existing chapel to a multi-purpose room upon completion of the Sanctuary. If future funding allows for it, the petitioner's plans build an archive area in the basement of the Library and Administrative Student Center. The petitioner proposes to make the improvements in phases and the implementation of each phase is subject to funding ava/lability, but is based on a five-year plan. Student Housing (Phases I & II13 The Student Housing buildings will be done in two phases. The first phase of the project involves constructing one Student Housing building 30-feet from the west (rear) property line. Phase ~I involves constructing the second Student Housing building 30-feet east of the first building. Both buildings would be located 25-feet from the north (side) lot line. The attached floor plan shows that each two-story building is comprised of (8) three-bedroom units. Each 3- bedroom unit has a living room, kitchen, and two bathrooms. Each bedroom is intended to house two students, unless the students are married. If the students were married, they would occupy the entire unit (all three bedrooms) and consequently decrease the density of the building. The number of occupants of both buildings could range from as low as 16 to as high as 96. The two -story Student Housing Buildings would have a peaked roof, asPhalt shingleS, and be constrUcted of a combination of siding and brick veneer. The petitioner's plans include foundation landscaping around both buildings. Library/Administrative Student Center (Phase 1i3 Phase II of the project is the Library and Administrative Student Center. This would be two-stories tall: the main floor would be used for a Student Center (2,400 square feet) and Administrative Offices (1,800 square feet). The second story includes a Conference Center (1,300 square feet) and a Library (3,200 square feet). The attached elevations show that the building would be connected to the existing Classroom Building. It would have a flat roof, brick veneer, and an aluminum curtain wall. The petitioner's plans show the possibility of excavating and creating an archive (storage) area at a later date. Library/Archive Expansion (Phase IV) Phase IV of the project is a one-story, 5,000 square foot expansion of the Student Center and Administrative Offices. The attached elevations show that the proposed one-story addition would be designed so it is in keeping with the existing buildings. In addition, the petitioner intends to excavate, possibly at a later date, and create additional archive (storage) space in the basement. Creating archive storage is contingent upon the cost of excavation and may not be done. The proposed one-story building would become the library and the Phase LI building would no longer house the library and be used as office space and a Student Center. 950-Seat Sanctuary (Phase V) Currently the Christian Life College Church has 400 members. The proposed Sanctuary could seat up to 950 people. It would be used primarily for Sunday services and limited special events during the week. The existing ZBA-36-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 3 Chapel would be converted to a multi-purpose room once the 950-seat Sanctuary was built. The Sanctum-y and additional parking would be built in the final phase of the project. Review and Approval Process The subject site is zoned RI PUD (Single Family Residence Planned Unit Development). The petitioner is seeking to amend an existing Planned Unit Development to construct Student Housing, the Library, Administrative Offices, and the Sanctuary. As part of the approval process, the petitioner is seeking Conditional Use approval for the uses and changes to the Planned Unit Development (Sec. 14.903.A) in addition to relief from setback regulations (Sec. 14.905.B.2). To conduct its analysis of the request, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey, site plan, and elevations, met with the applicant to discuss the development, and visited the site. Analysis Comprehensive Plan Designation The Village's General Land Use Map designates the property as 'Industrial/Office'. Although the proposed expansion contains elements of the Land Use Map designation, i.e., administrative offices, it is an institutional use and is not entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At one time, it may have been thought that the Kensington Business Center or a similar type development would expand across Rand Road on the subject property. Staffis in the process of updating the General Land Use Map and the Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to revisit this property regarding whether the Industrial/Office designation is still appropriate for this site. Existing Conditions ~ The subject property is 7.12 acres and has a chapel, classrooms, and a parking lot. There is significant green space along the Rand Road frontage and the west property line. The site is accessed from one of three curb-cuts off of Gregory Slreet. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses North: CR Conservation ReCreation / Gregory Park East: R1 Single Family Residence / Hill Street Park South: KA Single Family Residence / Single Family Neighborhood (the Christian Life College owns several of the houses directly across Gregory Street) West: RA Single Family Residence / Single Family Neighborhood Proposed Setbacks North (Side) Lot line: the Student Housing buildings would be 25-feet from the north (side) lot line; this setback complies with zoning regulations. The new parking shown in Phase V would be nine-feet from the lot line; Sec. 14.2217.B of the Zoning Ordinance requires a ten-foot setback. The petitioner is seeking relief from zoning regulations to permit a nine-foot setback for the new parking stalls and access drive connecting the 'east' parking lot to the 'west' parking lot by the Student Housing buildings. East (Front) Lot Line: Phase V shows a Sanctuary and an expanded parking lot. The sanctuary meets setback requirements, but sections of the new parking lot would be as close as 7.5-feet to the northern Rand Road right-of- way and as much as 150-feet from the southern Rand Road right-of-way. The petitioner is seeking relief from zoning regulations to permit a 7.5-foot parking setback a~ ~tio~ on the attached site plan. South {Exterior) Lot line: The attached plan shows new parking located 26-feet from the south lot line. The Library/Administrative Student Center building would be 105-feet from the south lot line. Both setbacks exceed the minimum setback requirement. ZBA-36-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 4 West {Rear) Lot line: The western most Student Housing building would be located 30-feet from the rear lot line and the Library/Administrative Center would be 60-feet from the west lot line. These setbacks comply with zoning requirements. Parking The Zoning Ordinance lists the following parking requirements: Use Zoning Code R~q'uirem~nt ' Required for Project Student Housing 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit 16 units total - 40 required Offices 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet 5,500* - 22 spaces required Religious 1 space per 3 worshippers 400 worshipers now - 950 future--- Institutions 134 required now- 317 future Library .... 2 spaces per Ii000 square feet 8,200* - 17 spaces required College University 1 space per 2 employees plus I space per 4 students 7 f/t employees, based on maximum capacity 3 commuting teachers, and 54 students (150 ma,t) - requires 5 spaces for employees, and 38 student spaces for future expansion. *does not include ~ossible storage in basement The petitioner's plan shows that the parking spaces will be installed consistent with implementation of each phase of development. At the completion of the project, 353 parking spaces will be installed, which includes two handicap spaces. Adding up the number of spaces required as listed above, the petitioner is required to provide at least 439 parking spaces. Due to the nature of the development, most of the uses do not overlap and do not require their own parking on a consistent basis. For example, the school is not open on the weekends thereby "opening up" 43 parking spaces. The sanctuary would be used on the weekends and would require a maximum 317 parking spaces. Since the students who live in the Student Housing buildings need parking all the time, the 40 spaces for the units cannot be shared, but these same students attend the university and the services. Also, the Zoning Ordinance does not require additional parking for the basement archive storage space. Therefore, they do not require additional parking. Because the school and the church are interrelated, the maximum number of spaces required during a peak time would be 357 (40 for Student Housing and 317 for the maximum number of worshipers). However, it is likely that 40 spaces would be freed from the worshiper requirement since the students who live on-campus would also attend the service and be counted as a worshiper. Therefore, the petitioner meets the intent of the parking requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Lot Coverage The petitioner's plans show that 70% of the site will be paved at the end of the project and the Zoning Ordinance permits up to 75% lot coverage (Sec.14.905.C.2). The lot proposed lot coverage meets zoning regulations. Landscaping The petitioner did not submit a detailed landscape plan as required by the Zoning Ordinance, but their site plan shows where new trees and bushes will be planted. The subject property is located along one of the Village Commercial Corridors. Consistent with previous projects along a commemial corridor, installing a continuous three-foot hedge around the east, south, and sections of the west property lines will mitigate the impact of the new buildings, parking setbacks less than ten-feet, and improve the appearance of the site. In addition, installing pine trees along the east parking area (Phase V) and foundation plantings by the Library (Phase IV) and Student Center will screen the view from the adjacent properties. ZBA-36-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 5 Review by Other Village Departments The Engineering Division has performed a preliminary review of the proposal and identified the following Development Code requirements to be met for the site: 1. All Development Code requirements will be triggered by the construction of Phase I; 2i The proposed improvements will require a permit from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD) and IDOT if there is any work in the Rand Road fight-of-way; 3. Currently there is no water service to the north side of the site and "dead end" water mains and services are not permitted. Therefore, the water supply will have to be 10°P~d arOUnd the Slte 'in order to serve the new student housing units and the required fire hydrants; 4. All phases of the development should be designed.and.submitted for .review and approval with the Phase I improvements to ensure compatibility between the phases. The Fire Prevention Bureau has performed a preliminary review of the proposal and identified the following issues: 1. The access road is to be constructed in accordance with Development Code requirements (paved) and without gates; 2. Provide hydrants on-site as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code and Fire Prevention Bureau; 3. Buildings are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems; 4. All construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. REQUIRED FINDINGS ~ Conditional Use Standards The standards for conditional uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in ord& approve a conditi0nal use. These standards relate to: · The conditional use will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals, comfort · or general welfare; · The conditional use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · 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 the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The Conditional Use request is required because the petitioner is amending a previously approved Planned Unit Development to expand the college and religious facilities. The proposed student housing buildings, expansion of the college building, and the proposed sanctuary comply with zoning regulations. In addition, the petitioner has met with engineering staff to ensure that drainage issues will not be created as a result of the project. Also, planting additional landscaping along the perimeter of the property will screen the parking areas and minimize the impact of the 7.5-foot setback. Although the petitioner's plans do not show modifying access to the site, staff has discussed a curb-cut off of Rand Road with the petitioner. A 950~seat sanctuary will generate more trips to the property for services and the petitioner has agreed to contact IDOT to determine if a curb-cut is possible. Should IDOT agree to the new Rand Road curb-em, the petitioner agreed to dose the Owen Street curb-cut, offof Gregory Street. Modifying access to the site will reduce the impact of thc development on the adjacent residences. ZBA-36-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 6 The impact of the development will be mitigated by. the additional landscaping and possible curb-cut off of Rand Road and closing curb-cuts along Gregory Street. Therefore, the development will have limited impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. Standards for Planned Unit Development with Other Exceptions (Sec. 14.504.C) Required findings for planned unit developments that do not comply with the requirements of the underlying district regulations are allowed when the Board finds such exceptions are consistent with the following standards: 1. Any reduction in the requirements of this chapter is in the public interest; 2. The proposed exceptions would not advarsely impact the value or use of any other property; 3. That such exceptions are solely for the purpose of promoting better development which will be beneficial to the residents or occupants of the planned unit development as well as those of the surrounding properties; 4. That all buildings are located within the planned unit development in such a way as to dissipate any adverse impact on adjoining buildings and shall not invade the privacy of the occupants of such buildings and shall conform to the following: a. The front, side or rear yard setbacks on the perimeter of the development shall not be less than that required in the abutting zoning district(s) or the zoning district underlying the subject site, whichever is greater; b. All transitional yards and transitional landscape yards of the underlying zoning district are complied with; c. If required transitional yards and transitional landscape yards are not adequate to protect the privacy and enjoyment of property adjacent to the development, the planning and zoning commission shall recommend either or both of the following requirements: i. All structures located on the perimeter of the planned unit development must set back by a distance sufficient to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent existing uses; ii. All structures located along the entire perimeter of the planned unit development must be permanently screened with sight proof screening in a manner which is sufficient to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent existing uses; d. That the area of open space provided in a planned unit development shall be at least that required in the underlying zoning district. The proposed development will provide 30% green space, which is more than the amount required by the Zoning Ordinance, and the buildings comply with zoning setbacks. The petitioner is seeking relief from parking setback requirements for the parking areas located along Rand Road and Park District property (Gregory Park). Increasing the screening will minimize the impact of a lesser setback and improve the appearance of the subject property, which is in the public interest and would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property. Reducing the parking setbacks allows the development to provide the maximum amount of parking and create a high quality development. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, the Planning & Zoning Commission can make positive findings with respect to the standards for Conditional Uses in Section 14.203.F.8. and Planned Unit Developments in 14.504.C. Therefore, Staffrecommends approval of the proposed changes to the existing PUD with the follOwing conditions: 1. Development of the site in conformance with the site plans prepared by Roberts Construction, dated December 17, 2001; 2. Submission of a final landscape plan meeting all requirements of Article XXIII Landscape Code of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code and also includes the following: BA-36-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 7 · a continuous three-foot hedge of varying species along the perimeter of the east, south, and portions of the west property lines, without creating sight triangle obstructions and allowing for flexibility along the north lot line; · foundation landscaping on the west and south e!evations Of the ne~v buildings; · pine trees along the east area of the Phase V parking area that screen the entire parking area; Submission of a Lighting plan as required by Sec. 14.2219 of the Zoning Ordinance; Submittal and approval of final Engineering Plans meeting all Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · All Development Code requirements be met in Phase I; · Loop the water supply if Engineering determines that a 10oped design is necessary to eliminate 'dead end' water mains that service the new student housing units and the required fire hydrants; · All phases of the development shall be designed and submitted for review and approval with the Phase I improvements to ensure compatibility between the phases. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · The access road is to be constructed in accordance with Development Code requirements (paved) and without gates; · Provide hydrants on-site as dete~'med necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works; · Buildings are to be provide~l with an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems; · All construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. The petitioner shall make an application to IDOT for access off of Rand Road, work with staff to establish the best access point from Rand Road, and close the curb-cut offof Owen Street; Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D; The basement storages remain as storage space and is not used for office space, a meeting room, or any other use that would require parking as required by the Village Zoning Ordinance. I concurl W i~l ] :'~'~'~m j.~oney,~AI, l;irector o f Community Developmant H:~3 EN~P LANN ING',ZB A~ZBA 2002XStaff MemosYZ13A-36-Ol .doc laa.qS ua~o leeJIs iooqo$ an.u(I aalqsl!A~ ORDINANCE NO. 4465 AN O~DINA~CE GP~NTIN~ A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE OF A PLA/~EB UNIT DEVELOPKENT FOR THE CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH/COLLEGE 400 EAST G~EGOR¥ STREET PASSED AND APPROVED BY Tt/E PI%ESIDE~T AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the ~ day of _~V~Er_.-___, 1992 Published in pamphlet form by . authority of the corporate author£tie~ of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the 3rd. day of_~_, 1992. c~/ 8/12/~2 ORDINANCE NO. 4465 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATUR~ OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH/COLLEGE~ 400 'EAST__G~EGORY 'STREET WHEREAS, the Christian Life Church/College (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has filed an application for a. Special Use in the nature of a Planned Unit Development for. located at 400 East Gregory street (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property) and legally described as follows: The South 1/2 of' the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Thir~ Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of Rand Road, except the North 229.93 feet, as measured at right angles and except that part thereof dedicated for street purposes as per Document No; 18617987, in Cook Co%%~ty, Illinois and WHAT32%S, Petitioner seeks a Planned Unit Development for a church and college, to allow an addition to .the existing structure and plans for a library to built in the future; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for amendment being the subject of ZBA Case No. 49-SU-92 before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of MoUnt prospect On the 23rd day of July, 1992, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount ~rOsnect Herald on the 7th day of July, 1992; and WHEREAS, 'the 'Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings on the proposed amendment to a Special Use to the President and Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the Village of MoUnt prospect would be attained by granting the request in ZBA 49-SU-92.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, IT.?.TNOIS:' SECTION ONE= That the ~ecltals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: That a Special Use in th~ nature of a Planned Unit Development is hereby granted to the 'Subject property, which Planned Unit Development provides for s church and college, and an addition to +/he existing structure with plans for. a library I~o be added in the future, all as shown On the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A#, subject to the following conditions: 1. The land-banked parking ss shown on the Site Plan shall only be b~ilt when demand warrants additional parking,' as determined by the Director of Planning. 2. A final Landscape Plan shall be submi~ted that meets the requirements of Chapter 15 of the Village Code. ~ That this Ordinance shall be in full force and ZBA 49-SU-92 Page 2 of 2 effect .from and after its passage, aDproval and publi=ation in pamphlet form in the marker provided by law.. AYES= NAYS= PASSED and APPROVED this Busqe, Corcoran, Clowes, ~loros, Hoefert, Wilks None None l~t day of ~mh~ , 1992. }{~tion carried. ZSA 49-SU-92, 400 East Gregory Street An Ordinance was presented fo~ second reading which would allow t~e expansion of t~e Christian Life Church by granting a Special Use. for a Planned Unit Development. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Busse, moved for passage Of Ordinance No. 4465 AN. ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL'USE IN THE NATURE OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CHRISTIAN L~FE. CHURCH/C~LLEGE, 400 EAST GREGORY STREET Upon roll call: Ayes: Nays: Motion carried. Busse, Clowes, Cor¢oran, Floros, Hoefert, Wi~ks None ZBA 50-SU-92, 999 North Elmhurst Road An Ordinance was presented for second reading which would grant a~amendment to the PUD to allow the Jewel Food Store to build a new s~ructure in the general area of the existing building. After discussion between the Board and Attorney cary chickerneo~ representing a neighboring restaurant affected by the move, Trustee Wilks, ~econded by Trustee clowes moved for passage of Ordinance No. 4466 With conditions. AN ORD'INAN~E A~ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3604 GRANTING A'SPECIAL USE IN THE NAT0~E OF A PLANNED UNIT D~v~aOPMENT GOVERNING PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS RANDHURST SHOPPING C~NTER Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, clowes, Corcoran Floros, Hoefez~c, wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 42-A-92, Tenct'A~endment A request for a text amendment was presented which would establish a Special U.se category for all non- residential uses in a single family area, such as churches, s=hools and m~nicipal facilities. Several residents expressed'their views and following. discussion Mayor Farley instr~/cted the Village staff to give this proposal further study.' Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that he would consult with Planning Director David Clements and present this matter to the Board again on September Tr~tee Susie left the meeting at this time. An Ordinance was Presented for first reading which wo~l~ allow the sale of SurPlus vehicles at the Northwest Municipal Conference's p~blio vehicle auction on October 17, 1992. ZBA 49-SU-9~ 4OO ~.GR~RY ORD. NO. 4465 · ZBA 50-SU-92 999N.~ ORD. NO. 4466 ~.BA 42-A-92 Page 3 - September 1, 1992 VILLAGE OF MQU~T PROSPEC'~ Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: FROM: DATE: CASE NO,: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: LOCATION MAP: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING JULY 14, 1992 ZBA-49-SU-92 CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH AND COLLEGE 400 EAST GREGORY Gil Basnik, Chairman Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 Property Description: Location and Size: The property is located at the northwest intersection of Gregory Street and Rand Road (Route 12), commonly known as 400 East Gregory Street. The property consists of 7.13 acres. Zoning and Land Use: The property is currently zoned "R-l" Single Family and is improved with a 33,000 square foot brick building occupied by Christian Life Church and College. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: "R-I" Single Family; Mount Prospect Park District property - Vacant East: "R-I" Single Family; residences South: "R-I" Single Family; residences West: "R-l" Single Family; residences Lot Coverage: Current: 30% Proposed: 47.75% REQUEST The petitioners are requesting a Planned Unit Development to allow the addition of a Sanctuary Auditorium and a future library to the existing Christian Life Church and College. Included in the addition is a lobby, restrooms, book and prayer rooms, offices, chapel with a seating capacity of 200, and a kitchen to support the church and ministry. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMENTS AND CONCERNS The petitioners are seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) for the property located west of Rand Road and north of Gregory Street. Specifically, the P.U.D. requests a two-story addition of 19,500 square feet and a future two-story library of 10,000 square feet with accessory parking to accommodate the additions. P.U.D. Review: The site is currently improved with a 33,000 square foot brick structure which houses Christian Life Church and College. The Zoning Ordinance allows a church in an "R-l" zoned area, however, it does not specifically allow a college. Therefore, the request includes the listing of a college as part of the P.U.D. Site Layout: The petitioners have met the setback requirements for the building and parking lot. Where the property directly abuts single family residences, the petitioners have maintained a 110 foot setback from the property line for the future library and 100 feet for the nearest parking area. Gil Basnik, Chairman Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 There are three access drives off of Gregory which are in excess of 200 feet apart. The driveways serve 311 parking spaces with 18 parking spaces landbanked and 20 future spaces to be constructed with the future library. The Zoning Ordinance requires 332 spaces based upon the number of seats in the auditorium, the existing building as well as the future library. The P.U.D. Ordinance requires 10% additional parking spaces than normally required. This requiremem brings the total needed to 365. This is 19 spaces more than the plan currently provides. Staff would recommend that these additional parking spaces be waived due to the nature of this use. The additional spaces requested in the P.U.D. Ordinance are targeted to a mixed use facility which would have a variety of uses. Staff feels that the preservation of open space is more important in this case. Staff would also recommend that the landbanked parking and future library parking be constructed only as demand warfares. Staff would encourage the open space be left as grass or landscaping until the Planning Director deems construction necessary. Lot Coverage: The "R-I" Single Family District allows a maximum of 45% lot coverage. The site plan as submitted indicates a total lot coverage of 4T75% Which is 2.75% greater than the ordinance allows. Staff dOes not object to this because the future parking and landbanked parking will not be constructed until demand warrants, therefore, the total lot coverage~will be below the required 45%. Lands¢,a. pe Plan: The following comments are provided to the petitioners so that the proposed landicaping can be brought in compliance with the minimum requirements of the Ordinance: Additional landscaping shall be added to the interior of the parking lot so that a minimum of 5% can be obtained. There is currently approximately 3.5% landscaping provided. A continuous 3 ft. hedge of landscaping shall be added along East Gregory Street as well as along Rand Road. 3. Additional landscaping along the west property line to include: a. Shade trees shall be provided at the equivalent of 75 ft. apart along the property line. b. Other landscaping materials, including berms, trees, evergreen, shrubbery, hedges, and/or other live planting materials. Architecture: The petitioners have included floor plans and elevations for review. The proposed addition will match the existing structure in style and material.Staff would recommend that the future library also match the existing structure. Gil Basnik, Chairman Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 OTHER DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS Engineering: Are three entrances necessary? The Center one may have conflict with turning maneuvers from Owen Street. How will access be made to the lot to the north? The size of the existing sanitary service must be verified and proven adequate for the building addition. Will storm sewer need to be extended for future parking? Grade declines to west; will storm sewer be deep enough? Release from storm system must take into account unrestricted release from north and west. Is detention adequate for future lots? Sump is necessary on release pipe since connection is to combined sewer. Drainage swale shall be constructed now est lot line. Detention basin must meet State requirement (6:1) on distance from Rand Road to high water level side slopes on detention pond. 'Building to be~ sprinkled. Inspection Services: Check with I.D.O.T. on excavation limits adjacent to State roadways. Location of detention basin may be affected. There are existing sanitary manholes in center of Gregory at SChool and Owen Streets. If existing sewer on Gregory is a combined sewer~ discharge from detention basin will require a trap. Additional detention may be required for new impervious areas on west portion of property. There is an existing 8" watermain on the south side of Gregory and North side of Gregory west of School Street. Check with Fire Prevention Bureau if additional hydrants may be required around the building. Public Works: The landscaping plan should show the correct location of all existing parkway trees on Gregory and on Rand Road; currently, only some of these trees are shown. Gil Basnik, Chairman Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 Construction equipment must be kept out of the root zone of all existing parkway trees. Developer should pay fees for the planting of three new parkway trees. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION The petitioners are seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development which would allow the existing Christian Life Church and College as well as allow two additions to the existing structure. Included within the P.U.D. are the following variations: A reductiOn in the required 10% additional parking required in the P.U.D. Ordinance. from 365 parking spaces to the proposed 332 parking spaces. A variation to allow approximately 47.75% lot coverage instead of the 45% maximum in an "R-l" Single Family District. Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development as requested by Christian Life Church and School with the following conditions: The landbanke~d parking and future parking shall only be built upon the approval of the Planning Director. The landscape plan shall be redesigned and submitted to the Planning Department for approval. At a minimum, the items listed on Page 3 of this staff report must be complied with. All outstanding issues and concerns of Engineering, Inspection Services and Public Works shall be addressed and resolved prior to the issuance 'of a building permit. DMC:hg ~J MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. 49-SU-92 Hearing Date: July 23, 1992 PETITIONER: Christian Life Church SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 East Gregory Street PUBLICATION DATE: July 7, 1992 REQUEST: A Spedal Use Permit for a Planned Unit Developmem along with any necessary variations as required under Section 142502 and 14.1101 to allow aproposed addition and future library for Christian Life Church and College. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ronald Cassidy, Acting Chairman Robert Brettrager Peter Larmon Richard Pratt Dennis Saviano ABSENT: ~ OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Gilbert Basnik, Chaiiman Michaele Skowron John Korn, 301 William George PePe, 318 North Owen Vice Chairman Cassidy introduced the next agenda item being a request for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to allow an addition and future library for Christian Life Church and College. Rev. Da~l Merrill introduced himself and gave a history of Christian Life Church and College. Rev. Merrill concluded the history by indicating that approximately 8 a~res of their property had been sold off to the Mount Prospect Park District. He then introduced Rev. Harry Schmidt who gave an overview of the process used to determine the size of the additions and needs of the congregation and students. Rev. Schmidt indicated that they were very sensitive m the residemial neighbors in their planning of the additions. He stated that the church held a neighborhood meeting on Monday, July 20, 1992 to discuss their proposal. Rev. Schmidt then introduced the Project Architect, Richard Keller, who gave an overview of the specific project. He indicated that they designed additions which were Iow profile and fit in with the residential area, while matching the existing structure in detail .and materials. ZBA49-SU-92 Page 2 Ray Forsythe, Planner, then summarized the staff report indicating that the P.U.D. request included allowing a college in the "R-I" Single Family District as it is not specifically listed as a permitted use. Mr. Forsythe then discussed the variations which are requested for the P.U.D. They are: 1. A variation to allow a reduction in the required parking spaces from 365 to 332. 2. A variation to allow approximately 47.75% lot coverage instead of the maximum 45% allowed. Mr. Forsythe indicated that the proposed building setbacks met all requirements and that staff felt the variations requested were minimal and would have no impact to the surrounding areas. Mr, John Korn, 301 William, ooke in support of the project. He posed a q/aestion regarding construction traffic for the project. He suggested that a temporary access off of Rand Road be approved in order to keep the large trucks off of the residential streets. Mr. Clements indicated that staff would also support this request. Mr. George Pepe, 318 North Owen, questioned whether the driveways could be designed so that they line up with the~streets in which they abut. Rev. Schmidt indicated that they would work with staff so that the issues could be resolved. Mr. Saviano questioned whether any objections were raised at the neighborhood meeting. Rev. Merrill indicated that no outstanding objections or concerns were raised at the meeting. Mr. Cassidy questioned the amount of traffic generated on a typical Sunday. Rev. Merrill indicated approximately 500. Mr. Cassidy asked a neighbor to discuss this question. Mr. Korn indicated that the traffic on Sundays was minimal compared to the weekday traffic from Kensington Business Center. Mr. Cassidy then read the standards for a Special Use Permit and the Zoning Board of Appeals generally discussed the request. There being no further questions, Vice Chairman Cassidy asked for a motion on the request. Mr. Brettrager moved the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval of a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Christian Life Church and College with the following variations: 1. A variation to the required parking spaces of 365 to allow 332. 2. A variation to allow a lot coverage of 47.75% instead of the maximum allowed 45%. BA49-SU-92 Page 3 These variations are subject to the follo~ng conditions: The landbanked parking and future parking shall only be built upon the agreement of the Planning Director. The landscape plan should be redesigned and submitted to the Planning Department for approval. At a minimum, the items list on Page 3 of the staff report must be complied with. 3. All outstanding issued and concerns of Engineering, Inspection Services and public Works shall be addressed and r~solved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pratt Upon Roll Call: AYES: Pratt, Larmon, Brettrager, Saviano and Cassidy NAYS: None This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for their consideration. R~a~ nd P. Forsythe, planner ORDINANCE NO. 4566 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4465 CRF.,A~ING ~ p~D UNIT DEV1{Lo~ F0R PROP~ COMMONLY ~NOWN AS CHRISTIAN LIFE .CHURCH AND CO;,LEGE. (400 ~AST GP-EC-~ORY STRICT) PASSED AMD. APPROVED BY TEE PRESIDENT AND ~ OF TRUSTEES the 6th day of July , 1993 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the corgorate authorities of the Village of Hou/qt Prospect, Illinole, the 6th day of ~ly , 1993. CA~/ 6/29/93 ORDINANCE NO. 4566 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4465 CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN A~ CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH AND COLLEGE .{~400 EAST GREGORY STI~EET) WHEREAS, Christian LifeChurchandCollege {hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has filed a petition for an~ndment to a Special Use in the nature of a Planned Unit Development, being the subject of Ordinance No. 4465, with respect to property commonly known as Life Christian Church and College, located at 400 East Gregory Street (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally dpscribed as follows: The South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 6f the Northeast 1/4 of Section 54, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the 3rd Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of Rand Road, except the North 229.93 feet, as measured at right angles and except that part thereof dedicated for street purposes as per Document No. 18617987, in Cook County, Illinois and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for Special Use, designated as ZBA Case No. 35-SU-93, before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 27th day of May, 1993, pursuaf~t to proper legal notice having been published in the Mou~t Prospect Herald on the 11th day of May, 1993; and WHERF2%S, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings on the request to amend ~he Planned Unit Development to the President and Boardof Trustees; and W~EREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect .have determined that the best interests of the village of Mount Prospect will be served by the granting the request being the subject of ZBA35-SU-93. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THR PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: That Ordinanoe No. 4465 passed and approved SeptemBer 1, 1992 is hereby amended in order to allow a two~phase development of the church Site Plan, consisting of a 532 seat chapel on the north side of the existing building as Phase I. Phase It~uld be the 750 seat sanctuary, as shown on tha original Planned Unit Development Site Plan. OcCupancy of the Phase II sanctuary is subject to remowal of any fixed seating in the Phase I Chapel, and the reuse of Phase I as a multi-purpose room. The phasing plan is shown on the attached Exhibit "A". All other conditions of Ordinance'No. 4465 shall remain in effect. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect ZBA 35-SU-93 Page 2 of 2 from and after its passage~ approval'and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this Clowes, Hendrtck$, Hoefert, Skowron, Wilks None Corcoran day o~ July · 1990. I Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved for passage of ordinance No. 4564 AN OI~DINANCE Gi~ANTING A SPECIAL USE AND VAI~IATION FOR PI~OPERTY COMMONLY I~OWN AS 1710 ESTATES DRIVE Upon roll call: Ayes: clowes, Hendrick~, Moefert, Skowron, Wil~s Nays: No~e Notion ca'rise. ~,BA 33-V-93, 717 N. Forest Avenue ' An Ordinance was presented for first reading ~hat would grant a variation tc allow a driveway with a width of 28 feet, rather than the permitted 21 foot width. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this request by a vote of 7-0. Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Clowes, Hendricks, Hoefert, SkoWron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Clowss, seconded b~ TruStee Wilks, moved - for passage of Ordinance No. 4565 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PRDPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS717 NORTH FOIST AVENUE Upon roll call: Ayes: Clowes, Nandricks, Hoefert, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 35-S~93, 400 E. Gregory, Christian Life C~t~rch An Ordinance was presented for first reading that · would amend the P1arfned Unit Development for the subject property to allow a two-phase development with the first phase allowing a chapel with a seating capacity of 532. The Zoning Board of · Appeals recommended granting this request by a vote Of 7-0.' Trustee Clowes~ seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to waive therule requiring two readings of en Ordinance. Upon roil call: Ayes: Clowee, Mendricks, Hoefert, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Notion carried. Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved ORD.NO. 4564 ZBA 33-V-93 717 N. FOl~EST ORD.NO. 4565 ZBA 35-SU-93 400 E.Gi~E~O~Y CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH' ORD.NO. 4566 Page 3 - July 6, 1993 for passage of Ordinance No. 4566 AN OI~DINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4465 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE OF A 'PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM~NT FOR THE C~ISTIAN LIFE CHURC~ AND COT.T.~GE Upon rQll call: Ayes:.Clowes, Hendricks, Hoe£ert, S~owron, Wilks Nays: None Hotion carried. ZBA 38-V-93 402 S. BUSSE RD ORD.NO..4567 ESTATES ON MODIFICATION FROM DEVELOPN~NT CODE (CH. 16) OI~D.NO~ 4566 ZBA 38-V-93, 402 So~th Buses Road An Ordinance was presented ~or first 'reading that would grant a variation to allow a driveway width of 32 feet, l~stea~ Of 21 feet, end to' permit a parking pad/turn around apron. The ZOning Board of Appeals recommended grantingthls request bye vote of 7-0. Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee Hcefert, moved to waive th® rule requiring two readings of an Upon roll call: Ayes= Clowes, Hendricks, Hcefert, Skowron, Wilks Naysz None Motion carried. Trustee Clowes, ~eoondedbyTr~stee Hoefer~, move~ for passage of Ordinanoe No. 4567 AN ORDINANC~GRANTING A VARIATION FoR PRoPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 402 SOUTH BUSSE ROAD Upon roll'ce11~ Ayes~ Clowes, Hendricks, Hcefert, Skowron, Wilks Nays~ None Motion carried. An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would grant a modification from the Development Code (Chapter 16) to allow the width of the new roadway to taper from 67.11 feet to 45 feet. The Plan commission recommended granting this request by a vote of 6-0. Trusta~ Clowes, seconded byTrustee Wilks, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of Ordinance. Upon roll ¢a11= Ayes= Clowes, Hendricks, Hoefert, Skowron, Wilks Nays= None Motion carried. Trustee Clowes, seconded by Trustee. Wllks, moved for passag~ Of Ordinance No. 4566 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A MODIFICATION FROM T~E DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ESTATES ON MARCELLA .Upon roll cell= Ayes: Clowes, Hendrick~, Sk~wr0n, Wilks Nays= None Abstain: Hoefe~t Motion carried. Page 4 - J~ly 6, 1993 vILla, GE OF MOUNT PROSP~C3' PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: FROM: DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: ADD'SS: LOCATION MAP: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN ~AY P. FO~SVmE, PLA~R--%?e' MAY 21, 1993 ZBA-35-SU-93 CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH AND COLLEGE 400 EAST GREGORY C GRCGORY ST 600 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: ZONING: LOT SIZE: % COVERAGE: F.A.IL R-1 Single Family Residential 7.13 Acres Previously approved: 47.75%; Proposed: 58% N/A Gil Basnik, Chairman Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 REOUEST The petitioners are seeking an amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance #4465 as approved on September 1, 1992 in order to allow a two-phase development of the Church development plan. The first phase would provide for chapel seating of 532 rather than 200 as indicated on the approved Planned Unit Development. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMENTS AND, CONCERNS Summary of application: The petitioners have indicated that the proposed construction will have very little impact on the residences in the neighborhood because the new construction will be on the northeast side of their property facing Rand Road. Most of the existing parking will be used with a small portion added at the north of the current parking lot. All setbacks have been met on the proposed' plan. Backgrgund: The 1992 PUD for the college included a small prayer or wedding chapel on the north side of the building, and the main sanctuary of 750 seats. Preliminary construction bids for the project came in higher than expected, and at this time the petitioner is proposing to expand the size of the prayer chapel to 532 seats, as Phase I. This area will be used for church services. When demand re~3ches a point so as to re.quire the larger chapel, the Phase II building will be constructed to meet this need. Impact on Surrounding Properties: The petitioners have requested to amend the approved PUD for Christian Life Church and College to allow an expansion to the north. The R- 1 District allows a total lot coverage of 45% with a 10% bonus allowed in the PUD for a total allowed lot coverage of 49.5%. The proposed lot coverage of 58% will only be obtained if all parking, including the land banked parking is installed. Without the land- banked parking, the total tot coverage is 51% which is not excessive and storm water can be controlled in the design of the parking areas. OTHER DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS There are several comments regarding the engineering and fire protection of the building which will have been forwarded to the petitioners. All applicable Village Codes will be followed during the planning and construction of this project. S..WMMARY]RECOMMENDATION In summary, the petitioners are requesting an amendment to the recently approved PUD to allow a larger chapel to be built as Phase I of the project. The petitioners have added additional parking as required to meet the current Zoning Ordinance. All required setback~ have been met and the land-banked parking will only be constructed if deemed necessary by the Planning Director, as previously approved. RPF:hg MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-35-SU-93, Hearing Date: May 27, 1993 PETITIONER: Christian Life Church and College SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 East Gregory PUBLICATION DATE: May I1, 1993, (Herald) REQUEST: The petitioners are seeking an amendment to Harmed Unit Development Ordinance #4465 as approved on September 1, 1992 in order to allow a two-phase development of the Church development plan. The first phase would provide for chapel seating of 532 rather than 200 as indicated on the approved Planned Unit Development. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Robert Brettrager Ronald Cassidy Leo Floros Peter Dannon Elizabeth Luxem Richard Pratt ABSENT: OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: None None Chairman Basnik then introduced the next case being ZBA-35-SU-93 by Christian Life Church and College requesting an amendment to Planned Unit Development Ordinance #4465 in order to allow a two phase develOpment of the Church. Rev. Harry Schmidt and Pastor Daryl Merrill of Christian Life Church introduced themselves to the Zoning Board of Appeats. Mr. Merrill indicated that the church had received a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval last year for their larger sanctuary and expansion-plans, but that the construction bids came in high for this proposed addition. He stated that, at this time, the church would now tike to construct their masterplan in a two phase project. Mr. Merrill noted that the original PUD had a small 200 seat chapel on the north side of the building. At this time they would like to expand the seating of that chapel to 532 seats and construct the larger 750 seat sanctuary on the east side of the building at some point in the future when their congregation grows to a size to support the increased seating. ZBA-35-SU-93 Page 2 Ray Forsythe then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted that the. church received a PUD approval on September 1, 1992 for the large church masterplan that included a 750 seat sanctuary, and now the church would like to do a two phase development. Mr. Forsythe noted that the proposed construction will have very little impact on the neighborhood as residences are far west of the church property, and most of the construction and parking 10t improvements will be facing Rand Road. He stated that ail ~etbacks had been met on the proposed plan. Mr. Forsythe confirmed that the smallprayer wedding chapel on the original PUD had been for approximately 200 seats, and the church would like to expand this area now to 532 seats as a Phase I. The Phase II development of the church would be the larger sanctuary as noted on the originai PUD. Mr. Forsythe noted that, as with the original PUD, an are. a of land bankingfor parking is provided in order to allow an option for the maximum number of parking spaces to be built, if the demarM were justified with the Phase II church construction. Chairman Basnik asked for conunents from the Zoning Board of Appeais. Mr. Larmon pointed out that the Phase I seating is proposed to be 532 and the Phase II seating would be 750, and that the total of these two exceed the seating that was approved in the originai PUD. Mr. Lannon asked what would happen to the Phase I area after cor~truction of the larger sanctuary. Mr. Merrill stated that this area would be converted to'a fellowship hall or a multi-purpose room and that both sanctuaries would not be used at the same time. Chairman Basnik asked how~many members the church currently has, and Mr. Merrill stated that they approximately have 450 to 500 members and they meet in two services. Mr. Merrill stated that the growth of the church is limited by the seating capacity of the existing facility. Mr. Floros asked about the Christian Life College and how many students were presently enrolled. Mr. Merrill stated that there are 75 full-time students currently in the college. Mr. Cassidy asked for the location of the Park District property and Mr. Merrill stated that this property is 7 acres just north of the church and college site. Mr. Larmon asked Mr. Clements if the Phase II development as shown in the PUD would require.further appr°Yai by the ZOning BOard of Appeals. Mr. Clements stated that if' the Phase II is approved on this PUD request, then there would be no additional public hearing necessary. Mr. Clements aiso stated that it was his belief that the fixed seating in the Phase I chapel would be removed and that this should help solve the concerns about the combined seating of both phases. Mr. Merrill stated that the seating would be removed from the Phase I chapel if the larger sanctuary is ever constructed. No one. appeared to speak in favor or opposition to the request. The Zoning Board of Appeais generally discussed the PUD amendment, and it was noted that the two phase approach allows the church to have some flexibility in their construction plans to address the size and growth of the congregation, and the ultimate needs of the church and college. ZBA-35-SU-93 Page 3 Accordingly, Chairman Basnik asked for a motion on the request. Mr. Brettrager moved that' the Zoning Board recommend approval of a two phase PUD for Christian Life Church and College. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pratt. Upon Roll Call: AYES: Brettrager, Floros, Luxern, La--on, Pratt, Cassidy arid Basnik NAYS: None The motion was appro~;ed by a vote of 7-0. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Village .Board for their consideration. Respectfully submitted, David M. Clements, Director of Planning VILLAGE OF MC JNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division I00 S. Emerson street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Case Number ZBA Development Name/Address Date of Submission Hearing Date Address(es) (S~'eet Number, Sc'eel) a400 East Gregory ST, Mount Prospect Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) 7.12 R-1 (PUD) Setbacks: Front Rear [ Side Side O__Z 30' O" 25' 0"I 20' 0" 10'0" [- Building Height Lot Cov~erage (%) Number Of Parking Spaces { ~,, 30'0" O Adjacent Land Uses: '~ West ~_ North South East '" Pork Residential Ccx~mercia 1 Residential "" ' Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) ~: Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) - S~:~'. ATTACHED Name Telephone (day) Harry Schmidt, President 847-259-1840 C'orporation Telephone (evening) Ckristien Life College Street Address Fax 847-(~-259-3888 400 E. Gregory ST. City { State '! I Zip Code Pager IL 60056 e-mail-hschmidt@christianlifecoll~ Mt. Prospect Interest in Property .. College Pr.esident -' Name Telephone~ ,) -- Corporation Telephone (evenlng) Street Address Fax: ' -City State Zip Code Pager Developer Name Robin K. Robes Telephone (day) 608-257-0500 Address .~.~9 E. washinc~con Ave. Fax 608-257-4374 ~aison. WI 53703 Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address ! Fax Surveyor Name Telephone (day) Address ~ Fax Engineer qame Telephone (day) Address ' Fax Architect Name ..Greqory M. Cashmanr AIA Telephone(day): 608-257-0200 ..... Address 849 E. Washincrton Ave. Fa× ~08-257-0204 ...... ...Madison, WI 53703 Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): _ Address Fax Moan[ Prosp¢c~ Department of'Communi~ DeveIopmen~ lO0 Sou:h Emerson Street, Mount Prospec~ Hlinois Phone 847.81 $.532S Fax 8~,7.$ I $.532~' TDD 8~7.392.606-' Proposed Conditional Use (as hsced in the zoning district) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) Action requested is to amend existing ordinance No, 4465, to include two student dwelling buildings, with a maximom capacity of 48 persons per each building. Approval requested would include assoc, parking, utilities, and landscaping. Further approval requested is the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to construct phases one, two, three, and four as illustrated on the sukmittal drawings. (SEE ATTACHED DRAWINGS) Hours of Operation Library/ Colleqe functions: 6:00 AM - 10:00 PM Address(es) (S~eet Number, S~eet) 400 E. Washington ST Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning I Total Building Sq, Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use ~' 7.12 R-1 (P.U.D) Setbacks:. ,~ Front Rear Side Side 30'0" 25'0" 20' 0" 10'0" Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking Spaces 30'0" ' Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals wilt not be accepted. It is sU'ongly sflggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. 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 properc?' grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject propert3.'. I hereby affir~at all inform~on provided herein accurate to tJte b?t o %n~Yffr/6wltdgI· App,icant [ If applicant is not property owner: and in ail materials submitted in association with this application are true and I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and d:e associated supportino ~~:~ Mount Prospect Dep~{/ment of Communi~ Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois .- Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.$I$.>~-. TDD 847.~9-.60o~ School .Street -- Owen Street · School Street Owen Street- School 'Street ..... : eeeeeeee Owen Street- - School-Street- Owen Street- School'Street ...... Owen Street' School-Street ..... Owen Street ' ![ i · I '...~ l,t...q,l ffi '!,..~ [ I! ll l l[ I~ l !: J} ~' ll'~ll · , Ii JJ J il J J~ ...... lI I llll 'l I J '~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4566 RELATIVE TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) FOR PROPFRTY LOCATFD AT 400 EAST GRE~(~ORY ~TREET WHEREAS, Harry Schmidt, agent for Christian Life College, (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has filed a petition to amend the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No. 4566, approved July 6, 1993, for a Conditional Use permit with respect to property at 400 East Gregory Street (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property), and legally described as follows: The south ~ of the SE % of the NE ~ of Sec. 34, Township 42 North, Range 2 East of the 3rd Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of Rand Roadexcept the.oN. 229.93', as measured at right angles and except that part thereof, dedicated for street purposes, as per Doc. #18617987, in Cook County, Illinois; and WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks an amendment to the Planned Unit Development be.lng the subject of Ordinance No. 4~566 to allow the construction of multiple structures including student housing facilities, a library, an administrative student center, a 950-seat sanctuary, and the conversion of the existing chapel to a multi-purpose room; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request being the subject of ZBA Case No. 36-01 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24~ day of January, 2002, pursuant,to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Pr~3.~pecf D~ily Herald on the 9"' day of January, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation on the proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development to the President and Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be attained by granting the requests in ZBA 36-01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: ~ The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. Page 2/3 ZBA 36-01 ~ Ordinance No. 4566 granting a Conditional Use permit, passed and approved on July 6, 1993, is hereby amended by granting a Conditional Use permit to include the construction of student housing facilities, a library, an administrative student center, a 950-seat sanctuary, and the conversion of a multi-purpose room upon completion of the sanctuary, as shown on the attached Site Plan, dated January 29, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as "Exhibit A". ~: This amendments being the subject of this Ordinance is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site in conformance with the site plans prepared by Roberts construction, dated January 29, 2002; 2. Submissipn o.f a final landscape plan meeting all requirements of Article XXIII Landscape Code of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code and also includes the following: a. Phase I shall include the addition of five percent landscapi&g to the intedor of the existing parking lot; b. A continuous three-foot hedge of varying species along the perimeter of the east, south, and portions of the west property lines, without creating sight tdangle obstructions and allowing for flexibility along the north lot linel c. Increased foundation landscaping on the west and south elevations of the new buildings; d. Pine trees along the east area of the Phase V parking area that screen the entire parking area; 3. Submission of a lighting plan as required by Sec. 14.2219 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. Submittal and approval of final Engineering Plans meeting all Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: a. All Development Code requirements be met in Phase I with particular concern paid to the impacts of storm water management; b. Loop the water supply if the Engineering Division determines that a looped design is necessary to eliminate 'dead end' water mains that service the new student housing units and the required fire hydrants; c. All phases of the development shall be designed and submitted for review and approval with the Phase I improvements to ensure compatibility between the phases. 5. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: a. The access road is to be constructed in accordance with Development Code requirements (paved) and without gates; Page 3/3 ZBA 36-01 b. Provide hydrants on-site as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works; c. Buildings are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems; d. All construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. 6. The petitioner shall make an application to IDOT for access off of Rand Road, work with Village Planning and Engineering staff to establish the best access point from Rand Road, and close the curb-cut off of Owen Street; 7. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. 8. The basement storage remains as storage space and is not used for office space, a meeting room, or any other use that would require parking as required by the Village Zoning Ordinance. 9. All phases of the project shall be completed in five years, from the date the building permit is issued. ~: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Timothy J. Corcoran Mayor Pro Tem Veima W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEBRUARY 1, 2002 ZBA-32-01 VARIATIONS FOR THE SIZE OF SHED & ITS LOCATION AND 1.5-FEET FROM THE LOT LINE) I431 BLACKHAWK (DOUGHTY RESIDENCE) The Planning and Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to deny Case ZBA-32-01, a request for a 240-square foot shed to be located in an easement, 1.5-feet from the lot line, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the request at their October 25, 2001 and January 24, 2002 meetings. The subject property is an existing home located in a single-family residential neighborht>od on a comer lot. The petitioner replaced a shed without obtaining a permit and is seeking variations to allow the over sized shed to remain in its current location. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the fact that the petitioner had obtained sign-offs from utility companies, the size of the shed, the petitioner's reasons for the variation, and the attached information supplied by the petitioner that documented previous cases where the former Zoning Board of Appeals had granted variations. The Planning and Zoning Commission said that each case is decided on a case-by-case basis and noted that the cases the petitioner cited were different from his case because he was seeking three variations and the other cases were seeking less than that amount of relief from code. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1 (one abstention) to recommend denial of the request for variations for a 240-square foot shed, located in an easement, 1.5-feet from the lot line for the property at 1431 Blackhawk Drive, case no. ZBA-32-01. Please forward this memorandUm and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 5, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J.~'Co~ney, J~.,IAICP H:\GEN~PLANNING~Planning & Zoning COMIvi~P&Z 2002hMEJ Memos~ZBA-32-01 1431 Blackhawk - Doughty Shed.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. ZBA-32-01 PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 24, 2002 Douglas Doughty October I 0, 2001 (case continued from October 25,200 ! meeting) Variations to decrease the minimum setback for a shed, increase the size of a shed from 120 s.f. to 240 s.f., and locate a shed in an easement Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros · Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist · ~' ..... Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development 'INTERESTED PARTIES: Douglas Doughty Reno Neckele Marshall Ponzi David Schein Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Juracek welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is comprised of the former Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. She introduced new members Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commissioner, Matthew Sledz. At 7:33, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-32-01, a request for Variations for the size and the location of a shed and to decrease the minimum setback for a shed. She said that the case is Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly reminded the Planning and Zoning Commission that this case was continued from the last meeting, in October, and that the petitioners had constructed a 240 s.f. shed 1.5'-from the south lot line, in an 8' wide utility easement, and then obtained a building permit. Ms. Connolly said the homeowners were informed that the size of the shed and its location did not comply with zoning regulations and that the petitioners am seeking variations to allow the existing shed to remain in its current location. Since the last meeting, the petitioners have not modified the location of the shed, but they have received sign-offs from utility companies to have the shed remain in its current location. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the Village does not have any public sanitary sewers or water mains in this easement. However, the Village Code prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement. Ms. Connolly noted that, in order to approve the variation, the Village Code requires that findings of fact be made in accordance with the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. These standards relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not applicable to other properties; the situation was 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. Connolly explained that a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance is "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of the unusual surroundings or conditions of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground Planning and Zoning Commission ZBA-32-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 conditions or other unusual circumstances." Ms. Connolly said that the subject parcel is typical of lots in the RX zoning district and that the shape and topography are typical of other lots in the Village. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioners' justifications for the variations are the aesthetic impact of the shed on the neighborhood and the convenience of having a larger storage shed. In order to minimize the impact of the 240 s.f. shed, the petitioners located the structure approximately I' from the south property line, which is in an easement. While the utility companies have approved the location, the location conflicts with Village Code and the size of the shed is twice the size allowed by code. She said that staff prepared an exhibit to show that a 120 s.f. shed could be , located on the petitioners' property accqrding to code and that a variation could be avoided. Ms. Connolly explained that the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character. However, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a shed that complies with zoning regulations could be constructed. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a 240 s.f. shed to be ldcated in an easement for the residence at 1431 Blackhawk, Case No. ZBA-32-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Douglas Dou,~daty came forward to speak and Ms. Juracek reminded him he had been sworn-in at the last Zoning Board meeting and was still under oath. Mr. Doughty asked Ms. Juracek if the new members would vote on this case and she said they would. Mr. Doughty reiterated his testimony from the Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Doughty explained that they had obtained waivers from the various utility companies stating they had no lines in the easement and JUL1E marked the underground tee that supplied gas to their pool heater. He reminded the commissioners that the drainage issue had been disproved by ~.nany of his neigbbors who testified at the last meeting that water did not settle in the easement. Mr. Doughty said relocating the shed was not acceptable to him or his neighbors because the shed would then be visible and alter the character of the neighborhood. He also pointed out that the suggested location of the 120 square foot shed would put the shed next to the pool fence and that could create an opportunity for neighborhood youths to dive from the roof of the shed into the pool. Mr. Doughty called attention to the packet he prepared for tonight's meeting. The packet contained a letter from a neighbor at 617 Glendale, Char Suckow, who said she had no objection to the shed remaining in its location and found the shed to be :.~ aesthetically pleasing. In addkion, Mr. Doughty explained that he had examined the files i-n the Planning Division for .;approved variation cases. He said that copies of the cases that support his request were in the packet. He reviewed the cases: Case #1: ZBA-05-01, a request for a Variation to allow a shed to remain in a sideyard setback al~er the homeowners located the shed 1.5-feet into the required three-foot setback that was noted on their permit application. He said the Zoning Board had commented there was no negative impact on the character oftbe neighborhood and he felt this case was similar to their ease. Case #2: ZBA-18-01, a request for an interior side yard setback variation to erect an addition to the house. The staffmemo recommended approval because the size, setback, and lay-out of the house with respect to the property were thought to constitute a hardship. Mr. Doughty stated that his house is a comer lot and that was unique and a hardship. Case #3: No. 7-Z-96, an easement issue was raised for a 3-car garage. The request was approved because the lot coverage was under the minimum requirement. Mr. Doughty pointed out that his lot coverage complied with zoning regulations. Case #4: No. 13-V-1983 approved a request for a three-car garage. The variation was approved eighteen years ago and indicates a long record of Variations approved for size issues. Mr. Doughty reminded the group that he had received the waivers from the utilities and contacted JUL1E as had been requested at the last meeting. He asked that his variation requests be approved, based on the other cases cited. lanning and Zoning Commission ZBA-32-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Chair Arlene Juracek told Mr. Doughty that he is asking them to approve a shed that is twice the size allowed and that none of the cases he cited had included all three criteria presented by his case. She said that each case is decided on a case-by-case basis. Planning and Zoning Commissioners told Mr. Doughty that they appreciated the time he spent researching previous zoning cases. However, it was unfortunate that he did not research the Village's shed regulations before he constructed the shed. Instead, he built the shed without a permit and is now seeking remedy fi.om the Planning and Zoning Commission. Joseph Donnelley pointed out that the permit application the Doughtys completed after the shed was constructed shows that the permit is to repair, not replace, an existing shed. In addition, the maximum size, 10'x12', is noted on the application. Mr. Doughty acknowledged he had made a mistake in building the shed that he purchased at a county fair without obtaining a pem~it, but he asked that he still be granted a Variation. At 8:05, noting that no audience members wanted to address the group(Ms. Juracek closed~the public hearing. Richard Rogers moved to approve the Variations to decrease the minimum setback for a shed, increase the size of a shed fi.om t20 s.f. to 240 s.f., and to locate a shed in an easement as requested by Case No. ZBA-32-01. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Youngquist, Rogers and Juracek ABSTENTIONS: Sledz Motion was denied 5-1, with one abstention. At 10:05 p.m., after the Planning and Zoning Commission heard three more cases, the Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made motion to commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 7-0. AYES: Cotten, Donnetly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Chairperson Juracek announced it was necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to the Commission. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers, Merrill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were no_further nominations. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros,, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Rogers Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention. As there were no other "housekeeping" items to be discussed, at 10:05 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiate~, Planning Secretary / ye y, -' ,anner y uly 20th, 2001 To Whom it May Concern: , am writing this letter on_ ~enal[ of Jeann.. and Douglas Doughty and the variance they are trying [o obtain regarding their shed at 1431 Biackhawk. i am the neighbor directly across form the area in which the new shed is located. I find it to be aesthetically pleasing and virtually,,,~,'-,,* of view. It certainly does not stick out nor does it detract. On the contrary, its design lends itself wonderfully to this unique piece of property. Sincerely, Charlotte Suckow 617 Glendale Lane Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER MARCH 15, 2001 MARCH 22, 2001 ZBA-05-01 - SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIATION (SHED) 6!7 N. FAIRVIEW (ANDERSON RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Kevin & Julie Anderson 617 N. Fairview Mount Prospect, IL 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER~ Property Owners PARCEL NUMBER: 03-34-109-003 LOT SIZE: 7,232.5 square feet EXISTING ZONING: RA Single Family Residence EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence LOT COVERAGE: 43% existing 50% maximum per RA district REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATION TO DECREASE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SHED FROM 3-FEET TO 1.5-FEET. BACKGROUND The subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. The property owners received a building permit to construct a 10'x12' shed three-feet from the interior lot line. The type of shed constructed does not require a "pre-pour" inspection because it is not built on a cement or similar type base. Therefore, when the Village conducted the final inspection, the Building Inspector "disapproved" the project because the shed was constructed 1.5-feet from the interior property line and not three-feet as approved on the pemait. The petitioners thought that the existing garage met Village setback requirements and located the shed in line with the garage. They learned that the garage setback was a legal non-conformity when the Building Inspector "disapproved" the final inspection. The petitioners are applying for a variation because the shed is complete and, BA-05-01 ZBA Meeting of March 22, 200[ Page 2 as stated in their application, that the shed would have to be disassembled in order to relocate it to the location required by code. The petitioners constructed a base of pre-cast foundation blocks and feel that the base is durable and that the shed is well built. As illustrated on the attached plat of survey, there is no fence adjacent to the shed. The petitioners state that they can maintain the area between the shed and the neighbor's property with their lawn mower. To conduct its analysis of the proposed variation, staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards .... ~ .... 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: 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 proper~y, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel is a 7,232.5 square foot parcel that is out of any flood zone and rectangular. The parcel is developed with a single family home and a detached garage. The applicants constructed a 10'x12' shed 1.5-feet from an interior lot line and the Zoning Ordinance requi~es a three-foot setback. The reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner. The shed is not permanently attached to the ground and can be relocated to meet the required three-foot setback, but doing so requires that the shed be entirely disassembled and reconstructed. The proposed stmctore would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, and the petitioners states that they have the ability to maintain the 1.5-foot area between their property line and their neighbor's property. RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood cfiaracter, the submittal does not support ~ finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. :.Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit a shed to encroach 1.5-feet into the required three-foot side yard setback for the residence at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development /j¢ CASE NO. ZBA-05-2001 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Corrected Hearing Date: March 22, 2001 PETITIONER: Kevin & Julie Anderson PUBLICATION DATE: March 7, 2001 Daily Herald REQUEST: Variation for a side yard setback for a shed MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARRIES: Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Anderson Mr. & Mrs. Gene Seaberg Tom Grigis Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the January 25, 2001 meeting were approved with one abstention by Elizabeth Luxem. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-05-01, a request for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a request for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed. As background to the case, Ms. Connolly explained that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. She said the property owners received a building permit to construct a 10'x12' shed three-feet from the interior lot line. When the Village conducted the final inspection, it was learned that the shed is located 1 1/2 feet from the lot line instead of the required 3-feet. Ms. Cormolly explained that the petitioners thought that the existing garage met Village setback requirements and located the shed in line with the garage. The petitioners are applying for a variation because the shed is complete and, as stated in their application, the shed would have to be disassembled in order to relocate it to the location required by code. Ms. Connolly pointed out that there is no fence adjacent to the shed and the petitioners state that they can maintain the area between the shed and the neighbor's property with their lawn mower. Ms. Connolly said staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan and visited the site, and found that the subject parcel is out of any flood zone and is rectangular in shape. The parcel is developed with a single family home and a detached garage. The applicants constructed a 10'x12' shed 1.5-feet from an interior lot line and the Zoning Ordinance requires a three-foot setback. Ms. Connolly said that, in order to approve a variation, the request has to meet the standards for a variation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. These standards relate to an irregular shape of the property or a topographical attribute unique to the lot. The standards also require that the variation not impact the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner. The subject property is similar to many other lots in the Village. She said the shed is not permanently attached to the ground and Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-05-2001 Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 2 could be taken apart, relocated, and meet the required 3' setback. HoWever, the shed would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, and the petitioners states that they have the ability to maintain the 1.5-foot area between their property line and their neighbor's property. Ms. Connolly said that, while the proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit a shed to encroach 1.5-feet into the required three- foot side yard setback for the residence at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05-01. She said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly if a plat and drawing for this shed had been submitted when a permit was requested. Ms. Connolly said?es and that the property has been re-surveyed since the shed permit was issued. She said that th'e permit for the ~ed showed a 3' setback from the property line. Kevin and Julie Anderson, 617 N. Fairview, were sworn in. Mrs. Anderson testified that when she applied for a shed permit, using a.then current plat of survey, that she drew the shed in pencil on the plat flush with the the garage. She said that staff told her that her submittal was acceptable. She said that when the prOperty was re-surveyed the shed was 1.5' from the property line. Mrs. Anderson explained that the shed is not on a concrete slab, but on foundation blocks, a sample of which they brought to the meeting. The foundation blocks contain a crossha/r design in which the 2'x4' joints fit. She said that there are twelve of these blocks under the shed and pointed out that if they had used a concrete slab that the property line discrepancy would have been noted in the "pre-pour" inspection of the slab. However, they used the blocks because water is retained in that area and they thought the blocks would provide a more level and sturdy platform for the shed. Mr. Anderson said he had received a quote from a contractor for $500 to move the shed using a front-end loader. He said that they would need t~) dig out the foundation blocks and move them to the new location of the shed. i Ms. Juracek asked Mrs. Anderson what was the dimension of the shed with respect to the garage, 3' or 1.5'? Mrs. Anderson said she had questioned staff about what the measurement meant when she was applying for the shed permit and was told the overhang might be included inthe setback shown on the plat of survey. Mrs. Anderson said that the setback shown on the plat does not include the overhang and feels they were misled in that instance. Hal Ettinger asked Mr. & Mrs. AndersOn if the garage was existing when they bought the property. Mr. Anderson said yes, they bought the propcrty with the garage that way ten years ago. Mr. Ettinger asked the petitioners if they were told when they Were applying for a permit that the shed had to be setback 3-feet from the. lot line. Mrs. Anderson said yes, she unders,tood that the shed had to be located three-feet from the lot line. There was discussion about using the fence along the north lot line as a point of reference to measure the 3-foot distance. It was noted that there is a 9-foot gap between that fence and another fence along the east (rear) property line that extends west along 9-feet of the petitioners' north lot line. Ms. :Iuracek said it would be helpful to see the original plat and asked that the original permit application be included in the packet to go to the Village Board with the ZBA's recommendation. After further discussion among the petitioners, it was deterrm'ned that the fences were in place at the time of construction of the shed. Mr. Ettinger asked if they had purchased the shed or constructed it. Mrs. Anderson said that they had purchased it, but some construction was necessary because it was a "kit". Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Zoning Board. Mr. & Mrs. Gene Seaberg, 619 N. Fairview were sworn in and gave testimony that they felt the shed looked good and did not detract from the neighborhood. They stated that they had no problem with the location and said they would have built the shed the same way. They said their garage is also close to the property line and that it has been that way for. 27 years. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-05-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Tom Grigis, 701 N. Fairview, was sworn in and said that he has no objections to leaving the shed in its current location. He said that, while it is physically possible to move the shed, it is not economically wise and would not be level when moved. Julie Anderson presented a list of 36 neighbors who signed their names to a petition stating that they had no objections to leaving the shed where it is. . At 7:55, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. Elizabeth Luxem said that it was natural for the homeowner to assume their existing garage conformed to Village codes and to align the shed with the garage. She said that she didn't feel they had located the shed 1.5-feet from the lot line to get around code requirements. She said that she would not vote to recommend approval ifa contractor familiar with Village codes had erected the shed, but that she would vote in favor of the request in this instance. Keith Youngquist said he felt the same way and that this had been an honest mis~. ~e said that he would vote in favor of the petitioner's request because the shed w~.s !Q~ated::the same di~.~e~:¢~i;line.;a~ ~e g~ge~aud~that the shed ~as not,~sih!e ~om:~:street,,~ ~ Ms. Juracek said she also usually votes to follow Village codes, but in this case she could understand the owners wanting to align the shed with the garage for aesthetic reasons. Therefore, she would vote to recommend approval became the location did not hav~ ~,neg~ti~ye.~.in~pge~.gn the geighbor~ ~o~!~ ~ae,~ and had the same setback as the ex~stmg detached garage. Elizabeth Luxem moved to recommend to the Village Board approval for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05-01. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 5-0. AYES: Ettinger, Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Chairperson Juracek introduced the next item under New Business, election of a Vice Chair to the Zoning Board of Appeals, to ensure continuity in running Zoning Board meetings in the event of her absence. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers as Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals; Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 5-0. AYES: Ettinger, Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None At 8:00 p.m., Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Counolly, Senior Planner Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER JULY 19, 2001 JULY 26, 2001 ZBA-18-01 - SIDE YARD VARIATION -ADDITION TO HOUSE 125 HORNER LANE (McMAFiON RESIDENCE) PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: REQUESTED ACTION: Jeff McMahon 125 Homer Lane Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owner 03-35-404-003 10,125 square feet (approximately) R1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residence 30% proposed 45% maximum per R1 district PROPOSAL FOR A VARIATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 5'4"x21 '5" ADDITION (ENCLOSED) IN THE SIDE SETBACK. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED VARIATION The subject property is an existing home located on a comer lot on a single-family residential street. The existing house and attached garage comply with setback regulations for the R1 Zoning District. The applicant proposes to construct a 1t4 square foot addition along the north lot line (interior side yard). Per the Zoning Ordinance, residential properties in the Ri Zoning District are required to maintain a 10-foot-or 10% of the lot width (whichever is;less) inter~or side yard setback (Sec. 14.905.B1.). According to the Zoning Ordinance, the lot width is measured atthe 30' setback; the subject property measures 75-feet at the 30-foot front setback. In order to comply with code regulations, the interior side yard would have to be no less than 7.5-feet. The petitioner proposes a 5.67-foot setback and is seeking a Variation to expand the house 1.83-feet into the required setback, as shown in the attached site plan. The attached elevations show that the proposed addition will be constructed from face brick and the floor plans show that the 5'4" x 21 '5" addition would increase the size of the existing kitchen. In the enclosed application, the petitioner states that expanding the kitchen is necessary to create an eating space for the familY. The petitioner states that he has explored other ways to expand the house to maximize the family's living space, but could not arrive at a design that was practical and met Village code requirements. In addition, the petitioner states that the neighbors' adjacent to the area do not object to the addition, that the addition would enhance the neighborhood, and that the addition would not adversely impact light or ventilation for the adjacent neighbors' property. BA Meeting of July 26, 2001 Page 2 ~o conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards 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: 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&sire to increase financial gain; and protection o f the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel is a 10,125 square foot parcel that is out of any flood zone and primarily rectangular in shape. The parcel is developed with a' single family home and an attached garage. The applicants propose to construct a 5'4" x 21 '5" addition (enclosed) in the side yard setback. The size, shape, and development of the subject property are typical of most residential properties in the Village. While the layout of the house is not unique, the location of the house in relation to the lot is not typical of most homes with two exterior yards. The entrance to the house is located in the exterior side yard and measures 30-feet from Emmerson Lane while the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot setback for the exterior side Yard. Most homes are built up to or are closer to the minimum setback requirement. In this case, if the house was located 10- feet closer to Emmerson Lane, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, the Variation would not be required since the interior side yard would then measure 21-feet (currently it is Il-feet) and the petitioner could build the addition as proposed and comply witl~ Zoning setback regulations. Although the petitioner is creating his own hardship by expanding the house into the required setback the location of the house is a tmique physical condition of the subject property. In addition, the prOPosed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION The proposed variation would not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character and the location of the house supports a finding of hardshiP, as required by the Variation standards in Section t4.203.C~9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA approve, the proposed Variation to permit an enclosed structure to encroach V10" (1.83') into the required 7;5-foot side yard setback for the residence at 125 Homer Lane, Case No. ZBA-18-01. The Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William .1. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-7-Z-96 Hearing Date: March 14, 1996 PETITIONER: John Flickinger SUBJECT PROPERTY: 121 South Edward Street PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: February 28, 1996. The petitioner is seeking a variation to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 fee~ to 12'-6" (Section 14.1005.B. 1) MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Robert Brettrager Ronald Cassidy Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Jack Verhasselt Peter Lannon OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairman Basnik introduced Case ZBA-7-V-96 being a request for a variation to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 12'-6" per Section 14.1005.B.1. Mr. John Flickinger, 121 S. Edward Street, introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals as the petitioner for the listed property. Mr. Flickinger stated that he is requesting this variation to allow for a room addition and a new garage. Village Planner, Mike Sims, then summarized the staff report for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Sims stated that the petitioner is seeking a variation to permit a 12'-6" rear yard in order to construct additional living space and a three car garage. Mr. Flickinger intends to use part of the three car garage to house his commercial vehicle. Mr. Sims stated that the owner's development plans involve removing the existing driveway, converting the present garage into a dining room, constructing an additional bedroom immediately east of the existing home and building an attached three car garage. The petitioner's justification for seeking the variation is to save two mature trees and provide enough room to construct a three car garage. Mr. Sims said the petitioner stated the additional 12'6" saved would allow a third stall to house a work van which is now left on the driveway overnighi which is currently in violation of the Village Code. ZBA-7-Z-96 Page 2 Mr. Sims stated that based on the review of the petitioner's plan and site visit, staff' believes there are alternative designs that would not require a vafiation~ For instance, a detached three car garage could be built up to five feet fi.om the rear and interior sideyards along the property lines. If the detached garage is built with 5/8" dpjwall finish on the imerior wall and ceiling, which is allowed by code, the petitioner could have as little as a three foot separation between the three (3) car garage and his principal structure. There would actually be a 7'-6" separation that would be available. Another alternative would be to add the proposed bedro°m area (living area) as a second floor addition and move the garage further towards the home. Staff feels the petitioner is creating his own hardship by designing the addition as proposed. If the proposed living area was shortened by 12'-6" or built as a second story, there would be no need for the variation. Mr. Sims then stated that the petitioner must justify the request for variation based on the seven (7) standards listed in section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cassidy asked staffifthere were pictures of the subject property. In response, a video of the subject property was shown noting the mature trees that the petitioner is proposing to save. Ir'the project is completed the way the petitioner proposes, he would lose one (1) tree. If the project is completed the way staff suggests, the petitioner would lose two (2) mature trees. Currently, there are six (6) mature evergreen trees on the property. Mr. Flickinger stated that he has been a residem for ten (10) years. He feels the alternative proposal fi.om staff would not be suitable to his wants and needs. He purchased a ranch style house and would like to keep it a ranch style house. Mr. Flickinger stated that the alternative proposal allows him to build a three (3) car detached garage within five (5) feet of the rear property line and the addition could be moved within three {3) feet of the garage. He stated that this does not make any sense to pursue and no one would benefit fi.om it. He stated that his neighbors support the project and concur with him about the enhancemem of his property and the neighborhood. Chairman Basnik noted three (3) letters fi.om the immediate neighbor~ of the subject property who are in suPPOrt of Mr. Flicldngers proposal. Mr. Vcrhasselt asked about the utility easement. Mr. Flickinger stated he checked with the utility companies and the reduced setback would not adversely affect the' utilities. Further noting the electric service for the neighborhood is overhead but he has some electric service Underground which would need to be moved. There would be enough room in the rear property to allow for utility tracks. Mr. Cassidy asked about the size of the garage and room addition. Mr. Elickinger stated the he would like.to construct a three (3) car garage to house his three (3) vehicles. The ZBA-7-Z-96 Page 3 specifications of the addition are not available at this time due to the outcome of the variation request. Chairman Basnik asked about the subject property value in relation to a detached or attached garage. Staff did not have any information with regard to the property value. Chairman Basnik asked staff what the purpose was between the allowed five (5) foOt setback with a detached garage and a twenty-five (25) foot setback with an attached garage. In response, Mr. Sims stated that the detili:hed garage would provide additional open space in the rear of the property and would provide a separation between the neighbors: Ms. Lux~ confirmed the 46 % lot coverage and asked the petitioner about the footage from the side of the house to the lot line. In response, Mr. Flicldnger said the footage is approximately 7'-6". Mr. Cassidy asked about the removal of the driveway. In response, Mr. Flickinger stated that all of the existing drive and deck would be removed and replaced. Mr. Flickinger,. in response to Mr. Floros' question, stated the proposed addition would cost approximately $60,000.00. Mr. Floros stated that if he were in the petitioners situation, the proposals for a 2 story home with a detached garage would be unsuitable for his needs. Further noting when residents are willing to invest such a considerable sum of money to enhance their property and the neighborhood in exchange for this allowance he could only support the petitioners request. Chairman Basnik then stated that in defense of staffs denial of the request, the V'dlage is required to support the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner needs to provide a hardship for the variation. In response, Mr. Flickinger stated that he would like to house his commercial vehicle which is currently in violation of being parked outside and he has mature trees that he would like to save. Chairman Basnik stated that he is on a comer lot and he can build up to 50°,4 of the lot and with the proposed addition, the petitioner would still be under the allowed 50°,4. Mr. Floras then moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve a request for variation to Section 14.1005.B. 1 to allow a reduction of the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 12'-6" as shown in petitioners exhibit 1. The motion was seconded be Mr. Verhasselt. BA-7-Z-96 Page 4 Upon Roll Call: AYES: Basnik, Cassidy, Floros, Verhasselt NAYS: BrcCtrager, Luxem The motion was approved by a vote of 4-2. Mr. Brettrager stated the reason for his no vote was the 110' solid wall. Ms. Luxem stated she concurred with Mr. Brettragers' reason and also feels the Zoning Board of Appeals is setting a precedent in the V'fllage: Further noting that the "hardship" requirement could be Satisfied with staffs proposal ora three (3) car garage. The proposal made by the petitioner does not provide a hardship and therefore she could not support this request. In response to the Nay votes, Mr. Flickinger stated that his neighbors to the side of his property has a 10' high solid hedge which would block the view of his property bom his neighbors. Sincerely, Julie Ann Bouris Secretary VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COPIES MAILED 5/6/83 %0 Philip Jeuck and Maurice Frank To: Re: Location: Hearing Date: Roll Call: Notices Sent: Publication Made: Request: Testimony: Objections: The Mayor and Trustees of the Village of Mt. Prospect ZBA-13-V-83, Philip R. Jeuck, Jr. 405 Ojibwa Trail, vicinity of Lincoln and Busse April 28, 1983 Present: Absent: Lois Brothers Ronald Cassidy Marilyn O'May Leonard Petrucelli George Van Geem James Viger Gilbert Basnick March 31, 1983 April 5, 1983 The petitioner is~requesting several variations as follows: Section 14.1001.B.4. to 911ow a three-car garage instead of the limitation on garages designed to house no more than two motor vehicles; Section 14.1002.A. to permit a front yard setback of 28 feet, 2 inches for a 5 foot 10 inch addition in- stead of the 40 foot required front yard setback; Section 14.2602.B. "Yard" and "Open Space" to per- mit an existing circular driveway. Mr. Maurice Frank, attorney for the petitioners, presented the case and offered Exhibit I, a Platt of Survey in evidence of new property purchased. He also offered Exhibit II, a copy of the ordinance'transferring the dedication portion of Ojibwa from East to West,as evidence. Mr. Frank also testified that the request was necessary to protect expensive automobiles'from possible vandalism. Mr. Ronald Stall, the architect of the existing structure, and Mr. Bruno Starr also offered testimony. Mr. Stall stated that the expansion of the two car garage to a three car garage would not change the appearance of the home, that the only change would be three individual gar- age doors from the present one (2 car) garage door. Mr. Starr concurred with the architects statements and reiterated them. There were no objectors present. Continued BA-13-V-83 Hearing Date: April 28, 1983 Page 2 Discussion: Findings of Fact: Decision: Mr. Ken Fritz, staff member, had nothing further to add to the printed staff report. The report was not read into the record. Mr. Frank did say that the petitioners would see that the existing easements would be maintained ffee of encroachments. The board members had no comments at this time. Acting Chairman Len Petrucelli asked the board if they wanted to consider the three variances separately or together. The board agreed verbally to consider the three variances together. Using Section 14.605A-Standards of the Zoning Ordinance, the board considere~with much discussion, each standard separately. The findings of fact are: #1 and 2 were not applicable. #3 - there appeared to be justification. #4 - there were no objections in this standard. #5 and 6 were upheld. I~iwas moved by Jim VigOr with a s~cond by Lois Brothers to approve the petitioner's'variation requests (as stated in the request paragraph on the preceding .page). The motion carried with a vote of 6 - 0.- Respectfully submitted, Marilyn 0 May, Acting Secretary Len Petrucelli Acting Chairman 5/2/83 MO ommonwealth Edison Company Ubertyville Business Office I500 FTanklin Boulevard Libertyville, IL 60048 Northeast Region Headquarters January 17, 2002 www. exeloncorp.com An Exelon Company Mr. Douglas Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Drive Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Utility Easement Encroachment: Existing Shed ComEd File#: MTP-20248 Dear Mr. Doughty: Pursuant to your request, this is to advise that ComEd has no objection to your request to encroach upon our existing utility easement on your property described as follows: LOT 32 IN GOLF VIEW ESTATES UNIT NUMBER 2, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST t/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 4'1 NORTH, RANGE 1t, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE '19, t957, AS DOCUMENT NO. 16935776, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. The encroachment herein granted does not under any circumstances, abrogate nor nultify the dghts and interests of the ComEd Company in and to the easements of record, pertaining to the aforesaid premise. In addition, the encroachment is subject to the attached terms and conditions. if you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at (847) 816-5252. Respectfully, Pr'mcipal Specialist - Rea~Estate Northeast Region WA J/ac Attachment W J0117-2 Page 1 of 2 MTP-20248 CONTACT J.U.LI.E. 1-800-892-0123 PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING IN ORDER TO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES UNDER THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS The encroachment herein acknowledged does not under any circumstances abrogate nor nullify the dghts and interests of the CornEd Company in and to the easements of record, pertaining to the aforesaid premises. .- The owners in title or subsequent owner and/or owners save and hold harmless the ComEd Company for all damages, personal and/or real, in the exemise of the encroachment herein acknowledges. Should our cables fail at or near the location of the encroachment on the easement, it shall be the responsibility of the owner and/or owners or subsequent owner and/or owners to pay ComEd Company for the repair or relocation of said cables. If said cables cannot be relocated within the existing easements the owner and/or owners shall grant CornEd Company a new easement for said relocation. Should it become necessary in the future for ComEd Company to utilize the easement, it shall be the responsibility of the owner and/or owners or subsequent owner and/or owners to remove the encroachment at customer's own expense. In order to avoid delays at the time of transfer of ownership of subject property, owner and/or owners should retain this letter with their valuable papers, to verify said encroachment for their title insurance company commitment report. The encroachment herein acknowledged subject to the approval of the village, city or other local government. WJ0117-2 Page 2 of 2 T&T Broad band Greater Chicago Market Network Design November 16, 2001 688 industrial Drive EImhurst, IL 60126 FAX 630 600-6390 Douglas Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Drive. Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056 Re: Easement Encroachment for Storage Building Dear Mr. Doughty: Regarding the above project, AT&T Broadband does not object to you installing a storage building into the utility easement. If you are in a subdivision that has underground utilities, you must provide us access to the pedestal that services your home. Please do not box in the pedestal if it is on your property. Please make sure that either you or the contractor building the storage building calls J.U.LI.E. (1-800-892-0123) before you start any digging, so that any cable lines will not be damaged. Very truly ~/ours,__ /¢ / Robert b Schulter Jr. Public Improvement Coordinator Greater Chicago Market (630) 600-6347 ~ Recycted Paper NICOR NICOR Real Estate Department PO Sox 190 Aurora, ,!anuaxy i[2, 2002 TO: Douglas Doughty 1431 B]ackhawk Orive Mt. P~ospect, ih 60056 Re i ~2-~lseR'~tlt E/'~.croachment: Dea} M.~. bought:y, As to your re,.luest, NtCOR has no ob{ectlo~l to you encroa:~'hment does non null t{; ~}-~ ~:'ign~s :'~f NICOR future Jse. Yo~ hay{: ~lread,/ ~olJfled J.U,L.i .R. ibis for Rea] Es{:ate Oepartmen~ NICOF _las 004 Miner Street Fieor Z East Oes Haines, Il ~0016-471 Israel Iago, Jr. Right of Way Profession at November · Mr. Douglas Doughty ~3~- Blackhawk Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Re: En~oaehment Upon Utility Easement Dear Mr. Doughty: This letter is in reply to your letter to release or waive the encroachment of a shed and swimming pool pumping station which will extend onto or upon the public utility easement within the following property: LOT 3:l IN GOLFVIEX~V ESTATES UNIT NUMBER 2, BEING A SUBDMSION IN THE SOUTHWEST ¥4 OF THE $0UTHW~ST l/~ OF SECTION ~1, TOWNSHIP 4° NORTH, RANGE l~l, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 19, 1957 AS DOCUMENT 16935776, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Ameritech Network Services dba/Illinois Bell Telephone Company hereby waives its rights to maintain suit for the removal of said encroachment but otherwise retains all of its rights in and to said easement including, but not limited to, the recovet7 of damages for injury to its plant whether buried or aerial or to its employees cause by you or your agents, employees, contractors, successors or assigns whether resulting from the erection, maintenance or use of said encroachment or otherwise. Israel Lugo Jr. MoreOVer, where said encroaehment is located above buried cable or co~nduit or in dose proximity to buried or aerial plant serviced, altered, replaced, modified or maintained by Ameritech Network Se~wices dba/Illinois Bell Telephone Company, said Companfs liabflify to you for damage to said encroachment resulting from such servicing, alteration, replacement, modification or maintenance is limited to restoring said encroachment to its prior existing state to the extent such can reasonably be done under the circumstances. ENGINEER-mGHT OF WAY 847-759-5083 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNQLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER JANU_ ~ARY 17, 2002 JANUARY 24, 2002 ZBA-32-01 -VARIATIONS: 1) SIZE OF SHED 2) LOCATION OF SHED 1431 BLACKHAWK (DOUGHTY RESIDENCE) REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATIONS I) DECREASE THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR A SHED, 2) LOCATE THE SHED IN AN EASEMENT, 3) INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SHED FROM 120 SQ. FT. TO 240 SQ. FT. BACKGROUND For your convenience, enclosed are the.original staff memo and exhibits from the petitioners. As you recall, the petitioners constructed a 240 square foot shed 1.5-feet from the south lot line, in an eight-foot wide utility easement, and then obtained a building permit. The homeowners were informed that the size of the shed and its location did not comply with zoning regulations: the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum five-foot setback for accessory structures and prohibits structures in the easement (Sec. 14.306.306.B.2.). In this case, the petitioners are seeking variations for the location of the shed: 1) in an easement, and 2) less than five-feet from the south lot line, and 3) for the size of the shed because the maximum size allowed by code is 120 square feet. At the October Zoning Board meeting, the petitioners presented their request for an oversized shed Iocated in the utility easement. The case was continued at the petitioners' request because they wanted to obtain approval from the utility companies to have the shed remain in the utility easement. Draft minutes are attached. The petitioners have not modified the location of the shed, but have received sign-offs from AT&T, SBC, NICOR~ and CornEd to have the shed remain in its current location. The Village does not have any public sanitary sewers or water mains in this easement; however, the Village code prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement (Sec. 14.306.B.2). REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards In order to approve the variation, Section 14.203.C.1 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code requires that findings of fact be made in accordance with the standards listed in Sec. 14.203.C.9. These standards relate to: 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; r~ lack of desire to increase financial gain; and ca protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. BA-32-01 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 24, 2002 Page 2 The petitioners' justifications for the variations are the aesthetic impact of the shed on the neighborhood and the convenience of having a larger storage shed. In order to minimize the impact of the 240 square foot shed, the structure was located in an easement, one-foot from the south property line. While the utility companies have approved the location, the location conflicts with Village code. A hardship, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, is "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of the unusual surroundings or conditions of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances." As noted in the previous staff memo, the subject parcel is typical of lots in the P,.X zoning district and the shape and topography are typical of other lots in the Village. Furthermore, a 120 square foot shed could be constructed in the southwest comer of the property. The 120 square foot shed could be located out of the easement and comply with setback requirements (see STAFF EXHIBIT 1). RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a shed that complies with zoning regulations could be constructed. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a 240 square foot shed to be located in an easement for the residence at 1431 Black_hawk, Case No. ZBA*32-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. C[oney, AI~P[ Director of Community Development STAFF EXHIBIT 1 prepared by start'to illustrate that a ~0d¢ complying shed coald §e c~nslmcted at 1431 Blackhawk o: Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Arlene Juracek, Chairperson From: Douglas & Jeanne Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Date: 15 January 2002 Subject: Continuation of Hearing for ZBA-32-01 At the regular ZBA meeting of 25 October 2001, we made a presentation of our case for size and location variations of a shed on our property. Questions were raised and are addressed as follows: Easement The easement that exists on the southern property line is marked for drainage and utility access. As was testified to at the meeting, there is no drainage easement or swale at this location. At the suggestion of the board, petitioner has contacted the utilities with easement rights and received permission for the shed to be located in the easement in the form of letters of encroachment. J.U.L.I.E. was contacted and marked the property, indicating that the easement is, in fact, unused. The Village of Mt. Prospect was included in J.U.L.I.E.'s contacts and also found no usage in the easement. Encroachment letters and property photos will be provided at the 24 January 2002 meeting. Size The property in question supports the size of the shed. Total lot coverage is under 35% according to both the village planning office and our own independent analysis presented in the original hearing. The positive appearance and aesthetic impact was testified to by numerous letters from neighbors and interested parties and were even acknowledged as not "likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare" in the recommendations and findings of the planning department in their original opinion memorandum. In light of these findings and developments we ask that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve ZBA-32o01. Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAII~ERSON rdDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER OCTOBER 18 2001 OCTOBER 25, 2001 ZBA-32-01 -VARIATIONS: 1) SIZE OF SHED 2) LOCATION OF SHED 1413 BLACKHAWK (DOUGHTY RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Douglas & Jeanne Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Mount Prospect, IL 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER: Property Owners PARCEL NUMBER: 08-11-311 ~008 LOT SIZE: 20,130 square feet EXISTING ZONING: RX Single Family Residence EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence LOT COVERAGE: 35% existing (includes shed) 35% maximum per RX district VARIATIONS 1) DECREASE THE SETBACK FOR A SHED FROM 8-FEET TO 1.5-FEET; 2) INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SHED FROM 120 SQ. FT. TO 240 SQ. FT. BACKGROUND The subject property is an existing home located on the southwest comer of Blackhawk & Glendale. The petitioners applied for a permit to construct a shed. The attached permit application shows that the shed could not exceed 10'x12' and that the shed could not be located in the 8-foot easement located along the south lot line. During an inspection of the shed, the Building Inspector noted that the shed was larger than 120 square feet and that the shed was located closer than 8-feet from the south lot line. The homeowners were notified that the shed did not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, and they are seeking variations for the shed to remain in its current state. The shed measures 12'x20' (240 sq.ft.) and is located 1.5' from the south lot line. The maximum size of shed permitted by the Zoning Ordinance is 120 square feet and structures cannot be located in an easement. In the FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: REQUESTED ACTION: BA-32-01 ZBA Meeting of October 25,2001 Page 2 attached application, the petitioners state that the larger lot size and mature landscaping shield the shed from view. They state that the shed is used to store multiple items that have been previously stored outside. In addition, the petitioners' application includes letters from a local realtor and several neighbors expressing their support of the 240 square foot shed. To conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations are contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of-the Village of Mou2nt Prospect Zoning Code. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. These standards relate'to: 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; c~ lack of desire to increase financial gain; and ca protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel measures 20,130 square feet. It is out of any flood zone and rectangular shaped. The parcel is · developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The applicants ConstrUcted a 12'x20' shed 1.5-feet from the south lot line in a drainage and utility easement. The shed is not permanently attached to the ground and can be relocated so it is not in the easement. However, the size of the shed is twice the maximum size that is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Also, relocating the shed to comply with setback requirements is difficult because of the size of the shed and existing structures such as the deck and the pool. The petitioners' justifications for the variations are the aesthetic impact of the shed on the neighborhood. Although the proposed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, the location of the shed is a concern because it is in an easement. Placing a structure in an easement puts the homeowner at risk: if the utility companies or the Village need to do work in the easement, the structure may be knocked down and the homeowner is responsible for all associated costs of repairing or replacing the structure. RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed variations may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the subrrdttal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14,203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit a 240 square foot shed to be located in an easement for the residence at t431 Blackhawk, Case No. ZBA-32-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: Wil~liam~r .~o;ney,~ P, ;irector o f Community Development Phone Number { Business Liccn.~ Check One: ~ Subcontractor [] C~n~ral , Cod~ Location and Height (Sec. 14.306.AJ16,403.C.) A shed may not be placed on any easement. A shed can have a maximum height of Iff. Only one storage shed is allowed on a lot, in addition to a garage. No accessory shed shall be larger than 120 square feet. Required Setbacks (Sec. 14,306.B.) · Or~ lots 55' in width or less, the shed must be set back 3' from any interior.slde or rear lot line. · On loks greater in width than 55', the shed must be set back 5' from any interior side or rear lot line. · Comer lots must maintain a 20' exterior sideyard. .S~l~mittals~ Permits~ and Inspections [Sec. 21.203/2L204/21.302.) · Indicate the location of the shed on a current plat of survey. · The permit fee is $25.00. The permit is good for 1 year from date of issue. · Inspections are required. Please call 847-870-$675 at l~ast 24 hours in-advance to schedule an inspection. There is a $25 reinspection fee for inspections that are not cancelled. Mount Prospect Department of Community Development - Building Division ~00 S, Emersotl Street · Mount Prospect, IL 60056 · 847-870-5675 · Fax: 847-818-5336 · TDD: 847-392-6064 MAYOR Gerald L. Farley TRUSTEES Timothy I. Corcoran Paul Wrt~ Ho~ fert Richard M. Lohrs~orfer l~nn~s Pfil&cl Mic~aclc W. Skowron Irvana ~ Wilks Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department - BUilding Division - I00 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. J~nonls VILLAGE CLERK Vclma W. Lowe Phone: 847/870-5675 Fax: $47/glg-$336 TDD: g47f392-6064 May 17, 2001 Mr. Douglas Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Mount Prospect, IL 60056 RE: NON-CONFORMING SHED Dear Mr. Doughty: .It has come to the attention of the Village that a shed located on your propen*y is in violation of local zoning ordinances. Specifically ordinance 14.306.B.1, which states that the maximum size for an accessory building used as storage, shall be 120 square feet. Upon investigation ofyour shed, it has been determined that your shed mm over 256 square feet. The shed also violates zorfing ordinance 14.306.B.2, which requires a setback orS' from a side lot line when the overall lot size is greater than 55'. Your lot size is 122 x 165. The v/llage requires that you make the necessary cl-mnges to your Shed to bring the structure up to village ex>de. We will expect the changes to be performed within the next 30 days. On April 13, 2001 the above letter from the Building Department was mailed to you. As of today, we have not received a response from you. This matter needs to be addressed. You need to contact the Build/ng Depmhnent within the next ten (10) days regarding this situation. If we do not receive a response within that time flame, you will leave us with no option other than to issue you a citation Jn an effort to correct this situation. Sine. erely, ~ Mike Magnussen Structural Building Inspector C: William G. George, CBO, Building Commissioner Mike Blue, AICP, Deputy Director Community Development File 7099 3400 0007 0903 8823 I2~cumC:\WINDOWH:\GEN~ UI LD ING~L~. t t r.R~I43 t blacktmwk.do~ ount Prospect Public WorEs Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: SENIOR PLANNER JUDY CONNOLLY PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK LINDELOF OCTOBER 17, 2001 ZBA-32-01; LOT COVERAGE VARIATION (1431 BLACKHAWK DR.) We have completed our review of ZBA-32-01. we have no comment concerning the size of the shed, however, we do not support the requested variation to allow the shed to be located in a public utilities and drainage easement. Village policy prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement. Although the Village does not have any public sanitary sewers or water mains located in this easement, other utility companies (CornEd, AT&T, etc.) may. Consequently, even if the variation is granted, the shed still cannot be approved until all utility companies having rights to .the easement have also approved the location of the shed. It must be stressed that the easement was granted for the maintenance of public utilities. Allowing the shed to be located within the easement does not superoede the rights of access for the utility companies to maintain their utilities. If at any time in the future maintenance work is necessary on any utility in the area, it would be the property owner's responsibility to remove and replace the shed. Neither the Village, nor the utility companies would be responsible for any damage to the shed resulting from the maintenance. (it should be noted that this is consistent with the Village's policy concerning fences installed within easements. Furthermore, Village policy prohibits the tocation of any structure, or,the placement of any fill within five feet (5') of a side or rear property line. This policy was adopted to preserve existing drainage patterns, it has been our experience that placing obstructions within this "buffer area" creates the potential for disrupting existing drainage patterns, and creating or aggravating backyard flooding problems. Finally, no .reasons have been presented explaining why the shed cannot be located outside the easement, at least 5' from any property-line. Thus, we cannot support the applicant's request to locate shed as it is shown on the plan. you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Chuck Lindelof X:\F[LES\EN G1N EE R\R EV- E NG~ZBA~2001\1431B[ackhawk. D~C Busse Road ~ 1649 1650 -a~ ~ Edgewood Lane ~ ~ ; ~ ~ 1540 ~ 1531 ~ 1540 153~ ~ ~ ~ ~52o 1520 1511 1480 1471 ~' 1480 / 14'1~ OiibwaTr. 1460 1451 1460 ~ 1540 Glendale Lane 142o .-.a 1531 1520 1511 1480 1471 1460 1451 ~ 1431 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request The Zoning Board of Appeals has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. · PETITION FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW ~l Village Board Final ~ ZBA Final DevelopmentNamdA~ddi'ess ... ' Dat~'ofSubmission : '. '' · ' Hearing Date Common AddresSes} (Street Number, Street), Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) Name ~k ...---, Telephone (day) Co~omtion [ ' tTere~ne (even~g) ~ ~ S~etAd~ess F~ El* State Zip Code Pager / Name Teleph (day) Corporation Telephone (evening) Street Address Fax: City State Zip Code Pager Developer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Surveyor Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Engineer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Phone 847.818.5328 Fax847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospeot Illinois, 60056 2 he shed is located between the swimming pool and the property line on the south. It is painted dark brown and shielded from view by pre-existing trees and shrubs on virtually all sides except toward our house. It has allowed us to store all our pool and yard equipment, tools and furniture out of sight and therefore improved the cleanliness of the property. I own a 1936 John Deere tractor which once belonged to my late father. It has been used in numerous.public events, including Mt. Prospect's Annual Fourth of July Parade. We are active in District 57 and 214 and are founding members of the District 57 Education Foundation which raises funds for capital purchases of technology and educational items. The tractor has pulled the Foundation's float. (See the attached letter from District 57 Education Foundation for further information.) Prior to the building ofthe shed, this wasparked outside in the yard south of the pool. It is now inside the shed, out of sight, the elements, and harm's way. The property (including neighboring lots) supports and is enhanced by the shed. That opinion is offered and supported by a veteran realtor and experienced architect. (See the expert analysis by licensed Realtor Jim Regan and licensed architect Christine Lussow in the attached lettersl) Several neighbors have also offered their opinions in attached letters.. Summary The burden raised for granting a variance stated in Zoning Code Section 14.203.C.9 Standards for Variations has been met and a variance should be granted for the shed on the property at 143 l Blackhawk Drive. Specifically, Items 2, 3,4,5,6,7 have all been addressed and answered in the affirmative and Item 1 is not applicable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jeanne Doughty Overview This packet has been prepared in response to a letter received from the Village of Mt. Prospect in regard to a new shed we obtained for our property. We purchased the structure in kit form from a shed manufacturer at a local county fair. Subsequent to the purchase, we marked t-he layout on our property, obtained a permit, discussed the layout with our neighbors and built the kit. Since it does not have a concrete foundation, it was relatively simple to complete. We have since hired a professional landscaper to finish the project with stone and shrubbery to give it an appropriate look. Exposition The requested variance meets several of the standards for variations listed in Zoning Code Section 14.203.C.9. The ~hed in question replaced an existing structure of indeterminate age that was located in a similar spot on the southern edge of the property. The prior structure intruded across the property line, the current shed is entirely on the owner's property. The property in question (1431 Blackhawk Drive) is somewhat unique in several respects. The neighborhood has no through streets and therefore experiences very little traffic. When originally created, the subdivision was considered unincorporated with regard to the Village of Mt. Prospect. As such, there are no sidewalks or curbs and the right-of-ways have drainage ditches adjacent on both sides. This serves to give the appearance of larger lots as the ditches appear to be part of the yard as it extends to the streets. The lots in this area tend to be well-wooded with mature trees and shrubbery. The lot is professionally landscaped, including the area surrounding the new structure. The lot is located at the southwest (inside) comer of Blackhawk Drive and Glendale Lane. It is rectangular with the long side adjacent to Glendale and the driveway located there, also. The yard south of the house contains an in-ground swimming pool. It is surrounded by a fence that is 6 feet tall. The east end is guarded by a wooden privacy fence with evergreen shrubs approximately 10 feet in height. The southeast comer of the pool fence has an evergreen tree approximately 25 feet tall as a sentinel. The adjacent property to the south, 1440 Greenbrier Lane (Lowery), has 15 large evergreen trees on the perimeter of the bordering yard, plus 5 more trees in their yard between our property and their house. These trees are full grown and all in excess of 40 feet in height. Additionally, several lilacs and other bushes fill in the perimeter as undergrowth. 531 Blackhawk Drive Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 July 27,2001 Mr. Mike Magnussen Structural Building Inspector Village of Mount Prospect 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 . Dear Mike, I am writing this letter on behalf of my neighbors, Jean and Doug Doughty at 1431 Black. hawk Drive. They are in the process of obtaining a variance for a shed constructed on their property that exceeds 120 S.F. As an architect, they asked that I calculate the exist'rog coverage of impervious surfaces on their property. Below are the calculations based on the Plat of Survey dated February 23, 1994 and the size of the new shed that was constructed this spring: Lot Size (122.0' x 165.0') 20,130 S.F. Home: 2,470 S.F. Frame Addition: 364 S.F. Open Porch: 40 S.F. Pool and Deck: 2,030 S.F. New Shed 256 S.F. Wood Deck 663 S.F. Blacktop Drive: 1,040 S.F. Concrete Walk 117 S.F. Total Coverage: 6,980 S.F. Percentage: 34.7% Zone'R-X requires that the total impervious surfaces on the lot do not exceed thirty-five percent (14.80&C.1). Based on the calculations, the lot is in compliance with this section of the code. Please feel free to call me if you have any comments or questions based on these calculations at 439-2889. HICAGO, ILLINOIS 60646 N CERTIFIED SURVEY CO. Fax: (312) 77~2855 PLAT OF SURVEY r~Zo' UNRISE REALTY ASSOCIATr July 13, 2001 To Whom It May Concern RE: Doug and Jeanne Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Drive, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 My name is Jim Regan, BrokedOwner of National Sunrise Realty, with 26 years of experience in real estate sales. I am also a 25 year resident of and homeowner in Mount Prospect. I am writing in response to a request from Mr. and Mrs. Doughty to evaluate the impact of their storage shed on the market value of their property as well as the surrounding properties. On July 12, 2001 I inspected the shed located on the property. After examining the shed's position, located between the pool and the southern property line, i am of the opinion that it cannot be seen from across BlaCkhawk Drive nor is it visible to neighbors on the south side due to the large pine trees that surround the shed. The "camouflage" of the trees make it practically invisible except if you are in the Doughty's in-ground pool. It is my opinion that the shed has absolutely no impact on the surrounding neighbors,,.whether on the south side or across the street on Blackhawk Drive; ~t ~s barely wmble wher~ dnwng down the street. The shed in question is brand new, in excellent condition and is; as far as sheds go, very attractive. The Doughty's property is enhanced by the shed, for it provides storage space for the many "homeowner" items we all need to have. As a Realtor and as a Mount Prospect homeowner, I can't imagine why anyone wouid complain about this structure. If you have any questions, please feel free to .call. Sincerely, NATIONAL SUNRISE REALTY JR:jg 1325 EAST DAVIS STREET, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS 60005 (847) 870-1990 FAX: (847) 870-5289 The Brauns 1440 Blackhawk DriVe, Mt. Prospect, IlIi~tois 60056 OLF VIEW ESTATES JEFFREY G. ADAMS 1451 BLACKHAWK DR. MT. PROSPECT IL 60056 PHONE 847-364-6114 July 26, 2001 To Whom It May Concern, My name is Jeffrey Adams, President of Golfview Estates. The storage shed at the residence of Jean and Doug Doughty, 1431 Blaekhawk, Mt. Prospect, is not a hindrance to the eye, the landscaping is professionally done, and I see no reason for anyone to complain or argue the point of its existence. We view the shed from our baekyard, and see no reason for any objection to this situation. I feel there are a lot of more important things to be worded about then a family storage shed. You may reach me at any fane Sincerely, President/Golf View Estates ro~...ne desk of ANDY PAFKO ugust 21, 2001 Julie Capomsso 1460 W. Greenbriar Dr. Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Dear Village Board, - It is my understanding that our neighbors, Jean and Doug Doughty are applying for a variance regarding the size of their newly constructed barn. I live at 1460 W. Greenbriar Dr. which is adjacent to the Doughty's property. From our home the barn is not visible, and I do not object to it's size. Sincerely, Julie Capomsso District 57 Educatio ?oundation Share May 22, 2001 To whom it may concern: Jeanne Doughty is one of the founder members and a current board member of the District 57Education Foundation. As you know, the District 57Education Foundation is an independent, non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance the education of Mount Prospect School District 57 students by generating and allocating resources through partnerships with teachers, parents, school officials and the business community. I can attest to her dedication, both as a community leader and as an involvedparent. Jeanne possesses a wide range of talents that has made her an outstanding representative for the Foundation and the Village of Mount Prospect. Her strong leadership ability and willingness to help others are some of her strongest attributes. Jeanne, along with her husband Doug, have consistently given of their time to make Mount Prospect a better place to live. From the donation of their tractor and wagon for our village parades, to her tireless work on behalf of the foundation and the children of this village, the DoughO~'s truly personify our village motto, "gr'here Friendliness is a l, Vdy of Life. F/e are indeed fortunate as a community to have families like the DoughO~'s within our village. Thank you for your time. Chairman c/o Lincoln 3urdor High · 700 West Lincoln Street · Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Voice Mail: 847.718.7999, Mailbox 777.1020 · Website: http://www, ndsc.org/dist57 HARLIE AND BECKY TUZIK 1500 BLACKHAWK DRIVE MOUNT PROSPECT, IL 60056 JUNE24,2001 RE: STORAGE SHED AT 1431 BLACKHAWK TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER ON BEHALF OF DOUG AND JEANNE DOUGHTY WHO RESIDE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS IN MOUNT PROSPECT. WE HAVE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE PAST TWELVE YEARS AND WERE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT THE SHED WAS THERE. rr IS WELL HIDDEN ON THE SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE DO NOT FIND THIS STORAGE SHED EITHER OBJECTIONABLE OR A NUISANCE. ]F WE CAN BE OF ANY FURTHER HELP REGARDING THIS MATTER, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US. SINCERELY, CHAP, LIE AND BECKY TUZ1K -22-01 Fred & Karen Korf 1431 Greenbriar Dr Mt. Prospect, I1 60056 To whom it may concern, The intent of this letter is to express our opinion about the storage shed at 1431 Blackhawk, belonging to the Doughty family. We live 2 houses to the south and have lived in the neighborhood for about 2 years. Both my wife and myself were born and raised in Mt. Prospect. 'As you walk or drive pass the house as we do everyday, the shed is tucked away amongst tall evergreen trees and shrubbery and it is not an eyesore. It is a Professionally b-tlr and landscaped in the yard, it does not look like a handyman special Junk shed. We hope that our letter is of some sio~ntflcance and will help in your decision about the issue with the shed. Please ff you have any quesllons -feel free to contact us. Thank you Fred Korf WL 2/1/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1431 BLACKHAWK DRIVE WHEREAS, Douglas and Jeanne Doughty (hereinafter referred to as ,'Petitioners'i) have filed a petition for Variations With respect to property located at 1431 Blackhawk Drive (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 32 in Golf View Estates Unit #2, being a subdivision in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Sec. 11, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded June 19, 1957 as Document #16935776, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 08'11-311-008 and WHEREAS, the petitioners seek Variations to allow an existing 240 square foot shed to encroach onto a utility easement, and less than five-feet (5') from the rear (south) lot line, as required in Section 14.306.B of the Mount Prospect Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of ZBA Case No. 32-01 before the Zoning Board of Appeals On the 25th day of Octoberl with subsequent action being taken on January 24, 2002 by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount prospect Daily Herald on the 10~h day of October, 2001; and- WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation of denial to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variations would be in the best interest of the Village. Page 2/2 1431 Blackhawk Drive NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant Variations, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow an existing 240 square foot shed to encroach onto an easement, and to be located one and one-half feet (1.5') from the rear (south) lot line, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Timothy J. Corcoran Mayor Pro Tern Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~,. ~ll~ FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 28, 2002 SUBJECT: PC-14-01 - DIMUCCI LOT CONSOLIDATION (CREATING ONE LOT O1~ QRD) SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOLF AND BUSSE ROADS REC[ DIMUCCI COMPANIES- APPLICANT The Planning and Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PC-14-01 DiMucci Resubdivision, a request to consolidate two lots of record, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 24, 2002 meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed plat, found that the plat and proposed easements met Village codes and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the DiMucci Resubdivision, Case No. PC-14-01, SWC of Golf and Busse Roads. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 4, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. ~ooney, AICP illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: Back~round Petitioner: Requested Action: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIR SUZANNE MASO, LONG RANGE PLANNER JANUARY 17, 2002 JANUARY 24, 2002 PC-14-01/DIMUCCI LOT CONSOLIDATION/SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOLF AND BUSSE ROADS DiMucci Companies 285 West Dundee Road Palatine, Illinois 60074 Plat of resubdivision consolidating two lots Analysis The petitioner is seeking to create one lot of record by consolidating two existing lots. The subject property is located on the southwest comer of Golf Road and Busse Road. The plat is required as part of the recently approved CVS Pharmacy Conditional Use Application and brings the subject property into compliance with the bulk regulations of the Zoning Code. The plat and new lot comply with all Development Code requirements. Recommendation The proposed plat of resubdivision is complete and has been prepared in accordance with the Development Code requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the DiMucci Lot Subdivision for the property located at SWC of Golf Road and Busse Road, Mount Prospect, Case No. PC-14-01. I concur: !~m~c e n e~y, ~I~xm Director of Community Development /sm H:\GEN~PLANNING~°CXPC 200BStaff Memos~PC-14-01 DiMuccl Lot Consolidation (SWC Golf and Busse Rds).doc ount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VILLAGE ENGINEER JANUARY 7, 2002 PC-14-01; GOLF-BUSSE CONSOLIDATED RESUBDIVlSlON GOLF PLAZA I) The Engineenng Division has reviewed the Plat of Resubdivision for the subject property, and finds it meets all requirements and is acceptable. The Engineering Staff has no objections and approves of the proposed resubdiviSion. PROJECT LOCATION X:\FILES\ENGIN EER\REV-ENG\GolfPlaza1~CVS~ZBA-8-PC-14\PC-14-App1 .doc ~j MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PC-14-01 PETITIONER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 24, 2002 DiMucci Companies 285 West Dundee Road Palatine, Illinois 60074 Plat Consolidation - Consolidate 2 lots into 1 lot of record Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m. Ms. Juracek welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is comprised of the former Zon'ing Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. She introduced new members~Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commissioner, Matthew Sledz. At 8:07, after, hearing Case No. ZBA-32-01, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PC-14'01, a request for a plat consolidation of two lots of record to one. She explained that this case ~vas the type that had formerly been heard by the Planning Commission and would be Village Board final. Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Mas6 explained that the plat was the final step in the Conditional Use application for the CVS pharmacy approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, Case No. ZBA-08 -01. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Golf Road and Busse Road. The plat brings the subject property into compliance with the bulk regulations of the Zoning Code and complies with all Development Code requirements. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision. Richard Rogers moved to approve the plat consolidation as requested by Case No. PC-14~01. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Youngquist, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 10:05 p.m., after the Board heard two more cases, the Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made motion to commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS:None Motion was approved 7-0. oning Board of Appeals PC- 14-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Chairperson Juracek announced it was necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to the Commission. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers, Merrill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Rogers Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention. There were no other "housekeeping" items discussed. At 10:05 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Suzann~)aso, Long Range Planner VWL ~1~2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOLF AND BUSSE ROADS WHEREAS, the Petitioner, DiMucci Companies, has requested approval of a Final Plat of Consolidation for the purposeof consolidating two lots of record into a single lot of record; and WHEREAS, the Planning a~oning Commission has recommended approval of the consolidation: , - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That a consolidation of two lots into a single lot of record is hereby granted for the property at the southwest corner of Golf and Busse Roads and the Final Plat of Consolidation attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved for appropriate execution and recording. Such Plat and its legal description are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution. SECTION TWO: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~ ~ JANUARY 28, 2002 SUBJECT: TRAIN STATION RETAIL TENANT ~) Since being notified by Heinemann's Bakery that it is terminating their lease at the Metra Station, the Community Development Department has been actively pursuing a replacement tenant to provide retail services at the train station. Staff sent a Request for Proposals to numerous local and regional operators requesting that they provide a scope of services to operate a retail facility at this location. Staff has reviewed the completed proposals and met with several potential tenants to discuss their operations. After thoroughly reviewing the proposals, staff recommends the Village enter into a lease with Chicago Express Caf6, a subsidiary of Windy City Baking, Inc., a wholesale baker that has been in operation since 1988. Currently, Windy City Baking products are sold in over 500 retail stores throughout the Chicago area. If approved, Windy City will operate the facility under the name Java Depot and would be open from 5 AM to 11 AM on weekdays. They will offer COmmuters a wide variety of gourmet coffees, specialty beverages and classic gourmet bakery gOods. Caf6 Latte and cappuecino will be made to order and Newberry products including their cake slices, mini loafs, cookies, coffee cake slices, pecan rolls and low fat muffins will be served. The caf6 also intends to modify the existing space by installing hardwood floors or tiles, wood drop panels from the ceiling, and new siguage and lighting. This work would be done on the weekend and would not disrupt regular service. Chicago Express Caf6 has agreed to the take over the existing lease at the rent of $600 a month for the final two years of the Heinemann's lease. In addition, they are offering profit sharing at 7% of all gross sales over $25,000 in a calendar year. The lease provides for five-year extensions if mutually acceptable to both parties. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 5~ meeting. Staff and Windy City Baking representatives will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William .1. C0oney J. H:La. DMN~ ILLkMEMOS\train station - Java Depot.doc MAYOR Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK Timothy I. Corcoran PaulWm. Hoefen Village of Mount Prospect V¢lmaW. Low¢ Richard M. Lolustorfer MichaeleSkowron Community Development Department Pho. :847/815-5328 Irvana lC Wilks Fax: 847/818-5329 Michael A. Zad¢l 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TDD: 847/392-6064 LEASE AGREEMENT DOWNTOWN TRAIN STATION -RETAIL SP ACE On this 5th day of February of 2002, Chicago Express Cart, ("CEC"), agrees to lease from the Village of Mount Prospect, a municipal corporation, ("Village"), space, illustrated on Exhibit A (the 'Premises"), within the downtown train station ("Train Station") located at 11 East Northwest Highway, Mount Prospect, Illinois Whereas, the Village wants to enter into an agreement that will provide retail commuter services in the train station and that will benefit the citizens of Mount Prospect; and Whereas, CEC is willing to provide these services according to the following terms of this agreement. Now, therefore, tl~ parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Lease is two (2) years from the date of this Agreement and may be extended for additional five (5) year periods if approved in writing by both parties at a rent to be agreed upon bY the parties. Notice of renewal of the Agreement shall be made no later than 120 days from the expiration of the current lease term. 2. SECURITY DEPOSIT. There will be a security deposit equal to one month's rent. This will be returned upon expiration of the lease if there are no further charges pending. Further charges may include damage to property, unpaid utilities, or back rent. 3. ANNUAL BASE RENT. The rent will be $600 per month. Rent will be paid and will be due the tenth ( 10~) day of each month. For the initial month's rent, CEC will pay a pro-rated share of $600 based upon the number of days that CEC has occupancy that month. All payments will be sent to the attention of the Finance Director, Village of Mount Prospect, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056. 3A. ADDITIONAL RENT. In addition to the base rent, the Village shall be entitled to 7% of the revenue provided by all gross sales over $25,000 per year. CEC shall pay the additional rent on a monthly basis as soon as the $25,000 annual gross sales figure is reached. In order to . evaluate sales figures, CEC will provide the Village with month and year to date sales reports as well as an annual report from the lease date. 4. PREMISES. The area occupied by CEC will consist of approximately five hundred (500) square feet. The Village will prepare the Premises space to the specifications set forth in Exhibit B, herein attached. The Village warrants that upon the date of delivery, there will be no easement, encumbrances, zoning regulations and/or restrictions that would prohibit CEC from opening a retail bakery facility. LEASE AGREEMENT DOWNTOWN TRAIN STATION -RETAIL SP ACE Page 2 1/28/2002 5. USE. CEC shall have the exclusive right to serve hot and cold refreshments and will have the exclusive right to sell ail items generaily classified as bakery items, sandwiches (hot or cold), entrees and desserts. CEC may sell canned or bottled beverages except those aicoholic in nature and cold, and carbonated fountain drinks. Sales may aiso include customer convenience items such as newspapers, magazines, and flowers2 The Village and its successors and assigns will not operate, or permit to be operated within the Premises, another bakery selling, or displaying for saie, any bakery items deemed comparable to those normaily served by CEC. In the event the Village breaches the covenants contained in this paragraph and the breach continues for 30 days, CEC will have, in addition to all the other available remedies, the right to terminate this Lease after giving the Village one hundred and twenty (120) days written notice of termination. 6. HOURS OF OPERATION. CEC will maintain these base hours of operation: Monday through Friday: 5:00 a.m. to 11 a.m. Saturday: Closed Sunday: Closed The hours may be extended by CEC but will not be shortened or changed without the written permission of the Village. 7. STANDARDS OF SERVICE. CEC will can~ out and perform ail operations and services in a professional manner and in keeping with high standards for customer service and cleanliness. If, in the Village's reasonable judgment, CEC is not meeting these standards, then CEC will pmmptiy change and comply with these standards within 10 days of receiving written notice from the Village. 8. LICENSE AND PERMITS. CEC will obtain ail necessary licenses and permits needed to conduct the business requirec] under the terms of this Lease. 9. COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE~ The Village of Mount Prospect will maintain the common areas of the Train Station. The common areas are illustrated on Exhibit A, herein attached. The Village will maintain these areas of the Train Station on an as needed basis, including mopping, sweeping, and trash collection in and around the station. 10. ADDITIONAL CHARGES. CEC will pay a common area maintenance charge (prorated to based on the square footage), garbage collection, insurance and utilities including water/sewer, gas and electric applicable to their space. Where possible, these expenses will be metered separately. This charge will be caiculated and charged on a quarterly basis. 11. TERMINATION. In the event of CEC non-performance or breach of the Lease terms, the Lease may be canceled by the Village, in whole or in part, after the Village provides written notice of default and CEC fails to cure the default within (10) ten days of the notice, unless such default cannot be cured within the ten (10) days period and CEC moves diligently to cure the default within a reasonable time period. IfCEC intends to close its operation for any reason, except for a temporary closing for an emergency as set forth herein, it must notify the Village in writing one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to shutting down. If CEC must cease operation as a result of an emergency, it must notify the Village as soon as possible of the reason and the anticipated duration. The Village may terminate the Lease immediately if CEC closes for seven (7) days, without reasonable cause, and fails to reopen after receiving written notice from the Village. IfCEC terminates this lease for any reason, or at the Village's request, CEC will return the premises to the condition it was in prior to CEC installation of its furniture, fixtures and equipment. Except as stated specifically herein to the contrary, upon termination of the Lease between the parties, CEC shall be relieved from any and all further obligations under the Lease. LEASE AGREEMENT DOWNTOWN TRAIN STATIO!~[~RETAIL SP ACE Page 3 1/28/2002 12. INDEMNIFICATION. CEC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Village, its officers, agents and employees from any and ail liability, losses or damages including attorney's fees and costs of defense the Village may suffer in any way resulting from or arising out of the operation of CEC or its agents under this Lease, except as a result of the negligence of the Village, its officers, agents or employees, and CEC will, at its own expense, appear, defend and pay ail fees of attorneys and ail costs and other expenses arising there from or incurred in connection therewith; and if any judgments will be rendered against the Village in any such action, CEC will, at its own expense, satisfy and discharge the same except that CEC will not defend, indemnify, and/or save harmless the Village from and against the Village's own negligence. 13. INSURANCE. CEC agrees to obtain at its own cost and expense, and to keep in full force and effect during the term of this Lease, general liability insurance in the amount of $500,000 single claim and $1,000,000 aggregate from an insurance carder having at least an A., rating as defined in A. M. Best C's Key Rating Guide. The Village will be named as an additional insured on any CEC policy. 14. ASSIGNMENT. CEC will not assign this Lease or any part thereof, to any other person, firm or corporation, except affiliates, without the written consent of the Village. Notwithstanding anything contained herein, CEC shail have the right to sublease the location to a qualified franchisee of CEC with the written consent of the Village, which consent shail not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Such sublease or arrangement shall not relieve CEC from any Tenant obligation, as set forth in the Agreement, including but not limited to, the reasonable quaiity standards established by the Village. Further, the Village will look to CEC should any default arise as a result of actions of the sub-lessee. 15. AMENDMENTS. Any an~endments to this Lease must be in writing and signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereof have executed this Lease the day and year first written above. For the Village of Mount Prospect For Chicago Express Caf6 Title Title Date Date H.AGENAPLANN IN G~Downt own Bddrc\Train Station\Train station lea~ 2002.do¢ ecember 20, 2001 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development I00 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, I1. 60056 Re: Proposal, Business Plan- Mount Prospect Metra Train Station Dear Ms. Maso Just a brief update from Windy City Baking on the specialty coffee caf6 we are proposing. We will offer the commuter a wide variety of gourmet world coffees, specialty beverages and classic gourmet bakery goods. Our focus is to provide exceptional value and service to the customer and not on lowering the cost of~unning the operation. C Kwang Kim a project architect for Torehia Associates, Inc. will be designing the floor plan and concepts for the coffee caf6. Java Depot along with Windy City Baking, Inc. will pay the village 7% of gross sales in excess of 25,000 dollars in a calendar year. This will benefit the village of Mount Prospect by adding to their yearly revenue stream. Sincerely, Ed Franke x 1959 W. Fulton Chicago II. 60612 Te1:312-421-2200 Fax:: 12-421-2213 www.wind¥citybaking.corn r. William J. Cooney, Jr. Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect I00 S. Emerson St. Mount Prospect, IL. 600563266 December 12, 2001 Re: Proposal, Business Plan- Mount Prospect Metra Train Station Dear Mr. Cooney: In our discussion with Heinemarm's Bakery we have learned that the traditional bakery concept did not work. After three years of operation the sales figures were not in line with projections and profit was minimal. With this in mind we are proposing a specialty coffee caf& We will offer the commuter a wide variety of gourmet world coffees, specialty beverages and classic gourmet bakery goods. Our focus is to provide exceptional value and service to the customer and not on lowering the cost of running the operation. Chicago Express Cart has reaebed an agreement with Seattle based Java Trading Go. to provide not only the specialty coffee but marketing and support program as well. Are name on the eaf~' v~ll be Java Depot. The sfa~rt and stylish decor will appeal to the commuter and the upscale marketing approach will insure repeat business. We provide a frequent buyer program to encourage commuters to stay with Java Depot. Java Depot in conjunction with Java Trading Co. will use point of purchase display's such as signs, product display's, countertop dispenser's and shelf decoration's to motivate sales. The primary function of the caf6 is to be consistent with our product. Whenever offering a product or service Java Depot will focus on how it will benefit the commuter as well as the We are in agreement with Helnemann's to purchase a portion of their existing equipment; this coupled with our own improvements will ensure a smooth and speedy transition period. We are also in agreement with the current lease and would like to discuss the profit sharing portion further. Sincerely, Ed Frank~ 1939 W. Fulton Chicagoll. 60612 Te1:312-421-2200 Fax:312-421-2213 www.wind¥cit'ybaldng.com August 31, 2001 Francois Matin Vice President He'memann's Bakeries Re: Chicago Express CafO's business plan as it relates to the use of Metra's Mount 'Prospect and Arlington Heights train stations Dear Mr. Matin Chicago Express Caf6 is a subsidiary of Windy City Baking, Inc. Windy City Baking, Inc. started in 1988 by operating a successful retail bakery on Michigan Avenue. Our signature Newbeny muffins were so popular we eventually started selling the product wholesale. Windy City Baking, Inc. has been manufacturing and distributing gourmet- packaged mmffans, cookies and pound cake slices to over 500 retail stores and coffee shops throughout the Chicago area for over a decade. Windy City Baking, Inc. products are labeled under-the Newberry name as well as the Muffin man name. Some of our customers include 7-I 1 inc., White. hen Panla~t, Oberweis dairy and Jewel / Osco. Chicago Express Caf6 is ourrently working with James Peffer and his associates at Metra on the build out for a gourmet coffee shop in the Deerfield -Lake Cook stafiom Principles William A. Evans Bill Evans is the founder and 100 percent shareholder of W'mdy City Baking, Inc. he has twenty years of entrepreneurial business experience in a variety of areas as well as six years experience managing Marketplace Chicago, a gourmet food and coffee house from 1983 to 1989. Mr. Evans holds bachelors in business administration from the university of Missouri. Edward S. Franke Ed works on a consulting basis for Windy City Baking, Inc. exploring new business opportunities. Ed also works in a management position at Windy City Baking, Inc. Chicago Express Caf6 mission statemem: To provide an enjoyable taste experience by offering the finest gourmet coffees and fresh bakery goods at reasonable prices in a rapid and courteous manner. The principles of Chicago Express Caf6 are confident that If we obtain this objective and satisfy the demand of the Metra customer in a friendly, clean and comfortable environment he or she will remm often. 1959 W. Fulton Chicago II. 60612 Tel312-421-2200 Fax:S12-421-221:5 www.wind¥citybaking,com ulfilling Objectives The demand for a delicious cup of coffee at a reasonable price is something that almost every rider can relate to. For the non coffee drinker we will offer flavored teas, orange juice, bottled water, soft drinks eot. With over 2700 alders using the Arlington Heights and another 1900 using the Mount Prospect train station we hope to provide not only a valuable service but also a pleasurable experience. Both communities will also benefit by the addition of a first rate caf6 to the area. Products Served There will be two primary products served at C.E.C. The first will be coffee. Our coffee comes from some of the finest roasters in the world. We will serve blended coffee, flavored coffee, latte and cappuccino. The coffee of the day, decaff coffee and flavored coffee will be in self-service air pots to expedite the majority of the customer's time in the caf& Caf6 latt6 and cappucoino will be made to order. The other main product will be the signature Newberry 8oz. Muffin. These are the same muffins purchased every day by thousands of Chicagoans at hundreds of retail stores throughout the arem The Newberry product provided at the Chicago Express Caf6 will be served unwrapped extremely fresh and piping hot. None of our products are bought from a wholesaler, as is the current practice of other vendors in the Metra system. All of C.E.C. products are man~ufactured and delivered fresh daily. Newberry bakery products already have a proven track record as a packaged product and we are confident that if we merchandise the product in this way, the customers will be more than satisfied. We will also offer Newberry POUnd cake slices, mini loafs, cookies, coffee cake slices, pecan rolls and low fat muffius. C.E.C. will also provide other products such as soda, juices, newspapers ect. Details of operation CiE.C. will have one trained staff member on premises between the hours of Sam. And 1 lam. We may extend hours if there is demand. Insurance certificate and financial statements are available upon request. Mr. Peffer wanted us to contact you as he thought our concept and your location would be a great match. Sincerely, Edward S. Frhake - [ 1/15/02 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND WINDY CITY BAKING, INC. WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect leases the Union Pacific Train Station in Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is desirous of entering into a lease agreement with Chicago Express Cafe, a subsidiary of Windy City Baking, Inc., at the train station mentioned herein; and WHEREAS, such agreement will provide retail commuter services in the train station that will benefit the citizens of Mount Prospect; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby authorize execution of a Lease Agreement between Chicago Express Cafb (dba Java Depot) and the Village of Mount Prospect for the purpose of permitting a retail bakery to be located within the Union Pacific Train Station in Mount Prospect; and SECTION TWO: Said Lease shall be for the twenty (20) months remaining on the existing Lease, entered into on August 20, 1998 by Michel's USA, Inc., (dba Heinemann's Bakery EXPRESS), now declared null and void, which expires on August 20, 2003; and SECTION THREE: Said Lease shall, at such time of expiration, be renewed for a an additional period of five (5) years, as set forth in the Lease, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. SECTION FOUR: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey, Mayor Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE:' SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JANUARY 25, 2002 TRANSFER OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND VOLU1VIE CAP PURPOSE: To present for the Village Board's consideration an ordinance that would reserve and transfer the Village's 2002 private activity bond VolUme cap to Stem Brothers & Co. DISCUSSION: The Internal Revenue Code allows state and local governments to issue m-exempt debt for the benefit of certain qualified private develdpment projects. These projects include the acquisition or construction of industrial facilities and apadiitents for low and moderate-income families. The mount of such private activity debt issued in any given year cannot exceed the equivalent of $75 per resident. The Village's private activity bond volUme cap is currently $4,219,875. According to the regulations, any volume cap not used or committexl by a municipality in any given year is automatically transferred to the state government. However, if a community does not have any specific projects that would qualify for the tax exempt financing, it can cede, or transfer, the volume cap to another community. Over the past several years, it has become common for municipalities to transfer their unused volUme cap to other municipalities in exchange for a fee. The fee is actually paid by the ultimate beneficiary of the tax exempt financing. The mount of the fee paid depends upon the economy and the current interest rate environment. For the past few years, the average fee has been between 1% and 2%. The Village of Mount Prospect ceded its authority to other governments the past three years. This year, we have received a request fi.om Stem Brothers and Co. to cede our all of our volume cap to them to assist in the financing of an affordable multi-familY housing project in the City of Yorkville. 0 Stem Brothers is Willing to pay to the Village a fee of 2 ~A, or $84,397.50. Attached is an ordinance that has been prepared by the law firm of Chapman and Cutler, who is serving as bond counsel on this transaction. The ordinance has been reviewed by the both the Village Attorney and staff 002 PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND VOLUME CAP January 25, 2002 Page Two SUMMARY: The Village has a total of $4,219,875 of private activity bond volume cap to use or transfer between now and April 30th. Stem Brothers & Co. has offered to purchase our volume cap to help finance an affordable multi-family housing project in Yorkville. Stem Brothers has agreed to pay the Village a 2% fee, or $84,397.50. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board adopt the attached draft ordinance transferring the Village's private activity bond volume cap to Stem Brothers & Co. l:'~Con~t~Infl~2002~lDB Memo 1-25-02.doc DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RESERVING VOLUME CAP 1N CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ISSUES, AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois (the "Municipality '% is a municipality and a home role unit of government under Section 6 of Article VII of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois; and WHEREAS, Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the Municipality has volume cap equal to $75.00 per resident of the Municipality in each calendar year, which volume cap may be reserved and allocated to certain tax-exempt private activity bonds; and WHEREAS, the Illinois Private Activity Bond Allocation Act, 30 Illinois Compiled Statute~ 1998, 345/1 et seq., as supplemented and amended (the "Act'), provides that a home rule unit of government may transfer its allocation of volume cap to any other home role unit of government, the State of Illinois or any agency thereof or any non-home role unit of government; and WHEREAS, it is now deemed necessary and desirable by the Municipality to reserve all of its volume cap allocation for calendar year 2002 to be applied toward the issuance of private activity bonds (the "Bonds"),o~ provided in this Ordinance, or to be transferred, as permitted by this Ordinance; NOW, TImREFORE, Be It Ordained by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1. That, pursuant to Section 146 of the Code and the Act, all of the volume cap of the Municipality for calendar year 2002 is hereby reserved by the Municipality, which shall use or transfer such volume cap in such manner as shall be directed by Stem Brothers & Co., without uny further action required on the part of the Municipality, and the adopti°n of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be an allocation of such volume cap to the issuance of the Bonds or such other bonds; provided, that any such transfer shall be evidenced by a written instrument executed by the President or any other proper officer or employee of the Municipality;, provided further, that, upon the adoption of this ordinance, there shall be paid to the Municipality a fee by the obligor of the bonds of two percent (2.00%) of the volume cap so reserved. SECTION2. That the Municipality shall maintain a written record of this Ordinance in its records during the term that the Bonds or any other such bonds to which such volme cap is allocated remain outstanding. SECTI0313. That the President, the Village Clerk and all other proper officers, officials, agents and employees of the Municipality are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents and certificates as may be necessary to further the purposes and intent of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. That the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be separable, and if any section, phrase or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be declared to be invalid, such declaration shall not affect the remainder of the sections, phrases and provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION5. That all ordinances, resolutions or orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded; and that this Ordinance shall be in full fome and effect upon its adoption and approval. Presented, passed, approved and recorded this day of ,2002. Approved: [SE~L] President ATTEST: Village Clerk Ayes: Nays: Absent or Not Voting: -2- 20 West Huron Street Suite 500 East Chicago, Illinois 60610 T~I: 312. 664.5656 Fax: 312. 664. 5650 SternBrothers&Co. Investment Banking Since 1917 January 22, 2002 Mr. Douglas R. Ellsworth Finance Director Village of Mount Prospect 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Re: Yorkville Gardens Apartments, Yorkville, IL Dear Mr. Ellsworth: Stem Brothers & Co. is working with the United City of Yorkville and Brisben Advisors, LLC ( Br sben ), a developer of affordable mult~famtly housing, to construct an affordable bous~ng project in The project, Yorkville Gardens, is a 226-unit apartment complex which will serve the need for affordable housing in and around Yorkville~and create more than 40 full-time construction jobs primarily drawn from the immediate area. Toward that end, we are seeking 2002 Volume cap from neighboring Illinois communities to assist Yorkville in the construction of the project. We intend to raise approximately $15 million of private activity bonding authority to finance the acquisition price of the land and costs of construction. Based on a population of 56,265, at closing we will compensate the village a fee of 2.00% ($84,397.50) for committing $4,219,875 of Mount Prospect's 2002 bonding authority to this worthy project. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $5,000.00 to secure the volume cap while the transaction moves forward. Please call me with a date convenient for you to schedule the reservation ordinance, a copy of which is attached, for board review and passage. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, David S. Rasch Managing Director enclosures Chicago · St. Louis · Kansas City · St. Petersburg · Tampa ount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGER MANAGER MICHAEL E. ]ANONIS VILLAGE CLERK VELMA LOWE VILLAGE ENGINEER JANUARY 30, 2002 BREN-FWOOD SQUARE PARKING LOT EXPANSION 1706 - 1742 KENSINGTON ROAD Attached please find the Village Board Approval and Acceptance form for the subject project. The project has been satisfactorily comPleted and I recommend approval of this project. Please place this in line for inclusion at the February 5, 2002 Village Board Meeting. Cc: Glen R. Andler, Public Works Director X:\files\engineer\dev\lc\devguar\brsqiotrnm ILLAGE BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND/OR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT APPROVAL PROJECT: BRENTWOOD SQUARE PARKING T,OT EXPANSION LOCATION: 1706 - 1742 R Ken~in~nn Rn~rl DATE: STAFF APPROVAl, ENGINEERING DRAWINGS APPROVED: PLAT OF SUBDIVISION RECEIVED: PLAT OF SUBDIVISION RECORDED: AS BUILT PLANS REVIEWED AND APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ENGINEER CLERK CLERK ENGINEER PUB,WKS.DIR. COMM.DEV.DIR. FIRE PREVENTION PlTRI,1C IMPROVEMENTS FOR ACCEPTANCE BY VII,I,AGE WATER MAIN N/A SANITARY SEWER N/A STORM SEWER N/A ROADWAYS N/A SIDEWALKS N/A STREET REGULATORY SIGNS N/A STREET LIGHTS N/A PARKWAY TREES N/A PARKWAY LANDSCAPING N/A RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS N/A PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED WATER MAIN __ N/A SANITARY SEWER N/A STORM SEWER Complete PARKING LOT C~mplete SIDEWALK N/A SITE LIGHTING Complete LANDSCAPING C~mplete RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS Complete APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THIS DAY OF ,2002. Village Clerk ount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB]ECT: VILLAGER MANAGER MICHAEL E. ]ANONIS VILLAGE CLERK VELMA LOWE VILLAGE ENGINEER JANUARY 30, 2002 ARROW ROAD CONSTRUCTION PARKING LOT 3401 SOUTH BUSSE ROAD Attached please find the Village Board Approval and Acceptance form for the subject project. The project has been satisfactorily completed and I recommend approval of this project. Please place this in line for inclusion at the February 5, 2002 Village Board Meeting. Cc: Glen R. Andler, Public Works Director X:\files\engineer\dev\tc\devguar\arrowlotmm ILLAGE BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND/OR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT APPROVAL PROJECT: ARROW ROAD CONgTRIICTION PARKING LOCATION: 3401 gonth Rllgge Road DATE: .lhmm~ g> 200? gTAFF APPROVAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS APPROVED: PLAT OF SUBDIVISION RECEiVED: PLAT OF SUBDIVISION RECORDED: AS BUILT PLANS REVIEWED AND APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ENGINEER CLERK CLERK ENGINEER PUB.WKS.DIR. COMM.DEV.DIR. FIRE PREVENTION PllgI JC I1VIPROVEM~,NTS FOR ACCEPTANCE BY VII WATER MAIN N/A SANITARY SEWER N/A STORM SEWER N/A ROADWAYS N/A SDEWALKS N/A STREET REGULATORY SIGNS N/A STREET LIGHTS N/A PARKWAY TREES N/A PARKWAY LANDSCAPING N/A RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS N/A PRIVATE IMPROVEIMENTS APPROVED WATER MAIN N/A SANITARY SEWER N/A STORM SEWER fiSq ¥, ~. - 12" / 225 I,.F. - 15" PARKING LOT Complete SIDEWALK N/A SITE LIGHTING N/A LANDSCAPING Complete RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS Complete APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THIS DAY OF ,2002. Village Clerk ount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB]ECT: VILLAGER MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS VILLAGE CLERK VELMA LOWE VILLAGE ENGINEER JANUARY 30, 2002 CITGO STATION 630 WEST RAND ROAD Attached please find the Village Board Approval and Acceptance form for the subject project. The project has been satisfactorily completed and I recommend approval of this project, Please place this in line for inclusion at the February 5, 2002 Village Board Meeting. Cc: Glen R. Andler, Public Works Director X:\files\engineer\dev\lc\devguar\citgo630ra ndmm ILLAGE BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND/OR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT APPROVAL PROJECT: CITGO gTATION LOCATION: 6g0 We~t Rand Road DATE: 'January g; 2002 gTAEE APPROVAI, ENGINEERING DRAWINGS APPROVED: k ~'~ PLAT OF SUBDIVISION RECEIVED: 'O N/A PLAT OF SUBDIVISION RECORDED: N/A AS BUILT PLANS REVIEWED AND APPROVED: . __/___ PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL: ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: ENGINEER CLERK CLERK ENGINEER PUB.WKS.DIR. COMM.DEV.DIR. FIRE PREVENTION PI]II,TC IMPROVRMENTg FOR ACCEPTANCE BV VII,I,AGE WATER MAIN N/A SANITARY SEWER N/A STORM SEWER N/A ROADWAYS N/A SIDEWALKS N/A STREET REGULATORY SIGNS N/A STREET LIGHTS N/A PARKWAY TREES N/A PARKWAY LANDSCAPING N/A RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS N/A PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTg APPROVED WATER MAIN SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER PARKING LOT SIDEWALK SITE LIGHTING LANDSCAPING RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS 64 T, F - 6" 119 I,F 13 I,F -6"/196 T,.F.-R"/134T,F. 12" Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THIS DAY OF_ _, 2002. Village Clerk