The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6. New Business 02/03/2015Village of Mount Prospect MountPmspect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID J. STRAHL, ACTING VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 23, 2015 SUBJECT: PZ -37-14 / 3015 LYNN COURT, UNIT A / VARIATIONS (FRONT YARD SETBACK & LOT COVERAGE) The Petitioner proposes to remove a two -car gravel parking area located in the Lynn Court public right- of-way and construct a parking pad on the subject property. The Petitioner originally proposed to construct a two -car parking pad but revised their request to a one -car parking pad based on the discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. The petitioner is seeking approval of variations to allow a twenty-five foot (25') front yard setback and a fifty-seven percent (57%) overall lot coverage to construct a one -car parking pad when the Village Code requires a minimum thirty foot (30') front yard setback and maximum of forty-five percent (45%) overall lot coverage. A variation to the required lot coverage in the front yard is no longer required based on the revised request. The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, January 22, 2015, and by a vote of 3-1, recommended approval of the following motions: A. Variation to allow a twenty-five foot (25') front yard setback for a one -car parking pad; and B. Variation to allow a fifty-seven percent (57%) overall lot coverage, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal of a Plat of Subdivision creating a single lot of record. 2. Providing shrubs along the west and south sides of the parking pad to provide screening. Shrubs shall be planted 2' from the edge of pavement to allow for a 2' overhang of the vehicle. 3. Compliance with Section 16.306.B of the Code. 4. No overhang of vehicles onto the adjacent sidewalk. 5. If sidewalk adjacent to parking pad is not six inches (6") thick, removal and replacement of the sidewalk to comply with Village Code. 6. Providing a depressed curb & gutter along the sidewalk edge across the driveway. 7. Obtaining a building permit for the parking pad. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 3, 2015 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Coney, Jr., AI P \\Vf1\%,III hcdS\PLAN\P1. niung & Z—hig COMM\P&Z 20IJWJ Mcnlus\PZ-37-I4 3015 Lynn Ct.(VAR-Front Ynrd Sclbnck & Lal Cuwmgc),doc.r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-37-14 Hearing Date: January 22, 2015 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A PETITIONER :Richard Muhlbacher PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2015 PIN NUMBER: 08-22-200-170-0000 REQUESTS: 1)Variation to allow a 15’ Front Yard Setback for a Parking Pad 2)Variation to allow a 63.43% Overall Lot Coverage 3) Variation to allow a 45.70% Lot Coverage in the Front Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Agostino Filippone MEMBERS ABSENT:,, Joseph DonnellySharon Otteman,Thomas FitzgeraldWilliam Beattie STAFF MEMBERSPRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, SeniorPlanner INTERESTED PARTIES :Richard Muhlbacher, Jerry Ortiz Vice-ChairmanYoungquist called the meeting to order at 7:35p.m. Commissioner Kuetermade a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2014meeting; Commissioner Mizwickiseconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist introduced Case PZ-37-14,3015 Lynn Court, Aat 7:37 p.m. Ms. Andrade statedthe Petitioner for case number PZ-36-14 was seeking Variations to the front yard setback and lot coverage for the property located at 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A. Ms.Andrade explainedthe Subject Property is located on the east side of Lynn Court and contains an attached single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered to the west, north, and east by the R1 district, and multi-family residential in unincorporated Cook County to the south. Ms. Andrade stated the Plat of Survey indicatesthe existing improvements located on the Subject Property include a townhome, brick patio and a storage shed. The Lynn Court public right-of-way consists of a stone/gravel area that has been used for two parking spaces. Ms. Andrade statedthe Petitioner intends to remove the gravel areaparking pad located in the public right-of-way and construct a two-car parking pad in the front yardat the northwest corner of the building. The parking pad would be paved with either concrete or asphalt and measure eighteen feet (18’) wide by eighteen feet (18’) deep. The petitioner is seeking approval of a variation to allow a fifteen foot (15’) front yard setback, as measured from the southwest corner of the parking pad,when the Village Code requires a minimum thirty foot (30’)setbackand seeking Variations to the lot coverage to allow a 45.70% lot coverage in the front yard and a 63.43% overall lot coverage when the Village Code allows up to forty-five percent (45%) of impervious surface in the front yard and on the overallproperty. Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 1of 4 Ms. Andrade showed a table comparingthe Subject Property to the R1 Single Family Residence District’s bulk requirements. Ms. Andrade statedthe Subject Property currently does not comply with all of the Village’s zoning regulations. The Subject Property is not a legal lot of record and the overall lot coverage measures approximately fifty-three percent (53%) of the lot area when a maximum of 45% is permitted. Ms. Andrade stated there was no history of variation approval. Ms. Andrade summarized the Standards for a Variation as the following: 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. Ms. Andrade stated, per the Petitioner, the gravel area located in the Lynn Court right-of-way has been in existence since the 1970’s and has provided two parking spaces for the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade explained the townhome development does not provide the required parking. However, the Subject Property’s lack of off- street parking does not constitute a physical hardship unique to this property. Other multi-family dwellings in the Village do not provide the required number of parking. Ms. Andrade furtherexplainedthe proposed improvement would increase the extent of the existing nonconforming overall lot coverage and create an additional nonconformity. The proposed improvement would make the overall lot coverage exceed Code by more than eighteen percent (18%) and make the lot coverage in the front yard non-conforming. Ms. Andrade stated Staff reviewedthe Variation requests and did not find the requests meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend denial of the following motions: 1.Variation to allow a 15’ Front Yard Setback for a Parking Pad; 2.Variation to allow a 63.43% Overall Lot Coverage; and 3.Variation to allow a 45.70%Lot Coverage in the Front Yard. Ms. Andrade stated the Village Board’s decision is final for the case. Commissioner Mizwicki asked staff if increasing the lot coverage would permit a garage. Mr. Simmons responded that a structure would be subject toconformtothe building setback requirements.A parking setback would allow them to encroach fifteen feet (15’) into the front yard.Approving a lot coverage variation would allow the site to have more impervious surface on the property. If the petitionerwere to redevelop the property sometime in the future, they could potentially add another structure that conformsto the building requirements that add up to the lot coverageproposed. Commissioner Mizwicki asked where the other townhomes parktheir vehicles. Ms. Andrade responded the other townhomes park in the rearof the property. Commissioner Filippone asked about the Village’s ordinance regarding gravel. Ms.Andraderesponded that the Village Ordinance requires all gravel to be removed and paved. Mr. Simmons statedthe Ordinance was passed over ten years ago to bring all properties into compliance by removing all gravel driveways and parking lots. st There was an amortization period that was in the Ordinance that came due January 1 of this year. Village Staff has been contacting all the properties that are in the Village that still havegravel surface areas and notifying them they need to comply with the requirements. In this case, the gravel is located in the public right-of-way. Mr. Simmons further stated the Village typically would notpermita development to utilize the right-of-way for its required parking. The Petitioner is seeking the Variations to provide twoparking spaces on-site in lieu of losing the existing parking spaceslocated in the Lynn Court right-of-way. Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 2of 4 Commissioner Filippone asked if there have been similar requests to allow parking padsin the front yard. Ms. Andrade responded there has been no requestto allow parking pads in the front yard. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist confirmed the Subject Property’s land boundaries extend beyond the boundaries of the townhouse itself,which is not typical of most townhome developments. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist confirmed thefront yard is not common area and the proposed parking pad would belong to the townhome itself. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist swore in Richard Muhlbacher from 33 Elgin Avenue in Forest Park. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist confirmed Mr. Muhlbacher was one of the owners. Mr. Muhlbacherdiscussed the gravel parking area in the right-of-way has been in existence since his mom purchased the home in 1978.Mr. Muhlbacher explained the rear provides five (5) parking spaces. Mr. Muhlbacher further explained that five (5) parking spaces would not be an issue if the five (5) townhome units had one car, but that is not the case; some units have up to three cars. Mr. Muhlbacher explained 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A has always parkedin the gravel parking area located in the right-of-way.Upon receiving the notice to remove the gravel from the Village, he decided to pursue the Variations for a permanent parkingpad in the front yard. Vice-ChairmanYoungquistasked if one parking space versus two would suffice. Mr. Muhlbacher replied one parking space would be sufficientif that would be favorable. There was discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Muhlbacher regarding the availability of parking spaces on site. Mr. Muhlbacher confirmed there is no homeowner’s associationand that theSubject Property is the only unit consisting of a front yard.Mr. Muhlbacher confirmed the front yard is not common area. There was additional discussionregarding the unusual circumstances, including thelack of a homeowner’s association, parking, and area. CommissionerFilippone asked Mr. Muhlbacher what the hardship was. Mr. Muhlbacherresponded the hardship was the lack of parking on private propertyand unavailability to park in the public right-of-way overnight. CommissionerMizwicki asked if the homes across Lynn Court were single-family homes. Mr. Muhlbacher confirmed. Vice-ChairmanYoungquistconfirmed there was another gravel parking area located south of the Petitioner’s gravel areathat was used by the townhomes located in unincorporated Cook County. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist swore in Jerry Ortiz from Chicago, IL. Mr. Ortiz stated he owns 3015 Lynn Court, Unit D and also owns a home in Lake Briarwood. Mr. Ortiz stated he purchasedhis townhome in 2000and was told each townhome included two parking spacesin the back. The two parking spaces for 3015 Lynn Court, Unit Ahave always been in the Lynn Court public right-of-way.The remainder of the townhomes parkin the rear but the space is very tight. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist confirmed none of the townhomes in the area have garages. CommissionerMizwicki asked if Unit D has one parking space. Mr. Ortiz responded he has two parking spaces and that each townhome owner knows where to park. Mr. Ortiz confirmed there is notenoughspace in the back to provide two parking spaces for each townhome. Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 3of 4 Mr. Simmons stated the townhomes were developed under Cook County regulations and do not comply with the Village’s current parking regulations. Residents have worked out where each can park and maintain access through the area. The two spaces the Petitioner has utilized arein the right-of-way. CommissionerMizwicki asked if the removal of the gravel would have an impact to others. Mr. Mulhbacher responded the removal of his gravel parking pad would not impact anyone since the gravel parking spaces have always belongedto his townhome. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist asked if there was anyone else to speak on the case. Hearing none, he brought the discussion back to the Commission. He indicatedhe was of the opinion to make the Variations happen and stated the Petitioner was aware of the conditions of approval if it moves forward. Mr. Filipponestated he was concerned with the lot coverage and indicated it was a weird situationand could see the hardship.He indicated he was concerned with how much over the lot coverage would be. CommissionerMizwicki asked regarding the size of the gravel area. Mr.Mulhbacherindicated the gravel area was actually bigger than the parking pad he was proposing. CommissionerFilippone asked Mr. Muhlbacher if he was ok with doing a one-car parking pad and complying with the conditions of approval. Mr. Muhlbacher responded that it was not optimal but that if the Variations were approved he would be fine with one parking space. Mr. Muhlbacher indicated his preference was two parking spaces.Mr. Muhlbacher reiterated the need for the parking pad and Variation approvals. Vice-Chairman Youngquistindicated that there was support for one parking space. Vice-ChairmanYoungquistand Commissioner Filippone confirmed their preference was to supportone parking space due to the lot coverage. Mr. Muhlbacher revised the Variation requests to reflect aonecar parking pad versus two. Commissioner Filippone made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kueter to approvethemodified Variations to the front yard setback and lot coverage for aone-car parking padin the front yardsubject tothe conditions listed in the staff report. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Youngquist,Filippone,Kueter NAYS: Mizwicki Motion was approved 3-1. After hearing one additional case,Vice-ChairmanYoungquistmade a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mizwickito adjourn at 8:50p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Consuelo Andrade Senior Planner Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 4of 4 3015 Unit A Lynn Ct Mt. Prospect, IL. 60056 January 23, 2015 Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Request 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Case #2013-00001403 (3015 Lynn Court #A) Dear Zoning Board Members: Pursuant to the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Board meeting on January 22, 2015, 1 respectfully request that my application be changed from an 18 ",y 18 foot two car parking pad to an 8.5 by 16 foot single car parking pad. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 2 Richard A. Muhlbacher Property Owner January 23, 2015 BITUMINOUS 1.25' NORTH WOOD FENCE 1.2' NORTH MACNAIL (SET) AT CORNER AREA OF PARCEL 1 = 39 08 . 32± S.F. 0.0708± ACRES .AREA OF UNIT A= 060± S.E. Area Impervious _ 1631 S.F. Area Non impervious = 1451 S.F. Area of Parking Pad = 13 6 S.F. IRON PIPE o (SET) AT CORNER BITUMINOUS � � � 0.24' NORTH 18 79' FOR SANITARY EWER t,27,AU �90'03'33'` � 1 p EASEMENT FCR INR &c EGRESS_ 85 27"41 F 4R ti— � ci+ 9RICK & RAME .d TC"YNHO E U r PARTYW 0 SPLIT 0.2 WEST DIRC 0.09* 1 IRON PI 7 05.20'22" x.04 ET) —T 35 79'l78°24;' , A CORNER— 3A `► RECrt BRICK PA 113.8{] A (153.661) STOKE 1" IRON PIPE!_ --PVC FENCE------ (SET} ENCE — —(SET} � STORAGE 0.1' NORTH do 6' PUBLIC UTILITY ,i SHED AT CORNER 0.3' EAST EASEMENT 6' PUB WOOD FENCE WOOS FENCE EASEME 4.0' SOUTH 2.1 SOUTH & Yr�iE PVC FENCE 0.4' EAST Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY — PZ -37-14 LOCATION: 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A PETITIONER: Richard Muhlbacher OWNERS: Richard Muhlbacher and Helga M. Muhlbacher PARCEL #: 08-22-200-170-0000 LOT SIZE: 0.07 acres (3,082.32 square feet) ZONING: R1 Single Family Residence LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUEST: 1) Variation to allow a 15' Front Yard Setback for a Parking Pad 2) Variation to allow a 63.43% Overall Lot Coverage 3) Variation to allow a 45.70% Lot Coverage in the Front Yard LOCATION MAP 3'00 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JOSEPH P. DONNELLY, CHAIRPERSON FROM: CONSUELO ANDRADE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 13, 2015 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 22, 2015 r 7 SUBJECT: PZ -37-14 / 3015 LYNN COURT, UNIT A / VARIATIONS (FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE) A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 22, 2015 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Richard Mulhbacher (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking Variations to allow a 15' front yard setback, a 63.43% overall lot coverage ratio and a 45.70% lot coverage ratio in the required front yard. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the January 7, 2015 edition of the Daily Herald newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250 feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the east side of Lynn Court and contains an attached single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered to the west, north, and east by the R1 district, and multi -family residential in unincorporated Cook County to the south. The Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations, and was annexed into Mount Prospect in 1978. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Plat of Survey indicates the existing improvements located on the Subject Property include a townhome, brick patio and a storage shed. The Lynn Court public right-of-way consists of a stone/gravel area that has been used for two parking spaces. The Petitioner intends to remove the stone/gravel area and construct a two -car parking pad in the front yard. The parking pad would be paved with either concrete or asphalt and measure eighteen feet (18') wide by eighteen feet (18') deep. The petitioner is seeking approval of a variation to allow a fifteen foot (15') front yard setback, as measured from the southwest corner of the parking pad, a 45.70% lot coverage in the front yard and a 63.43% overall lot coverage when the Village Code requires a minimum thirty foot (30') front yard setback and a maximum of forty-five percent (45%) of impervious surface in the front yard and on the overall property. PZ -37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015 GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE Page 3 The Subject Property currently does not comply with all of the Village's zoning regulations. The Subject Property is not a legal lot of record and the overall lot coverage measures approximately fifty-three percent (53%) of the lot area when a maximum of 45% is permitted. No variation to lot coverage has previously been approved for the Subject Property. The following table compares the Subject Property to the R1 Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Further, the Subject Property does not comply with required off street parking requirements. The Village Code requires two (2) parking spaces for a residential single-family attached dwelling unit. The Subject Property is one of five dwelling units that make up the townhome development. The required parking for the five (5) unit townhome development is ten (10). The Petitioner's Plat of Survey does not indicate any parking lot striping. Per the Petitioner, there is only room for five (5) vehicles in the rear. VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: • 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. Per the Petitioner, the gravel area located in the Lynn Court right-of-way has been in existence since the 1970's and has provided two parking spaces for the Subject Property since then as the townhome development does not provide the required parking. The gravel parking pad would be removed and replaced as green space in order to comply with the Village's requirement for paved driveways and parking lots as gravel is not permitted. The Subject Property's front yard consists of a shared sidewalk and driveway that serve the townhome development. The only space to construct additional parking is in the front yard. RI District Existing Proposed Requirements Setbacks: Front (W) Min. 30' 31.38' No Change (bdlg.) 15'(parking pad) Interior (N) Min. 5' 20.05' No Change (bdlg.) 15' (parking pad) Interior (S) Min. 5' 4.54' No Change (bldg.) (Variation approved) 18' (parking pad) Rear (E) Min. 25' 0' No Change (bldg.) 22' (parking ad) Lot Coverage Overall 45% Max. 53% 63.43% (1,_387.04 sci.ft.) (1,631 sq.ft.) (1,955 sq.ft.) 45% Max. 30% 45.70% Lot Coverage in Front Yard (675 sq.ft.) 1 (450 sq.ft.) (685.44 sq.ft.) Further, the Subject Property does not comply with required off street parking requirements. The Village Code requires two (2) parking spaces for a residential single-family attached dwelling unit. The Subject Property is one of five dwelling units that make up the townhome development. The required parking for the five (5) unit townhome development is ten (10). The Petitioner's Plat of Survey does not indicate any parking lot striping. Per the Petitioner, there is only room for five (5) vehicles in the rear. VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: • 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. Per the Petitioner, the gravel area located in the Lynn Court right-of-way has been in existence since the 1970's and has provided two parking spaces for the Subject Property since then as the townhome development does not provide the required parking. The gravel parking pad would be removed and replaced as green space in order to comply with the Village's requirement for paved driveways and parking lots as gravel is not permitted. The Subject Property's front yard consists of a shared sidewalk and driveway that serve the townhome development. The only space to construct additional parking is in the front yard. PZ -37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015 Page 3 The Subject Property's lack of off-street parking does not constitute a physical hardship unique to this property. Other multi -family dwellings in the Village do not provide the required number of parking. Further, the proposed improvement would increase the extent of the existing nonconforming overall lot coverage and create an additional nonconformity. The lot coverage in the front yard currently complies. The overall lot coverage currently exceeds the maximum permitted by eight percent (8%). The proposed improvement would make the overall lot coverage exceed Code by more than eighteen percent (18%) and make the lot coverage in the front yard non -conforming. Should the Variation request be approved, Staff recommends adding conditions of approvals, including a reduction in the dimensions of the parking pad to reduce the lot coverage and consolidating the Subject Property to a single lot of record. The Petitioner would be required to submit a Plat of Subdivision creating a single -lot of record. RECOMMENDATION Based on staff's analysis, the Variation requests to the required front yard setback and lot coverage do not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons previously noted. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend denial of the following motions: A. Variation to allow a 15' Front Yard Setback for a Parking Pad; B. Variation to allow a 63.43% Overall Lot Coverage; and C. Variation to allow a 45.70% Lot Coverage in the Front Yard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal of a Plat of Subdivision creating a single lot of record. 2. Reducing the dimensions of the parking pad to measure no more than seventeen feet (17') wide by sixteen feet (16') deep. 3. Providing striping to delineate the two parking spaces; each parking space to measure 8.5' wide by 16' deep. 4. Providing shrubs along the west and south sides of the parking pad to provide screening. Shrubs shall be planted 2' from the edge of pavement to allow for a 2' overhang of the vehicle. 5. Compliance with Section 16.306.13 of the Code. 6. No overhang of vehicles onto the adjacent sidewalk. 7. If sidewalk adjacent to parking pad is not six inches (6") thick, removal and replacement of the sidewalk to comply with Village Code, 8. Providing a depressed curb & gutter along the sidewalk edge across the driveway. 9. Obtaining a building permit for the parking pad. The Village Board's decision is final for the motions above. I concur: `�- William J. Cooney, AIL -11 Director of Community Development /it H1PLAMPIanning & Zoning COW"&Z 2014\Staff Repons\PZ-37-14 3015 Lynn CL (VAR- Front Yard Setback & Lot Coverage) docx Andrade, Consuelo From: Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:52 AM To: Andrade, Consuelo Subject: Re: Zoning Schedule and Application Packet - 3015 Lynn Ct. Thank you for your call Consuelo, The request is for 2 spaces and not one as I indicated on the application. The corrected proposed size is for an 18 X 18 Sq. Ft Parking pad with an area of 324 Sq. Ft for a new lot coverage of 1,955 Sq. Ft or 63.43% Thank you, Richard Muhlbacher ( December 12, 2014 Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Request 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Case 92013-00001403 (3015 Lynn Court #A) Dear Zoning Board Members: On July 22 of this year, we received a letter from Robert Roels, the Environmental Health Manager at the Village of Mount Prospect. The letter stated that the gravel parking area, where we have been parking since the 1970's, must be removed and replaced with a permanent asphalt or concrete pad. I contacted the Building Department and they stated they could not grant a building permit on this property without a variance by the Council. We are seeking a village variance to section 14.2217 to allow the addition of a private, tandem parking pad to be constructed adjacent to the west side of 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A. We are also seeking a variance to section 14.905c to allow the additional square footage use. We will remove the existing 25x25 gravel parking area and replace the area with grass. We will also remove part of the existing bushes along the west wall. The parking pad would be made of concrete or asphalt and would begin at the sidewalk, for 9 feet with a width of 18 feet (Approximately 4 sidewalk Squares) edged with decorative evergreen approximately 4 feet tall. The addition of this parking pad will continue to ease the current overcrowded parking situation for the townhome residences at 3015 Lynn Court. This solution allows us to avoid seeking a street parking variance, which is how the residents of IDA Court handled their parking issues. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard A. Muhlbacher Property Owner Attachments (2) Attachment: Photographs of Property Front view of site with illustration of two tandem 08222001700000 07119/2007 Aerial view of the site, with parking drawn in area. cars. Side by Side Parking Pad Site Removal of part of the bushes. Beginning at the sidewalk for approximately 9 feet with a width of 18 feet (length approximately four sidewalk squares). Made of concrete or asphalt with a decorative Evergreen approximately 4ft tall. MAYOR Arlene A. Juracek TRUSTEES Paul Wm. Hoefert Village of Mount Prospect A. John Kom John J.ak Community Development Department — Steven S. Polit S. Pol Richard F. Rogers Environmental Health & Housing Division Michael A. Zadel 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 July 22, 2014 Helga Muhlbacher RE: 3015 Lynn Ct # A Dear Helga Muhlbacher: VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 8471870-5668 Fax: 847/818-5329 wiriy.lnountprospect. oY$ A survey of the community found a gravel parking pad along the street. There is no record of a permit, and the pad is not in a location permitted by code. Also, Mount Prospect Property Maintenance Code, Section 302.3.1, requires that existing gravel driveways or parking pads be paved (concrete, asphalt, or bricks) in compliance with all applicable sections of the Village Code by January 1, 2015. Due to the location of the gravel pad it cannot be legally replaced, and must be removed. To comply, the gravel pad must be removed by January 1, 2015. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter please contact me at 847-818-5296. Sincerely, Robert J. RoeIs, Jr. Environmental Health Manager Case: 2013-00001403 Standards for Variations The Planning & Zoning Commission is guided by seven standards listed in Zoning Code Section 14.203.C.9. Those standards relate to conditions applicable to the property for which the Variation is requested, the owner's motives for requesting the Variation and potential effects on nearby properties. The standards for Variations are: 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a specific hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations was to be applied; Since the inception of this development in 1963, there has not been enough planned parking for the five units under the 3015 townhomes. In the late 1960's, the previous owners created a two car, gravel -parking area in the easement on Lynn Court to help relieve the overcrowded parking situation they found themselves in. We have been parking on this gravel space since 1978. Now in 2014, my recently handicapped (Permit No. CA79481 Exp. August 2018) mother needs a safe place to access parking near the house. 2. The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification; This property has only a front yard area and a mandatory "right of way" driveway for others to exit the complex. The driveway also must be maintained at this home owner's expense, including property taxes. 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase financial gain; No, the need for this parking is based on the lack of planned parking for the townhome development. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Chapter and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Yes, as we cannot park on the driveway that is on our property, as it is a throughway for others to use. No, the property is not being considered for sale. 5. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; The location of the proposed parking pad will have no impact on the public's welfare nor cause injury. 6. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; The look will be no different than all the other homes in the neighborhood that keep car(s) in their driveway. 7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed parking pad will not affect any of the conditions above. BITUMINOUS 1,25' NORTH WOOL} FENCE 1.2' NORTH MAGNAIL (SET) AT CORNER AREA OF PARCEL. 1 = 3,082.32± S.F. 0.0708± ACRES AREA OF UNIT A 660± S.F. Area Impervious _ 1631 S.F. Area Non impervious = 1451 S.F. Area of Parking Pad = 162 S.F. 1" IRON PIPE a (SET) � AT CORNER BITUMINOUS 0.24' NORTH�79' * 90'03'33"-- -1 SS cp lco� F� 85'27041 C FOR SANITARY SEWER '4-277.40' EASE 1£NT FOR INN S a EGR BF ICK & RAME . 1 TOWNHOUSE PARTYW SPLIT 0.2 WEST 1� IRON PI� ET) A CORNER (153.66') --PVC 1 0.3' EAST 1 9 L14cr 1 4tiR�Crt � � '� 1 EAST 105'20'22„31 79'08'24,' BRICK PA . 1u IRON PIPE SET) It STORAGE AT CORNER Nf SHED WOOD FENCE 4.0' SOUTH Y€� � PVC FENCE FOR SANITARY SEWER '4-277.40' EASE 1£NT FOR INN S a EGR BF ICK & RAME . 1 TOWNHOUSE PARTYW SPLIT 0.2 WEST 1� IRON PI� ET) A CORNER 6' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT -T- 6' PUBL EASEMEI (153.66') --PVC FENCE - 0.1' NORTH 0.3' EAST WOOD FENCE 2.1' SOUTH & 0.4' EAST 6' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT -T- 6' PUBL EASEMEI XVRRY IND H00DY, LTD, Land Surveyors Illinois 1'rolessimal Land S., "ying F� Corporation License iso. 184-002845 1 933 S. glum C,-- Xoatl, Suite 101 Palatine, Illinois 60067 .mmry ay.com f CSamm, y.rom I lone: ('34 )3' 8-5960 - PLAT OF SURVEY OF PARCEL 1: THAT PART OF LOT 16 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 83.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF AND LYING WEST OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A POINT ON THE LAST DESCRIBED LINE 113.80 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 16, A DISTANCE OF 127.40 FEET WESTERLY OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT BEING IN LAKE BRIARWOOD, A SUBDIVI SON OF PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ALSO PARCEL 2: EASEMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS AND EXHIBIT 1 THERETO ATTACHED DATED APRIL 23, 1964 AND RECORDED APRIL 28, 1964 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 19111328 MADE BY LA SALLE NATIONAL BANK AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1959 AND KNOWN AS TRUST NUMBER 23710; TO WILLIAM A SUNSTRUM AND BLANCHE SUNSTRUM DATED AUGUST 31, 1964 AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1964 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 19255414 FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL 1 AFORESAID FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER AND ACROSS THE SOUTH 5 FEET (EXCEPT THE EAST 29.90 FEET THEREOF) OF THAT PART OF LOT 15 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 15 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 143.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 16 ALSO THE SOUTHEASTERLY 5 FEET OF THE NORTHWESTERLY 15 FEET OF LOT 16 (EXCEPT THAT PART LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 16 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 28.81 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16) (EXCEPT THAT PART FALLING IN PARCEL 1 AFORESAID) ALSO THE SOUTH 5 FEET (EXCEPT THE EAST 29.90 FEET THEREOF) OF THAT PART OF LOT 16 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 16; THROUGHT A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 33.81 FEEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16 (EXCEPT THAT PART FALLING IN THE NORTHWESTERLY 15.0 FEET OF SAID LOT 16) ALSO THE NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 16 AND OVER THAT PART OF LOT 16 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 16 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 20.57 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 16 (EXCPET THAT PART FALLING IN THE NORTHWESTERLY 10.0 FEET OF SAID LOT 16 (EXCEPT THAT PART FALLING IN PARCEL 1 AFORESAID) ALSO EASEMENT FOR INGESS AND EGRESS AND PARKING OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 29.90 FEET (AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE) OF THAT PART OF LOT 16 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 83.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF ALSO THE SOUTH 60.0 FEET OF THE EAST 29.90 FEET OF THAT PART OF LOTS 15 AND 16 (TAKEN AS ATRACT) LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 15 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 143.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16, ALL AFORESAID EASEMENTS BEING IN LAKE BRIARWOOD, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AREA OF PARCEL 1 = 3,082.32± S.F. / 0.0708± ACRES AREA OF UNIT A = 660± S.F. EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER I" IRON PIPE WOOD FENCE (SET) 1.2' NORTH o AT CORNER 127 4d BITUMINOUS (S i)AIL 0.24' NORM 084.79'T AT CORNER - - 54.17'- - - BIRIMINOUS 1.25' NORM 1 EGRES 5- 39'� FOR GRESS & EASEMENT FOR INGR 5 & EGRES - - - 85'27'41° d EASEMENT 7 V coNc. WALK \ 7D� Q STORAGE 2091 \ o T 1 6 pF 1- p 1 P PRp1 N��UDEo BRICK A AME PARTYW \ 90 '- EASE. T FOR INGRESS, GRES SHED o�n '2� SPUT 0.2 WEST & PARKING ~ W000 FENCE 2 p p9 1" IRON PI ET O y m 105'20'22" 04 79Y1824; -A CORNER-- - - 90 `' 3138 EC DIRT ICK O BRPAIPE-. 113.80' r �-� a STONE (153.66') %%- -PVC FECE- - - - - - T � 1" IRON PIPE IN I" RONP (SET) % STORAGE � 0.1' NORTH & 6' PUBUC UTILITY } (SET) AT CORNER AT CORNER a SHE. WOOD FENCE 0.3' EAST EASEMENT WOOD FENCE 6' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 4.0' SOUTH 2.1' SOUTH & STONE PVC FENCE 0.4' EAST SOUTH LINE OF LOT 16 LINE OF LOT 15 NORTH 15 OF --ART -LOT 5' EASEMENT FOR INGRESS & EGRESS Ohne..,...... .:I- -n Nue, X01) are feet -dd, there f Angular data shorn thus: 90°00'00"inrGcnte degrees, mine:rex and......M. J0231 E lent, d' b g. /0.1%(N9170000 L)'ndi t 1d' /b- 'g / 0.25d111V 90"0000 Rdl rrduah. deal di ur. rrn/bearng Bearing., shmrn bereoa, ifanv, Per local or ussuruedd-,, unm.ce than n nNerwice Compare vnur points helo, acing same and report any d� rencea nnmedin[ely. Check 1eg.1 descriptiwa Lvith deed or rule poh'�y and Lryort urns dir.r.pancv invrrediateiy. Beeilding lines and......rent,' fary, shorvrr hereon are ar xhovrn as the recorded subdivision plat w as mlirnt.d. Order Numher 14-7249 Survev ,lade For: Richard Aluhl aches NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 16 1" IRON PIPE (SET) AT CORNER S'L4l'E 0111IJ.LV018 t c01-N'n-o `C'O0A 1, Barbra C Murry, nn 111moix Profes,,w-1 Land Survevnr do li.rehv cer,0ly that ! have surveyed M, above des,-rihed pr perry, and that Che above plat is a corre.f representation of'snid srm�eland Nat ±hie pr f ssional service confor I N t Illi -i" i d far a bo -d""' �eP(LP C. MLP Date a(comp.�tlon ffrt ldxo-k Na -b -7,20J4 mP 3529 9 Palar'ne, 111mok November 20, 2014 r �� ar wo x LL ♦ A iwx iilinoisProfession./ L.ndS'urvevor-Barham C'.'Vu, y 015-003J19 ].Teens. Reneunld [e: November 30, 2016 Projecd ,V, -her: 14-1249 FieldBook. 283L-21-23 D-wg F17e. 14124900dAg ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3015 LYNN COURT, UNIT A, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Richard Muhlbacher (Petitioner), has filed a petition for 1) Variation to allow a twenty-five foot (25’) front yard setback and 2) Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of fifty-seven percent (57%) for property located at 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A, and legally described as: PARCEL 1: THAT PART OF LOT 16 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 83.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF AND LYING WEST OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A POINT ON THE LAST DESCRIBED LINE 113.80 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 16, A DISTANCE OF 127.40 FEET WESTERLY OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT BEING IN LAKE BRIARWOOD, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST ½ OF THE EAST ½ OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PARCEL 2: EASEMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS AND EXHIBIT 1 THERETO ATTACHED DATED APRIL 23, 1964 AND RECORDED APRIL 28, 1964 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 19111328 MADE BY LA SALLE NATIONAL BANK AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMETN DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1959 AND KNOWN AS TRUST NUMBER 23710; TO WILLIAM A SUNSTRUM AND BLANCHE SUNSTRUM DATED AUGUST 31, 1964 AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1964 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 19255414 FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL 1 AFORESAID FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER AND ACROSS THE SOUTH 5 FEET (EXCEPT THE EAST 29.90 FEET THEREOF) OF THAT PART OF LOT 15 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 15 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 143.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 16 ALSO THE SOUTHEASTERLY 5 FEET OF THE NORTHWESTERLY 15 FEET OF LOT 16 (EXCEPT THAT PART LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 16 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 28.81 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16) (EXCEPT THAT PART FALLING IN PARCEL 1 AFORESAID) ALSO THE SOUTH 5 FEET (EXCEPT THE EAST 29.90 FEET THEREOF) OF THAT PART OF LOT 16 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 16; THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 33.81 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16 (EXCEPT THAT PART FALLING IN THE NORTHWESTERLY 15.0 FEET OF SAID LOT 16) ALSO THE NORTHWESTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT 16 AND OVER THAT PART OF LOT 16 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 16 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 20.57 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 16 (EXCEPT THAT PART FALLING IN THE NORTHWESTERLY 10.0 FEET OF SAID LOT 16 (EXCEPT THAT PART FALLING IN PARCEL 1 AFORESAID) ALSO EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PARKING OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 29.90 FEET (AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE) OF THAT PART OF LOT 16 LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 83.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF ALSO THE SOUTH 60.0 FEET OF THE EAST 29.90 FEET OF THAT PART OF LOTS 15 AND 16 (TAKEN AS A TRACT) LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 15 THROUGH A POINT ON SAID EAST LINE 143.0 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16, ALL AFORESAID EASEMETNS BEING IN LAKE BRIARWOOD, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST ½ OF THE EAST ½ OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Property Index Number 08-22-200-170-0000; and WHEREAS, the “Petitioner” seeks 1) Variation to allow a twenty-five foot (25’) front yard building setback for a one-car parking pad; and 2) Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of fifty-seven percent (57%), as shown on the Petitioner’s Site Plan attached as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of PZ-37-14 before the nd 22 day of January, 2015, pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the th proper legal notice having been published in the Daily Herald on the 7 day of January 2015; and Page 2 of 2 PZ 37-14 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-37-14; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the request meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of 1) Variation to allow a twenty-five foot (25’) front yard building setback and 2) Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of fifty-seven percent (57%) would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth herein above are incorporated as findings of fact by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation to allow a twenty-five foot (25’) front yard building setback for a one-car parking pad as shown on the Petitioner’s Site Plan attached as Exhibit “A”. SECTION THREE: Approval of the Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of fifty-seven percent (57%) is subject to complying with the following conditions: 1. Submittal of a Plat of Subdivision creating a single lot of record. 2. Providing shrubs along the west and south sides of the parking pad to provide screening. Shrubs shall be planted two feet (2’) from the edge of pavement to allow for a two foot (2’) overhang of the vehicle. 3. Compliance with Section 16.306.B of the Code. 4. No overhang of vehicles onto the adjacent sidewalk. 5. If sidewalk adjacent to parking pad is not six inches (6”) thick, removal and replacement of the sidewalk to comply with Village Code. 6. Providing a depressed curb and gutter along the sidewalk edge across the driveway. 7. Obtaining a permit for the parking pad. SECTION FOUR: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance and Exhibit “A” with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED and APPROVED this day of February, 2015. ___________________________________ Arlene A. Juracek Mayor ATTEST: ___________________ M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\\CLKO\\WIN\\ORDINANCE2\\Variationsandlotcoveragepz37-14feb2015 January 23, 2015 BITUMINOUS 1.25' NORTH WOOD FENCE 1.2' NORTH MACNAIL (SET) AT CORNER AREA OF PARCEL 1 = 39 08 . 32± S.F. 0.0708± ACRES .AREA OF UNIT A= 060± S.E. Area Impervious _ 1631 S.F. Area Non impervious = 1451 S.F. Area of Parking Pad = 13 6 S.F. IRON PIPE o (SET) AT CORNER BITUMINOUS � � � 0.24' NORTH 18 79' FOR SANITARY EWER t,27,AU �90'03'33'` � 1 p EASEMENT FCR INR &c EGRESS_ 85 27"41 F 4R ti— � ci+ 9RICK & RAME .d TC"YNHO E U r PARTYW 0 SPLIT 0.2 WEST DIRC 0.09* 1 IRON PI 7 05.20'22" x.04 ET) —T 35 79'l78°24;' , A CORNER— 3A `► RECrt BRICK PA 113.8{] A (153.661) STOKE 1" IRON PIPE!_ --PVC FENCE------ (SET} ENCE — —(SET} � STORAGE 0.1' NORTH do 6' PUBLIC UTILITY ,i SHED AT CORNER 0.3' EAST EASEMENT 6' PUB WOOD FENCE WOOS FENCE EASEME 4.0' SOUTH 2.1 SOUTH & Yr�iE PVC FENCE 0.4' EAST Village of Mount Prospect�(111[1i jCl lSE)lt[ Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID J. STRAHL, ACTING VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 23, 2015 SUBJECT: PZ -36-14 / 1700 W. CENTRAL ROAD / VARIATIONS (HEIGHT OF SALT STORAGE DOME AND NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) The Petitioner would like to construct a 6,600 ton salt storage dome that would measure up to sixty-two and one half feet (62.5') in height when the Zoning Code limits the height of an accessory structure (that is not a detached garage) to a maximum of ten feet (10'). The construction of the salt storage dome would increase the overall number of accessory structures on the Subject Property to five (5) when the Village Code limits the number of accessory structures to two (2) per zoning lot. The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, January 22, 2015, and by a vote of 4-0, recommended approval of a Variation to allow a sixty-two and one half feet (62.5') height for an accessory structure (salt storage dome) and a Variation to allow more than two (2) accessory structures, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 3, 2015 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. dooney, Jr.,ICP \\Vfl\rlillicd$\PLAN\Plarodng &Zoning COMW&Z 201d\ME1 Mcmos\PZ-3G-Id 1700W Ccnlral Rd (VARsHciglu of Sall Slorngc Doinc mid Numhcrof Acccssory S(niclures) docx MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-36-14 Hearing Date: January 22, 2015 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1700 W. Central Road PETITIONER :Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2015 PIN NUMBER: 03-33-300-078-0000 REQUESTS: 1) Variation to allow an accessory structure (Salt Storage Dome) measuring sixty-two and one half feet (62.5’) height 2)Variation to allow more than two (2) accessory structures MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Agostino Filippone MEMBERS ABSENT:,, Joseph DonnellySharon Otteman,Thomas FitzgeraldWilliam Beattie STAFF MEMBERSPRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, SeniorPlanner INTERESTED PARTIES :Jason Leib, Deputy Public Works Director Vice-Chairman Youngquist called the meeting to order at 7:35p.m. Commissioner Kuetermade a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2014meeting; Commissioner Mizwickiseconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0.After hearing one case, Vice-Chairman Youngquist introduced Case PZ-36-14, 1700 W.Central Road. Ms. Andrade statedthe Petitioner for case number PZ-36-14isthe Village of Mount Prospect’s Public Works Department who is seeking Variations to allow a salt storage dome accessory structure with a finished height not to exceed sixty-two and one half feet (62.5’) and allow more than two (2) accessory structuresona zoning lot. Ms. Andrade explained the Subject Property is located on the north side of Central Road at the intersection of Busse and contains a one-story office/maintenance building and related improvements, including a storage yard . located at the northeast corner of the propertyMs. Andrade stated the Subject Property is zoned I1 Limited Industrial and is bordered by the I1 Limited Industrial and the CR Conservation Recreation in the Village of Mount Prospect and by Arlington Heights to the south. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner would like to construct a 6,600 ton salt storage dome in the storage yard. The storage dome would be placed in an area that is currently gravel. The Petitioner intends to remove the gravel and pavethe area with eitherwith asphalt or concrete. The site plan indicates the salt storage dome would comply with the required setbacks. Ms. Andrade explained the salt storage dome would be setback over six hundred feet (600’) from the west property line, over fifty feet (50’)from north property line, and fifteen feet (15’) from the east and south property lines. Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-36-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 1of 4 Ms. Andrade indicated the height of the salt storage dome would exceed the Zoning Code requirements. The elevation plan indicates the salt storage dome would measure up to sixty-two and one half feet (62.5’) in height when the Zoning Code limits the height of an accessory structure (that is not a detached garage) to a maximum of ten feet (10’). Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner is requesting Variation approval to allow asixty-two and one half feet (62.6’) height for the salt storage dome. Ms. Andrade stated the construction of the salt storage dome would increase the overall number of accessory structures on the Subject Property to five (5). The Subject Property currently includes four (4) accessory structures, including vehicle and material storage buildings. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner was seeking Variation approval to allow more than two (2) accessory structures since the Village Code limits the number of accessory structures to two (2) per zoning lot. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance as follows: 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. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner indicated there were a number of variables that could compromise the availability of salt rock during the winter months, which may leave the Village unable to effectively salt the public sidewalks, parking lots, and roadways. The Public Works facility only has storage capacity for 1,200 tons of rock salt at any given time and a typical winter snow requires approximately 4,400 tons of rock salt. Ms. Andrade stated the proposed salt storage dome would allow for 6,600 tons of salt storage to minimize any risk when salt shortages occur and help to the Village effectively provide safe roadways for pedestrians and vehicles during the winter months. Ms. Andrade explained that even though the proposed salt storage dome would have a maximum height of sixty- two and one half feet (62.5’),the majority of the structure would measure less than forty feet (40’) in height, which is the maximum height permitted for a principal building in the I1 District. Only 22% of the structure would measure higher than forty feet (40’) in height. Ms. Andrade further statedthe radius of the salt storage dome would decrease to less than five feet (5’) at the top, minimizing the impact of the structure on light and air flow. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff reviewed the Petitioner’s Variation requests and is supportive. The Variations to the height and number of accessory structures are specific to the type of use of the Subject Property and would not be generally applicable to other uses/property within the zoning district. Further, a specific hardship would result if the strict letter of the regulations of the Village Code were to be applied. Ms. Andrade stated that the Public Works storage yard is the only available place to store the proposed salt storage dome. The storage yard measures approximately 27,183 square feet in area. To store 6,600 tons of salt in the yard and meet Code would require 18,108.11 square feet of area with salt piled eight feet (8’) high and would not comply with the Environmental Protection laws, which require salt storage piles to be covered. Ms. Andrade stated Staff foundthat the standards for Variations have been met, as set forth in the Petitioner’s responses to the standards. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motions: A.Variation to allow a sixty-two and one half feet (62.5’) height for an accessory structure (Salt Storage Dome); and Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-36-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 2of 4 B.Variation to allow more than two (2) accessory structures, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. The Village Board’s decision is final for the motions above. Commissioner Mizwicki asked for clarification regarding the number of accessory structures. Ms. Andrade responded the property presently consistsof multiple accessory structures, including vehicle and material storage buildingsin the rear.Ms. Andrade clarified the existing structures were constructed before the Village Code’s regulation limiting the number to two. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist swore in Jason Leib, Deputy Public Works Director, 1700 W. Central Road. Mr. Leib presented a short PowerPoint. Mr. Leib reiterated the zoning requests asking for Variations to allow a 6,600 ton salt storage dome measuring up to sixty-two and one half feet (62.5’) in height and to allow more than two (2) accessory structures. Mr. Leib explained how critical salt is in the winter season. Mr. Leib discussed the lane miles Public Works is responsible for salting and the 54,000 residents it serves. Mr. Leib explained that Public Works can only store 1,200 tons of salt currently which is not enough when the average spread is 4,400 tons. Mr. Leib explained the number of variables that could compromise the ability to get salt. The availability of salt drops when there is high demand leaving the Village unable to provide the necessary salt.Long delivery times areanother variable that could compromise the salting operations. Leib explained the benefits of having more storage capacity, such as the price of salt.Having more storage would allow the Village to buy more when the price is low and store it. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist asked if they can buy in the summer time. Mr. Leib responded that they donot currentlybut the salt storage dome would allow them to buy off season. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist asked how salt gets into the dome. Mr. Leib responded that a conveyor is used. Commissioner Filippone asked how much lower the delivery time would be with a6,600 ton salt storage. Mr. Leib responded they would not order salt during the winter season. They would order salt after the winter months and store it so the delivery time wouldnotbe as critical. The estimated cost to build the salt storage dome and savings that would result from having the dome was generally discussed. Mr.Mizwickiasked about future accessory structures. Mr. Leib responded Public Works does not have any plans for future accessory structures. Mr. Leib stated that the salt storage dome would be filled up completely. Mr. Mizwicki asked if other Villages have salt storage domes. Mr. Leib responded yes, includingArlington Heights and Des Plaines. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist asked if there was anyone presentto speak on the case. Hearing none. . Hearing none, he brought the discussion back to the Commission. Upon no further discussion, Commissioner Kueter made a motion to approve a Variation to allow a sixty-two and one half feet (62.5’) height for an accessory structure (Salt Storage Dome) and a Variation to allow more than two (2) accessory structures, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr.Mizwickiseconded the motion. Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-36-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 3of 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Youngquist,Kueter,Mizwicki,Filippone NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. Commissioner Filipponemade a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mizwickito adjourn at 8:50p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Consuelo Andrade Senior Planner Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-36-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 4of 4 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY — PZ -36-14 LOCATION: 1700 W. Central Road PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect OWNER: Village of Mount Prospect PARCEL #: 03-33-300-078-0000 LOT SIZE: 7 acres (305,058.96 sq.ft.) ZONING: I1 Limited Industrial LAND USE: Institutional — Village Public Works Facility REQUESTS:. 1) Variation to allow an accessory structure (Salt Storage Dome) measuring sixty-two and one half feet (62.5') height 2) Variation to allow more than two (2) accessory structures I tell 04 9 s r,+ x / M 0 .� � w . µ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JOSEPH P. DONNELLY, CHAIRPERSON FROM: CONSUELO ANDRADE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 7, 2015 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 22, 2015 SUBJECT: PZ -36-14 / 1700 W. CENTRAL ROAD / VARIATIONS (HEIGHT OF SALT STORAGE DOME AND NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 22, 2015 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by the Village of Mount Prospect's Public Works Department (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 1700 W. Central Road (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking Variations allow an accessory structure (salt storage dome) with a finished height not to exceed sixty-two and one half feet (62.5') and allow more than two (2) accessory structures. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the January 7, 2015 edition of the Daily Herald Newspaper. In addition, Staff completed the required written notice to property owners within 250 -feet and Staff posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the north side of Central Road and contains a one-story office/maintenance building and related improvements, including a storage yard. The Subject Property is zoned I1 Limited Industrial and is bordered by the I1 Limited Industrial and the CR Conservation Recreation in the Village of Mount Prospect and by Arlington Heights to the south. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner would like to construct a 6,600 ton salt storage dome at the northeast corner of the Subject Property. The storage dome would be placed in an area that is currently gravel. Per the Petitioner, the gravel will be removed and the area will be paved with asphalt or concrete. The site plan indicates the salt storage dome would comply with the required setbacks. The building would be setback over six hundred feet (600') from the west property line, over fifty feet (50') from north property line, and fifteen feet (15') from the east and south property lines. The height of the salt storage dome would not meet the Zoning Code requirements. The elevation plan indicates the salt storage dome would measure up to sixty-two and one half feet (62.5') in height when the Zoning Code limits the height of an accessory structure (that is not a detached garage) to a maximum of ten feet (10'). The Petitioner is requesting Variation approval to allow a sixty-two and one half feet (62.6') height for the salt storage dome. The construction of the salt storage dome would increase the overall number of accessory structures on the Subject Property to five (5). The Subject Property currently includes four (4) accessory structures, including PZ -36-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015 Page 3 vehicle and material storage buildings. The Village Code limits number of accessory structures to two (2) per zoning lot. The Petitioner seeks Variation approval to allow more than two (2) accessory structures. Lot Coverage- The Subject Property complies with the permitted lot coverage. The current lot coverage is approximately eighty-four percent (84%), which the Village Board granted a Variation for in 1987. The proposed improvements would not increase the lot coverage. VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: 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. Per the Petitioner, a number of variables could compromise the availability of salt rock during the winter months, which may leave the Village unable to effectively salt the public sidewalks, parking lots, and roadways. Tile Public Works facility only has storage capacity for 1,200 tons of rock salt at any given time and a typical winter snow requires approximately 4,400 tons of rock salt. The proposed salt storage dome would allow for 6,600 tons of salt storage to minimize any risk when salt shortages occur and help to the Village effectively provide safe roadways for pedestrians and vehicles during the winter months. The proposed salt storage dome would have a maximum height of sixty-two and one half feet (62.5'). However, the majority of the structure would measure less than forty feet (40') in height, which is the maximum height permitted for a principal building in the I1 District. Only 22% of the structure would measure higher than forty feet (40') in height. The radius of the salt storage dome would decrease to less than five feet (5') at the top, minimizing the impact of the structure on light and air flow. Staff has reviewed the Petitioner's Variation requests and is supportive. The Variations to the height and number of accessory structures are specific to the type of use of the Subject Property and would not be generally applicable to other uses/property within the zoning district. Further, a specific hardship would result if the strict letter of the regulations of the Village Code were to be applied. The Public Works storage yard is the only available place to store the proposed salt storage dome. The storage yard measures approximately 27,183 square feet in area. To store 6,600 tons of salt in the yard and meet Code would require 18,108.11 square feet of area with salt piled eight feet (8') high and would not comply with the Environmental Protection laws, which require salt storage piles to be covered. The proposed salt storage dome would provide storage for 6,600 tons of salt in 7,854 square feet of covered area. The number of accessory structures is currently non -conforming as it currently includes four (4) accessory structures, including vehicle and material storage buildings, which were constructed in 1987, before the Village Code had a restriction on the number of accessory structures. The Variation requests would not be detrimental to the public welfare or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The public works facility is adjacent to I-1 zoning and Melas Park. The salt storage dome would be placed at the northeast corner of the Subject Property and would be designed in the shape of a dome that would be covered in commercial grade asphalt shingles. \\Vf1\vh I hed$\PLAMPIanning & Zoning COMW&Z 2014\Staff Repods\PZ-76-IJ 1700 W, Cewral Rd, (VARs Accessory S1mc(m) done PZ -36-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015 RECOMMENDATION Page 4 Staff finds that the standards for Variations have been met, as set forth in the Petitioner's responses to the standards. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motions: A. Variation to allow a sixty-two and one half feet (62.5') height for an accessory structure (Salt Storage Dome); and B. Variation to allow more than two (2) accessory structures, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the accessory structure (salt storage dome) in general conformance with the site plan prepared by the Village of Mount Prospect Public Works Department dated December 11, 2014. 2. Development of the building in general conformance with the elevation plans prepared by Dome Corporation of North America. The Village Board's decision is final for the motions above. I concur: ............. William J. Cooney, AIC' Director of Community Development WflWh I hOMPLAMPIanning &Zoning CONMW&Z 20MStaff ReponslPZ-36-14 1700 W, Central Rd (VARs Accessory Stroctmej.docc EXHIBIT A SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTIONS Requesting two variations related to the construction of a 6,700 ton salt storage dome to be located at the Mount Prospect Public Works Facility. Variance Request #1: Request a variance to the village code regarding the height requirements related to an accessory structure. Current code section 14.306.A.3 limits accessory building/structures to a maximum height of ten (10) feet. The Village of Mount Prospect is seeking a variance to allow the construction of a salt storage dome with a finished height not to exceed 62 feet. Variance Request #2: Request a variance to the village code regarding the number of accessory structures allowed per zoning lot. Current code section 14.306.A.5 limits the number of accessory structures to a maximum of two (2) structures per zoning lot. The Public Works facility currently has two accessory structures installed. The Village of Mount Prospect is seeking a variance to allow for the installation of more than two (2) accessory structures. EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PART OF LOT "D' IN KIRCHOFF'S SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF SECTIONS 10 AND 11 IN TWONSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 42, NORTH, RANDGE 11, EAST OF THE THRID PRINICPAL MERIDIAN RECORDED MAY 22,1917 AS DOCUMENT NO. 6117296, DESCRIBED BY BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF A LINE 50.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 406.25 FEET OF SAID LOT "D"; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 602.64 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE 1008.89 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT "D"; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID LINE 1008.89 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT "D", A DISTANCE OF 292 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 150 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT "D", 171.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33, A DISTANCE OF 752.64 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 406.25 FEET OF SAID LOT "D"; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 463.33 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. EXHIBIT C STANDARDS FOR VARIATIONS Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a specific hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations was to be applied; Response: One of the most important responsibilities of Public Works is to provide a safe environment for pedestrian and vehicle traffic during the winter months. The task of providing safe winter travel includes salting and plowing sidewalks, parking lots, and roadways. A major component of the snow fighting efforts is the use of rock salt. In a typical winter snow fighting efforts require the use of approximately 4,400 tons of rock salt. Currently the Public Works facility only has storage capacity for 1,200 tons of rock salt at any given time. With only 27% of a season's salt at the facility snow fighting efforts become susceptible to a number of variables that could prevent timely deliveries of salt during the winter months leaving the Village unable to effectively provide safe winter travel conditions. Particular variables that could compromise availability of rock salt include frozen water ways (a majority of salt brought to the Chicago area is delivered by barge), higher than normal salt demand, limited resources to deliver salt to the facility. The Village has experienced delivery times of up to three weeks during the snow season and considering the winter season is approximately 12 weeks long the Village could find itself in trouble very quickly. These are not uncommon occurrences and have been experienced multiple times over the past few years. The one way to control the variables is store, on site, a minimum of 1.5 times the normal salt usage for the winter season. Currently the only available spot to store 6,600 tons of rock salt (1.5 times the average usage) is in the public works storage yard, which is approximately 27,183.26 sqft. To store 6,600 tons of salt in the yard would require an area of 18,108.11 sqft with salt piled 8 feet high (current height of fence surrounding the yard) as allowed by the Village code. Furthermore, Illinois Environmental Protection laws require salt storage piles to be covered. The task of tarping and untarping approximately 18,000 sqft of rock salt would prove extremely difficult and not practical. Whereas the proposed salt storage dome would provide covered storage for 6,600 tons of salt in 7,854 square feet, which equates to 29% of the public works yard and would not require the use of tarps to cover the salt. 2. The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification; Response: The conditions for the variation are unique to property. The public works facility is the only facility of its type within the Village, the Illinois Department of Transportation, Cook County, or Townships do not operate any storage yards within the Village. Currently the Village does not contain a bulk storage facility as requested by the public works department. 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase financial gain; Response: The variation is not based on financial gain. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Chapter and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Response: The public works facility property is not available for purchase. There is no interest or need on the part of the Village to relocate the public works facility. The hardship is expressly caused by the Village code restriction on the number of accessory structures allowed and the maximum height requirement. 5. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; Response: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The salt storage dome will enable the public works department to store enough salt to provide safe roadways in the harshest of winters. By granting the variance the Village will have the ability to store 1.5 times the annual average usage of salt, which will allow the public works department to minimize any risk when salt shortages occur. The salt storage dome will help to ensure the village has enough salt on hand during the winter months to effectively fight snow and provide safe roadways for pedestrians and vehicles. 6. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and Response: Response: The granting of the variations will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The public works facility is adjacent to 1-1 zoning on the east (F & S Engraving) and west sides (vacant property formerly Hinz Printing). In addition, Bosch occupies a large facility in 1-1 zoning classification adjacent to the Hinz property on the west. Essentially all properties between Arthur Road and Busse Road fall within the 1-1 zoning classification. In regards to the height of the structure, current Village code allows for a primary structure within the 1-1 zoning classification to have a maximum height of 40 feet. The proposed salt storage dome would have a maximum height of 62 feet placing the structure 22 feet higher then what would be allowed for a primary structure in 1-1. However, when utilizing the dome shape for the salt storage building a majority of the building exists below the 40 foot maximum height as allowed by Village Code for primary structures. Using 40 feet as a benchmark 78% of the salt storage dome would exist below 40 feet with the remaining 22% existing above 40 feet. The radius of the dome at the 40 foot mark would be 23.5 feet then tapering to a radius of less than five (5) feet at the top of the dome. The percentage of the structure that exists above the allowable 40 feet is negligible and will not negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Response: The proposed salt storage dome will not impair the adequate supply of light and air from reaching adjacent properties. As previously stated only 22% of the structure exists above 40 feet and the radius decreases from 22.5 feet to less than five (5) feet, which would not result in a significant amount of disruption to light and air. The north and east sides of the dome are adjacent to Melas Park and more specifically the parking lot for Melas park. The nearest building to the dome is approximately 100 feet to the south of the dome and is a loading dock. To the west of the dome is the main public works building, which is approximately 200 feet from the dome. To reiterate the upper portions of the dome do not exceed a radius of 22.5 feet minimizing the affect the structure will have on blocking light and air flow. The construction of the dome will not negatively affect natural drainage or create drainage problems. The salt storage dome is being constructed in the public works yard, which is compacted stone and is considered impervious surface meaning the construction of the dome does not add to the lot coverage. The area where the dome will be constructed already has an existing storm sewer and associated catch basins. The property already has appropriate storm water detention located in Melas Park. The public works yard will be paved to accommodate the salt storage dome. As part of the paving the yard will be regraded directing the flow of storm water to the northeast corner of the public works facility away from all adjacent buildings. The salt storage dome will be located in a secure facility that is monitored 24 hours -a -day, seven days a week. The structure is not accessible by the general public and does not pose any risk to public safety. In fact, the construction of the salt storage dome will reduce the risk of facing a salt shortage thus enabling public works to have access to rock salt, even in the harshest of winters, to provide safe travelling for pedestrians and vehicles. The salt storage dome should not negatively affect property values for the surrounding properties. The shape of the dome offers an aesthetic appearance that blends into any environment. The dome is covered in commercial grade asphalt shingles with a number of color options to choose from. E O O Q 0 >0 O O E WL 1 E o E m 0 0 CO 0 L0 ACL 2PA I FHLU 2AR FiPdEL P*%6 1A6 PAWL 'JLa + AaCL 0�� I � TSP- L DIN E � gILITI�ti EOW FRES SI SIN PL.0 O A40 PAN ELS, WAY . I. d BE IRE P LSC C D Enr 51 EE L CO M PRESISION ,. - RI NC AND PANEL S T � Q � � 11 ryy jj tiM r � i LD rt` I r rL s i PAN[ L IX lif Z IL IR [L X17 PAUL 3 ACL 2PA I FHLU 2AR FiPdEL P*%6 1A6 PAWL 'JLa + #lll NTI[}ht THIS D RAWINC CIM04 INMFWA-1I0141 P R0PRIETARY TO DOW MRSA STI" Or Vq H AWRICA SND l FWL NOT K RL AR CED -OR l RANISf FR K9 T$ 019ILR ME NEN TS OR OIgiOSE 4 r a R Aw P URFOSE DINE Q I PAW 1141 VWICW IT 19 ruum15WE p Y91WOUT TWE P1plQQ %WQrrlLN PERMIS SI DN CF "E CORPOFRkO CN OF NORTH Akfi RICIk iNIg 01tAWING (JEFHS;T5 A WWE VIRUCTUIRE 14+-&'r 15 M EREQ W 0"I OR WOVE RiTCN15 issuE0 IN fFQ UN ITb fir.JTM OP' JNrR ICAI PdNA,� rL1R OAC AND 4THPR rVF191GN GQWNT ln. DOW CORP' RAT ION PESER1LS THE M1 10 MA VG MINOR CW"L� 7�1) 11-1� ORWINGS AND 4T TWC ,p ECIF ICoLl QIQI IC W41NT41N Ci3WvLUW1 W Tu #CCEPOE In NATE RIAL13 bVID WaP?K'kJ�LRM-fflIP 9gJkNMR05 wrrw E{1_il P oino Nmiriceinp lin `IIW E PLJPCUASE Q_ DOME CORPORATION OF NORTH ATAERDCA 100' DIANIE E R STORAGE DOME 51F Q R (1 13Q rIhI44 r.Tw4[ #lll NTI[}ht THIS D RAWINC CIM04 INMFWA-1I0141 P R0PRIETARY TO DOW MRSA STI" Or Vq H AWRICA SND l FWL NOT K RL AR CED -OR l RANISf FR K9 T$ 019ILR ME NEN TS OR OIgiOSE 4 r a R Aw P URFOSE DINE Q I PAW 1141 VWICW IT 19 ruum15WE p Y91WOUT TWE P1plQQ %WQrrlLN PERMIS SI DN CF "E CORPOFRkO CN OF NORTH Akfi RICIk iNIg 01tAWING (JEFHS;T5 A WWE VIRUCTUIRE 14+-&'r 15 M EREQ W 0"I OR WOVE RiTCN15 issuE0 IN fFQ UN ITb fir.JTM OP' JNrR ICAI PdNA,� rL1R OAC AND 4THPR rVF191GN GQWNT ln. DOW CORP' RAT ION PESER1LS THE M1 10 MA VG MINOR CW"L� 7�1) 11-1� ORWINGS AND 4T TWC ,p ECIF ICoLl QIQI IC W41NT41N Ci3WvLUW1 W Tu #CCEPOE In NATE RIAL13 bVID WaP?K'kJ�LRM-fflIP 9gJkNMR05 wrrw E{1_il P oino Nmiriceinp lin `IIW E PLJPCUASE Q_ DOME CORPORATION OF NORTH ATAERDCA 100' DIANIE E R STORAGE DOME CALCULATIONS ILLUSTRATING PERCENTAGE OF DOME STRUCTURE ABOVE 40' HEIGHT zql � -, ri () , / �-- - � (o 5 q f> 2 L0, /,7 �) 79 cl 00 C, cGee... Veo' 062-053257 '-'-o'C REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OF < N A 8,a r'y7.T1;� 21" Dx— D D D 9 132'-27" RCCP @ 0.20% �s ,s Proposed 5n' Setbxk ISetbxF ellowetl DY Vlllege (title= tl.D' 21" Sewer o he Ahandoned 74 61 P1 � T/C 76 45 R F/L 72.83 W d 71.85E 9 i T/C 35'-27" RCGP @ 020% T/( F/L Proo. R-4.12 Curh & Guuer� 75.90 R �E 71 95 Proposed l5'SetDark SetbarF allowed DY'�Ilage (ode =1.D , wr he Ahandoned 75.50 R 7131 N 7151 SW 00 T/C 9rnnnre �o he Ahandoned -- DroDesetl l5'SelDelk .- ��'3 SetWrF allowed Dy Vllage Code 10 12" 21 Sewer he Ahandoned 74.01 SE 21" - .a 73.36 NE 76.46 R� 74:34 S 00.00 = Existing Elevation 00.00 =Proposed Elevation -71 See Sheet C-2 for Erosion Control Plan Mount Prospect • Public Works Department • Engineering Division 2015 Public Works Dept Improvement Project -Ease- 1-1 11, sneeloax.11 East Storage Lot Plot Win to16-tY-11 Surface Improvement (;-1• of XX ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1700 WEST CENTRAL ROAD MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect (Petitioner), has filed a petition for 1) Variation to allow an accessory structure (salt storage dome) measuring sixty-two and one- in height and 2) Variation to allow more than two (2) accessory structures for property located at 1700 West Central Road, and legally described as: LOT 2 IN MELAS RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT D I TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID MILAS RESUBDIVISION RECORDED JULY 30, 1987 AS DOCUMENT NO. 87420862, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Property Index Number 03-33-300-078-0000; and s 1) Variation to allow an accessory structure (salt storage dome) measuring sixty-two and one- ; and 2) Variation to allow more than two (2) structures as shown on the Petit ; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of PZ-36-14 before the nd Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 22 day of January, 2015, th pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Daily Herald on the 7 day of January 2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-36-14; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the request meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of 1) Variation to allow an accessory structure (salt storage dome) measuring sixty-two and one-half feet structures would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation to allow a sixty-two and one-storage dome) as shown on the site plan dated December 11, 2014, . SECTION THREE: Approval of the Variation to allow more than two (2) accessory structures, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the accessory structure (salt storage dome) in general conformance with the site plan prepared by the Village of Mount Prospect Public Works Department dated December 11, 2014. 2. Development of the building in general conformance with the elevation plans prepared by Dome Corporation of North America. SECTION FOUR: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. Page 2 of 2 PZ 36-14 1700 West Central Road, Public Works Facility SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED and APPROVED this day of February, 2015. ___________________________________ Arlene A. Juracek Mayor ATTEST: ___________________ M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\\CLKO\\WIN\\ORDINANCE2\\Variationsandlotcoveragepz37-14feb2015 8,a r'y7.T1;� 21" Dx— D D D 9 132'-27" RCCP @ 0.20% �s ,s Proposed 5n' Setbxk ISetbxF ellowetl DY Vlllege (title= tl.D' 21" Sewer o he Ahandoned 74 61 P1 � T/C 76 45 R F/L 72.83 W d 71.85E 9 i T/C 35'-27" RCGP @ 020% T/( F/L Proo. R-4.12 Curh & Guuer� 75.90 R �E 71 95 Proposed l5'SetDark SetbarF allowed DY'�Ilage (ode =1.D , wr he Ahandoned 75.50 R 7131 N 7151 SW 00 T/C 9rnnnre �o he Ahandoned -- DroDesetl l5'SelDelk .- ��'3 SetWrF allowed Dy Vllage Code 10 12" 21 Sewer he Ahandoned 74.01 SE 21" - .a 73.36 NE 76.46 R� 74:34 S 00.00 = Existing Elevation 00.00 =Proposed Elevation -71 See Sheet C-2 for Erosion Control Plan Mount Prospect • Public Works Department • Engineering Division 2015 Public Works Dept Improvement Project -Ease- 1-1 11, sneeloax.11 East Storage Lot Plot Win to16-tY-11 Surface Improvement (;-1• of XX