Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. OLD BUSINESS 3/5/2002 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 (IN AN t 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 varying 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, 1' 1" to 4' 1" from the lot lines for the property at 1801 Boulder Drive, case no. ZBA-34-0 I. 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. illiar~t. Clf4ney, J}.,I AICP /jm¢ H:\GEN~PLANNING~Planning & Zoning COMMkP&Z 2002XMEJ Memos2BA-34-01 180I 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' 1" 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.tn. 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 No. ZBA-32-01 and Case No. PC-14-01, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-34-0I, a request for Variations to the size and location ora 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 cut-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 ~vhen 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.5, which is larger than the I20 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 ~vhat the petitioner installed, has to meet current code requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission ZBA-34-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connotly 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. Staff has 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 need to do work in the easement and a structure in an easement could disrupt drainage patterns. Ms. Core, oily 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 bythe Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, staff-recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend deniaI 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 sho~ved 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 hawe 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 ZBA-34-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson 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 I;1" 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 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 beard 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, DonnelIy, 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. Keitb 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 Jgc[~ Cc~fir/.6h~, ~et[io~l>'lanncgr F PAGE CITIZENS part ofghe Cidzens O?illu.'c.~ Family Date: Time: Pages: TO: 3 0U z. 0 NOT RECSIVE ALL OF T~E PAGE& PLEAS~ C~LL ~ S.A.P_ , ~ .,. (including, cover ~,. t'~ ~ FAX NT.~,rM.B ER: F&OM: This message is reloaded only for ',he rue of~e individual or entity to w~c~ it is ad,c,seal. ~tis n~s~e ~taies information from Cit~en~ Wa~er R~m,~ fl~t mY Lm peivileg~ mufidenfial md exert Rom di~e ~der applicaSle law. Ir ~e reader of~ m~ge ~ ~ ~ ~¢~ or ~e e~l~7~ or ag~t r~e f~ copz~g of ~ co imitation b ~fly ~5i~, If 7~ ~ve r~ew~ ~ts ~m~ ~ ~, ~ no~ m¢ ~t~[y at ~e tel~ n~ 1~*~ a~ve. We ~I1 ~ ~y to ~ge for ~ r~ to us of~is me~ge via ~e Ur i~e~ S~t~ P~l ~ at ~ ~ to y~. Citizens Ufllitie~ Company of Illinois 1000 lnternationsle Parkway t Woodrtdge, Illinois 60517 Telephone: (630) 739-8810 / ]Dax: (630) 739-0477 anuary 21,2002 Village of Mount Prospect: This letter is to advise that we are giving permission to Helen Magiione Hennigan of t801 Boulder Dr in the city of Mt. Prospect to install a 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, T hank You, Dean Thorsen North Operations, Foreman Citizens Water Resources 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 property 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: HEARING 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: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: REQUESTED ACTION: Helen C. Hennigan 1801 Boulder Drive Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owner 03-25-309-033 I 1,064.6 square feet R1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residence 33% existing (includes shed) 45% maximum per R1 district 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 ~vould 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 from 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, staff reviewed 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 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 g~in; 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 s-ingle 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-vie~v' and is adjacent to property owned by the_ Wisconsin Central Rail Road, it is visible from other back'yards. 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 repair/rig 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 nor 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. William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development ,, J Mount Prospect PUt)llb w~'rks 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, 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 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 ins-tailed 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 exist-lng 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. age 2 ZBA-34-01;1801 Boulder Dr. Janua~ 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. X:\FILES\ENGINEER\REV-ENG~.BA~001\1801Boulder. DOC Chuck Lindelof 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 code 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 Engbe~ 180t Hopi 847.824.0966 _01<14,'02 11:10 FAX 630 739 0477 CITIZENS UTILITY ~002<002 January 14, 2002 Ms. Helen C- Hemligan 1801 Boulder Drive Mourn ProspecZ, IL 60056 RE: EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT FOR 1801 BOULDER DRIVE Dear Ms. B~ennigml: Citizens Water Reso~trces has reviewed your request for encmac31mmit upon thc utility easement located along the Northwest property linc at the referenced address, legally described as LOT 15 DX- TI-~E R.ESL'BD][VISION OF LOTS 65, 66, 67, 68 & 69 ANI) PART OF LOTS 92 & 93 & ALL OF LOTS 130 TO 142, BOTH INCLUSIVE, AiX,rD VACATED STKEET, AND VACATED HOLLY DRI~E AND h~ATI-I]SR LAN'E, iLL LN' FOREST IvL&NOR 'UNIT#2, BEING A SUBDIVISION iN' THE SW % AN~) THE SE 'A OF SEC. 25, T.42N, R, 11E. OF THE 3~= P.M. IN COOK COTjL'NTY, iL. Ckizens Water Resonrces will allow the encroachment upon the above-n~entioned easem~'nt for the installation of the existing shed. Except waivbg ks right ~ sue to remove this encroachment, Citizens Water Resources does neither waive nor nulli~' any of its rights as to this ease~nent. You shall indemnify and save harm/ess Citizens Water Resources from all claims, damages, stdts, including attorneys' fees, costs ~.d expenses, real or personal, e~lised by or arising out oft. he nsc or ¢ot~smiction of said encroachment by you Or your agents, employees, contractors, successors, or a~signs. In t!m event the property is transferred., you will be req~iired to notify the i~ew owners of this Agreemont so thai a new Letter of Ag-reement may be executed. Please sigl~ and rermm one copy of this letter to me. If you have any questions, please conlact me at (630) 739-8831. Respectfully, CITIZENS WATER RESOIJnRCES Engineerino Tecllnieial'~ I hereby acknowledge receipt of this letter and agree to all terms stated herein: By: Date: '~,ritrless: 1~1-14-~2 12:10 RECEIVED FROM:~:3O 7~9 8¢77 P.82 ¥ILLAGE OF MC UNT PROSPECT ~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - planning Division I oo 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 .twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW ~ Village Board Final ~ ZBA Final CaseNumber '.'' ::.}:i" i' ,=.' . i Development Name/Address Date of Submission Hearing Date Common Address(es) (Street 'Number, Street) Tax I.D. 'Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) Name ~/ ~,t~ ~1 Telephone (day) ~or~o~isn-- - ~ ~ TeleI~h°ffe (even~g) Fax Interest in Prope~ ode Section(s) for which Vark .n(s) is (are) Requested Summary and Justif,,~cati,on for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has bee~ fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so 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 their 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 tree and accurate to y knowledge. Applicant Date ~/F/- ~ ~ ' ~ / 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~'h Property Owner Date //--,-.~ ~ Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 F~x 847.818.5329 TDD847.392.6064 Gym, s 'o Ass sl" Yov Yova E-Z BARN COPYRIGRT, MENARDS Ii' 1999 lx6 Standard Pin, Fascia Trim ti. GENERAL t 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. Figure 1. 1 2"x4' Upper and Lower Roof Frame Member ide Wall Frame Member Treated 2"x4" Bottom Frame Member 7. FRAME PREPARATION ) Unfold each frame, setting aside two frames to be used as end walls. From l"x4" Pine boards, cut Gusset plates 6" long · 24 pieces for al2' 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 nails on each plate. See Figure 1. PLEASE NOTE: This shed construction aid is intended ~'~. We suggest you cheek with your local Window Not Included, as an Option; Lumber listed as nominal sizes .~.~--High Roof long gusset plate at top fold location Low Roof Overhang Ii' long gusset plate at bottom fold 12'-0" E-Z BUILD BARN FRAME endwall studs ~k cut to fit. ............................... 2"x 4"nailers, cut 2"x 4"x 10' Endwall < studs, cut to fit Toe nail studs into place 12' -0" 2"x 4" Gable studs cut to fit at locations shown 2"x 4"x 10' Header cut to fit .2"x 4"x 8' door frame. cut to fit ( 4. BACK WALL FRAMING ) Usmg 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 FRAMING) 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 Idoon Example: 8x7 Roll-u~,p, door will have a ~mished 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 with 8d nails every 8" on c. enter. See Figure 4. ,-,/:- ( 7. SIDING FRONT WALL ') j~ ~] ~ Cut one 4'x 8' sheet of siding into two 'pieces _ 12'-o" ~ -- ~--~4 48'i~ 48". Cut one 4'x 8' sheet into two pieces ~ ~, ?'~ 24 x 96". Cut each piece as required. Nail ~ 'In ~ ~e~ b~ ~ ]{ [}~ ~ siding pieces onto front wall frame ~th 8d f ~ ~e ~t requ~ed>r s~ ~ ~ ~ nmls eve~ 8' on center. ~e ~gure 5. . Place sluing on ~rame --mark [ ' ' ~ ~d cut to fit. ....................................... ~ 3-48"x 48" .... ~. ~,~, '. siding '\ as shown ", ..,',-i'::", ,. , .',, ., i · , } 3-48'x 96" ~ ~ .' ,:' · :'..' ~ · '" . .... ," Siding i ,.g._,____ , ~- '~'--+pieces cut FRONT WALL cut to fit Figure 5. ] siding pieces to fit 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 properly, at 1803 E. Boulder Drive. We als., consider it an improvem.:,:~t over the one it replaced, and believe our neighbors should be allowed to keep it as is. Gary and Nancy Strahinic (847) 699-8188 · ~ t~~/~. 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 ITIZENS June 21. 2001 To Whom It May Concern: . ~ .e:er is to adwse that we givin~ permission to Helen Magtione Hennigan of 1801 ~,.. ,-.,, Dr in the c~l.y of Mt. Prosoect to remove net shed and install a flew one. The sP,~u ,s [o be installed m the backyard next to a Citizens Water Resources facility, if you s ,ouie have any questions please call me at 830-739--8852. Thank You. Dean Thorsen North Operations, Fore nan Cifizens Water Resources Wnlf Rnad 1714 ~ ~enta~ ~r 824 ~ ' ive 172~ 822~ ~ ~ ~ 1702 1701 1724 ~ 1704 1703 173~ 816 ~ 827 1705 ~ 1706 1705~ ~ ~ 814 ~ 825 1707~ 1708 1707 g 823 1709 ~ 1710 1709 ~1825 1816 ~,~~1805 804 1831 ~ 1820 1809 g ~ ~ m 1822 WL 1~0~2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1801 BOULDER 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 Property") and legally described as follows: 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 % and the SE % 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 th.e. 24a 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 Village 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 Tern Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk