Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. NEW BUSINESS 5/7/02 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JA_NONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 3, 2002 PZ-09-020 - MAP AMENDMENT & CONDITIONAL USE (REZONE ~ COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL & A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT) 1060 W. NORTHWEST HWY NEPCO - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve a map amendment, but rocofiJai-~flds alL'ilia] of a Conditional Use request to construct a Townhome Planned Unit Development for the property located at 1060 W. Northwest Highway. The proposal is described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their April 25, 2002 meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard comment on and discussed the project in detail. Issues discussed included the site's viability as a commercial property, the impact of residences along the Northwest Highway Corridor, storm water detention for the townhomes, and the density of the townhome development. Residents of the Northwest Meadows Homeowners Association presented their concerns pertaining to storm water management, the impact of the townhomes on the character of their subdivision, and the masonry fence along the perimeter of the townhome development. After lengthy discussion, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to approve the proposed map amendment to rezone the property at 1060 W. Northwest Highway from BI to R2. The P&Z voted 3-3 {effectively deny) on the Conditional Use request for a Townhome Planned Unit Development. (A super majority vote is required for the Village Board to approve the Conditional Use request because the proposal did not receive a positive recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission.) Please forward this memorandum and attaohments to the Village Board for their review and consideratiOn at their May 7, 2002 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. C~ooney, Jr., I~ICP Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: · LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: LOT 'COVERAGE: REQUESTED AurlON: TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER APRIL 18, 2002 APRIL 25, 2002 PZ-09-02 - 1060 W. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY (NEPCO, INC - APPLICANT) MAP AMENDIvIENT (P, HZONE FROM B 1 TO 112) AND CONDITIONAL USE (PUD) Nick Papanicholas NEPCO, Inc. 240 E. Lincoln Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Contract Purchaser 03-33-407-007 03-33-407-008 1.1 Acres Existing: B1 Office Proposed: R2 Attached Single Family Planned Unit Development Existing: Commercial (medical office building) Proposed: Town homes (seven unit town home development) 49.5% proposed 50% maximum per R2 district 1) REZONE FROM B1 TO P.2 TO CONSTKUCT SEVEN TOWN HOMES 2) CONDITIONAL USE FOP. A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND Proposal The subject property consists of a medical office building and parking lot. The building and parking lot are on two lots with a total area of 1.1 acres. The development was constructed in 1957. The petitioner, who is the contract purchaser, would like to demoYmh the existing medical building and construct the Villas of S~wes, which is a seven-unit town home development. PZ-09-02 Planning & Zoning Meeting April 25, 2002 Page 2 In the attached application, the petitioner states that the proposed town home development would be fully occupied and feels that the residential development would benefit the Village more than the semi-vacant medical office building. Review and Approval Process The properties' current zoning is B1 Commercial. In order to build'the proposed town homes, the property must be rezoned to a residential zoning district; the applicant has requested R2 Attached Single Family. Elements of the development do not comply with zoning regulations and the petition ii seeking Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development. The proposed development will require Map Amendment and Conditional Use approval by the Village Board, following a public heating and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. To conduct its analysis of the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey, site plan, and landscape plan and visited the site. ANALYSIS Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses North: R.X Single Family Residence / single family residences South: 12 Railroad / Union Pacific Railroad tracks East: B1 Office / Office Building West: B1 Office / Office Building Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning The property is located along ~ state highway, on a commercial corridor. It is adjacent to office buildings and single-family residences. The Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject properties as General Commemial - Office use. · Site Plan Review :' There are a total of seven town homes proposed: two 2-unit buildings and one 3-unit building. The development has a 22-foot wide central driveway (measured from edge of pavement) that provides access to/from Northwest Highway and Dale Avenue and links the individual driveways together. The homes face 'in' towards the central driveway and have two-car attached garages. The development includes a five-foot masonry perimeter fence with six-foot Pillars interspersed and landscaping on both sides of the fence. The fence is intended to screen the development from the traffic on Northwest Highway and the landscaping on the outside of the fence is intended to soften the impact of a masonry fence and improve the aesthetics of the commercial corridor. Setbacks The property has frontage on Northwest Highway and Dale Avenue. The town homes have a 30-foot setback from Northwest Highway, a 20-foot setback from Dale Avenue, a 25-foot setback along the north lot-line, and a 20-foot setback along the east lot line. Listed below are the required setbacks for each zoning.district. The development complies with the R2 setback requirements. Required Setback BI 112 Proposed Front 30-feet 30-feet 30-feet Rear 20-feet Equal to the height of the building (23~5-feet) 25-feet Interior 10-feet 10-feet of ½ the height of the building (11.75-feet) 20-feet Exterior 30-feet 20-feet 20-feet PZ~09-02 Planning & Zoning Meeting April 25, 2002 Page 3 Elevations The enclosed elevations show that the proposed tOwn homes woUld be constructed of face brick and have stone fireplace chimneys. The development has a combination of front-loading garages and side loading garages. Landscape Plan The petitioner's proposal includes a landscape plan that meets the general intent of the landscape ordinance. However, additional landscaping on the outside of the masonry fence is ~e~ommended to minimize the impact of the fence and to ensure that the masonry fence does not appear institutional. Parking The development includes two-car attached garages for each unit and three guest parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires 2 parking spaces for two bedroom dwelling units and 2.5 parking spaces for three bedroom dwelling dnits. The development provides 17 spaces, which meets code requirements. In additinn, parking is permitted on Northwest Highway and Dale Avenue. Review By Other Departments The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal to rezone the properties and had no objections to the request. However, the development will have to meet all Village codes, Le. storm water detention, utilities, cte. when the submittal is made for a building permit. The Fire Prevention Bureau requires that the central driveway be posted with a 'Fire Lane - No Parking' sign, that the development be constructed according to BOCA Building Code 1996, and that fire hydrants will be provided as required. The Police Department reviewed the request and had concerns that the site include adequate residential lighting. In addition, the Crime Prevention Division recommended posting highly visible address nUmbers and did not find · that traffic flow would be an issue at the site. REQUIRED FllND~GS Map Amendment Standards The standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zun'mg Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zun'mg Commission shall make.findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: · compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; · the compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; * the suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning elasaifieations; · consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. The subject parcel for the proposed Map Amendment is a medical building constructed in 1957 located in an established commercial corridor. It is adjacent to residential and commercial uses. The proposed town homes are of a similar use to the adjacent residential and the multi-family development one block west of the site, but are not consistent with the immediate surrounding commercial area. Furthermore, a new office building is under PZ-09-02 Planning ,ir Zoning Meeting April 25, 2002 Page 4 construction at 1150 W. Northwest Highway, which is less than one block west of the subject site, which implies that office uses are still viable along this corridor: The essential character of the proposal has elements of the surrounding residential uses, but the town homes would be located on a commercial corridor and the property is adjacent to commercial uses. As noted in earlier reports, staff is in the process of updating the General Land Use l~lap in addition to completing the Northwest Highway Corridor Plan. Ia light of recent market changes and development trends, sections of the Northwest Highway Corridor, including the subject property will be revisited to ensue that the Land Use Map designation is still the appropriate classification. Planned Unit Development Standards The standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to: · The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located; · The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan of the village for the area containing the subject site; · That the proposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. · That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which s~rve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development. The proposal does not meet the standards for a Map Amendment since it is not consistent with the Village's · Comprehensive Land Use Map. However, the town homes comply with tl~¢ R2 Zoning District regulations and the development has been designed in a manner that provides safe access to and from the development. The development would meet the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development if the proposal met the standards for a Map Amendment. RECOMIVIENDATION Based.on the above analysis, the Planning and Zoning. Commission cannot make positive findings with respect to the standards for Map Amendments in Section 14.203.D.8.a. Therefore, Staffrecommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use for the property at 1060 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-0-02. However, should P&Z members determine .that the Map Amendment request is appropriate, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval be included as part of the P&Z's recommendation: 1. Development of the site in general conformance with the submitted site plan prepared by W-T Civil Engineering, LLC dated March 19, 2002, but revising the landscape plan to reflect: a. Additional landscaping alongthe exterior of the west elevation of the masonry fence; b. Additional shade trees and evergreen plantings along the Northwest Highway frontage on the exterior of the masonry fence. 2. The central driveway is designated as a Fire Lane-No Parking and that signs are posted in locations identified by the Fire Marshal. 3. Addresses are posted in a highly visible manner to ensure they can be clearly seen from Northwest Highway. 4. Consolidate the Site to a one4ot subdivision. Z-09-02 plannln~ & Zoning Meeting April 25, 2002 Page 5 Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · The central driveway 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 constructed according to BOCA 1996 regulations; · All construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. I COnCur: '~rilliainlJ. Cooney,])~CP, Director of Community Development Meadows Pa~k ML Prospecl p~k I)~rl~ Gregory Street 313 311 310 309 3~ 307 ~01 217 213 Henry Street 313 312 311 310 3O9 \ FMrview Park Park Dtmtct 2~ withomLane-- ~ 2~ PZ-09-02 1060 W. Northwest Highway Map Amendment - Rezone to build 7-Unit Townhome Development VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT · COMM .UNITY,DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847-818-5328 FAX 847-818-$328 Map Amendment Request Case Number -. ZnA Development Name/Address Date of Submission Hearing Date . Common Address(es) (Street Number, StreeO Site Area (Ac.) Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Proposed) Proposed Development and Land Use Setbacks (Prop.) Front Rear e-,i,~¢ Side 32' o" ;2~' o" Building He. ight Lot Coverage (%) # of Parking Spaces ~6' o" 4q.6 Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Legal Description (attaCh additional sheets ir necessarx) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 19 and 20 in block 8 in Arthur T. Mcintosh & Company's North West Meadows, being a subdivision of the east half of section 33, township 42 north, range 11, east of the third principal meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded April-28, 1952 as document number 15327949 in Cook County, Illinois. Telel~hone (day) Co~:ion Telephon~ (evening) Ci~ Pager lnter~ in Prope~ N~e Telephone (day) Co~o~do. TelepLO.e (evening) S~eel Ad~ Ci~ S~te Zip Code P~er De, eloper ~C~ ~[C~-~ Telephone(day) ~7 A~orney Su~eyor N~e Architect ~ ~P~ I J~ Telephone(day): ~d~css Landscape Architect ~ ~ ~ N~e Telephone (ay): Mount Prospect Depatanent of Community Development lO0 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847/392-6064 roposed Zoning Change -- Describe the Justification for the Proposed Map Amendment -- Descri'be in Detail ~e Buildings ~d Activities Proposed (a~ch additional sh~ if necessa~) 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 will not be accepted. It is sU'ongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staffso that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In conSideration of the information contained in'his petition as well as all supporting dociimentation, 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 afru-m that all information pros, ideal herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the besLqf my .knowledge. A , e, ~ 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 material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect DcparUnent of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 849.818.5329 TDD 847/392-6064 age 1 of 1 Connolly, Judy From: Mary Simon [mmusicmom@attbLcom] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:38 PM To: JCONNOLL@MOUNTPROSPECT.org Subject: rezoning/development Dear Sir:Madam; I am unable to attend tonight's meeting due to work. I am strongly opposed to the planned development at the comer of Dale and Northwest Highway. There are many reasons for my opposition, but the density of the project is what concerns me the most. The developer plans to put 7 attached homes in the amount of land that would hold a maximum of 2 houses in this subdivision. This subdivision has minimum lot sizes (1/2 acre) to keep the desired character. Second, the developer has designed the.property so that all that is seen from any angle is the back of the houses.. Third, There is a stone wall around the entire property to isolate it. Fourth, it is too close to the residential property to the north. Fifth, it could easily cause more flooding problems in the houses nearby. Sixth, as the character of this property changes to accept multi-family housing, what will the village do next to my subdivision? Seventh, putting 7 homes on one acre will also put at least 14 vehicles in that small space. Yes, there are garages, but not everyone uses them for cars, and some people have more than two cars per family. Please oppose this planned development at tonight's meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mary Simon MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING O~ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-09-02 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: April 26, 2002 Nick Papanicholas PUBLICATION DATE: April 10, 2002 REQUEST: Rezone from BI to R2 to construct seven townhomes Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: John and Kelly Dahlberg Tim Folk Nancy Fritz Roy Hamish Ron and Jean Holmes George Johnson Robert Judge Kurt Kaufhold Joseph Leone Leo and Muriel Newhouse Nick and Nancy Papanicholas Jim Pesoli Jan Ramcon Sabaj Domenico Safitone Len and Ruth Salemi Robert and Dawn Smith Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Minutes of the March 28 meeting were approved, with one minor correction. At 7:33, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-09-02, a request for a Map Amendment and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. He explained that this case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She stated that the subject properZy, which totals 1.1 acre, consists of a medical office building and parking lot, built in 1957. The petitioner, who is the contract purchaser, would like to demolish the existing building & parking lot and construct the Villas of S~vres, a seven-unit townhome development. The petitioner states in his application that the townhomes would be fully occupied and that the residential development would benefit the Village more than the semi-vacant medical office building. Ms. Connolly said that the site is currently zoned for commercial use. In order to build the town-homes, the property must be re'zoned to a residential zoning district. The applicant has requested R2 Attached Single Family. Elements of the development, such as the enh'y sign and masonry fence do not comply with zoning regulations and the petitioner is Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Suracek, Chairperson PZ-09-02 Page 2 seeking Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development. The proposed development will require Map Amendment and Conditional Use approval by the Village Board, following a public heating and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Connolly said Staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey, site plan, landscape plan, and visited the site. She described the surrounding zoning and land use: to the north, single-family residences; to the south, Union Pacific Raikoad tracks; to the east and west: office buildings. The property is located along a state highway, on a commercial corridor. The Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject property as General Commercial - Office use. Ms. Connolly explained that there are a total of seven townhomes proposed: two 2-unit buildings and one 3-nnit building. The development has a central driveway that provides access to/from Northwest Highway and Dale Avenue. Also, it links the individual driveways together. The development includes a five-foot masoray perimeter fence with six-foot pillars interspersed and landscaping on both sides of the fence. She said that the property has frontage on Northwest Highway and Dale Avenue. The townhomes have a 30-foot setback from Northwest Highway, a 20-foot setback from Dale Avenue, a 25-foot setback along the north lot line, and a 20-foot setback along the east lot line. The development complies with the R2 setback and lot coverage requirements. The petitioner's elevations show that the townhomes will be constructed of face brick and have stone fireplace chimneys. The development has a combination of front-and side loading garages. Ms. Connolly reported that the petitioner's proposal includes a landscape plan that meets the general intent of the Village's landscape ordinance. However, additional landscaping on the outside of the masonry fence is recommended to minimize the impact of the fence and to ensure that the masonry fence does not appear institutional. The development's 2-car garages and 3 guest parking spaces meet zoning requirements for parking. There are 17 spaces provided on-site. Ms. Connolly relayed the comments of other Village Departments. The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal to rezone the properties and had no objections to the request. However, the development would ha/re to meet all Village codes, including storm water detention, before a permit can be issued. The Fire Prevention Bureau requires that the central driveway be posted with a 'Fire Lane - No Parking' sign, that the development be constructed according to BOCA Building Code 1996 regulations, and that fire hydrants w~..'~l be provided as required. The Police Depa~h~tent reviewed the request and had concerns that the site include adeq0&te residential lighting. In addition, the Crime Prevention Division recommended posting highly visible address numbers and did not find that traffic flow would be an issue at the site. Ms. Connolly said that in order to rezone the site, the board has to find that the request meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the subject properties for the proposed Map Amendment are locatod in an established commercial corridor. The site is adjacent to residential and commercial uses. The proposed townhomes are of a similar use to the adjacent residential and the multi-family development one block west of the site, but are not consistent with the immediate surrounding commercial area. Fu~ermore, a new office building is under construction less than one block west of the subject site. This implies that office uses are still viable along this corridor. Ms. Connolly said that the essential character of the townhomes have elements of the surrounding residential uses, but the townhomes would be located on a commercial corridor and the property is adjacent to commercial uses. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the townhomes, the board has to find that the Planned Unit Development meets the standards for a Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the proposal does not meet the standards for a Map Amendment and that it is not consistent with the Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map. However, the townhomes comply with the R2 Zoning District regulations and the development has been designed in a manner that provides safe access to and from the development. The development would meet the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development if the proposal met the standards for a Map Amendment. Ms. Connolly said that based.on Staff's analysis, the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot make positive findings with respect to the standards for Map Amendments. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use for the property at 1060 W. Northwest Highway, Case No. PZ-0-02. However, should the Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-09-02 Page 3 determine that the Map Amendment requeSt is appropriate, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval be included as part of the recommendation to Village Board: 1. Development of the site in general conformance with the submitted site plan prepared by W-T Civil Engineering, LLC dated March 19, 2002, but revising the landscape plan to reflect: a. Additional landscaping along the exterior of the west elevation of the masorrry fence; b. Additional shade frees and evergreen plantings along the Northwest Highway frontage on the exterior of the masonry fence. 2. The central driveway is designated as a Fire Lane-No Parking and that signs are posted in locations identified by the Fire Marshal. 3. Addresses are posted in a highly visible manner to ensure they can be clearly seen from Northwest Highway. 4. Consolidate the site to a one-lot subdivision. 5. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T.. and M.W.R~D. 6. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · The central driveway 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 constructed according to BOCA 1996 regulations. Richard Rog~a~, Vice Chair, clarified that two votes would be taken for this ease: one vote to t~one the property and one vote for the Planned Unit Development request. For discussion ~ both requests will be handled simultaneously. .Leo Floros asked how long the building has been vacant. Ms. Counolly said there is at least one tenant on a month-to-. month lease at present, but she did.not know how long the remainder of the building has been vacant. Nick Papanicholas, 119 N. Stevenson, Mount Prospect was sworn in. He said that 1350, 1250, 1100, and 1060 Northwest Highway have been for lease at least 3 to 5 years. Mr. Papanich~las said that regardless of the Boards' findings on this project, the owner of the 1060 building is shutting down June I because of economic reasons. A Real Estate firm attempted to develop the property for over one year, but was not successful. The other commercial buildings in the area have also experienced a high vacancy rate for many years. He said that there is a new bm~lding being built on Northwest Highway, but there is a long-terra lease in place for that property. Mr. Papanicholas said that office buildings are not being built on spec in the area and that most medical practices have relocated to properties in the vicinity of hospitals. The petitioner stated that when the 1060 parcel became available, he thought that a town.home development would blend withthe R-X neighborhood. Mr. Papanicholas stated the units look like single-family homes and that they will be face brick. Although there is no water retention on the property now, the new development will provide detention. He said landscaping a very important aspect of the project and that this is a very necessary improvement to the area. Mr. Papanicholas said he will occupy one of the units and that there are six people very interested in purchasing the other townhomes. Mr. Floros asked the anticipated price of the proposed townhomes. Mr. Papanicholas said they would range from $400,000 to $450,000 and will have three bedrooms, full basements and 2-car attached garages. Keith Youngquist asked Mr. Papanicholas how he had arrived at asking for R-2 zoning. Mr. Papanicholas said he could have asked for R-4, which would allow up to 16 units, but arrived at the R-2 zoning request with staff's help. He originally considered R-4 because there is site down the block zoned R-4, but reconsidered and decided on R-2. Mr. Youngquist asked how thc storm water would be retained in a "controlled" manner and where it would leave the property. Mr. Papanicbolas said his engineer could provide specific design details, but basically the water would leave on the northwest comer of property with box culverts storing the water on site and a restrictor releasing water into the Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene luracek, Chairperson PZ-09-02 Page 4 system. Mr. Youngquist asked if the system would be above ground and Mr. Papanicholas said the system would be below ground where it leaves the property. Mr. Papanicholas said the engineer and architect were here to answer questions. He said there were people in audience interested purchasing units who would like to address the Board. lie pointed out that many people want to remain in Mount Prospect after their families are raised, but it is difficult finding new construction in which to relocate in Mount Prospect. Nancy Fritz, 103 MaeArthur Drive, was sworn in and testified she is the president of the Northwest Meadows homeowners association. She said that the association met last night and had a number questions and concerns about the project. She said that the original subdivision started with R-X zoning and most properties are a minimum Va acre lot. The property in question was zoned commercial and is part of Northwes~ Meadows Subdivision. She said that the homeowners association feels that the property should be rezoned as R-X to be consistent with the neighborhood. She conveyed the members concerns regarding an increase in the amount of traffic originating from the development and the number of children who would live there and add to the overcrowding at Fairview School. Members of the association were also concerned that the project would create flooding problems for the neighborhood. She said that the subdivision is on a culvert system with dry cell basins that contain their storm water runoff, Homes with basements get water in heavy rainfall. The association is concerned with the amount of land coverage on the proposed project and wanted to know where the water will go. Ms. Fritz said the engineering plan shows 27 sewers/drains that will be going-into a single location of property near their neighbor, who akeady has problems with water. Ms. Fritz also pointed out that the neighbor's driveway would be just 5' away from the proposed driveway. Neighbors also feel that the proposed stonewall isolates the townhomes from the neighborhood and had concerns if the stonewall would have footings or be built on a slab. Ms. Fritz added that the association members also do not like the fact that they would view the townhomes from the back. They are concerned that the northeast comer townhome driveway is situated so a ear driving in or out will shine lights in neighbor's bedroom window. They are also concerned with street parking o.n Dale. In addition, the association is concerned that rezoning this property to R2 would allow for future rezoning requests that would change the tenor of their subdivision. The group is concerned that the townhomes would create an urban nature for Mount Prospect and the association wants to retain the rural atmosphere. Also, Mount Prospect has limited commercial properties and that they are a better tax value than townhomes. Ms. Fritz summed up by saying the towahomes are very attractive on paper, but do not fit the tenor o£ their subdivision. Ms. Fritz suggested the Board hear from the neighbor most affected by this.proposal, Mr. Smith. ~' Robert Smith, 213 N. Dale Ave., was sworn in and testified that his major concern is flooding. He said that the property next door is higher than his propen'y and presently has grass and open space that collects water. Mr. Smith said the townhomes look good, but he moved to his home because of the rural setting and the distance between neighbors. He would like it to remain as it is. Robert Judge, 1194 Hunters Ridge East, Hoffman Estates, Architect, and Roy Haraish, W.T Engineering, 39 E. Scully Drive in Schaumburg, Engineer, were sworn in to testify. Mr. Judge said the plan must meet Village Code and MWRD regulations, which state water cannot drain offto adjacent property. This is done by storm manholes that go into nndergronnd box culverts, which is an underground storage drainage system. This releases ,water at a controlled rate. Heavy rains are retained with no storm water or runoff onto the property to the north. At present, the property probably does receive water due to "sheet drainage," which is where the water runs off with the property slope. That is not allowed by today's codes. Roy Hamish testified that they have done storm water calculations for the site and were submitted to the Engineering Department of the Village. Ms. Connolly said the Engineering Division went over the plans in general and they will come under further scrutiny should the project be approved. There is now 30% green space and the proposed project would have 49% green space. Ms. Connolly also said Engineering has not received reports of flooding in the area. Mr. Hamish said they would use a 2.5" resirietor and there is .29 acre-feet of storage held in oversize concrete pipes underneath the greenspaee. Keith Youngquist asked if the water would go into a designated storm system or a combined. Mr. Pspanicholas said the restrictor and the drainage of the property goes underground into a storm system on Dale Avenue and eventually to Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-09-02 Page 5 thc north. It would remain underground until it reaches the MW'RD approved system. Ms. Fritz said they had septic tanks originally and in the 1960s a sewer system was installed and each comer of the subdivision has a holding tank with an open grate dry cell. Mr. Papanicholas said the proposed project will not worsen any existing situation and will in fact improve it. Richard Rogers asked for clarification on the stonewall. Robert Judge said the stonewall would be on a foundation, which would be below the frost line. He said that the wall will enhance the look of the property and provide privacy for the neighbors. There will be landscaping on both sides of the 5-foot wall and will block car headlights to the north and east sides of property. Mr. Judge said there would be attached 2-car garages and 2 spaces in each driveway, with 3 more spaces next to unit 5. There will be no parking on Village streets except for major functions such as a graduation, etc. The central driveway is 24' wide. Mr. Papanicholas said snow removal, landscaping, grass cutting will be done by an association which will be set-up when the project is completed. Keith Youngquist asked about trash removal and Mr. Papanicholas said they would work with the Village to reach an acceptable method. Robert Smith stepped up to the podium again to say he did not want a driveway 5' from his house and a brick fence blocking his driveway. He said he could not forecast parties and did not want ears parked in front of his house. He said he wanted to put a concrete driveway 5'away from his property line years ago and it was not allowed, but now he will have one next to his house. Tim Folk, 402 North MacArthor, was sworn in. He said that he is a Real Estate agent and expressed concerns regarding the setbacks between the two zoning districts. He had shown 2-3 different properties to the present tenant of 1060, who was moving because his tenancy is "on again/off again" because of the probable sale of the property. Both of the other buildings are kept fully rented with commercial tenants, but the 1960 building has no basement and would be .costly to renovate. He said the development was attraotive, but should be on l Y2 or 2 aoras, Jim Pisoli, 1931 Pine Tree Drive, Arlington Heights, was sworn in. He said he is a prospective buyer of one of the townhomes. He said 5 of the 6 prospective buyers do not have children. He said that he is the youngest buyer and that his two sons are grown and in college. He feels this property would be asset to the area and is an eyesore, as it exists now. Kurt Kaufhold, 1007 W. Isabella St., said changing B-1 to R-2 does not fit into the community: He also objected to the stonewall. Mr. Papanicholas came forward and said they originally thought the stonewall would enhance the neighborhood, but they were willing to eliminate the wall and work with staff to replace stonewall with landscaping. He also pointed out that all of Northwest Highway is a mixture of residential and business; Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 8:37. Merrill Cotten asked Judy Counolly about the Village's Corridor Plans. Ms. Connolly said the Village has a plan for Rand Road and Central Road, but not Northwest Highway. Therefore, the Land Use Map that was revised in 1996 would govern Northwest Highway. Leo Floros asked if the condo development at 1200 Northwest Highway had been rezoned from commercial. Ms. Connolly said it had been rezoned in 1979 and built in 1980. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-09-02 Arlene Juracclc, Chairperson Page 6 Matt Sledz said these commercial build'rags have seen their heyday and would agree to the rezoning request in this area of mixed use. However, he has concerns about the density of this project. Merrill Cotten asked if they allow rezoning and this project is not allowed, would it be possible for a project with more units to be built. Mr. Rogers said the Village Board would make the final decision on the rezoning. Joseph Dounelly asked Ms. Counolly if this was the maximum amount of units that could be built on an R-2 zoning. Ms. Connolly said no that the R-2 district permits l0 units per acre. However, a Planned Unit Development would need to come back before the Board for review. Leo Floros said there is presently no consistency on Northwest Highway and to rezone this property would not set a precedent. Keith Youngquist said he had concerns with the tax implications ofrezoning from business to residential. He said that the townhome development is an introverted concept and that the complex would only be seen by the back from the Northwest Meadows subdivision. In addition, he had concerns with the restrictor and the amount of water dumping into a ditch. He does agree that the present building is an eyesore and that it needs to be replaced, but he feels that the zoning should remain business. He said that the townhomes would not work well in this area. Leo Floros moved to.recommend rezoning the property at 1060 W. Northwest Highway for Case No. PZ-09-02. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 4-2. AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros and Sledz NAYS: Rogers, Youngquist Leo Floros moved to recommend the Conditional Use for the PUD for the property at 1060 W. Northwest Highway for Case No. PZ-09-02 with the conditions stated in staff's memo and the condition that discussion regarding the stonewall take place between staff and the developer. Joseph Dennelly seconded the mo,.on. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was denied 3-3. AYES: Cotten, Donnelly and Floros NAYS: Rogers, Sledz and Youngquist At 9:43 p.m., after hearing two more cases, Keith Youngquist made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~J}d7 C~°~'a°IlY?eniCJr l~l:[uner VILLAS OF S~VRES 4~0~2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1060 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WHEREAS, Nick Papanicholas d/b/a NEPCO, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner"), has filed an application to rezone certain property generally located at 1060 West Northwest Highway (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"), and legally described as follows: Lots 19 & 20 in Block 8 in Arthur T. Mclntosh & Company's North West Meadows, being a Subdivision of the East % of Sec. 33, Township 42 North Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded April 28, 1952 as Doc. #15327949 in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number(s): 03-33-407-007 03-33-407-008 and WHEREAS, Petitioner has requested the Subject Property be rezoned from B-1 (Business Office District) to R-2 (Attached Single Family Residence); and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for rezoning being the subject of PZ Case No. 09-02, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th day of April, 2002, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10th day of Apdl, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to approve the request, 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 considered the request being the subject of PZ 09-02 and have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be served by granting said request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, (~OOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: 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 2/2 1060 W. Northwest Hwy. SECTION TWO: The Official Zoning Map of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, as amended, is hereby further amended by reclassifying the property being the subject of this Ordinance from B-1 to R-2 District. 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: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk VWL ~1~2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE NATURE OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1060 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WHEREAS, Nick Papanicholas d/b/a NEPCO, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner"), has filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development with respect to property generally known as 1060 West Northwest Highway, (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows: Lots 19 & 20 in Block 8 in Arthur T. Mclntosh & Company's North West Meadows, being a Subdivision of the East % of Sec. 33, Township 42 North Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded April 28, 1952 as Doc. #15327949 in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number(s): 03-33-407-007 03-33-407-008 and WHEREAS, Petitioner desires to create a Planned Unit Development providing for the construction of a seven-unit townhome development on the Subject Rroperty; and WHEREAS, a Public Headng was held on the request for a Conditional Use permit, designated as PZ Case No. 09-02, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 5th day of April, 2002, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10t~ day of Apdl, 2002, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Rrospect; 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 Conditional Use permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That 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 2/2 1060 W. NW Hwy SECTION TWO: That the Conditional Use in the nature of a Planned Unit Development being the subject of this Ordinance is subject to the following conditions: 4. 5. 6. Development of the site in general conformance with the submitted site plan prepared by W-T Civil Engineering, LLC, dated March 19, 2002, but revising the landscape plan to reflect: a. Additional landscaping along the exterior of the west elevation of the masonry fence; b. Additional shade trees and evergreen plantings along the Northwest Highway frontage on the exterior of the masonry fence. The central driveway is designated as a Fire Lane-No Parking and that signs are posted in locations identified by the Fire Marshal. Addresses are posted in a highly visible manner to ensure they can be cleady seen from Northwest Highway. Consolidate the site to a one-lot subdivision. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · The central driveway 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 shall be constructed according to BOCA 1996 regulations; · All construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes; · The Petitioner shall work with representatives of the NorthWest Meadows Homeowner Association to modify elements of the perimeter fence. SECTION THREE: That the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit, as provided in Section 14.203.F;7 of the Village Code, to allow a townhome development, as depicted in the Site Plan prepared by W-T Civil Engineering, LLC, dated March 19, 2002 (attached). SECTION FOUR: 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: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' ~ [ ~ [~)~... DATE: MAY 3, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-10-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 419 ORIOLE LANE AARON & JULIE COON - APPLICANTS The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-10-02, a request for an unenclosed covered porch, as described in detail in the attached staffreport. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their April 25, 2002 meeting. The subject property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The porch would extend along a portion of the house and as part of the porch project, the petitioners would replace the existing portico and bay window. The proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval because it encroaches into the front setback. After a brief discussion of the location of the existing trees, changes to the roof line, and building materials for the porch floor, the Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of an unenclosed covered porch within 25 feet of the front property line at 419 Oriole Lane, Case No. PZ-10-02. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their May 7, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. ~oo~ey, Jr., Af/Ci) Village of Mount Prospect CommunitY Development Department MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER APRIL 18, 2002 APRIL 25, 2002 PZ-10-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 419 ORIOLE LANE (COON RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: REQUESTED ACTION: Aaron & Julie Coon 419 Oriole Lane Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owners 03-27-316-003-0000 11,341 square feet R1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residence 33% existing 34% proposed 45% maximum CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNENCLOSED PORCH FIVE-FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE The subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. The home is currently set back 31.57' from the front lot line. The applicant proposes to construct a 6.5'x18.5' unenclosed porch along a portion of the front of the house. The proposal requires Conditional Use approval to allow the porch to encroach into the required 30-foot front yard. The enclosed plans show that the proposed porch would extend slightly less than half of the length of the front of the house and encroach into the required 30-foot setback, leaving a 25-foot setback. The petitioners propose to replace the existing portic6 and bay window and state in their application that the new porch will improve the design of the house by simplifying the roof elements. Z-10-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting April 25, 2002 Page 2 To conduct its analysis of the proposed Conditional Use, staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Conditional Use Standards The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and includes seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. These findings are: · 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 of 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 subject parcel for the proposed Conditional Use is a 11,341 square foot parcel developed with a one-story single family home. The applicant proposes to construct a porch that extendl into the front yard, leaving a 25-foot setback. The encroachment of the porch into the front setback is listed as a Conditional Use in the R1 district and the proposal meets all other zoning requirements. The proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. RECOMMEN~DATION The proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a covered, unenclosed pomh to encroach into the required fi'ont setback for the residence at 419 Oriole Lane, Case No. PZ-10-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. ':' I concuT: William J{ Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Lane Albion Lane Larkdale 906 Kensington Road PZ-10-02 419 Oriole Lane (Coon Residence) ConditiOnal Use - Porch in the Front Setback 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 Application for Conditional Use Approval Case Number P&Z Development Name/Address Date of Submission Hearing Date Address(es) (Street Number, Street) +lq omoue. Site Area (Acres) I Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking Spaces Adjacent Land Uses: Tax I.D, Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if neeeesax3,) Name Telephone (day) Co.ration Telephone (even~g) S~et Ad.ess F~ CiW State Zip C~e Pager Interest ~ Pro~ Name Telephone (day) Co~omtion Telephone (even~g) S~eet Ad.ess F~: C~ State Zip Code Pager Develo~r Nme Telephone (day) Ad.ss F~ Atto~ey N~e ~ . Telephone (day) Su~eyor Nme Telephone (day) Ad.ess F~ Nme Telephone (~y) Ad~e~ F~ ~ .. Archit~t Nme ~ Telephone (day): Ad~ F~ ~andsca~ Architect Nme Telephone (day): Ad~ F~ Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois www.mountprospect.org 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Proposed Conditional Use (as liSted 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) z I-Iou~ o~ ~eration Address(es) (Street Number, Street) ~ Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning I Total Building Sq. Ft. rsite) [ Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use Front Rear Side Side Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking Spaces 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 will not be accepted. 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 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 authorlzedrepresentativeoftheowneroftheproperty. The petitioner and the owner ofthe 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 U-ue and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant ~ Date b4A~644 ~Y~/ ZtSC'7-, 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 material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development t00 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois www.mountprospect.org Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-10-02 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: April 26, 2002 Aaron Coon 419 Oriole Lane PUBLICATION DATE: Apdll0,2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use to allow construction of an unenclosed porch five feet into the front-yard setback. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Aaron and Julie Coon Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Minutes of the March 28 meeting were approved, with one minor correction. At 9:04, after hearing another case, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-10-02, a request for a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach 5' into the front yard setback at 4t9 Oriole Lane. He explained that this case would be Village Board final. Judy Cormolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case. She said the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. The home is currently set back 31.57' from the front lot line. The applicant proposes to construct an unenclosed porch along a portion of the front of the house. The proposal requires Conditional Use approval because the pomh will encroach into the required 30-foot front yard and create a 25-foot setback. As part of the project, the petitioners will replace the existing portico and bay window. They stated in their application .that the new porch will improve the design of the house by simplifying the roof elements. Ms. Connolly said that, in order to approve the Conditional Use, the request must meet the standards listed'in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said Sta. ffreviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. The subject parccq is an 11,341 square foot parcel developed with a one-story single family home. The applicant proposes to construct a porch that extends into the front yard, leaving a 25-foot setback. The encroachment of the porch into the front setback is listed as a Conditional Use in the R1 district and the proposal meets all other zoning requirements. The proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets, and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Ms. Connolly reported that, based on these findings, Staffrecommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a covered, unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front setback for the residence at 419 Oriole Lane, Case No. PZ-10-02. The Village Board'g decision is final for this case. Mr. Rogers asked if the petitioner knew he would not be allowed to enclose the porch if his request was granted. Aaron Coon, 419 Oriole Lane, was sworn in and testified that he was aware he would not be allowed to .enclose the porch and stated that he would not want the porch enclosed. He said he felt the addition would improve the took of the lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-10-02 Page 2 house. He plans to remove two minor roof elements and add one roof element with the remodeling. He said the unenclosed porch would extend 30" beyond the current concrete stoop. He stated that this was not a large porch and that it would fit in with the style of the house. Mr. Rogers asked about the construction of the porch. Mr. Coon said it would be a raised deck, 12" to grade. It would be cedar tongue and groove and would not have ¼" gaps like most decks. This would be a historic type floor porch Surface, not a concrete slab. Mr. Floros asked how wide the house was and how wide the porch was. Mr. Coon said the house was 40' wide and that the porch would extend across the front of the house 19'. Commission members complimented Mr. Coon on his easel presentation of his proposed project. Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 9: I0. Merrill Cotten moved to recommend allowing a Conditional Use for a porch to encroach 5' into the front yard setback at 419 Oriole Lane, Case No. PZ-10-02. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 6-0. AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Youngquist NAYS: At 9:43 p.m., after hearing another case, Keith Youngquist made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. l~'arbara Swiatek, I/la~nning Secretary PLAT OF SURVEY OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK 9 IN PROSPECT MEAD0WS, A SUBDIVISION OF THE WEST I/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST i/4 OF SECTION 2?, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE l! EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ADDRESS: 419 ORIOLE LANE, MOUNT PROSPECT, IL~NOIS N FOUND IEON PIPE/ 1.24 S. ORIOLE LANE (Be rt. A--80.O0 R-1089,10 40.09 I S'I'Ol!Y BRICK ~,. l'!i'%II)!:.N C !? 18,72 "'3 SCALE: " 20' 1 = 3 FRAME GARAGE 80.00 CHAIN LrNK FENCE 0,9 8, 5.37 LAND SURVEYOR CORPORATION NO. 116 STATE OF PREFERRED SURVEY_,.. I_N._C_:[ TO: STEPHEN S. NEWLAND PROFESSIONAL NATIONAL TITLE NETWORK, INC. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT WE, PREFERRED SURVEY, INC., ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR CORPORATION NO. 116 HAVE SURVEYED THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON AND THAT THE PLAT SHOWN REREON IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION 0F THAT SURVEY, ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS WITH THE CURRENT MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR A BOUNDARY SURVEY. MY LICENSE RENEWS ON NOVEMEER 30, 200£. GIVEN UNDER OUR HAND AND SEAL AT GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS, THIS 2ND DAY OF MAY A.D. 2001 , L~ N 61S ~/1~ FEt~S ~,~I~,~,A~/fS~R~0 R C ~:: OCR::;0 N #116 ~0'-0" 0:> 0 wvl 4~30~02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 419 ORIOLE LANE WHEREAS, Aaron and Julie Coon (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners") have filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit with respect to property located at 419 Oriole Lane (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"), and legally described as follows: Lot 3 in Block 9 in Prospect Meadows, a Subdivision of the West ~ of the SW ¼ of Sec. 27, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number: 03-27-316-003-000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioners seek a Conditional Use permit to construct an unenclosed porch encroaching five feet (5') into the required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ Case No. 10-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th day of April, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having th been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10 day of April, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in support o~the request being the subject of PZ 10-02; 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 Conditional Use would be in the best interest of the Village. 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. F Page 2/2 419 Oriole Lane SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit, as provided for in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch encroaching five feet (5') into the required front yard setback, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED andAPPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\GEN\files\W[N\ORDINANC\ConUse,419OdoleLn,porch,setback,02.doc illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAY 3, 2002 PZ-11-02 - VARIATION (SIZE & LOCATION OF A GARAGE) 306 N. OWEN LAWRENCE PEZEN- APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission denied the petitioner's request to allow a 770 square foot garage to be located 2.2-feet from the side property line, as described in the attached staff report. The petitioner is appealing the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision, which was made at the Planning & Zoning Commission's April 25, 2002 meeting. The subject property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The applicant constructed an 1 i'x22' addition to the existing 22'x24' garage without obtaining a permit and increased the size of the garage to 770 square feet, In addition, the new section of the garage is required to maintain a five-foot side setback. However, it is located 2.2-feet from the lot line. The Planning & Zoning Commission had a lengthy discussion regarding the maximum size of accesso~ structures, the need for obtaining Building Permits before starting a project, and the petitioner's alternatives to create storage space while meeting zoning regulations. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 6-0 to deny the petitioner's request for a 770 square foot garage located 2.2-feet from the side lot line for the propc~y at 306 N. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-11-02. The petitioner is appealing the P&Z's decision to the Village Board. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their May 7, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William ~. Coon~eff, Jr.,~A. ICP Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JIJDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER APRIL 18, 2002 APRIL 25, 2002 PZ-11-02 - VARIATIONS: 1) SIZE OF THE GARAGE; 2) SIDE YARD SETBACK 306 N. OWEN STREET (PEZEN RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFO~TION PETITIONER: Lawrence E. Pezen, Jr. 306 N. Owen Street Mount Prospect, 1L 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: REQUESTED ACTION: BACKGROUND Property Owner 03-34-418-017-0000 8,714 square feet PA. Single Family Residence Single Family Residence 39.4% existing (includes addition to the garage) 50% maximum per RI district VARIATIONS TO ALLOW A 770 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE WITH A 2.2- FOOT SETBACK. The subject property includes an existing-home and detached garage located on a single-family residential street. During an inspection for a new fence, a Village inspector noted that the petitioner was in the process of constructing an addition to the existing garage, but did not have a permit. The petitioner applied for a permit and during the review process, staff noted that the addition to the garage increased the size of the garage to 770 square feet, which is larger than the 672 sq. f~. maximum size permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, and that the addition to the garage did not comply with the five-foot minimum side yard setback. The petitioner is seeldng a variation for the size and location of the structure. In the attached application, the petitioner states that the grade changes to the property have caused water to pool in the rear of the property. The petitioner states that recently water has come up almost 24-feet from the rear property line. Consequently, structures cannot be placed in the rear yard without impacting the drainage flow. 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 addition to the garage was constructed. Z~ 11-02 Planning & Zoning Meeting April 25, 2002 Page 2 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 property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel measures 8,714 square feet. It is rectangular shaped and is not located in a flood zone. The Engineering Division does not have a record of the drainage problems referenced in the petitioner's application. The parcel is developed with a single family home and a detached garage. The applicant constructed an 11'x22' addition to the existing 22'x24' garage without obtaining a permit. The addition extends the width of the existing garage, which has a 2.2-foot side yard setback. Current code requires a five-foot setback, and although the garage is a legal non-conforming s~'ucture, the addition to it does not comply with Sec. 14.402.B of the Zoning Ordinance. This section of the code states that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged, maintained, repaired or altered as long as the nonconformity is not increased or an additional nonconformity is created. The location of the addition to the garage increases the amount of the nonconforming setback and is required to maintain a five- foot setback. While the addition to the garage cannot be seen from the curb, it is almost 15% larger than the maximum size allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. (The 242 square foot addition to the garage increases the size of the garage to 770 square feet; the original structure was 528 sq.ft.). The Zoning Ordinance was amended last summer to increase the size of detached garages from 600 square feet to 672 square feet. The petitioner's request does not meet the standards for a variation listed in the zoning ordinance. As part of the review, staffnoted that the petitioner is permitted up to 50% impervious lot coverage and currently has 39.4% lot coverage. If the purpose of the addition is to create a storage area, then the petitioner has the alternative of constructing a t44 square foot addition to the garage and installing a 120 square foot shed. An addition (6'x2'4') to the garage along its north wall would not impact the side yard setback nonconformity. The new shed could be located closer to the house, out of any water drainage areas, and the petitioner would have slightly more storage space (264 square feet vs. the existing 242 sq. ft.) and comply with zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION Although the requested variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to 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 deny the Variations to permit a 770 square foot garage to be located 2.2-feet from the side yard for the residence at 306 N. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-11-02. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. I concur: William/J. C y, P, Director of Community Development Mount Prospect Planning & Zoning Commision Reply to case #PZ-11-02 There is an established garage on the property which was built in compliance to the .previous zoning ordinance. If the petitioner wants an oversized garage, it should be built to the current zoning ordinance and not added as an addition to the rear of the present building. Proper gutterinstallation and drainage into the petitioners own yard should be established and required. [name & address withheld by request of author] N. Owen St. Mount Prospect 3~9 318 317 316 315 314 313 312 311 310 309 308 307 l~! 305 304 303 302 301 300 316 I ,~x~ ~, 310 ~%~X~ 314 ~ ~~ ~ 30a , 3O6 / ~ i ~ 222 Isabella Street ~ ~ ~ ~ 214 ~ 208 206 204 202 200 116 114 219 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 227 226~ 225 224~, 223 222 ~ 221 220 219 218 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 2O9 208 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 112 110 108 106 104 102 100 Thw 113 114 1tl 112 109 110 107 108 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 209 207 205 203 201 206 204 202 200 Ter Street 114 112 Busse Park 110 Mt. Prospect Park District 108 106 104 101 102 100 Henry Street PZ-11-02 306 N. Owen (Pezen Residence) Variation for an Oversized Garage 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 Planning & Zoning Commission has final administrative ;iuthority 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 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW O Village Board Finalo P&Z Final Case Number PZ - - 02 Development Name/Address Date of Submission Hearing Date Common Address{es) (Stree~ Number, Street) Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) ' o3 -gq.- ¥t7'3.-ot)- oocO Legal Description (a.ttach a~_.itional sheets if necessary) . . LoT '7 /~4 L~-rx.I< .._.K 2:;q I~L,~e-'F$ &,~O~¢_9',~) c~-P,4PT Ngme Telephone (day) Corporation Telephone (evening) Street Address · Fax City ..---- Intere]~jn Property State Zip Code Pager d, qSz ~/7- 7~173 Name Telephone (day) Co~oratinn Telephone (evening) S~eet Address Fax: Ci~ State Zip Code ..Pager Developer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax A~omey Name Tel~hone (day) Ad.ess Fax S~eyor Name Telephone (day) Ad.ess Fax Eng~eer Name Telephone (day) Arc~tect Name Telephone (day): Ad.ess Fax Lan~cape ~c~tect Name Telephone (day): Ad&ess Fax Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDr) R47 qO')6064 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 ode Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested Iq, go(,, Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations Please note ~t ~e application MI1 not be accepted ~fil ~s petition has been ~lly co~leted and ail req~ed plans ~d o~er mten ~Is ~ve been satishctofil7 subdued to ~e Plamg Division. It is s~ongly suggested ~at ~e petitioner schedule an appobment ~ ~e appmphate Village smffso ~at ~tefials can be reviewed for acc~acy and completeness prior to sub~al. 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 affn-m that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with tl~.s application are true and accurate to ¢ ?/% the be~ of my knowledge. . . 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 material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 ~:0 %;0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-11-02 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: April 26, 2002 Lawrence E. Pezen, Jr. 306 N. Owen St. PUBLICATION DATE: April 10, 2002 REQUEST: Variations to allow a 770 square foot garage with a 2.2-foot setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner ,INTERESTED PARTIES: Lawrence and Pat Pezen ~ice Chairperson R/chard Rogers called the meeting .to order at 7:30 ~.m. Minutes of the March 28 meeting were approved, with one minor correction. At 9:12, after hearing two cases, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-tl-02, a request for Variations to allow an oversized garage and for the Side-yard setback. He explained that th/s case would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connol!y, Senior Planner, introduced staff's memorandum for the case. She reported the subject property includes an existing home and an existing detached garage located on a single-family residential street. The petitioner added to the existing garage and increased the size of the garage to 770 square feet. The modification was done without a permit-and the petitioner is seeking a variation for the size and location of the addition. The existing garage is located a little more than 2-feet from the side property line. It is a legal nonconformity. However, the addition to the garage is required to have a 5-foot setback. Also, the size exceeds the maximum 672 square feet permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner stated in his application that structures cannot be placed -in the rear yard w/thout impacting drainage flow and that water has come up almost 24-feet from -the rear property line recently. In order to approve the variations, the commission has to find that the request meets the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolty said that Staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey, site plan, visited the site, and found that the subject property is rectangular shaped and it's .not in a flood zone. The applicant constructed an 11'x22' addition to the existing 22'x24' garage without obtaining a permit. Current code requires a five-foot setback, and limits the size of the garage ~o 6-72 square feet. While the addition to the garage cannot be seen from the street, the garage is almost 15% larger than the maximum size allowed by 'the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner's request does not meet the standards for a variation listed in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that as part of the review, staff noted that the petitioner is permitted up to 50% impervious lot coverage and currently has 39.4% lot coverage. She said that if the purpose of the addition is to create a storage area, then the petitioner has the alternative of constructing a smaller addition to the garage and installing a shed. She said that an addition to the garage along its north wall would not impact the side yard setback nonconformity. The new shed could be located closer t? the house, out of any water drainage areas, and the petitioner would have slightly more storage space, while complying with zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly noted that although the requested variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ- 11-02 Page 2 findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to permit a 770 square foot garage to be located 2.2-feet from the side yard for the residence at 306 N. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-11-02. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers asked if the work had been stopped because of not having a permit. Ms. Connolly said yes that this addition was discovered when building inspectors were inspecting another project, which had a permit. Mr. Pezen then applied for a permit, but staff denied it because the project did not meet zoning regulations. She said that the permit would be issued if the Commission approves the Variations and that the Building Inspectors will inspect the work. Merrill Cotten asked about the status of the construction. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner has finished a significant amount of the project and is here to answer specific questions about the project. Lawrence E. Pezen, Jr., was sworn in and testified.that two sides and the roof were completed. Mr. Pezen stated that when they moved into the house in 1977 it had been a rental property with no improvements done since it had been built. Mr. Pezen said he has improved the property since he moved in by adding the garage to its current 528 s.f. size, erecting a privacy fence, installing a new furnace/AC. He said that he obtained permits for the other projects and said he made a huge mistake starting the construction to increase his garage to 770 s.f.. Mr. Pezen says the 528 s.f. is the only part that can be called a garage because the rear enclosure is only 6-I/2' high, not tall enough for cars, and it cannot be seen from the street. He stated that.he has a 5' privacy fence around yard and that the neighbor has tall landscaping at the south side. He said that he will not park his vehicles, which are SUVs, in the addition and that there is no record of water problems with Engineering because he never reported any. Mr. Pezen said the two structures he currently has add up to 770 s.f. (528 +242 = 770). He said that.he would have more lot coverage and less green space if he were to increase the garage to an allowable 144 s.f. and build another 120 s.f. shed. Mr. Pezen referred to several other Village meetings fi.om which he inferred that the garage and shed restrictions would be increased. Ms. Connolly clarified that he must meet current codes with any construction he is undemldng now. Mr. Pezen also said he did not understand the significance of the 5-foot setbacks because all garages are uniformly setback in his neighborhood and the area is usually used for storage. He said he did not think that his neighbors object to his project and it is unlikdy to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Rogers acknowledged the petitioner's admission that not Obtaining a permit was a m/stake. He asked the P&Z members if they had questions for Mr. Pezen. Matthew Sledz asked about access to the storage area. Mr. Pezen said it is ~hrough a double bi-fold door inside the garage and would have no outside access. Mrl Sledz asked who built the original garage and when. Mr. Pezen said a contractor built it in 1980 and that it replaced a 1-1/2 car garage. He said that there was a garage permit issued at the time. Mr. Sledz asked Ms. Connolly why the garage did not have a 5' setback if it was perm/tted. Ms. Connolly said she did not know the required setback in 1980. Joseph Donnelly asked if requirements to be a shed would'be met if the garage were separated into two structures. Ms. Connolly said a 3' separation between the structures is required. Keith Youngquist noted that the petitioner added a garage in the I980s and an addition to his house in' 81 with .l~m/ts, but he did not get a_permit for this project. Mr. Youngquist said he had concerns with that since Mr. Pezen's actions could be interpreted to intentionally disregard Village regulations. Mr. Youngquist said the petitioner could pull a permit to add 144 s.f. to'his garage, bringing it up to the allowable 672 s.f., or build 120 s.f. shed. Mr. Youngquist said that was ail he could support. Mr. Youngquist empathized with the fact that Mr. Pezen akeady poured concrete and built the structure. However, he created his own problem. Mr. Youngqulst said he cannot support an original home of 850 s.f. having a garage the same size. Richard Rogers said he could do a t2'x12' addition and that the Commission is stringent about the 672 s:f. lim/t, which was just increased bom 600 s.f. a few months ago. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-11~02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 9:41. Joseph Donnelly moved to grant a Variation for an oversized, 770 s.f. garage at 306 N. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-I 1- 02. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was disapproved 6-0. AYES: None NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Youngquist Joseph Donnelly moved to grant a Variation to allow a 2'2" side-yard setback at 306 N. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-11- 02. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was disapproved 6-0. AYES: None NAYS: Cotten, Dormelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Youngquist At 9:43 p.m., Keith Youngquist made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary -- J~t~ Cor~no fl/, ~er~or ~lalmer onnoll¥, Judy From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Hettinger [path@leesmkt.com] Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:35 AM 'jconnoll@mountprospect org' Variance CASE PZ- 11-02 for Lawrence Pezen, 306 N. Owen Dear Ms. Connoll, We are e-mailing you today to let you know that we are next door neighbors of Lawrence Pezen, and have NO OBJECTION to the variation he is seeking from the village, and hope you allow him his request. Thank you. Mr. & Mrs. Harry Hettinger VWL 5/1/02 5~2~02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATEDAT306NORTH OWEN STREET WHEREAS, Lawrence Pezen (heCeinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for Variations with respect to property located at 306 North Owen Street (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 7 in Block 3 in Bluett's Subdivision of part of the N. ~ of the SE ¼ of Sec. 34, Township 42 North, Range 11 E. of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number: 03-34-418-017-000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations to construct a 770 square-foot garage, which exceeds the maximum size limit of 672 square feet, with a 2.8 foot encroachment into the five-foot minimum side yard setback allowed by the Mount Prospect Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of PZ Case No. 11-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25 day of April, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having th been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topicson the 10 dayofApril, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees, with respect to PZ Case No. 11-02; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have considered the request herein and the required majority vote 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 2/2 306 N. Owen Street 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.8 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of a 770 square-foot garage with a 2.2 foot side yard setback, 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: Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\GEN~tes\WIN~ORDINANC~Vadation 306 N Owen,ga rage,May,02.doc LA W OFFICES KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD. Suite 1660 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903 Telephone (312) 984~400 Facsimile (312) 984-6444 (312) 606-7077 Orland Park Offi~ 15010 S. Ray.ia Avenue, Stfit¢ 17 Orland Park. IL 60462-3162 Telephone (708) 349-3858 Fa¢$1miI¢ (708) 349-1506 Writer= s Direct Dial (312) 984-6420 writer=s E-Mall emhill(&ktlnet.eom TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect Everette M. Hill, Jr. May 2, 2002 Elimination of Duplicative Code Sections I have tendered, for the Board's consideration, an ordinance deleting Article IV "Fireworks Discharge; Explosives" from Chapter 23 of our Village Code. The reason is that precisely the same language is found in Chapter 24 of our Code. This ordinance will eliminate the duplication. hjm/bb ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Article IV, "Fireworks Discharge; Explosives" of Chapter 24, "Fire Prevention Code" of the Vii[age Code of Mount Prospect shall be amended by deleting Article IV in its entirety. SECTION 2: Article IV of Chapter 24 shall be reserved. SECTION 3: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by lawl AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: RE: LAW OFFICES KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD. Suite 1660 20 North Wacker Drive Chica~, Illinois 60606-2903 Telephone (312) 984-6400 Facsimile (312) 984-6444 (312) 606-7077 Orlanfl Park Office 15010 S. Ravlnla Avenue, S~te 17 Orland Park, IL 60462-3 ! 62 Telephone (708) 349-3888 Facsimile (708) 3494506 Wriler=s Direct Dial (312) 9844420 Wfiter=s E-Mail ~mhil!(3ktine$~c0m MEMORANDUM Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect Everette M. Hill, Jr. May 2, 2002 New Development Code Rinda Y. Allison Thnn~s M. Melody Lance C. Mallna Kat~leen T. Henno John R. Wiktor George A. Wagnem lames G. Wargo Suzanne M. Fitch Michael A. Marts The staff is requesting that the Board waive the secopd reading of the ordinance adopting the new Development Code and its ancillary provisio~ns as prepared by the Village staff. Since there have been no substantive changes since the last Village Board review and since the document is 250 pages, the staff has not attached the Ordinance to this Memo. If any Board member wishes to review the ordinance, it is available from the Clerk's office or from my secretary, Holly. The only change that I have currently made to the staff draft is to cite all fees, bonds and penalties to the appropriate section of Appendix A, our fee, bond and penalty schedule. Because of the importance of adopting these critical revisions in a timely fashion (to use them for this permit season), my notations are handwritten on the staff draft. Bear in mind that these notations are not substantive, they are only made for the purpose of assudng that the new provisions track with our current Appendix A. The Mayor will have a clean execution original that properly incorporates my notations. At such time as the new chapters and section designations have been completely incorporated into our Appendix A, I will once again tender the Development Code to the Village Board for reapproval with those new designations. I apologize for requesting this two step process, but it will enable the staff to begin implementing the new Code immediately. Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TREE CITY USA TO: FROM: DATE! SUBJECT: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK LINDELQF MAY 1,2002 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS BACKGROUND In 1998 several problems were identified in the process in place to review and approve building permits. Not only was the process lengthy and confusing for the applicant, but the Code itseff made applying and enforcing Village Ordinances difficult. In response to these problems, the Village Board has directed Staff to reexamine the entire construction process from. initial application through final-acceptance..To fulfill this directi~ve, the following actions have been taken: .- - The position of "Plans Examiner" was created in order to better manage the permit process, and provide better and quicker response to applicants. This also eliminated the need for a sign-off by Public Works on most "walk-thru" permits, thereby allowing them to be processed solely at Village Hall. - An additional Project Engineer was hired to better distribute the workload amongst Staff in order to reduce the permit review time. In addition to those actions listed above, in 1999, Staff began the task o~' reevaluating the Chapter 16 of the Village Ordinances, better known as the "Development Code". The "Development Code" governs site related development and construction standards. Modifications have been made to Chapter 16 as well as other chapters of the Code as the nature of development has changed over the years from open land development to infilling and downtown redevelopment projects. These intermittent code modifications have been difficult to apply to the various types of development projects we see on a daily basis for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to confusing organization, vague improvement requirements, and conflicting or out of date construction standards. The first step in improving the Development Code was taken last June when the first Code modifications were presented to the Village Board. These changes defined the scopes of "Developments", "Site Improvements", and "Maintenance", and detailed the permit and construction requirements associated with each. The Village Board approved these changes last July. Page 2 Proposed Development Code Modifications May 1, 2002 DISCUSSION We have now completed the second part of the task by addressing the remaining concerns with the Development Code, specifically the reorganization of the chapters to eliminate redundant or conflicting information concerning site construction requirements. To that end, the current Development Code will be split into two chapters 15 and 16. Chapter 15 will contain all subdivision, development, and site improvement procedures. (The current code shows Chapter 15 as "reserved"). This chapter also includes information detailing all aspects of the permit process, and intended to make the entire Code more "user friendly". Chapter 16 will be dedicated to site construction standards. Two other chapters, 9 and 22 will be completely reorganized so that pertinent sections can be included in the development code and redundant information eliminated. These four chapters will be identified as follows: Current Chapter Title Proposed Chapter Title Chapter 9: "Streets & Sidewalks" "Village Utility, Street, and Tree Regulations" Chapter 15: -- reserved -- "Subdivision, Development 'and Site I.mprovement'Procedures" Chapter 16: "Development" "Site Construction Standards" Chapter 22: "Water, Sewer, and Floodplain Regulations" "Floodplain Regulations" Minor changes will also be made to Chapter 14, "Zoning"; Chapter 18, "Traffic"; Chapter 21, "Building Code"; and Chapter 24, "Fire Prevention Code" to provi~ie consistency throughout the Village Code.. Finally, during the process of reorganizing the Code, we have taken the opportunity and time to reexamine the content of the Code. Most of the Code is current, clear, and needed no additional modifications. However, where we identified out of date regulations or standards, inconsistencies, or other problems, these have been corrected. Some of the changes in the content of the Code include: - Elimination of the Private Development Completion Guarantee. (Current Section 16.607; Proposed Section n/a) - Sight triangles have been better defined to reflect national design standards. (Current Sections 9.105, 9.117, and 14.2401; Proposed Section 9.308) - Sprinkling bans have been changed to allow even numbered addresses on even numbered days, and odd numbered addresses on odd numbered days. (Current Section 22.405.2.A.1; Proposed Section 9.406.B.1.a) age 3 Proposed Development Code Modifications May 1,2002 The policy of assisting residents with the restoration work within the public right of way associated with sanitary service repair has been incorporated in the Code. (Current Section n/a; Proposed Section 9.504.D) The requirement that detention ponds be located a minimum of 25' from a building has been eliminated. (Current Section 16.405.F; Proposed Section n/a) - Fees for reinspections for Certificates of Occupancy and Completion have been instituted. (Current Section n/a; Proposed Section 15.702.D.3) The measures listed above have allowed the maximum review time for a site development to be reduced from sixty (60) days to thirty (30) days. (Current Section 16.302.C.1; Proposed Section 15.403.C. 1 ) These proposed modifications to the Village Codes were brought before the Economic Development Commission on February 7, 2002, and before the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 14, 2002. Both commissions expressed support for the proposed changes. RECOMMENDATION We believe that these proposed changes to the Development Code make the Code easier to use for developers, designers, and contractors, as well as for Staff. For that reason we recommend approving a0d adopting the proposed changes to the Development Code. The changes to the Village Code discussed in this memo were presented at the Commitlee of the Whole Meeting on April 9, 2002, and received a favorable response. It is therefore our intent to present these changes for a first reading at the Village Board meeting on May 7,2002. Appropriate Village staff will be on hand to answer any questions that you or the Village Board may have. Chuck Lindelof Director of Public Works Glen R. Andler Director of Community Development William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP Fire Chief Michael J. Figolah VilIage Clerk Velma Lowe X:\FILES\ENG[NEER\DevCode\Present~Final\Board-2.doc