Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. OLD BUSINESS 9/3/02 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEBRUARY 1, 2002 ZvBA'3ARIA4-'f~)NS FOR THE SIZE OF SHED & ITS LOCATION (IN ~~M'~ AND I' 1" TO 4' 1" FROM THE LOT LINE) 1801 BOULDER DRIVE (HENNIGAN RESIDENCE) The Planning and Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to deny Case ZBA-34-01, a request for a 192-square foot shed to be located in an easement, with setbacks varying from 1'i" to 4'1" from the lot line, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 24, 2002 meeting. The subject property is an existing home located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The subject property is triangular shaped and is located between a Citizens Utility easement and the Wisconsin Central Rail Road easement. Similar to another variation case, the petitioner replaced a shed without obtaining a permit and is seeking variations to allow the over sized shed to remain in its current location. The petitioner said that the previous shed was damaged in a storm and that the new shed is the same size and is in the same location as the previous shed. (The property was annexed into Mount Prospect in 1971 and the shed was most likely built when the property was under Cook County jurisdiction.) The Planning and Zoning Comrrfission discussed the petitioner's request and noted that the location of the shed was adjacent to utility easements and that the petitioner had obtained sign-offs from Citizen Utility Company. Planning and Zoning members discussed that the shed was hardly visible from the street and that it was smaller than the previous request for an over sized shed. The Planning and Zoning Commission said that the location and size of the petitioner's shed had minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood, but the request failed to meet the standards for a variation as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the request for variations for a I92-square foot shed, located in an easement, 1' 1" to 4' 1" from the lot lines for the property at 1801 Boulder Drive, case no. ZBA-34-01. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 5, 2002 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William t' C~'dney, J~.,IA. ICP H:\GENXPLANNINGXPlanning & Zoning COMMW&Z 2002kMEJ Memos~ZBA-34-01 1801 Boulder - Hennigan Shed.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & zONING COMMiSsION CASE NO. ZBA-34-01 PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 24, 2002 Helen Hennigan 1801 E. Boulder Dr. January 9, 2002 Daily Herald Variations to: (l) allow a shed with a setback of 1' 1" to 4' 1"; (2) locate a shed in an easement; (3) increase the size ora shed from 120 s.f. to 192 s.f. Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Helen Hennigan Teresa Maglione-Hamilton Gary & Nancy Strahinic Enric P. Solans Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m. Ms. Juracek welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is comprised of the former Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. She introduced new members Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commissioner, Matthew Sledz. At 8:09, after hearing Case No. ZBA-32-01 and Case No. PC-14-01, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-34-0I a request for Variations to the size and location of a shed. She said that this case is Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject property includes an existing home located on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road, Citizens Utilities, and another single-family residence. Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioner did not obtain a building permit when she replaced an existing shed and that the new shed does not comply with zoning regulations. She said that the new shed is located 1' from the side lot line and 4' from the rear lot line. It is 192 s.f., which is larger than the 120 square feet permitted by code. In addition, code requires that the shed be located no less than 5' from the lot lines and does not permit structures, which includes sheds, in an easement. Ms. Connolly reported that the property owner was notified that the shed did not comply with zoning regulations and that the homeowner is seeking variations for the size of the shed and its location. The petitioner states that the existing shed is the same square footage as the previous shed and that it is in the same location as the old shed. Ms. Connolly said that it is possible that the previous shed was constructed ~vhen this section of the Village was unincorporated and under County rule. She said that the previous shed might have been larger than 120 s.f. and not met current setback requirements, but that the Zoning Ordinance would recognize it as a 'legal non-conforming structure' and alloxved it to remain. The non-conforming shed could be repaired and maintained, but a new shed, which is ~vhat the petitioner installed, has to meet current code requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission ZBA-34-200 I Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the petitioner also states there is insufficient storage on site and that a larger shed is needed to store household items. The petitioner's application includes letters from t~vo neighbors expressing their support of the larger shed and a letter from Citizens Utility dated June 21, 2001 authorizing the applicant to replace the previous shed with the current shed. Ms. Connolly said that the letter does not indicate the exact location of the shed or the size of the new shed. Staff has been in contact with Citizens Utility and received a letter dated January 14, 2002, which states that the company will allow the shed to remain, but that the company is not responsible for any loss incurred as a result of having the shed in the easement. Ms. Connolly explained that in order to grant a variation, the request has to meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the standards are the same as the previous case and relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. ConnoIly said staff had reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site after the ne~v shed was constructed. She said that the parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The property is approximately 11,000 square feet; not in a flood zone, and is a triangular shape. Ms. Connolly said the applicant constructed an oversized shed in an easement and the shed does not meet the minimum 5' setback requirements. The shed does not appear to be permanently attached to the ground and can be relocated out of the easemeut and meet setback requirements. However, the shed is larger than the maximum size that is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the shed is screened from the 'curb-view' and is adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road & Citizens Utilities, but the shed is visible from other backyards. In addition, she said that the Iocation of the shegl is a concern because it is in an easement. The homeowner is at risk if the utility companies or the Village need to do work in the easement and a structure in an easement could disrupt drainage patterns. Ms. Connolly noted that, simiIar to the previous case, the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character. However, the cited justifications for the variations of limited storage and replacing a non- conforming shed do not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a I92 s.f. shed to be located in an easement and be 1'I" and 4'I" from the side and rear lot lines for the residence at 1801 Boulder Drive, Case No. ZBA-34-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Helen Hennigan was sworn in and testified that her property backed up to a cul-de-sac and was the closest house to the railroad tracks and hlgb-tension electric ~vires. She stated that the Citizen's Utilities property is to her right, and a home that is occupied by her daughter is next to the Citizens Utility property. She showed a picture of the shed and said it conld not be seen from tbe street. She said that her neighbors approved of the shed and its location and that Citizen's Utilities have no objection to the shed. Ms. Hennigan stated that Citizens Utilities has given her a key to their property, which she maintains for them. She said the size of the shed is necessary to keep patio furniture, a lawn tractor, and a sno~v blower. There is no room in her garage because it houses two cars and a refrigerator. She also said her husband had passed away Decernber 16 and that obtaining a permit for the shed was over Iooked because she ~vas focusing on her husband's health and another borne improvement project (which she had a permit for before starting the work). Leo Floros asked why she had not obtained a permit. Ms. Hennigan said she did not know a permit ~vas required to replace an existing shed. Richard Rogers asked about the location of the sbed, ~vbicb was in an easement. Ms. Hennigan said Citizen's Utilities has not used the easement for thirty years and that she bas maintained the property for them for thirty years. lanning and Zoning Commission ZBA-34-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Ms. Juracek asked if the shed was on a foundation. Ms. Henni base. an said she did not know, that perhaps it was on a brick Gary Strahinic, 1503 Boulder, was sworn in and said he had no objection to the shed, which he said was nice looking and practical. He said that he did not know there was an easement where the shed was located because Ms. Hennigan maintained the property. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Leo Floros pointed out that this was the second case of the evening in which a shed had been built without a permit; that the sheds were oversized and located in an easement. He said he could not see any alternative but to vote no. Richard Rogers moved to approve the request as presented by Case No. ZBA-34-01, Variations to: (I) allow a shed with a setback of I;l" to 4' I"; (2) locate a shed in an easement; (3) increase the size ora shed from 120 s.5 to 192 s.f. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. uPON ROLL CALL: Motion was denied 7-0. AYES: NAYS: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Youngquist, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek At 10:02 p.m., after the Planning and Zoning Commission heard another case, tbe Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made motion to commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, DonnelIy, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Chairperson Juracek announced it was necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to tbe Commission. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers, Merrill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Sledz, Yonngquist, and Juracek NAYS:None ABSTENTIONS: Rogers Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention. As there were no other "housekeeping" items discussed, at 10:05 p.m., Ricbard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Sxviatek, Planning Secretary S~a~y Cofi,~li~y, Se,tdo'~>'lannc~r ~ Time: Pages: TO: 25LEC OP£E,t TRA*r&W,r ~'vTAL "[? 70U 25)0 NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL A.,~.A.P. " {'including cover .... , ~ COMPANY: FAX N-[_~'IB ER: FgOM: This message is hl:c,n(l,~;d~ only tot ',.he m~ of thc ind£vidual or ei~fity to which k is ad&eased. ~tis t~s~e ~tain5 info~:~ation from (~kizens Water Rea, utc*: fl~t m7 k~ pdvileg~ mnfid~nfial ~d exert Rom di~e ~ger applicable law. If .:kc reader o(~is rr~g} ~ ~ ~ ~t~{¢~ or ~e e~lfly~ o~ ag~t r~¢ lkx delive~g d~e ~,~gc, to ~e m~d r~mnk.~z are ~y ~t~fi~ ~t ~y d~m~ .~[a ~' no~ u~ ~t.~ly a~ ~e teI~ nu~ I~*~ a~vc. We ~I1 ~ ~y to ~ge for ~ r~ to us of fi~is me,ge via thc United S~t~ P~l ~kc at ~ c~ to y~a. MtzS,SAGE. Citizens Ul:ilitie~ Company of Illinois , lO00 lnternationale Parkway / Woodridge, Illinms 60517 Telephone: (630) 739-8810 / Fax: (630) 739d)477 anuaW 21,2002 Village of Mount Prospect: This letter is to advise that we are giving permission to Helen Maglione Hennigan of 180I Boulder Dr in the city of Mt. Prospect to install a new shed. The shed is to be installed in the backyard next to a Citizens Water Resources facility. She has been a very good customer for close to 30 years, she has taken care of the site by trimming the bushes and seal coating the driveway. In addition, we have given her a key to the, gate so she can park her pop up camper in the fenced in yard. If you should have any questions, please call me at 630-739-8852, Thank You, Dean Thorsen North Operations, Foreman Citizens Water Resources Tuesday, November 27, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: The storage building in the backyard at 1801 E. Boulder Drive, Mount Prospect is barely visible from our prope~:y at 1803 E. Boulder Drive. We also consider it an improvement over the one it replaced, and believe our neighbors should be allowed to keep it as is. Gary and Nancy Strahinic (847) 699~8188 ecember 2, 200I To whom it may concern; I am writing this letter regarding the shed at 1801 Boulder Drive. The shed is an improvement to the neighborhood. We live at 1800 East Boulder Drive and have n9 objections to the shed. Teri & JeffHamilton Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER JANUARY 17, 2002 JANUARY 24, 2002 ZBA-34-01 - VARIATIONS: 1) SIZE OF SHED 2) LOCATION OF SHED (LESS THAN 5' FROM LOT LINE & IN AN EASEMENT) 1801 BOULDER DRIVE (HENNIOAN RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Helen C. Hennigan 1801 Boulder Drive Mount Prospect, IL 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER: Property Owner PARCEL NUMBER: 03-25-309-033 LOT SIZE: 11,064.6 square feet EXISTING ZONING: R1 Single Family Residence EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence LOT COVERAGE: 33% existing (includes shed) 45% maximum per RI district REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATIONS 1) TO ALLOW A SHED WITH A SETBACK OF 1' l" TO 4' I", 2) LOCATE A SHED IN AN EASEMENT, 3) INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SHED FROM 120 SQ. FT. TO 192 SQ. FT. BACKGROUND The subject property includes an existing home located on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road and another single-family residence. The petitioner replaced an existing shed with a 12'x16' shed and located it one-foot from the side lot line and four feet from the rear lot line (no permit was applied for). An inspection conducted by the Building Division confirmed the size and location of the shed. The properly owner was notified that a Building Permit was required to construct a shed and that the existing shed did not comply with Zoning regulations. The homeowner is seeking variations for the size of the shed and its location: 1) in an easement and 2) less than five-feet from the rear and side lot lines, which is the minimum setback permitted. ZBA-34-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 2 In the attached application, the petitioner states that the existing shed is the same square footage as the previous shed. It is possible that the original shed was constructed when this section of the Village was unincorporated (Village records indicated that this area was annexed in 1971, and under Cook County jurisdiction). While the previous shed may have been larger than 120 square feet and did not meet setback requirements, the Zoning Ordinance would allow it to remain and recognizes it as a 'legal non-conforming structure'. As such, the shed could be repaired and maintained, but a new shed would have to meet current code requirements (Sec. 14.402.C). In addition, the petitioner states that they have insufficient storage on site and need the larger shed to store household items. The petitioner's application includes letters from two neighbors expressing their support of the 192 square foot shed and a letter from Citizens Utility dated June 21,2001 authorizing the applicant to replace the previous shed with the current shed. The letter does not indicate the exact location of the shed or the size of the new shed. During a follow-up conversation with the applicant, staff was unable to determine if the shed was installed before or after the applicant received the letter from Citizens Utility. As a result of this zoning cased Staff has been in contact with Citizens Utility and received a letter dated January 14, 2002 addressed to the applicant. The January 2002 letter states that the company will allow the shed, but is not responsible for any loss incurred as a result of having the shed in the easement. To conduct its analysis of the requested Variations, staffreviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site after the new shed was constructed. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations 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; ca lack of desire to increase financial gain; and ca protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel measures 11,064.6 square feet. It is out of any flood zone and is triangular shaped. The parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The applicant constructed a 12'x16' shed in an easement and the shed does not meet the minimum five-foot setback requirements. The shed is not permanently attached to the ground and ca~ be relocated out of the easement and can meet setback requirements. In addition, the shed is larger than the maximum size that is allo~ved by the Zoning Ordinance. Although the shed is screened from the 'curb-view' and is adjacent to property owned by the Wisconsin Central Rail Road, it is visible from other backyards. In addition, the location of the shed is a concern because it is in an easement. As noted in other staff memos, placing a structure in an easement puts the homeowner at r/sk if the utility companies or the Village need to do work in the easement: the structure may be knocked down and the homeowner is responsible for ali associated costs of repair/ng or replacing the structure. Also, placing a structure in an easement could disrupt drainage patterns. BA-34-01 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 24, 2002 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the justifications for the variations of limited storage and replacing a non-conforming shed do not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a 192 square foot shed to be located in an easement and be 1'I" and 4'1" from the side and rear lot lines for the residence at 1801 Boulder Drive, Case No. ZBA-34-0I. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development ,I : ! ~---~ .~~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: SENIOR PLANNER JUDY CONNOLLY PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK LINDELOF JANUARY 4, 2002 ZBA-34-01 (1801 BOULDER DR.) We have completed our review of ZBA-34-01. We have no comment concerning the size of the shed, however, we do not support the requested variation to allow the shed to be located in a public utilities and drainage easement. The plat of survey shows the proposed shed extending across the side lot line onto the neighbor's property. The shed must be located on the applicant's property, the encroachment shown on'the plat cannot be permitted. it should also be noted that Village policy prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement. Although the Village does not have any public sanitary sewers or water mains located in this easement, other utility companies (Citizen's Utilities, CornEd, AT&T, etc.) may. Consequently, even if the variation is granted, the shed still cannot be approved until all utility companies having rights to the easement have also approved the location of the shed. It must be stressed that the easement was granted for the maintenance of public utilities. Allowing the shed to be located within the easement does not supercede the rights of access for the utility companies to maintain their utilities. If at any time in the future maintenance work is necessary on any utility in the area, it would be the property owner's responsibility to remove and replace the shed. Ne'ither the Village, nor the utility companies would be responsible for any damage to the shed resulting from the maintenance. (it should be noted that this is consistent with the Village's policy concerning fences installed within easements.) Furthermore, Village policy prohibits the location of any structure, or the placement of any fill within five feet (5') of a side or rear property line. This policy was adopted to preserve existing drainage patterns. It has been our experience that placing obstructions within this "buffer area" creates the potential for disrupting existing drainage patterns, and creating or aggravating backyard flooding problems. age 2 ZBA-34-01;1801 Boulder Dr. Januaw 4,2002 Finally, no reasons have been presented explaining why the shed cannot be located outside the easement, at least 5' from any property line. Thus, we cannot support the applicant's request to locate shed as it is shown on the plan. if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Chuck Lindelof X:\FILES\ENGINEER\REV-ENG~ZBA~001\1801Boulder. DOC e: ZBA-34-01 (1801 Boulder, 24-Jan-2002) With property within 100 feet of the petitioner's 'shed', I was invited to submit comments regarding the case. Other than my displeasure to view from my yard a shed the size of a single car garage, I have no objection to the variation. After all, it is not my code/regulation that is the object of such obvious contempt. I have no desire to be the bad guy. For better or worse, it's your code and your rather unpleasant job. When the shed was under construction, and I inquired into the governing regulations, I was informed by the Engineering Department, that the primary justification to build in non-conformity to the zoning was 'extreme hardship'; In this case, the only hardship I can detect is entirely brought upon by the petitioner by ignoring the mandated procedure to apply for a permit before construction. I doubt that is what was meant when the code was adopted. Ignorance of the code could be a defense, however, that would be doubtful in this case where a permit was secured for a much larger (and visible) house addition in the same period. If you follow the considerable precedent and recommend the variation, please be aware the message such action communicates to others. A variation granted of an 'after-the-fact' nature signals residents that their chances of building in non- compliance with the coSe are greatly enhanced by ignoring the ordinance and taking your chances if the violation is discovered afterwards. It makes absolute saps of those who follow the rules and make application prior to construction. Most of all is says that Mount Prospect officials have more contempt for the code they were elected/appointed to enforce than those who ignore it. If you do affirm a variance, may I suggest you could avoid embarrassing reoccurrences by accompanying the recommendation to the Council with a recommendation to remove the regulation from the Village code? If not, I see no reason in applying for a permit for my next building project, with the knowledge of which path has the greater chance of approval. AI Engberg 1801Hopi 847.824.0966 1'14:02 11:10 FAX 630 739 ~477 CITIZENS UTILITY ~002,'002 J~muary 14, 2002 Ms. HeJen C. Hennigan 1801 Boulder Drive Momlt Prospeez, IL 60056 EASE:kr£NT ENC. ROACI-IiklENT FOR 1801 BOUL. D. ER DRIVE Dear Ms. Hennigan: Citizens Water Resources Las reviewed your request for encroacNu~t upon the utility easement located along tlle North~vest property line at the referenced address, lega.1]y described as LOT i5 Ex' THeE RESU'BDiVISION OF LOTS 65, 66, 67, 68 & 69 AN~ PART OF LOTS 92 & 93 & ALL OF LOTS I30 TO 142, BOlE EqCLUSIVE, ANrD VACATED STREET, ANT) VACATED HOLLY DR1WE AND HEATHER LANE, ALL LN FOREST MANOR LnqTT,'-52, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SW !,'~ ANTD THE SE ~A OF SEC. 25, T.42N, R.11E. OF Tt~E. 3'm P.M. LN COOK CODiNTY, 'fL. Citizens Water Re-sources will a/low the encroachment upor~ the £oove-mentioned easern~mr for the i.nstal]arion of the existing shed. Except waiving its right t'o sue to remove, this encroaclqznent, Citizens Water Resources does neither wa/ye nor nu[lilS' any of its rights as to fl~/s easement. You skall indemnifl m~d save harmless Cit52ens Water Resources from ali els/ms, damages, scdts, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, real or personal, caztsed by or ar/sing out of~e use or coost~cfion of s~fid encroachment by you or your agents, employees, contractors, successors, or assigns. In the event the property is transfmred, you will be reqnired to notify the ~ew owners of this Agreement so tha~ a new Letter of A~eement may be executed. Please sign and return one copy of this letter to me. if you have any questions, please contaCt me at (630) 739-883i. Respectfully, CITIZENS WATER RESOURCES Engineering Tecbnicim'5 . JMA:I:z/JMA Let:~s;01 5MMNTYcs Mt Pr0$?ecLDQC I hereby ac -J~o'wledge receipt of'rhSs letter ~md a~m:ee to all tcrn~s stntcd hereSn: By:. Dare: Witness: 01-14-02 12:1(9 REOEIVED FROM:~:3S 789 (9~77 P-(92 VILLAGE OF MC UNT PROSPECT ZOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ' planning DivisiOn 00 S. Emerson Street vlount Prospect, Illinois 60056 ?hone 847.818.5328 ?AX 847.818.5329 Variation Request l'he Zoning Board of Appeals has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW [Zl Village Board Final [~1 ZBA Final Development Nme/Address Date of Submission ' Hearing Date Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) ! ~ eoOomi~n- - Te~¢ho~e(even~,~) -- ~ ¢ S~eet Ad,ess ~ Ci~ Stat~ Zip Code Pager ~ l~erest in Prope~ ode Section(s) for which Vari~ .n(s) is (are) Requested Summary and JustiF~catign for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached ~Standards for Variations Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has beer~ fully completed and ail required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staffso that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is.the owner or authorized representative of the owner oD. he 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 durSng reasonab!e hours for visual inspection of the subject property. l hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are mae and accurate to the, e b_~best 5,n)~ knowledge. / ^ p,cant ' _, //- - ./ If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate .the applicant to act as my agent fo~the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application ~d the associated supporting mater~. Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 Phone 847.8!8.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Gw- ii 'o Ass s Yov Yova E-Z COPYRIGHT, MENARDS I~ 1999 Fascia Trim Window Not Included, Sold as an Option: [1. GENERAL ] Prior to beginning construction, the area selected for t_he shed location must be leveled and cleared of obstructions. ~2. INVENTORY ~ Separate all lumber, hardware, etc. into individual stacks of like items. Figure 1. [ ~5A [3. FRAME PREPARATION Unfold each frame, setting aside two frames to be used as end walls. From 1'x4' Pine boards, cut Gusset plates 6' long · 24 pieces for a12' building · 32 pieces for a 16' building · 40 pieces for a 20' building Apply gusset plates on each side of the top and bottom fold locations. Frames to be used as end walls require only one gusset plate top and bottom on the side opposite of the metal plate, and to the inside of the building. Use four 8d nails on each plate. See Figure 1. 2"x4" Upper a~d Lower Roof Frame Member Side Wall Frame Member Treated 2"x4" Bottom Frame Member Lumber listed as nominal sizes Roof long gusset plate at top fold location 12'-0" E-Z BUILD BARN FRAME Low Roof Overhang 1 "x4"x6" 64" long gusset plate [ at bottom fold location '~-1-1/2" ~ endwall studs 3-i~.~12' ~ cut to fit, ................................... 2"x 4"nailers. cut 2"x 4"x 10' Endw~ ~ < studs, cut to fit Toe nail studs into place 22-1/4" 20-I/2" 20-1/2' 20-1/2" 20.1/2" 12' -0" Figure 3. 2"x 4" Gable studs cut to fit at locations shoum 2"x 4"x 10' Header cut to fit 2"x 4"x 8' door frame. cut to fit I-1/2" ( 4.. BACK WALL FRAMING~ ;. Usmg one frame selected as an end- walt,..measure and mark stud locations according to dimensions shown in Figure 2. Place the proper length 2x 4 studs at those locations. Mark required length and angles and cut to fit. Toe nail studs into place using (2) 8d nails top and bottom. See Figure 2. Cut 2x4 nailers and install at dimensions shown in Figure 2. ( 5. FRONT WALL FRAMING) Using the remaining endwall frame, repeat Step 4, using Figure 3 as a guide. NOTE: When using a r~ll-up door, the door] opening must be framed to the exact size of the[ door. Example: 8x7 ~,oll-u,p, door will have emi~hed opening of 96' x 84. ~: 6. SIDING BACK WALL ) Cut two 4'x 8' sheets of siding into four 48"x48" pieces. Use three full 4'x 8' sheets and three of the 48'x 48' pieces. Cut each piece as required. Nail siding pieces onto back wall frame with 8d nails every 8" on center. See Figure 4. 7. SIDING FRONT WALL ~ Cut one, 4'x 8' sheet of,siding into two 'pieces 12'-0" ~-,~'; ~ 48'x 48'~ Cut one 4'x 8 sheet into two pieces ; ? ?~,~ 24'x 90'. Cut each piece as required. Nail // "In rnar~ areas bu//d/ng "~ [~ > t~ siding piece,s onto front wall frame with Od and cut to fit. ...................................... ~ FRONT \%(LL [ Figure 5. ts"x 45' s/ding pieces /.. ' " . . 3-48'x 48" cut to fit uesday, November 27, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: The storage building in the backyard at 1801 E. Boulder Drive, Mount Prospect is barely visible from our pm.eerty at 1803 E. Boulder Drive. We also consider it an improvem.,?.t over the one it replaced, and believe our neighbors should be allowed to keep it as is. Gary and Nancy Strahinic (847) 699-8188 ecember 2, 2001 To whom it may concern; I am writing this letter regarding the shed at 1801 Boulder Drive. The shed is an improvement to the neighborhood. We live at 1800 East Boulder Drive and have no objections to the shed. Teri & JeffHamilton ITIZENS June 21, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: 'T ,' ~. :e~er is to advise that we giving permission to Helen Maglione Hennigan of 1801 B .... ¢¢ Dr in the ¢Jty of Mt. Prospect to remove her shed and install a new one. The sh~d ,s to be installed in The backyard next to a Citizens Water Resources facilfty, ff you s; ,ould have any questions, please call me at 830--739.-8852. Thank You. Dean Thorsen North Operations, Fore 'nan C.~izens Water Resources Wolf Road 1706 t~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~Tz~ ~ [ ~ J~ 11704 1703 17,~ ~ 827 1705i 1706 1705, ~ 173n 816 ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 825 1707~ 1708 1707 g 814 = '~~ ~ 823 1709 ~ 1710 170~ 81~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 821 1711~ 1712 ~ ~ / 1814 ~1803 ~02' ~ 1825 , 1816 180 1804 1827 1829 1818~-- '~" ~ 1807 ~ ~.~ / ~ 1824 ~ l~i~ ~,~ ~37 [~ ~ lS15 '~ /~ ~1825 )~ WL 1/30/02 5/2/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1801 BOULDER DRIVE WHEREAS, Helen C. Hennigan (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 1801 Boulder Drive (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject property") and legally described as follows: Lot 15 in the Resubdivision of Lots 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69 and part of Lots 92 and 93 & all of Lots 130 to 142, both inclusive, and vacated street, and vacated Holly Drive and Heather Lane, all in Forest Manor Unit #2, being a Subdivision in the SW N and the SE ¼ of Sec. 25, Township 42N, Range 11 E. of the 3rd Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number: 03-25~309-033 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations to allow an existing 192 square foot shed to encroach onto an easement, and less than five-feet from the rear and side lot lines, as required in Section 14.306.B of the Mount Prospect Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of ZBA Case No. 34-01 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th day of January, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice · having been published in the MoUnt Prospect Daily Herald on the 9th .day of January, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation of denial to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variations would be in the best interest of the Village. Page 2/2 1801 Boulder Drive NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant Variations, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow an existing 192 square-foot shed to encroach onto an easement, and to be located four-feet (4') from the rear lot line and one foot (1') from the side lot line as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSEDandAPPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:/GEt,~fileS\WlN~ORDINANC~Vadatton 1801 Boulder Dr, shed,Feb 02,doc illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNH'Y' DEVELOPMENT FEBRUARY 1, 2002 ZBA-32-01 VARIATIONS FOR THE SIZE OF SHED & ITS LOCATION AND 1.5-FEET FROM THE LOT LINE) 1431 BLACKItAWK (DOUGHTY RESIDENCE) The Planning and Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to deny Case ZBA-32-01, a request for a 240-square foot shed to be located in an easement, 1.5-feet from the lot line, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Plann'mg and Zoning Commission heard the request at their October 25, 2001 and January 24, 2002 meetings. The subject property is an existing home located in a single-family residential neighborhood on a comer lot. The petitioner replaced a shed without obtaining a permit and is seeking variations to allow the over sized shed to remain in its current location. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the fact that the petitioner had obtained sign-offs from utility companies, the size of the shed, the petitioner's reasons for the variation, and the attached information supplied by the petitioner that documented previous cases where the former Zoning Board of Appeals had granted variations. The Planning and Zoning Commission said that each case is decided on a case-by-case basis and noted that the cases the petitioner cited were different from his case because he was seeking three variations and the other cases were seeking less than that mount of relief from code. The Planning and Zon'mg Commission voted 5-1 (one abstention) to recommend .denial of the request for variations for a 240-square foot shed, located/n an easement, 1.5-feet from the lot Yme for the property at 1431 Blackhawk Drive, case no. ZBA-32-01. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to thc Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 5, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J.~Co~ney, Jt.,~AICP H:\GEN~PLANNING~Ianning & Zoning COMM~&Z 2002hMEJ MemosXZBA-32-01 1431 Blackhawk - Doughty Shed.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONIN~ COM~SSION CASE NO. ZBA-32-01 PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 24, 2002 Douglas Doughty October 10, 2001 (case continued from October 25, 2001 meeting) Variations to decrease the minimum setback for a shed, increase the size of a shed from 120 s.f. to 240 s.f., and locate a shed in an easement Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo FIoros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Douglas Doughty Reno Neckele Marshall Ponzi David Schein Chairperson Arlene Jumcek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Juracek welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is comprised of the former Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. She inl~xluced new members Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commissioner, Matthew Sledz. At 7:33, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-32-01, a request for Variations for the size and the location ora shed and to decrease the minimum setback for a shed. She said that the case is Village Board final. Judy Connoily, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly reminded the Planning and Zoning Gommission hhat this case was continued lmm the last meeting, in October, and that the. petitioners had constructed a 240 s.f. shed 1.5'-from the south lot line, in an 8' wide utility easement, and then obtained a building permit. Ms. Connolly said the homeowners were informed that the size of the shed and its location did not comply with zoning regulations and that the petitioners are seeking variations to allow the existing shed to remain in its current location. Since the last meeting, the petitioners have not modified the location of the shed, but they have received sign-offs from utility companies to have the shed remain in its current location. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the Village does not have any public sanitary sewers or water mains in this easement. However, the Village Code prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement. Ms.,Connolly noted that, in;order to approve the variation, the Village Code requires that findings of fact be made in accordance with the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. These standards relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not applicable to other properties; the situation was not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly explained that a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance is "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of the unusual surroundings or conditions of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground Planning and Zoning Commission ZBA-32-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 conditions or other unusual circumstances." Ms. Connolly said that the subject parcel is typical of lots in the RX zoning district and that the shape and topography are typical of other lots in the Village. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioners' justifications for the variations are the aesthetic impact of the shed on the neighborhood and the convenience of having a larger storage shed. In order to minimize the impact of the 240 s.f. shed, the petitioners located the structure approximately I' from the south property line, which is in an easement. While the utility companies have approved the location, the location conflicts with Village Code and the size of the shed is twice the size allowed by code. She said that staff prepared an exhibit to show that a 120 s.f. shed could be located on the petitioners' property according to code and that a variation could be avoided. Ms. Connolly explained that the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character. However, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a shed that complies with zoning regulations could be constructed. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denia! of the proposed Variations to permit a 240 s.f. shed to be located in an easement for the residence at 1431 BIackhawk, Case No. ZBA-32-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Douglas Doughty came forward to speak and Ms. Juracek reminded him he had been swom-in at the last Zoning Board meeting and was still under oath. Mr. Doughty asked MS. Juracek if the new members would vote on this case and she said they would. Mr. Doughty reiterated his testimony from the Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Doughty explained that they had obtained waivers from the various utility companies stating they had no lines in the easement and .ID'LIE marked the underground tee that supplied gas to their pool heater. He reminded the commissioners that the drainage issue had been disproved by .many of his neighbors who testified at the last meeting that water did not settle in the easement. Mr. Doughty said relOCating the shed was not acceptable to him or his neighbors bemuse the shed would then be visible and alter the character of the neighborhood. He also pointed out that the suggested location of the 120 square foot shed would put the shed n~xt to the P°°l fence and that could create an oppo~:unity for neighborhood youths to dive from the roof of the shed into the pool. Mr. Doughty called atteation to the packet he prepared for tonight's meeting. The packet contained a letter from a neighbor at 617 Glendale, Char Suckow, who said she had no objection to the shed remaining in ils location and found the shed to be aesthetically pleasing. In addition, Mr. Doughty explained that he had examined the files in the Planning Division for approved variation cases. He said that copies of the cases that support his request were in the packet. He reviewed the cases: Case #1: ZBA-05-01, a request for a Variation to allow a shed to remain in a sideyard setback after the homeowners located the. shed 1.5-feet into the required three-foot setback that was noted on their permit application. He said the Zoning Board had commented there was no negative impact on the character of the neighborhood and he felt this case was similar to their case. Case #2: ZBA-18-01, a request for an interior side yard setback variation to erect an addition to the house. The staffmemo recommended approval because the size, setback, and lay-out of the house with respect to the property were thought to constitute a hardship. Mr. Doughty stated that his house is a comer lot and that was unique and a hardship. Case #3: No. 7-Z-96, an easement issue was raised for a 3-car garage. The request was approved because the lot coverage was under the minimum requirement. Mr. Doughty pointed out that his lot coverage complied with zoning regulations. Case #4: No. 13-V-1983 approved a request for a three-car garage. The variation was approved eighteen years ago and indicates a long record of Variations approved for size issues. Mr. Doughty reminded the group that he had received the waivers from the utilities and contacted JULIE as had been requested at the last meeting. He asked that his variation requests be approved, based on the other eases cited. lanning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson ZBA-32-2001 Page 3 Chair Arlene Juracek told Mr. Doughty that he is asking them to approve a shed that is twice the size allowed and that none of the cases he cited had included all three criteria presented by his case. She said that each ease is decided on a case-by-case basis. Planning and Zoning Commissioners told Mr. Doughty that they appreciated the time he spent researching previous zoning cases. However, it was unfortunate that he did not research the Village's shed regulations before he constructed the shed. Instead, he built the shed without a permit and is now seeking remedy from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Joseph Donnelley pointed out that the permit application the Doughtys completed after the shed was constructed shows that the permit is to repair, not replace, an existing shed. In addition, the maximum size, 10'x12', is noted on the application. Mr. Doughty acknowledged he had made a mistake in building the shed that he purchased at a county fair without obtaining a permit, but he asked that he still be granted a Variation. At 8:05, noting that no audience members wanted to address the group, Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing. Richard Rogers moved to approve the Variations to decrease the minimum setback for a shed, increase the size of a shed from 120 s.f. to 240 s.f., and to locate a shed in an easement as requested by Case No. ZBA-32-01. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Yonngquist, Rogers and Juracek ABSTENTIONS: Sledz Motion was denied 5-1, with one abstention. At 10:05 p.m., after the Planning and Zoning Commission heard three more cases, the Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made motion to commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 7-0. AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Chairperson Juracek announced it was necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to the Commission. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers, Men'ill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros,, Sled~ Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Rogers Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention. As there were no other "housekeeping" items to be discussed, at 10:05 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatei~, Planning Secretary /8tid~'~bnfi°~lly' S;ni°r Planner y uly 20m, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter on behalf of Jeanne and Douglas Doughty and the variance they are trying t.o obtain regarding their shed at 1431 Blackhawk. ! am the neighbor directly across form the area in which the new shed is located. I find it to be aesthetically pleasing and virtually out of view. It certainly does not stick out nor does it detract. On the contrary, its design lends itself wonderfully to this unique piece of property. Sincerely, Charlotte Suckow 617 Glendale Lane · Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Village. of Mount Prospect Commumty Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER MARCH 15, 2001 MARCH 22, 2001 ZBA-05-01 -SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIATION (SHED) 617 N. FAIRVIEW (ANDERSON RESIDENCE) ©©P¥ BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: Kevin & Julie Anderson 617 N. Fairview Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owners 03-34-109-003 7232.5 square feet RA Single Family R~id~lec Single Family Residence 43% ~r. isting 50% maximum pet RA district REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATION TO DECREASE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SHED FROM 3-FEET TO 1.5-FEET. BACKGROUND The subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. The property owners received a building permit to construct a 10'x12' shed three-feet from the interior lot line. The type of shed constructed docs not require a "pre-pour" inspection because it is not built on a cement or similar type base. Therefdre, when the Village conducted the final inspection, the Building Inspector "disapproved" the project because the shed was constructed 1.5-feet from the interior property line and not three-feet as approved on the permit. The petitioners thought that the existing garage met Village setback requirements and located the shed in line with the garage. They learned that the garage setback was a legal non-conformity when the Building Inspector "disapproved" the final inspection. The petitioners are applying for a variation because the shed is complete and, 2~Ao05-01 2~A Meeting of March 22, 2001 Page 2 as stated in their application, that the shed would have to be disassembled in order to relocate it to the location required by code. The petitioners constructed a base of pre-cast foundation blocks and feel that the base is durable and that the shed is well built. As illustrated on the attached plat of survey, there is no fence adjacent to the shed. The petitioners state that they can maintain the area between the shed and the neighbor's property with their lawn mower. To conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations are contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. These standards relate to: A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel is a 7,232.5 square foot parcel that is out of any flood zone and rectangular. The parcel is developed with a single family home and a detached gacraga. The applicants constructed a 10'x12' shed 1.5-feet from an interior lot line and the Zoning Ordinance requires a three-foot setback. The reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner. The shed is not permanently attached to the ground and can bo relocated to meet the required three-foot setback, but doing so requires that the shed be entirely disassembled and reconstructed. The proposed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, and the petitioners states that they have the ability to maintain the 1.5-foot area between their pwperty line and their neighbor's property. RECOIVIMENDATION Although the proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit a shed to encroach 1.5-feet into the required three-foot side yard setback for the residence at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development CASE NO. ZBA-05-2001 MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Corrected Hearing Date: March 22, 2001 PETITIONER: Kevin & Julie Anderson PUBLICATION DATE: March 7, 2001 Daily Herald REQUEST: Variation for a side yard setback for a shed MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Etfinger Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxcm Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, ~n MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES:' Judy Coanolly, MCI', Senior Planner Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Anderson Mr. & Mrs. Gene Seaberg Tom Grigis Chah'pe~on Arlene Juracek called thc meeting to order at 7:35 p.rrr Minutes of the January 25, 2001 meeting were approved with one abstention b~' Elizabeth Luxerm Ms. Juracek introduced Case Bio. ZBA-05-01, a request for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed. Judy Conuolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice bad been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a request for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed. As background to the case, Ms. Connolly expla'med that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a singie-family residential street. She said the property owners received a building peau-dt to construct a 10'xl2' shed three-feet from the interior lot line. When the Village conducted the final inspection, it was learned that the shed is located I 1/2 feet from the lot line instead of the required 3-£eet Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioners thought that theexist/ng garage met Village setback requirements and located the shed in line with the garage. The petitioners are applying for a variation because the shed is complete and, as stated in tlieir application, the shed would bave to be disassembled in order to relocate it to the location required by code. MS. Connolly pointed out that there is no fence adjacent to the shed and the petitioners state that they can maintain the area between the shed and the neighbor's property with their lawn mower. MS. Connolly said staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan and visited the site, and found that the subject parcel is out of any flood zone and is rectangular in sbape. The parcel is developed with a single family home and a detached garage. The applicants constructed a 10'xl2' shed 1.5-feet from an interior lot line and the Zoning Ordinance requires a thr~e-foot setback. Ms. Coanolly said that, in order to approve a variation, the request has to meet the standards for a variation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. These standards relate to an irregular shape of the property or a topographical attribute unique to the lot. The standards also require that the variation not impact the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner. The subject property is similar to many other lots in the Village. She said the shed is not peta~mently attached to the ground and Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-05-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 could be taken apart, relocated, and meet thc required 3' setback. However, the shed would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, and the petitioners states that they have the ability to maintain the 1.5-foot area between their property line and their neighbor's property. Ms. Connolly said that, while thc proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit a shed to encroach 1.5-feet into the required three- foot side yard setback for the residence at 617 N. Fairvicw, Case No. ZBA-05-01. She said the Village Board's decision is final for this ease. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Counolly if a plat and drawing for this shed had been submitted when a permit was requested. Ms. Connolly said yes and that the property has been m-surveyed since the shed permit was issued. She said that the permit for the shed showed a 3' setback from the property line. Kevin and Julie Anderson, 617 N. Fait'view, were sworn in. Mrs. Anderson testified that when she applied for a shed permit, using a then current plat of survey, that she drew the shed in pencil on the plat flush with the thc garage. She said that staff told her that her submittal was acceptable. She said that when the property was re-surveyed the shed was 1.5' from the property line. Mrs. Anderson explained that the shed is not on a concrete slab, but on foundation blocks, a sample of which they brought to thc meeting. The foundation blocks contain a crosshair design in which the 2'x4' joints fit. She said that there are twelve of these blocks under the shed and pointed out that if they had used a concrete slab that the property line discrepancy would have been noted in the "pre-pour" inspection of the slab. However, they used the blocks because water is retained in that area and they thought the blocks would provide a more level and sturdy platform for the shed. Mr. Anderson said he had received a quote from a contractor for $500 to move the shed using a front-end loader. He said that they would need tb dig out the foundation blocks and move them to the new location of the shed. Ms. Suracek asked Mrs. Anderson what was the dimension of the shed with respect to the garage, 3' or 1.5'? Mrs. Anderson said she had questioned staff about what the measurement meant when she was applying for the shed permit and was told the overhang might be included in the setback shown on the plat of survey. Mrs. Anderson said that the setback shown on the plat does not include the overhang and feels they were misled in that instance. Hal Etfinger asked Mr. & Mrs. AnderS% ff the garage was existing when they bought the property. Mr. Anderson said yes, they bought the property with thc garage that way ten years ago. Mr. Ettix%oer asked the petitioners if they wea'e told when they were applying for a p~miit that the shed had to be setback 3-feet from the lot line. Mrs. Anderson said yes, she understood that the shed had to be located three-feet from the lot line. There was discussion about using the fence along the north lot line as a point of reference to measure the 3-foot distance. It was noted that there is a 9-foot gap between that fence and another fence along the east (rear) property line that extends west along 9-feet of the petitioners' north lot line. Ms. Juracek said it would be helpful to see the original plat and asked that the original permit application be included in the packet to go to the Village Board with the ZBA's recommendation. After further discussion among the petitioners, it was determined that the fences were in place at the time of construction of the shed. Mr. Ettinger asked if they had purchased the shed or constructed it. Mrs. Anderson said that they had purchased it, but some construction was necessary because it was a "kit". Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Zoning Board. Mr. & Mrs. Gene Seaharg, 619 N. Fairview were sworn in and gave testimony that they felt the shed looked good and did not detract from the neighborhood. They stated that they had no problem with the location and said they would have built the shed the same way. They said their garage is also close to the property line and that it has been that way for 27 years. oning Board of Appeals Arlene luracek, Chairperson ZBA-05-2001 Page 3 Tom Grigis, 701 N. Fairview, was sworn in and said that he has no objections to leaving the shed in its current location. He said that, while it is physically possible to move the shed, it is not economically wise and would not be level when moved. Julie Anderson presented a list of 36 neighbors who signed their names to a petition stating that they had no objections to leaving the shed where it is. At 7:55, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. Elizabeth Luxem said that it was natural for the homeowner to assume their existing garage conformed to Village codes and to align the shed with the garage. She said that she didn't feel they had located the shed 1.5-feet from the lot line to get around code requirements. She said that she would not vote to recommend approval if a contractor familiar with Village codes had erected the shed, but that she would vote in favor of the request in this instance. Keith Youngquist said he felt the same way and that this had been an honest mistake. He said that he would vote in favor of the petitioner's request becaus~ the shed ~ted:'the same ~r~ ~fi'om.~I~line~th~g~c,~a~::that the shed Ms. ~uracek said she also USually votes to follow Village codes, but in this case she could understand the owners wanting to align the shed with the garage for aesthetic reasons. Therefore, she would vote to recommend approval because the location did not have~ ~e~g~.ti~~~~l~.~ter and bad the same setback as the existing detached garage. ~ ~'~'~*: Elizabeth Luxem moved to recommend to the Village Board approval for a Variation for a side yard setback for a shed at 617 N. Fairview, Case No. ZBA-05-01. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion~ UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Ettinger, Florns, Luxem, Youngquist, and ~uracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Chairperson luracek introduced the next item under New Business, election of a Vice Chair to the Zoning Board of Appeals, to ensure continuity in rmming Zoning Board meetings in the event of her absence. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers as Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals; Leo Floras seconded the UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 5-0. AYES: Ettinger, Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None At 8:00 p.r~, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~udy Connolly, Senior Planner Village. of Mount Prospectg.. C°mmunIty Devel°pment Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: TtYDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 19, 2001 HEARING DATE: ~JLY 26, 2001 SUBJECT: ZBA-18-01 - SIDE YARD VALUATION -ADDITION TO HOUSE 125 HORNER LANE (McMAHON RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: REQUESTED ACTION: JeffMcMahon 125 Homer Lane Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owner 03-35-404-003 10,125 square feet (approximately) R1 Single Family Residence Single Family Resident! 30% proposed 45% maximum per R1 district PROPOSAL FOR A VARIATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A $'4"x21'5' ADDITION (L~NCLOSED) IN ~ SiDE SETBACK~ BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED VARIATION The subject property is an existing home located on a comer lot on a single-family residential street. The existing house and attached garage comply with setback regulations for.the R1 Zoning District. The applicant proposes to construct a 114 square foot addition along the north lot Yme (interior side yard). Per the Zoning Ordinance, residential properties in the RI Zoning District are required to maintain a 10-foot or 10% of the lot width (whichever is less) interior side yard setback (Sec. 14.905.B1.). According to the Zon'mg Ordinance, the lot width is measured at the 30' setback; the subject property measures 75-feet at the 30-foot front setback. In order to comply with code regulations, the interior side yard would have to be no less than 7.5-feet. The petitioner proposes a $.67-foot setback and is seeking a Variation to expand the house 1.83-feet into the required setback, as shown in the attached site plan. The attached elevations show that the proposed addition will be constructed from face brick and the floor plans show that the 5'4" x 21'5" addition would increase the size of the existing kitchen. In the enclosed application, the petitioner states that expanding the kitchen is necessary to create an eating space for the family. The petitioner states that he has explored other ways to expand the house to maximize the family's living space, .but could not arrive at a design that was practical and met Village code requirements. In addition, the petitioner states that the neighbors' adjacent to the area do not object to the addition, that the addition would enhance the neighborhood, and that the addition would not adversely impact light or ventilation for the adjacent neighbors' property. BA Meeting of July 26, 2001 Page 2 ~o conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations are contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zonir~g 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;, lackof desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel is a 10,125 square foot parcel that is out of any flood zone and primarily rectangular in shape. The parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The applicants propose to construct a 5'4" x 21'5" addition (enclosed) in the side yard setback. The size, shape, and development of the subject property are typical of most residential properties in the Village. While the layout of the house is not unique, the loeatiun of the house in relation to the lot is not typical of most homes with two exterior y~*ds. The entrance to the house is located in the exterior side yard and measures 30-feet from Emerson Lane while the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot setback for the exterior side yard. Most homes are built up to or are closer to the minimum setback requirement. In this ease, if the house was located 10- feet closer to Emmerson Lane, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, the Variation would not be xequired since the interior side yard would then measure 21-feet (currently it is Il-feet) and the petitioner could build the addition as proposed and oompl~ wig Zoning sethaek regulations. Although the petitioner is creating his own hardship by expanding the house into the required setback, the location of the house is a uaique physical condition of the subject property. In addition, the proposed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION The proposed variation would not 'have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character and the location of the house supports a finding of hardshiP, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA approve the proposed Variation to pemfit an enclosed structure to encroach t. q0' (1.83') into the required 7~5-foot side yard setback for the residence at 125 Homer Lane, Case No. ZBA-18-0!. The Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of'Community Der lopm t MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE NO. ZBA-7-Z-96 Hearing Date: March 14, 1996 PETITIONER: John Flickings' SUBJECT PROPERTY: I2l South Edward Street PUBLICATION DATE: February 28, 1996. REQUEST: The petitioner is seeking a variation to reduce the rear yard setback fi.om 25 feet to 12'-6' (Section 14.1005.B. 1) MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Gilbert Basnik, Chairman Robert Brettrager Ronald Cassidy Leo Floros EliTabeth Luxem Jack Verhasselt Peter Lannon None Chairman Bamik introduced Case ZBA-7-V-96 being a request for a variation to reduce the rear yard setback fi.om 25 feet to 12'-6" per Section 14.1005.B.1. Mr. $ohn Flickinger, 121 S. Edward Street, introduced hlm_m~ tO the Zoning Board of Appeals as the petitioner for the listed'property. ' 1V!r. Flickinger stated that he is requesting this variation to allow for a room addition and a new garage. V'fllage Planner, M~ke Sims, then nmmmrized the staff' report for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Sims stated tint the petitioner is seeking a variation to permit a 12'-6" rear yard in order to construct additional living space and a three cat garage. Mr. Flicklnger intends to use part of the three car garage to house his commercial vehicle. Mr. Sims stated that the owneVs development plans involve removing the existing driveway, converting the present garage into a dining room, constructing an additional bedroom immediately east of the existing home and building an attached three car garage. The petitioner's justification for seeking the variation is to save two mature trees and provide enough room to construct a three car garage. Mr. Sims said the petitioner stated the additional 12'6" saved would allow a third stall to house a work van which is now left on the driveway overnight which is currently in violation of the Village Code. ZBA-7-Z-96 Page 2 Mr. Sims stated that based on the review of the petitioner's plan and site visit, staff believes there are alternative designs that would not require a variation. For instance, a detached three car garage could be built up to five feet from the rear and interior sideyards along the property rmes. If the detached garage is built with 5/8" drywall finish on the interior wall and eeiling~ which is allowed by code, the petitioner could have as little as a three foot separation between the three (3) ear garage and his principal structure. There would actually be a 7'-6N separation that would be available. Another alternative would be to add the proposed bedroom area (living area) as a second floor addition and move the garage further towards the home. Staff feels the petitioner is creating his own hardship by designing the addition as proposed. If the proposed living area was shortened by 12'-6~ or built as a second sto~. there would be no need ~or the variation. Mr. Skns then s~ted that the petitioner mu~ ju~ the reque~ for variation based on the ~ven (7) standards li~ed in section 14.203.C.9 of the Zo~ng Ordhmnce. Mr. Cassidy asked staffifthere were pictures of the subject property. In response, a video of the subject property was shown noting the mature trees that the petitioner is proposing to save. If the project is completed the way the petitioner proposes, he would lose one (1) tree. If the project is completed the way staff suggests, the petitioner would lose two (2) mature trees. Currently, there are six (6) ma~re evergreen trees on the property. Mr. F~c~nger stated that he has been a re, dent for ten (10) years. He feds the aRemafive propos~ ~om staff would not be su~able to his wa~s and needs. He purchased a ranch s~de hou~ and would ~ke to keep k a ranch s~de hotme. Mr. FUckingnr stated that the aliemative proposal allows him to build a three (3) car detached garage within five (5) feet of the rear property line and the addition could be moved .within three (3) feet of the garage. He stated that this does not mnke any sense to pursue and no one would benefit from it. He stated that his neighbors support the project and concur wRh hhn about the enhanceme~ of his prope~y and the n~ghbothood. Chairman Basnik noted three (3) letters from the immediate neighbors of the subject pmpetty who are in support of Mr. Flickingers proposal. Mr. Verhasselt asked about the ufili~ easement. Mr. F~ckinger ~ated he checked vdth the ufi~W compa~ and the reduced s~back would not adversely affe~ the' les. Fu~her noting the elec~c set,ce for the n~ghborhood ls overhead but he has some elee~ic ~r~ce underground w~ch would need to be moved. There would be enough room in the rear property to allow for utili~ trucks. Mr. Cassidy asked about the size of the garage and room addition. Mr. F!ick'mger stated the he would like.to construet a three (3) car garage to house his three (3) vehicles. The ZBA-7-Zo96 Page specifications of the addition are not available at this time due to the outcome of the variation request. Chairman Basnik asked about the subject property value in relation to a detached or attached garage. Staff did not have any information with regard to the property value. Chairman Basnik asked staff what the purpose was between the allowed five (5) foot setback with a detached garage and a twenty-five (25) foot setback with an attached garage. In response, Mr. Sims stated that the detached garage would provide additional open space in the rear of the property and would provide a separation between the n hbers. Ms. Luxem confn'med the 46 % lot coverage and asked the petitioner about the footage from the side of the house to the lot line. In response, Mr. Flickinger said the footage is approximately T-6~. Mr. Cassidy asked about the removal of the veway. In response, Mr. Flickinger stated that all of the existing drive and deck would be removed and replaced. Mr. Flickinger, in response to Mr. Floros' question, stated the proposed addition would cost approximately $60,000.00. Mr. Floros stated that if he were in the petitioners siv_~ntlon, the proposals for a 2 story home with a detached garage would be unsuitable for his needs. Further notin4~ when residents are willing to invest such a considerable sum of money to enhance their property alld the neighborhood ~1 gxchnn~oe for this allowance he could only support the petitioners requesC Chairman Basnik then stated that in defense of staffs denial of the request, the Village is required to support the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner needs to provide a hardship for the variation. In response, Mr. Flickinger stated that he would like to house his commercial vehicle which is currently in violation of being parked outside and he has mature trees that he would like to save. Chairman Basnik stated that he is on a comer lot and he can build up to 50°,4 of the lot and with the pwposed addition, the petitioner would still be under the allowed 50°,4. Mr. Floros then moved that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve a request for variation to Section 14.1005~.B.1 to allow a reduction of the rear yard setback fi.om 25 feet to 12'-6' as shdwn in petitioners exhibit 1. The motion was seconded be Mr. Verhasselt. BA-7-Z-96 Page 4 Upon Roll Call: AYES: Basnik, Cassidy, Flores, Verhasselt NAYS: Brettrager, Luxem The motion was approved by a vote of 4-2. Mr. Brettrager stated the reason for his no vote was the 110' solid wall. Ms. Luxem stated she concurred with Mr. Brettragers' reason and also feels the Zoning Board of Appeals is setting a precedent in the V'~lage. Further noting that the "hardship' requirement could be s~H~ed with staffs proposal of a three (3) car garage. The proposal made by the petitioner does not provide a hardship and therefore she could not support In response to the Nay votes, Mr. Flickinger stated that his neighbors to the side of his property h~ a !0' high solid hedge which would block the view of his property from his neighbors. Sincerely, lulie Ann Bouds Secr~a~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COPIES MAILED 5/6/83 to Philip Jeuck and Maurice Frank To: Re: Location: Hearing Date: Roll Call: Notices Sent: Publication Made: Request: Testimony: Objections: The Mayor and Trustees of the Village of Mt. Prospect ZBA-13-V-83, Philip R. Jeuck, Jr. 405 Ojibwa Trail, vicinity of Lincoln and Busse April 28, 1983 Present: Absent: Lois Brothers Ronald Cassidy Marilyn O'May Leonard Petrucelli George Van Geem James Viger Gilbert Basnick March 31, 1983 April 5, 1983 The petitioner is:requesting several variations as follows: Section 14.1001.B.4. to allow a three-car garage instead of the limitation on ~arages designed to house no more than two motor vehicles; Section 14.1002.A. to permit a front yard setback of 28 feet, 2 inches for a 5 foot 10 inch addition in- stead of the 40 foot required front yard setback; Section 14.2602.B. "Yard" and "Open Space" to per- mit an existing circular driveway. Mr. Maurice Frank, attorney for the petitioners, presented the case and offered Exhibit I,;a Platt of Survey in evidence of new property purchased. He also offered Exhibit II, a copy of the ordinance'transferring the dedication portion of Ojibwa from East to West, as evidence. Mr. Frank also testified that the request was necessary to protect expensive automobiles'from possible vandalism. Mr. Ronald Stall, the architect of the existing structure, and Mr. Bruno Starr also offered testimony. Mr. Stall stated that the expansion of the two car garage to a three car garage would not change the appearance of the home, that the only change would be three individual gar- age doors from the present one (2 car) garage door. Mr. Starr concurred with the architects statements and reiterated them. There were no objectors present. Continued BA-13-V-83 Hearing Date: April 28, 1983 Page 2 Discussion: Findings of Fact: Decision: Mr. Ken Fritz, staff member, had nothing further to add to the printed staff report. The report was not read into the record. Mr. Frank did say that the petitioners would see that the existing easements would be maintained free of encroachments. The board members had no comments at this time. Acting Chairman Len Petrucelli asked the board if they wanted to consider the three variances separately or together. The board agreed verbally to consider the three variances together. Using Section 14.605A-Standards of the Zoning Ordinance, the board considere~with much discussion, each standard separately. The findings of fact are: #1 and 2 were not applicable. #3 - there appeared to be justification. there were no objections in this standard. #5 and 6 were upheld. I~i was moved by Jim VigOr with a second by Lois Brothers to approve the petitioner's'variation requests (as stated in the request paragraph on the preceding .page). The motion carried with a vote of 6 - O. Respectful ly submitted Acting Secretary Len Petrucelli Acting Chairman 5/2/83 MO ommonwealth Edison Company Uber~yville Business Office 1500 Franklin Boulevard LJbertyville. IL 60048 www.exeloncorp.com Northeast Region Headqua~em Janua~ 17,2002 An Exelon Company Mr. Douglas Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Drive Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Utility Easement Encroachment: Existing Shed ComEd File'f: MTP-20248 Dear Mr. Doughty: Pumuant to your request, this is to advise that ComEd has no objection to your request to encroach upon our existing utility easement on your property described as follows: LOT 32 IN GOLF VI~ ESTATES UNIT NUMBER 2, BEING A SUBDMSION IN THE SOUTHWEST SA OF THE SOUTHWEST sA OF SECTION 1 t, TOWNSHIP 4t NORTH, RANGE t t, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 19, 1957, AS DOCUMENT NO. 16935776, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. The encroachment herein granted does not under any circumstances, abrogate nor nulls the rights and interests of the ComEd Company in and to the easements of record, pertaining to the aforesaid premise. In addition, the encroachment is subject to the attached terms and conditions. If you have any further questions, please contact the undemigned at (847) 816-5252. Respectfully, Northeast Region WA,I/ac Attachment WJ0117-2 Page lof2 MTP - 20248 CONTACT J.U.L.I.E. 1-800-892-0123 PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING IN ORDER TO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES UNDER THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS The encroachment herein acknowledged does not under any circumstances abrogate nor nullify the rights and interests of the ComEd Company in and to the easements of record, pertaining to the aforesaid premises. .. The owners in title or subsequent owner and/or owners save and hold harmless the CornEd Company for all damages, personal and/or real, in the exercise of the encroachment herein acknowledges. Should our cables fail at or near the location of the encroachment on the easement, it shall be the responsibility of the owner and/or owners or subsequent owner and/or owners to pay CornEd Company for the repair or relocation of Said cables. If said cables cannot be relocated within the existing easements the owner and/or owners shall grant CornEd Company a new easement for said relocation. Should it become necessary in the future for ComEd Company fo utilize the easement, it shall be the responsibility of the owner and/or owners or subsequent owner and/or owners to remove the encroachment at customer's own expense. In order to avOid delays at the time of transfer of ownership of subject property, owner and/or owners should retain this letter with their valuable papers, to verify said encroachment for their title insurance company commitment report. The encroachment herein acknowledged subject to the apprOval of the village, city or other local government. W J0117-2 Page 2 of 2 'I ? Broad band Greater Chicago Market Network Design November 16, 2001 688 Industrial Drive Elmhurst, IL 60126 FAX 630 600-6390 Douglas Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Drive Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056 Re: Easement Encroachment for Storage Building Dear Mr. Doughty: Regarding the above project, AT&T Broadband does not object to you installing a storage building into the utility easement. If you are in a subdivision that has underground utilities, you must provide us access to the pedestal that services your home. Please do not box in the pedestal if it is on your property. Please make sure that either you or the contractor building the storage building calls J.U.LIoE. (1-800-892-0123) before you start any digging, so that any cable lines will not be damaged. Very {~:uly ~/ours,__ /~ / / ' Robert L. Schulter Jr. Public Improvement Coordinator Greater Chicago Market (63O) 60O-6347 ~) Recycled Pa~r NICOR NICOR Real PO Box 190 Aurora, iL EstaYe Department 6050'/-0 198 12, 2002 O,'}ug ia s Do'd ght y 1431 Bi ackhawk Mt. Pr'espect, ih 60056 Re: Easement [;ncroachmen~ Dear Mx. Doughty, As to your request, NICOR has no objection to yon enezoachir~g on ou~ easement at the above adch'ess. 'i'his encroachment does not nullS_fy the rights of NIC2:,R fu,'~ure use. You have already not~fied J.U.L.I.E. whe Nas recorded their survey. Please retain this letter fer transfer to other ir~tezested parties in the event oi the sale or transfer of ownership of this property. Rea] Es:~ate Department NICOR Gas e~lL Ser~icu 2004 Miner Street Fine[ Z East Des Plainas, IL 6~0t6-4716 Phone: 847.759.5093 Fa~ 847.759.5198 November ~3, 2eot · Mr. Douglas Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Mount Prospect, Illinois 6oo55 Re: Encroachment Upon Utility Easement Dear Mr. Doughty: This letter is in reply to your letter to release or waive the encroachmeat of a shed and swimmin~ pool pumping station which will extend onto or upon the public utility easement within the following property: LOT 32 IN GOLFVlEW ESTATES UNIT NUMBER a, BEING A SUBDMSION IN THE SOUTHWEST ~ OF THE SOUTHWEST V4 OF sEcrlON tt, TOWNSHIP 4~ NORTH, RANGE l~, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL ~IAN~ AO~ORDING 'I~ THE PLAT THEP~OF RECORDED JUNE 19, 1957 AS DOCUMI~NT 16935776, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Ameritech Network Services dba/nllnois Bell Telephone Company .hereby waives its rights to maintain suit for the removal of said encroachment but otherwise retaln.~ all of its rights in and to said easement including, but not limited to, the recovery of damages for injury to its plant whether buried or aerial or to its employees cause by you or your ~ents, employees, contractors, successors or ~igns whether resulting from the erection, maintenance or use of said enfl'o~ohment or otherwise. Moreover, where said encroachment is located above buried cable or conduit or in close proximity to buried or aerial plant serviced, altered, relgmced, modified or maintained by Ameritech NetwOrk Services dba]llllnoJs Bell Telephone Comlmny, said Company's liability to you for damage to s~id encroachment resuitin~ from such servicing, alteration, replacement, modification or maintenance is limited to restorin$ said encroachment to its prior existing state to the extent such can reasonably be done under Israel Lugo ,Ir. ENG'IlqEER-RIGHT OF WAY 847-759-5083 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER JANUARY 17, 2002 JANUARY 24, 2002 ZBA-32-01 -VARIATIONS: 1) SIZE OF SHED 2) LOCATION OF SHED 1431 BLACK_HAWK (DOUGHTY RESIDENCE) REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATIONS 1) DECREASE THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR A SHED, 2) LOCATE THE SHED IN AN EASEMENT, 3) INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SHED FROM 120 SQ. FT. TO 240 SQ. FT. BACKGROUND For your convenience, enclosed are the.original staff memo and exhibits from the petitioners. As you recall, the petitioners constructed a 240 square foot shed 1.5-feet from the south lot line, in an eight-foot wide utility easement, and then obtained a building permit. The homeowners were informed that the size of the shed and its l~cation did not comply with zoning regulations: the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum five-foot setback for . accessory structures and prohibits structures in the easement (Sec. 14.306.306.B.2.). In this case, the petitioners are seeking variations for the location of the shed: 1) in an easement, and 2) less than five-feet from the south lot line, and 3) for the size of the shed because the maximum size allowed by code is 120 square feet. At the October Zoning Board meeting, the petitioners presented their request for an oversized shed located in the utility easement. The case was continued at the petitioners' request because they wanted to obtain approval from the utility companies to have the shed remain in the utility easement. Draft minutes are attached. The petitioners have not modified the location oftbe shed, but have received sign-offs from AT&T, SBC, NICOR, and CornEd to have the shed remain in its current location. The Village does not have any public sanitary sewers or water mains in this easement; however, the Village code prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement (See. 14.306.B.2). REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards In order to approve the variation, Section 14.203.C.1 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code requires that findings of fact be made in accordance with the standards listed in See. 14.203.C.9. These .standards relate to: ~ A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographic'al 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; rn lack of desire to increase financial gain; and c~ protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. BA-32-01 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 24, 2002 Page 2 The petitioners' justifications for the variations are the aesthetic impact of the shed on the neighborhood and the convenience of having a larger storage shed. In order to minimize the impact of the 240 square foot shed, the structure was located in an easement, one-foot from the south property line. While the utility companies have approved the location, the location conflicts with Village code. A hardship, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, is "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of the unusual surroundings or conditions of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances." As noted in the previous staffmemo, the subject parcel is typical of lots in the RX zoning district and the shape and topography are typical of other lots in the Village. Furthermore, a 120 square foot shed could be constructed in the southwest corner of the property. The 120 square foot shed could be located out of the easement and comply with setback requirements (see STAFF EXHIBIT 1). RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a shed that complies with zoning regulations could be constructed. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a 240 square foot shed to be located in an easement for the residence at 1431 Blackhawk, Case No. ZBA-32-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. C[~ney, AICP[ Director of Community Development STAFF EXHIBIT 1 prepared by staff lo illuslr, tt¢ Ihat a code complying shed could ~'~'constructed at 1431 Blackhawk 13LACKHAWK DR. ;,~4~.::-: ...-; .: ........... 7 o: Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Arlene Juracek, Chairperson From: Douglas & Jeanne Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Date: 15 January 2002 Subject: Continuation of Hearing for ZBA-32-01 At the regular ZBA meeting of 25 October 2001, we made a presentation of our case for size and location variations of a shed on our property. Questions were raised and are addressed as follows: Easement The easement that exists on the southern property line is marked for drainage and utility access. As was testified to at the meeting, there is no drainage easement or swale at this location. At the suggestion of the board, petitioner has contac{ed the utilities with easement rights and received permission for the shed to be located in the easement in the form of letters of encroachment. J.U.L.I.E. was contacted and marked the property, indicating that the easement is, in fact, unused. The Village of Mt. Prospect was included in J.U.L.LE.'s contacts and also found no usage in the easement. Encroachment letters and property photos will be provided at the 24 January 2002 meeting. Size The property in question supports the size of the shed. Total lot coverage is under 35% according to both the village planning office and our own independent analysis presented in the original hearing. The positive appearance and aesthetic impact was testified to by numerous letters from neighbors and interested parties and were even acknowledged as not "likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare" in the recommendations and findings of the planning department in their original opinion memorandum. In light ofthes9 findings and developments we ask that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve ZBA-32~0 I. Sincerely, Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AKLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER lg 2001 HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2001 SUBJECT: ZI3A-32-01 -VARIATIONS: 1) SIZE OF SHED 2) LOCATION OF SHED 1413 BLACK_HAWK (DOUGHTY RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Douglas & Jeanne Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Mount PrOspect, IL 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER: Proper~y Owners PARCEL NUMBER: LOT 08-11-311-008 20,130 square feet EXISTING ZONING: RX Single Family Residence EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence LOT COVERAGE: 35% existing (includes shed) 35% maximum per RX district REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATIONS 1) DECREASE THE SETBACK FOR A SHED FROM 8-FEET TO 1,5-FEET; 2) INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SHED FROM 120 SQ. FT. TO 240 SQ. FT, BACKGROUND The subject property is an existing home located on the southwest comer of Blackhawk & Glendale. The petitioners applied for a permit to construct a shed. The attached permit application shows that the shed could not exceed 10'x12' affd that the shed could not be located in the 8-foot easement located along the south lot line. During an inspection of the shed, the Building Inspector noted that the shed was larger than 120 square feet and that the shed was located closer than 8-feet from the south lot line. The homeowners were notified that the shed did not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, and they are seeking variations for the shed to remain in its current state. The shed measures 12'x20' (240 sq,ft.) and is located 1.5' from the south lot line. The maximum size of shed permitted by the Zoning Ordinance is 120 square feet and smactures cannot be located in an easement. In the BA-32-01 ZBA Meeting of October 25, 2001 Page 2 at~ached application, the petitioners state that the larger lot size and mature landscaping shield the shed from view. They state that the shed is used to store multiple items that have been previously stored outside. In addition, the petitioners' application includes letters from a local realtor and several neighbors expressing their support of the 240 square foot shed. To conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations are contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village of 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 20,130 square feet. It is out of any flood zone and rectangular shaped. The parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The applicants constructed a 12'x20' shed 1.5-feet from the south lot line in a drainage and utility easement. The shed is not permanently attached to the ground and can be relocated so it is not in the easement. However, the size of the shed is twice the maximum size that is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Also, relocating the shed to comply with setback requirements is difficult because of the size of the shed and existing structures such as the deck and the pool. The petitioners' justifications for the variations are the aesthetic impact of the shed on the neighborhood. Although the proposed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, the location of the shed is a concern because it is in an easement. Placing a smacture in an easement puts the homeowner at risk: if the utility companies or the Village need to do work in the easement, the structure may be knocked down and the homeowner is responsible for all associated costs of repairing or replacing the structure. RECOM1VIENDATION Although the proposed variations may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on ~ese findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit a 240 square foot shed to be located in an easement for the residence at 1431 Blac-khawk, Case No. ZBA-32-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: Wil~liamL?.~o~ney,~AI p,'Direetor o f Community Development I'rlat All Information Fane Name P~ne Numar VILLAGE OF MOUiqT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Building Division Shed Permit Phone Number Bus~n~s~ Check One: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Location and Height (Sec. 14306.A./16.403.C~. · A shed may not be placed on any easement. · Sheds arc not penlaitted in front yards or required side yards. · A mlnlmum of a 3' separation fwm the ptlucipal sh-uctur¢ must be malntaiued. · Ashedcanhaveamaxlmumhelghtof 10'. · Only one storage shed is allowed ou a lot, }n addition to a garage. · Ilo accessory shed shall b~ larger than 120 square feet. Required Setb~cks.{Sec. 14306.B.) · On lots 55' in width or less, the shed mUst be set back 3' from any huedor side or tear lot llne. · On lots greater in wldth than 55'. the shed must bc set back 5' from any interior side or rear lot llne. · Comer lots must malntaln a 20' exterior sideyard. S~bmlt~ls~ Permits~ and Inspections {Sec. 21.203121.204/21,302.) · Indicate the location of the shed on a current plat of survey. · The permit fee is $25.00. The permit is good for 1 year from dau~ of issue. ~ · hspectio~.s are required. Please call 847-870-5675 at least 24 hours in.advance to schedule an lnspeetion. There 1~ a $25 reinspectfon fee for lnspectlons that are not cancelled. }~Iount Prospect Department of Community Development - Building Division .... ,~ ..... ~ ..... ~,,~* Pro,neet. IL 600:56 · 847-870-5675 · Fax: 847-g18-$336 · TDD: 847.392-6064 MAYOR ~rald L Parley Timothy ~[. Corcoran Paul Wm. Ho~fert Richard M. Lohm~orf~ D~nis Prikk¢l Michaolc W. Skowmn Innna tL Wilks Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department - Building Division - 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. lanonis VILLAGE CLERK Velrm W. Lowe Phone: 847/870-$675 Fax: 847/818-$336 TDDr' 847f~92-6064 May 17, 2001 Mr. Douglas Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Mount Prospect, IL 60056 RE: NON-CONFORMING SH~D Dear Mr. Doughty: .It has come to the attention of the Village that a shed located on your property is in violation of local zoning ordinances. Specifically ordinance 14306.B.1, which states that the maximum size for an accessory building used as storage, shall be 120 square feet. Upon investigation of your shed, it has been determined that your shed messu/~ over 256 square feet. The shed also violates zoning ordinance 14.306.B.2, which requires a setback of 5' from a side lot .line when the overall lot size is greater than 55 '. Your lot size is 122 x 165. The village requires that you make the necessary changes to your shed to bring the structure up to village code. We will expect the changes to be performed within the next 30 days. On April 13, 2001 the above letter from the Building Depa~hi,ent was mailed'to you? As of today, we have not received a response from you. This matter needs to be addressed. You need to contact the Building Depiahuent within the next ten (10) days regarding this situation. If we do not receive a response within that time frame, you will leave us with no option other than to issue you a citation in an effort to correct this situation. ' Mike Magnussen S~uctural Building Inspector William G. George, CBO, Building Commissioner Mike Blue, AICP, Deputy Director Community Development File 7099 3400 0007 0903 8823 I~-~mC:'~WINDO~tI-I;'~EI,~UILDII~G~Lt~ t t ~R~,1431 blaokhawlado~ ount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: SENIOR PLANNER JUDY CONNOLLY PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK LINDELOF OCTOBER 17, 2001 ZBA-32-01; LOT COVERAGE VARIATION (1431 BLACKHAWK DR.) We have completed our review of ZBA-32-01. We have no comment concerning the size of the shed, however, we do not support the requested variation to allow the shed to be located in a public utilities and drainage easement. Village policy prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement. Although the Village does not have any public sanitary sewers or water mains located in this easement, other utility companies (ComEd, AT&T, etc.) may. Consequently, even if the variation is granted, the shed still cannot be approved until all utility companies having rights to .the easement have also approved the location of the shed. It must be stressed that the easement was granted for the maintenance of public utilities. Allowing the shed to be located within the easement does not supercede the dghts of access for the utility companies to maintain their utilities. If at any time in the future maintenance work is necessary on any uQlity in the area, it would be the property owner's responsibility to remove and replace the shed. Neither the Village, nor the utility companies would be responsible for any damage to the shed resulting from the maintenance. (It should be noted that this is consistent with the Village's policy concerning .fences installed within easements. Furthermore, Village policy prohibits the location of any structure, or.the placement of any fill within five feet (5') of a side or rear property line. This policy was adopted to preserve existing drainage patterns. It has been our experience that placing obstructions within this "buffer area" creates the potential for disrupting existing drainage patterns, and creating or aggravating backyard flooding problems. Finally, no ~easons have been presented explaining why the shed cannot be located outside the easement, at least 5' from any property4ine. Thus, we cannot support the appticant's request to locate shed as it is shown on the plan. if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Chuck Lindelof X:\FILES\ENGIN EER\REVoENG~.BA~2001\1431Blackhawk,DOC Busse Road -.4 ~ ~ 16491650 ~ ~ Edgewood Lane ~ ~ , 1540 ~ 1531 ~ 1540 / 153~ 1480 1471 ' 1471 Ojibwa Tr, ~1460 I ~~' 1460 1451 ~. ~, 1540 Glendale Lane ~2o '.. VILLAGE OF M'3UNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request The Zoning Board of Appeals has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW O Village Board Final ~1 ZBA Final Common Adckess(es)_(Street Number, St~. et) Tax I.D. Number or County assfgaed Pin. N, umber(s) ~;-~ ti -..~. !/ - aO ~ - oz)o O I.~,al Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) Name - [ TelePh;ne (daY) Corporation ~ ~fe~ne (even~g) S~eet Adaess ~ ' IF~ ~ Ci~ [ Smt~ Zip C~ ' [ Pager Interest in Pro~rt~ Name Telepb ~ (day) Corporation Telephone (evening) ~ ~ SlreetAddress Fax: City St~e Zip Code Pager Developer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Attorney Name : Telephone (day) Address Fax Surveyor Name Telephone (day) Address , Fax Name Telephone (day) Address . Fax Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax .. Phone 847.818.5328 Fax847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Mount Prospect Depariment of Community Development 100 ~outh Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 2 he shed is located between the swimming pool and the property line on the south. It is painted dark brown and shielded from view by pre-existing trees and shrubs on virtually all sides except toward our house. It has allowed us to store all our pool and yard equipment, tools and furniture out of sight and therefore improved the cleanliness of the property. I own a 1936 John Deere tractor which once belonged to my late father. It has been used in numerous public events, including Mt. Prospect's Annual Fourth of July Parade. We are active in District 57 and 214 and are founding members of the District 57 Education Foundation which raises funds for capital purchases of technology and educational items. The tractor has pulled the FoUndation's float. (See the attached letter fi.om District 57 Education Foundation for further information.) Prior to the building of the shed, this was parked outside in the yard south of the pool. It is now inside the shed, out of sight, the elements, and harm's way. The property (including neighboring lots) supports and is enhanced by the shed. That opinion is offered and supported by a veteran realtor and experienced architect. (See the expert analysis by licensed Realtor Jim Regan and licensed architect Christine Lussow in the at~ached letters.) Several neighbors have also offered their opinions in attached letters.. Summary / The burden raised for granting a variance stated in zoning Code seetion 14.203.C.9 Standards for Variations has been met and a variance should be granted for the shed on the property at 1431 Blackhawk Drive. Specifically, Items 2, 3,4,5,6,7 have all been addressed and answered in the affu-mative and Item 1 is not applicable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jeanne Doughty Overvie~v This packet has been prepared in response to a letter received from the Village of Mt. Prospect in regard to a new shed we obtained for our property. We purchased the structure in kit form from a shed manufacturer at a local county fair. Subsequent to the purchase, we marked the layout on our property, obtained a permit, discussed the layout with our neighbors and built the kit. Since it does not have a concrete foundation, it was relatively simple to complete. We have since hired a professional landscaper to finish the project with stone and shrubbery to give it an appropriate look. Exposition The requested variance meets several of the standards for variations listed in Zoning Code Section 14.203.C.9. The shed in question replaced an existing structure of indeterminate age that was located in a similar spot on the southern edge of the property. The prior structure intruded across the property line, the current shed is entirely on the owner's property. The property in question (1431 Blackhawk Drive) is somewhat unique in several respects. The neighborhood has no through streets and therefore experiences very little traffic. When originally created, the subdivision was considered unincorporated with regard to the Village of Mt. Prospect. As such, there are no sidewalks or curbs and the right-of-ways have drainage ditches adjacent on both sides. This serves to give the appearance of larger lots as the ditches appear to be part of the yard as it extends to the streets. The lots in this area tend to be well-wooded with mature trees and shrubbery. The lot is professionally landscaped, including the area surrounding the new structure. The lot is located at the southwest (inside) comer of Blackhawk Drive and Glendale Lane. It is rectangular with the long side adjacent to Glendale and the driveway located there, also. The yard south of the house contains an in-ground swimming pool. It is surrounded by a fence that is 6 feet tall. The east end is guarded by a wooden privacy fence with evergreen shrubs approximately 10 feet in height. The southeast comer of the pool fence has an evergreen tree approximately 25 feet tall as a sentinel. The adjacent property to the south, 1440 Greenbrier Lane (Lowery), has 15 large evergreen trees on the perimeter of the bordering yard, plus 5 more trees in their yard between our property and their house. These trees are full grown and all in excess of 40 feet in height. Additionally, several lilacs and other bushes fill in the perimeter as undergrowth. 531 Blaekhawk Drive Mt, Prospect, IL 60056 July 27,2001 Mr. Mike Magnussen Structural Bffflding Inspector V'fllage of Mount Prospect I00 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 I am writing this letter on behalf of my neighbors, Jean and Doug Doughty at 1431 Blaekhawk Drive. They are in the process of obtaining a variance for a shed constructed on their property that exceeds 120 S.F. As an architect, they asked that I calculate the existing coverage ofimpervions surfaces on their property. Below are the calculations based on the Plat of Survey dated February 23, 1994 and the s'tze of the new shed that was constructed this spring: Lot Size (122.0' x 165.0') 20,130 S.F. Home: 2,470 S.F. Frame Addition: 364 S.F. Open Porch: 40 S.F. Pool and D~ok: 2,030 S.F. New Shed 256 S.F. Wood Deck 663 S.F. Blaelctop Drive: Concrete Walk 117 S.F. Total Coverage: 6~80 S.F. Percentage: a4.7% Zone K-X requires that the total impervious surfaces on the lot do not exceed thirty-five percent (14,805.C.I). Based on the calculations, the lot is in compliance with this section of the code, Please feel free to call me if you have any comments or questions based on these calculations at 439-2559, .flGAGO, R.LINO;S PLAT OF SUR~ : ;, : . . UNRISE REALTY ASSOCIATr July 13, 2001 To VVhom It May Concern RE: Doug and Jeanne Doughty 1431 Blackhawk Drive, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 My name is Jim Regan, Broker/Owner of National Sundse Realty, with 26 years of experience in real estate sales. I am also a 25 year resident of and homeowner in Mount Prospect. I am writing in response to a request from Mr. and Mrs. Doughty to evaluate the impact of their storage shed on the market value of their property as well as the surrounding properties. On July 12, 2001 I inspected'the shed located on the property. After examining the shed's position, located between the pool and the southern property line, I am of the opinion that it cannot be seen from across Blackhawk Drive nor is it visible to neighbors on the south side due to the large pine trees that surround the shed. The 'camouflage' of the trees make it practically invisible except if you are in the Doughty's in-ground pool. It is my opinion that the shed has absolutely no impact on the surrounding neighbors,~ether on the south side or across the street on Blackhawk Dnve; it is barely visible wher~ driving down the street. The shed in question is brand new, in excellent condition and is, as far as sheds go, very attractive. The Doughty's property is enhanced by the shed, for it provides storage space for the many "homeowner" items we all need to have. As a Realtor and as a Mount Prospect homeowner, I can't imagine why anyone would comPlain about this structure. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Sincerely, NATIONAL SUNRISE REALTY JR:jg 1325 EAST DAVIS STREET, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS 60005 (847).870-1990 FAX: (847) 870-5289 EN:H O~FICE IND~NDENT[.Y O~NIED AND OPEF, ATED The Brauns 1440 Blackhawk Drive, Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056 OLF VIEW ESTATES JEFFREY G. ADAMS 1451 BLACKI-IAWK D1L MT. PROSPECT IL 60056 PHONE 847-364-6114 J~y 26, 2001 To Whom It May Concern, My name is Jeffrey Adorns, President of Golfview Estates. The storage shed at the residence of Jean and Doug Doughty, 1431 Blaekhawlq Mt. Prospect, is not a hindrance to the eye, the landscaping is professionally done, and I see no reason for anyone to complain or argue the point of its existence. We view the shed from our backyard, and see no reason for any objection to this situation. I feel there are a lot of more important things to be worded about then a family storage shed. You may reach me at any time PresidenffGolf View Estates ro,.. ,ae desk of ANDY PAFKO ugust 21, 2001 1ulie Caporusso 1460 W. Greenbriar Dr. Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Dear Village Board, It is my understanding that our neighbors, Jean and Doug Doughty are applying for a variance regarding the size of their newly constructed barn. I live at 1460 W. G-reenbriar Dr. which is adjacent to the Doughty's property. From our home the barn is not visible, and I do not object to it's size. Sincerely, lulie Capomsso DiStrict 57 Educatio Youndation ~hare ~e ¢ May 22, 2001 To whom it may concern: Jeanne Doughty is one of the founder members and a current board member of the District 57 Education Foundation~ As you know, the District 57 Education Foundation is an independent, non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance the education of Mount Prospect School District 57 students by generating and allocating resources through partnerships with teachers, parents, school officials and the business community. I can attest to her dedication, both as a community leader and as an involved parent. Jeanne possesses a wide range of talents that has made her an outstanding representative for the Foundation and the Village of Mount Prospect. Her strong leadership ability and willingness to help others are some of her strongest attributes. Jeanne, alongwith her husband Doug, have consistently given of their time to make Mount Prospect a better place to live. From the donation of their tractor and wagon for our village parades, to her tireless work on behalf of the foundation and the children of this village, the Doughty's truly personify our village motto, "Where Friendliness is a Wdy of Life. We are indeed fortunate as a community to have families like the Doughty's within our village. Thank you for your time. c/o LLncotn 3unior High · 700 West LincoLn Street · Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Voice brai[: 847.718.7999, l~ai[box 777.1020 · Website: http://www, ncisc.org/dist57 HARLIE AND BECKY TUZIK 1500 BLACKHAWK DRIVE MOUNT PROSPECT, IL 60056 JUNE24,2001 RE: STORAGE SHED AT 1431 BLACKHAWK TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER ON BEHALF OF DOUG AND JEANNE DOUGHTY WHO RESIDE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS IN MOLrNT PROSPECT. WE HAVE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE PAST TWELVE YEARS AND WERE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT THE SHED WAS THERE. 1T IS WELL HIDDEN ON THE SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE DO NOT FIND THIS STORAGE SHED EITHER OBJECTIONABLE OR A IF WE CAN BE OF ANY FURTHER HELP REGARDING THIS MATTER, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US. SINCERELY, CI-IARLIE AND BECKY TUZIK -22-01 l~red & Karen Korf 1431 Greenbriar Dr Mt. Prospect, I1 60056 To whom it may concern, The intent of this letter is to express our opinion about the storage shed at 1431 Blackhawk, belonging to the Doughty family. We live 2 houses to the south and have lived in the neighborhood for about 2 years. Both my wife and myself were born and raised in Mt. Prospect. 'As you walk or d~ve pass the house as we do everyday, the shed is tucked away amongst tall evergreen trees and shrubbery and it is not an eyesore. It is a professionally built and landscaped in the yard, it does not look like a handyman special J~mk shed. We hope that our letter is of some significance and will help in your decision about the issue with the shed. Please if you have any questions feel free to contact us. Thank you Fred Korf WL 211102 512/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1431 BLACKHAWK DRIVE WHEREAS, Douglas and Jeanne Doughty (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners") have filed a petition for Variations with respect to property located at 1431 Blackhawk Drive (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 32 in Golf View Estates Unit #2, being a subdivision in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Sec. 11, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded June 19, 1957 as Document #16935776, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 08-11-311-008 and WHEREAS, the Petitioners seek Variations to allow an existing 240 square foot shed to encroach onto a utility easement, and less than five-feet (5') from the rear (south) lot line, as required in Section 14.306.B of the Mount Prospect Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of ZBA case No: 32-01 before the zoning Board of Appeals on the 25th day of October, with subsequent action being taken on January 24, 2002 by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Daily Herald on the 10th da~'of October, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation of denial to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proPosed Variations would be in the best interest of the Village. Page 2/2 1431 Blackhawk Drive NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant VariatiOns, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow an existing 240 square foot shed to encroach onto an easement, and to be located one and one-half feet (1.5') from the rear (south) lot line, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk