The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6. NEW BUSINESS 08/05/2008 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM 1 Mount Prospect r '~ ~.. \Jon, aSO& TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 29, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-20-08 / 1808 HOPI LANE / SIDE YARD SETBACK AND L COVERAGE VARIATION The petitioner, Ms. Caroline Hommerding, is seeking approval of a Side Yard Setback Variati Accessory Structure and Lot Coverage Variation, for the property located at 1808 Hopi Lane. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, July 24, 2008, and by a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of a variation to decrease the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 1 foot for the patio located along the west property line, and denial of a variation to increase the maximum lot coverage from 45% to 55%. 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 August 5, 2008 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. . r.. l ~~Jll Cm~ William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&z 2008\MEJ Mcmo\PZ-20-08 1808 Hopi Lane_ 072908.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-20-08 Hearing Date: July 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1808 Hopi Lane PETITIONER: Ms. Caroline Hommerding PUBLICATION DATE: July 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-306-025-0000 REQUESTS: 1) Variation Side Yard Setback for an Accessory Structure 2) Variation to Increase the Maximum Lot Coverage MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Caroline Hommerding, Edwin Malszewski, HarIa Hommerding Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2008 meeting and Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0 with Keith Youngquist abstaining. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-20-08, a Variation Side Yard Setback for an Accessory Structure and a Variation to Increase the Maximum Lot Coverage at 1808 Hopi Lane, at 7:49 p.m. Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated the Variations that were being requested. He said the property is zoned R-l Single-Family Residential. He stated that there were a few non-conforming issues on the property, specifically with the accessory structure setbacks for the gazebo, frame deck, and patio around the pool. Mr. Simmons said the lot coverage with non-conformities is 55%. The maximum lot coverage permissible in a R-l district is 45%. Mr. Simmons stated the proposal up for discussion was a request to replace the frame deck located on the West side of the pool with a patio. The Petitioner was looking to replace the wood deck with a new structure for maintenance purposes on the property. Mr. Simmons said in Spring 2007, the Petitioner applied for a permit to replace the deck. Community Development denied issuing the permit in May 2007 due to two primary reasons; the lot coverage exceeded the maximum allowed by 10% and the existing deck did not meet the required side yard setback. Mr. Simmons stated the replacement of the structure with patio would require conforming to code requirements for setbacks. Mr. Simmons said the Petitioner constructed the Patio without a permit. Mr. Simmons stated since Staff was aware of this, they have worked with the Petitioner. The Petitioner was seeking a Variation to allow the structure to remain. Mr. Simmons showed a table of the R-l Zoning District bulk requirements: Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 24, 2008 PZ-20-08 Page 2 Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 31.46' No change Interior (W) 7.6' (10% lot width) 0.8' (deck) 1 ' (Patio) Interior (E) 7.6' (10% lot width) 1.6' (deck) No Chan~e Rear 15' (accessory) 0.5' (Gazebo) No change 12' (deck) FAR 50% Maximum No Chan~e No Change LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 55.0% 55.0% Mr. Simmons also showed an exhibit that discussed the zoning setbacks in greater detail. Staff reviewed the Permit and Zoning Code Review to determine how the property got to its current state. Mr. Simmons showed a Power Point slide that discussed the non-conforming structures. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff is not supportive of the Variations requested for a few reasons. Staff did not believe the Petitioner met the Variation standards listed in the zoning ordinance, particularly the existing conditions. Mr. Simmons said if the patio had not been built, there would have been no need for the public hearing; as long as the property was brought into conformance. With the existing conditions, the Petitioner requested a Variation to allow the patio to remain as it is currently constructed. Mr. Simmons stated the hardship is directly reflective of the Petitioner's own financial use of the property or economic gain of the property. There were no unique conditions with the grading of the property; or other physical features that the property would warrant having Variance issues versus any other property in the same location or R1 zoning district. Mr. Simmons said Public Works generally seeks to have 5 feet of width along the edge of the property line to maintain a drainage area throughout the site. The current construction of the patio was within the 5 foot area which could impede the flow or drainage of water. Mr. Simmons stated no information was provided on this issue which would indicate a drainage problem may result from the improvements, but it was a concern that Public Works had mentioned. Mr. Simmons stated that the Variations requested for a one (1) foot interior side yard and fifty-five (55) percent maximum lot coverage do not meet the standards for Variations contained in Section 12.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons previously noted. Based on this analysis, Staff recommended that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a one (1) foot side yard setback along a portion of the west lot line, and a variation to allow a maximum lot coverage of fifty-five (55) percent as shown in the exhibit prepared by James M. Ellman L TO, dated May 7, 2007 for the residence located at 1808 Hopi Lane, Case No. PZ-20-08." Mr. Simmons showed pictures of existing site conditions as reference. Joseph Donnelly asked when the area was incorporated. Chairman Richard Rogers believed it was 1971 or 1972. Mr. Donnelly said the area of the pool on the East side of the property looked like it encroached within the two feet at the time it was built. He asked why this was allowed and if it was a violation. Mr. Simmons said from reviewing the permit history, the plans submitted did not detail how close to the property line. The permit showed the location of the pool with a four foot deck around as required by the State for in ground pools. Mr. Simmons stated there was no indication why it was allowed to be constructed within two feet of the property line. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 24, 2008 PZ-20-08 Page 3 There was additional discussion regarding the pool and property line. Mr. Donnelly asked about the shed being built within two feet of the property line. Mr. Simmons said Staff did not review that portion, if it was constructed at a previous time, it would have been required to meet the setbacks for a required side yard structure. Mr. Donnelly also asked about the gazebo in the back of the property. Mr. Simmons said from discussions with the Petitioner, the gazebo was in place when she moved to the property in the middle 1970s. It did not show up on any of the Plats of Survey on file until 2007. Chairman Rogers asked when the pool was constructed, shouldn't the gazebo have been shown as well. Mr. Simmons agreed. He said from discussions with the Petitioner, it was Staff's understanding that the gazebo was there when the pool was constructed. Mr. Simmons stated the pool itself did not show up on a survey until 2007, when the Petitioner applied for the patio permit. Mr. Simmons said there was no indication that the gazebo was there, but in this particular case Staff believed it was there before the pool. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Caroline Hommerding, 1808 Hopi Lane, Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Hommerding provided background information on herself. She has lived in Mount Prospect for 34 years and always tried to maintain her home. Ms. Hommerding was confused after reading the Staff Report for this case. She said the Staff Report stated she requested a Variation for the green space coverage. The Staff Report stated 55% of the green space was required after the Petitioner was told 45% was needed. The Petitioner referenced a letter from the Village in May 2007 that 45% of green space was required for R-l Zoning. Ms. Hommerding discussed the permit process and how she kept on being denied by Staff. She was told she could remove the old structure, but it could only be replaced with the same footprint and same material as the original. Ms. Hommerding stated when she asked for a permit for the deck, she told Staff it would be smaller in size and constructed out of a permeable product that would require less maintenance and be more aesthetically attractive. Ms. Hommerding reiterated that she was told only 45% of the lot needed to be covered in green space. Ms. Hommerding said she met the requirements, so she was not requesting a Variation of Zoning for the lot coverage purpose. She stated she was requesting a Variation for the brick patio to remain. She said the brick patio was smaller than the previous deck and it did not encroach on any neighbors' property. Ms. Hommerding stated the pictures that Staff presented were old and that the brick patio was moved in further. Ms. Hommerding stated the deck around the pool was labeled non-conforming in the Staff report. She said she had the original pool permit signed by Village Staff that showed the deck around the pool. Ms. Hommerding also mentioned that the Staff Report stated that the brick pavers would restrict surface flows and may cause drainage issues. She believed that the brick pavers with sand between absorbed water rapidly and does not cause drainage Issues. Ms. Hommerding felt a patio was needed at the end of the pool for supervision. She requested a Variation for the side yard setback for the brick paver patio because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the property . Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if she understood when the permit was denied and the patio was built, this was illegal. Ms. Hommerding said she understood what Chairman Rogers stated, but she said the old deck needed to be taken down as it was falling apart and was dangerous. She stated that the area needed to be closed. Ms. Hommerding felt every situation is not the same. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 24, 2008 PZ-20-08 Page 4 Chairman Rogers said brick pavers are not impervious unless there was a substantial stone bed beneath them. Ms. Hommerding said there was. She stated brick pavers soaked the water immediately and reaffirmed there were no drainage issues. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner if she considered placing the patio on the South end of the pool so it would not encroach the side yard setback. Ms. Hommerding said she wanted to close off the area where the old deck was. Keith Youngquist addressed the non-conformance issue. He said as the codes change, certain properties and accessory structures fall into non-conformance. This happens over a period of time. Mr. Youngquist said there were a lot of properties that were non-conforming in the Village. It was not particular just to the Petitioner's property. The Petitioner's swimming pool would not be allowed to be built today where it is presently located because of codes. Mr. Donnelly wanted to clean up the misconception regarding lot coverage. He stated 45% lot coverage meant 55% green space. Ms. Hommerding quoted the May 2007 letter from the Village that stated 45% of her lot must be green space. Mr. Donnelly suggested this could have been a typographical error. Ms. Hommerding said she was verbally told 45% green space in person as well. There was further discussion regarding lot coverage and non-conforming structures as well as drainage issues. Chairman Rogers swore in Edwin Malszewski, 1810 Hopi Lane, Mount Prospect, IL 60056. Mr. Malszewski discussed drainage issues. He told the Commission that only a little bit of water from 1808 Hopi Lane drained to his front yard. Mr. Malszewski said no water from the backyard drained into his yard. Mr. Donnelly asked if the property grading was high before the pool was installed. Mr. Malszewski said yes. Discussion continued regarding water drainage to the surrounding properties. Mr. Malszewski reaffirmed that he did not have any issues with drainage from the Petitioner's property. There was general discussion regarding setbacks. Mr. Malszewski stated the old deck was falling apart. He said it harbored wildlife and needed to be taken down. There was general discussion regarding the Village Code. Chairman Rogers swore in HarIa Hommerding, 1808 Hopi Lane, Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Hommerding stated neighbors were out in support of the Petitioner. She said the old deck was not safe. She stated the Petitioner was trying to make the patio the safest for everyone involved. Ms. Hommerding said if there was drainage issues, more neighbors would be at the Public Hearing speaking against the Petitioner. Mr. Donnelly said in order to grant a Variation, there needed to be a reason why the alternatives could not work. He asked the Petitioner again why the deck could not have been moved to the South end of the pool. Ms. Caroline Hommerding said by putting the patio in an area that is closed off would prevent children from accidentally falling into the pool. She also stated the previous deck was in the current location for the past 30 years, it was an easy decision to place her new patio there. There was further discussion regarding the location of the patio. Mr. Donnelly asked why the Petitioner could not reduce the patio or driveway size to bring down the lot coverage to what the code requires. Mr. Hommerding said the circular driveway was installed by the builder for safety Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 24, 2008 PZ-20-08 Page 5 reasons. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner if there were other circular driveways in the neighborhood. Ms. Hommerding said no. There was further discussion regarding alternatives for lot coverage. Ms. Haria Hommerding said removing the circular driveway was not economically feasible. Mr. Youngquist said when he read over the Staff Report, he saw the Petitioner's calculations on green space. He understood the confusion regarding the lot coverage based on the May ~007 letter from the Village. He stated there was definitely miscommunication as the Petitioner was trying to justify the green space. Mr. Youngquist said he has brick pavers around his home; they sometimes absorb water and other times they do not. He stated the Village does not treat pavers as a pervious surface. There was further discussion regarding brick pavers and wood decks. Ronald Roberts said he wanted the audience and Petitioner to understand that the Planning and Zoning Commission receives a lot of cases like this. He stated that they look at the specifics of each case. Mr. Roberts said there are several lot coverage issues on the property. He thought it would be silly for the Petitioner to remove the new patio. He said he has not heard the Petitioner working with Staff for alternatives. He suggested maybe taking out an older structure, something small for a cost effective approach to meet the green space requirement. Mr. Roberts stated Staff needed to work with the Petitioner and the Petitioner needed to work with Staff. There was further discussion regarding the existing conditions and Variations. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 9:04 p.m. There was discussion on the Vote and the motion. Mr. Youngquist said he did not believe the Petitioner would be able to remove the 569 feet to conform to code. Mr. Donnelly said he did not have a problem with what the Petitioner currently has; his issue was the Variation being on the property forever. Leo Floros stated he was troubled with the fact that if the Petitioner replaced the wood deck with another wood deck, she would be okay. Mr. Donnelly reaffirmed that he did not have a problem with the patio; it was regarding the lot coverage. There was further discussion regarding lot coverage. Mr. Roberts said he appreciated the neighbors support. He stated Variations are considered carefully because they are with the property forever. There was further discussion regarding non-conforming use. Mr. Roberts asked if the Commission could approve a Variation just for the patio structure. Mr. Simmons stated he would have to review the legal side from what could be permitted by code. He said technically the Petitioner removed the existing deck, and by removing this structure would bring the property back to the overall lot coverage requirement. Mr. Simmons said when a patio is put back in; the lot coverage Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 24, 2008 PZ-20-08 Page 6 requirement gets triggered in that aspect. He stated he was not sure if the Commission could grant a Variation from one over the other because they would run together. Mr. Simmons said by changing the nature of the structure, any new structure would need to conform to code. Mr. Roberts stated his motion would be to approve the brick paver patio. Specifically for the structure and not something that would be a general Variation with the land forever. Mr. Donnelly asked if they could have the patio be considered a non-conforming structure. Chairman Rogers said he was not sure that they could do that. Mr. Simmons said the brick patio was considered an illegal non- conforming structure because it was built without a permit and without a Variation. The Petitioner needed to have a Variation approved or have the patio removed to be in compliance. Discussion continued regarding the structure and Variations. Mr. Simmons said as far as the non-conforming lot coverage with the property improvements; if a disaster happened to hit the home, the Petitioner could not rebuild the home to its current footprint if the circular driveway and pool still existed. A Variation would need to be granted for the home; for it to be rebuilt to its current state. Mr. Roberts asked if the motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission make would be the same that the Village Board voted on. Mr. Floros said no. Mr. Roberts suggested that the Commission vote on whether to allow the specific structure. He said Staff could check with the legal department to see if this was acceptable or not. Depending on legal's advice, the motion could be re-worded before the Village Board meeting. Mr. Roberts stated the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is a recommending vote. Mr. Simmons said that Staff could provide additional information based on review following the hearing. Staff cannot change the recommending vote. Mr. Floros asked Staff if they should table the vote to allow further discussions with the Petitioner. Mr. Simmons said the issues included lot coverage and the setback Variation. Previous Staff relayed to the Petitioner that she would need to add green space. Staff cannot approve anything that does not meet code. Discussion continued regarding Staff working with the Petitioner and decreasing the impervious area. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any other options. Mr. Simmons said the Petitioner cannot move the pool. The main lot coverage issues on site were the circular driveway in front and the patio around the pool. The State requires a four foot walkway around an in-ground pool. There was no flexibility with the patio because of the State requirements. Mr. Simmons stated the circular driveway was the biggest area where the impervious area could be decreased. Then, there would be the concern of the side setback. Mr. Donnelly said he did not believe there was a hardship in this case. There was further discussion regarding lot coverage. Mr. Roberts asked how this case came before the Planning and Zoning Commission this year, rather than last year. He wanted to know how the Village was notified by this. Mr. Simmons stated the Petitioner applied for the permit in Spring 2007 and it was denied. Following this, a Staff Inspector was at the property after being called about work being done in the area. The Inspector saw the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 24, 2008 PZ-20-08 Page 7 improvement being made. Mr. Simmons said the Inspector worked with the Petitioner last year to get the property into compliance since no permit was issued. He stated the Petitioner has been out of the state when Staff was trying to schedule times to meet. Most recently, Staff sat down with the Petitioner again to come up with a resolution. Mr. Simmons confirmed that this issue was brought to the Village's attention by a neighbor or person in the area that called in stating that the work was being completed. The Village conducted an inspection based on the complaint. Mr. Roberts said he would have more sympathy for the Petitioner if she went through the proper channels. There was general discussion on what the Planning and Zoning Commission was going to do with the case and what they would be voting on. Mr. Donnelly said if the Petitioner took out what they put in and not replace, they would be back to a non- conforming legal situation. Mr. Simmons stated if the Petitioner took out the patio, the property would still be non-conforming from a coverage standpoint. It would meet the setback requirement on that side of the property. A Variation for the setback then would not be necessary. Mr. Donnelly said if the Commission voted no, it did not mean the Petitioner would have to take out the circular driveway. The Petitioner could just take out the patio and be within the legal limits. Mr. Simmons confirmed. Discussion continued regarding how the Planning and Zoning Commission would vote. Mr. Simmons confirmed that the Village Board's decision for this would be final as the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to the board. There was general discussion regarding the writing of the motion. Leo Floros made a motion to allow a one foot side yard setback Variation only at the area of the existing paved patio. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Youngquist, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve a Variation to increase the maximum lot coverage to 55%. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Youngquist, Roberts, Rogers Motion was defeated 6-0. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9:48 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. /l >/if :/R Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant C attJ // (Je- blt1merJ.'tl /<i{}f 01/ I..alle. ~: C! RECE\YED "'"' 2. G toQS . Villoge,Otyt ~e~~~~en\ Commun\ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Mount Prospect COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request ~ The Planning & Zoning Commission 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 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW Village Board Final Z Case Number 0 PZ - - 08 - E- -<--- Development N arne/Address ~~ ~O o III Date of Submission ~ c.; Zl:: -.... xS [or;l Hearing Date 0 :z - z o ;: .~ ~ o ~ z - [or;l E- - r.I'1 z o ;: -< ~ IXI ~E Z 13 - .- 00.. Z 0. ;:;:J~ 01 ~ I.:l ~ U -< = Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) / fIJ f !l-I)~/ J..J1. tax J.D. Number' or County Assigned Pin Number(s) 03-25 -.30~ - 02..5"- ooof) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: s.e...J~_ TwP. 42 North Raoge 11 I (U.. additional she..t, If necessary) Lot Forty-six(46) in Forest Manor Unit No.2, being a i Subdivision in the Southwest Quarter and the Southeast I uarter of Section 25, Townsh~p 42 North, Rangell ~aSt of the Third Principal Meridian according to Plat registered in the Office of the Registrar of Titles of Cook County, Illinois on May 29, 1963, as Document Number 209Jl.f.96.** CJ:ro!'/1 e Corporation S/f ;d?ess flo City JvfTI t &V)~ State rL Zip Code . . 0056 Email Interest in Property OWner- ~ ())1/l z o ~ -<t: :;1 C!:: ~ ~ ~ zo ~f' z <l) :;:;l g- Od: C!::I Q :::C U -<t: .0 Name Telephone (day) Corporation Telephone (evening) Street Address Fax City State Zip Code Email Developer Name -- Telephone (day) Address Fax Email Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Email Surveyor Z Name Telephone (day) 21 E-< <Jl Address Fax -<t:"i :; g C!:: -Vi Email 0$ ~ 0 Z l- .....0- Q C Engineer Z <l) :;:;l E Name Telephone (day) o g- C!::Qj Address Fax {..? > :::Co U 1 Email -<t: CQ Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Email Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Email Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 Sonth Fmf"ro;:nn C;;:trppt Mf\llnt Prr\C'nt>f't TlI;...";,, t:.nnt:;.t:. Phone 847.818.5328 Code Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested 1./ &- ~ ~ '1 Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations I had an existing wood deck. which was elevated by the height of two steps. It m~ured a little over ll' x 20' at the end of the pooL The age of the deck was 29 years. It had.been maintain~ however, due to age n~ to be replaced because of weak and loose boards. At my age, I am looking for simpl~ maintenance~ therefore, a patiQ of pavers set in sand is. my choice. I understand if you replace a deck.. it states. it mustbe replaced in the same footprint and with'the exact same material I wanted to make it smaller, not elevated, and ofa product thatis appealing and easy'!olIlaittt<lin (I recommend-that stipJ,Jlation of exact same product be amended so that people can use ari environmentally friendly, a product made of recycled materials, an ~ to maintain product, etc. to stay up to date with the new products of the 21 Bl century). When all green space. was considered on my pr~rty. I tnetthe45% ~een space requirement plus some, I am asking fora variation in the.zoning.requirement for .this. brick patio. The. old .deckwas..8E of the lot line at the North en~ the new patio is 1. 00. Therefore~ it is further fr.om the lot lineth,anthe original deck The old.cleek: was.. 9E of..the lotlineat.tlle South end, the new patio is lIE of the lot line. The new patio is curved, not rectangle. The 20 ft. across *e front of the patio is the same as the old deck Due to its curved shape,itisJ~$ square feet. In aecQrdance with your standard: variatiQll$, I am requesting a variation for the brick paver patio because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the property that a hardship would result if the strict letter of the ~atio1l$:w.a& to be.,applied Also, the'gr.mtingofthe variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Also, the granting of the variation will not alter the essential cl1cn'acter of the .neighb<>rhood. f I have lived in the home since 1914. W.e have always worked hard tolllaintaiti and improve .our property. I need to replace this deck with an attractiv,e, easy to maint:aU1 product, in a more attractive sba.pe that the rect~mgl}lar wood deck I am witbin $,y lot line$ and not causing allardshipon any other neighoor. Rather, I am improving the aesthetics afthe backyard The pavers and sand immediately soak up the rain, so water is not standing, asit .sometimes does on a wood.deck, which can make it slippety. As I did some research, Idid.ztnd adjacent V1nagesdesire brick pavers and do. not require a pennitto use the product, because no part of its constrUction is placed in cement, they are not nailed or pern1anently attached to a.nythin& ~ tllerefore...are. notOQnsi~ a ~nnanent:fhtu.re.. Therefore, I trust you will be able to approve this variation request accurate to the Applicant - Date t - e?5 - 08 /f / Print Name COvJ7,)r I 'y,e L. I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Date ---- Property Owner Print Name Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TOO 847.392.6064 11 Affidavit of Ownership , COUNTY OF COOK STATE OF ILLINOIS I(] , ) ) ) , under oath, state that I am --X- the sole an an authorized officer of the ) ) owner of the property ) commonly described as /'8'08' .fly_ ~ K '":; .~ #'re e-ij I L ~ C> () ,s;- (, and dro)it p that :!J. s~ ,I, '" h' .,. '/ property IS owned by as of this date. /" ~./ Subscribed and sworn to before me this JU day of MOFF/C/AL SEAL" Adam E. Harville Notary Public, State of Illinois Cook County My Commission Expires Apri/1, 2012 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street. Mount PmCmpl't TIIinAi" h{){),t; Phone 847.818.5328 ZONING REVIEW CHECKLIST (DO NOT FILL IN SHADED AREAS) I ADDRESS: PROPOSED SETBACKS [1] [2] [3] [4] ZONING: MEASUREMENT (FT) FRONT YARD SIDE YARD EXTERIOR/SIDE YARD* REAR YARD ROOF/DRIVEWAY MEASUREMENT (FT) ROOF HEIGHT [MID-POINT TO A VG. GRADE] DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT GARAGE DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT LOT LINE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) LOT AREA [A]: AREA [EXISTING + PROPOSED] (SQ FT) FIRST FLOOR + ATTACHED GARAGE [B) DETACHED GARAGE [C] SECOND FLOOR AND/OR ATTIC ** [I] ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1*** [G) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 2*** [H) BASEMENT**** [J ] TOTAL FAR (TOTAL / [A]) LOT COVERAGE (**footprint of all structures, existing or new, need to be included**) AREA [EXISTING + PROPOSED] (SQ FT) HOUSE FOOT PRINT + ATTACHED GARAGE~ /81[j (.:rniLlu..JIVt! Waf k~o..l~ DETACHED GARAGE [C] _____ DRIVEWAY [D) . /----- 757 WALKWAYS [El.~~ PATIOS AND/OR DECK [F) (?rt:/) 3~3 ..D ee.k. 2t!:>t) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1*** [G) $f3.+-P4>/ +p:..;c.)( 1375" ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 2*** [H) r;;'&.z.,e/;.o 1(;(; TOTAL lI~zr~ LOT COVERAGE (TOTAL / [A] ) If you live on a corner lot, the exterior setback is the longer dimension of the two frontages facing the street. An attic must be included in the FAR calculations if it has a ceiling height of seven \1) feet or greater. *** An accessory structure is defined as a subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure. Said structures may include, but are not limited to, garages and sheds, as further defined by the Village Code. A basement must be included in the FAR calculation if basement level is three (3) feet above average grade. * ** **** 18008 HOPI LANE MT. PROSPECT, IL 60056 GREENSPACE-BAC~ YARD 1. 506.25 2. 200 3. 132 4. 25 5. 43.75 6. 6.25 7. 1&..75 8. 25 9. 226.25 10. 187.50 11. 84 12. .61 13. 50Q 14. 175 15. 77 16. 14 17. 1.00 1ft rfl'/, 75 3-D TOTAL=~ 02,4/0, GREEN SPACE FRONT YARD 1. 376 2. 325 3. 147 4. 112.5 5. 488 6. 343.75 7. 2.44 tl, 7.5- TOTAL=~ =<1//, 2S- - GRANDTQTALGREENSPACE=~ ~ 'ItS" ,;13.7..6 LOT SIZE 69.5 X 138.23 = 9607 45% = 4323 D "tlA;~"A.,rt;;'lt';~'I~""l\'''^AI'J!!I'it'kI'r ..... ... . krrr~t~(..:~t~:~~~D~;'~~: *~:~.;~i'~:.~1~t\l~~,'--:~,:',:':i'\~: $ 3,221.43 BY 12/03/07 (on time) .. ~.,. :.._~."" ,"'T" ,'..,. _ - . t ~... ....;->'. - '~,!"-""-""",,,,'''-''''''.' IF PAID LATE 12/04/07 - 01/01/08 $ 3,269.75 2006 Second Installment Property Tax Bill Township Property Index Number (PIN) Volume Code Tax Year (Payable In) ., 03-25-306-025-0000' 233 38044 2006 (2007) IF PAID LATE 01/02/08 - 02101108 $ 3,318.07 THANK YOU FOR YOUR FIRST INSTALLMENT PAYMENT OF: $ 2,915:01 ON 05-01-07 PAY THIS BILL AT COOKCOUNTYTREASURER.COM OR ANY CHASE BANK. "?Pr6~fty;'lb~1i~ri~dc~ifiQi~4h'fo'j. tIlis PIN 1808 E HOPI LN MOUNT PROSPECT IL 600561918 Taxing District SUBURBAN T B SANITARIUM NW MOSQUITO ABATEMENT WATER RECLAMATION DIST RIVER TRAI LS PARK 0 I STR I CT HARPER COLlEGEOIST 512 HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 214 SCHOOL 0 I STR I CT 26 ~. PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ROAD AND BRIDGE WHEELING WHEELING GENERAL ASSIST. TOWN OF WHEE;:L1NG FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT CONsOLIOATED . ELECT IONS COUNTY OF COOK COOK COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COOK COUNTY HEALTH FACIL. (DO NOT PAY THESE TqTALS) 2006 Tax 2006 Rate 3.89 0.005 7.00 0.009 220.85 0.284 376.38 0.484 223.96 0.288 1,417.66 1.823 2,369.50 3.047 374.83 0.482 657.89 0.846 10.11 0.013 7.78 0.010 33.44 44.33 IF PAID LATE 02102/08 - 03/01/08 $ 3,366.39 Pension 2005 Tax 2005 Rate 3.79 0.005 6.82 0.009 238.78 0.315 363.85 0.480 213.01 0.261 1,333.37 1.759 2,183.13 2.880 353.24 0.466 626.89 0.827 9.10 0.012 6.82 0.009 31. 08 0.041 45.48 0.060 '10.61 0.014 207.71 0.274 11.1.43 0.147 84.90 0.112 5,830.01 7.691 WHEELING ~ 1'1' 1'1' "C C "C "C " ,: :"C C ;r ~:~ i ".., C .;. "" t t ;; 'j) rI r C , t '" WALLACE J HOMMERDING 1808 HOPI LN MT PROSPECT IL 60056-1918 If' YOURTAX~s.Mt.IEJ(;I~\Mi:jl~,c\Gfi:S(;IiOW, BE SUIt~~tijWll(),:i.'(jvtP.L.i"~(~t'!J\j)li~tt.~fi~;r~~!~f,f~rtf>'i,:j~r~; . .77 92.54 ". MR WALLA.CE HOMtv'lEROH'~G AND Account r,urnber' 2-1-Hour Asslstancc~. (888) Mli~J\:EST YOUR CMA TRANSACTIONS ['/a(("" .:. ::-j~(~. \.';a:(;' ~\3 2Cl(;S CASH/OTHER TRANSACTiONS Date 03/06 03/06 03/24 03/24 03/24 03/24 03/24 03/28 T ransacliol1 Type Funds Received Funds Received Funds Received Funds Received Funds Received Funds Received Funds Received Subtotal (funds Received) Check Subtotal (Other Debits/Credits) C)ii,3ntlt\- OescripttOfj l)p'[);f Cn,; (m CHECt.(. DEPOS!T CfiEO<, Dr::POSIT CHEC~, DEPOSlf CHECK DEPOSiT CHECK Df:P()SIT CHECK DEPOSIT CHECt-'. DEPOSiT TO :AL D!'J!NT CK ,~MT 14 (}O 1~1.0C NET TOTAL CHECKS WRITTEN/BilL PAYMENT Date Written ..I);J/r> ('lp;.1rprL Check Number 02/28 03/03 15387 __02/29 _ 03104 - --15388 02/29 03/04 1.5389 02/29 03/04 15390 03/03 03/10 15392* 02/13 02/13 02/17 02/18 02/24 02/24 02/24 02/24 02/24 02/24 02/24 + 03/03 03/24 03/05 03/03 03/03 03/03 03/03 03/04 03/03 03/03 03/03 15356 15362* 15367* 15377* 15380* 15381 15382 15383 15384- 1.5385 15386 Description RU!Z SNOW REMOVAL CO AMH,iCAN HEAR: ASSN ALL SEASONS LAWN & GARDEN ~~ -- ..,ci Debit Credit t/lil'<.E CARATO CITY OF NAPLES CITY OF !\JAPLES KOHLS STATE FARM ~,~'"' 7r~ CHASE -- J7 GMAC ..... PEOPLES GAS U r SAER'S FUPN1TURE ~ ~M ''if GOOK "" TP.,--AS (};;~~," - w , ,c , ~ _~__J_.", COOK CO TREil,:; - COOK CO T RE AS STATE FARM !.:..L"'\,'" ~',_1"':1..- :1.... 11111111111111111111111111111111111111I1111I11111 ) 1 JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. 800 E. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY SUITE '2' PALATINE. JL 60074 PHONE (847) 253-6566 PLAT OF SURVEY -BY- LOT 46 IN FOREST MANOR UNIT NO.2, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SoUTHIv'EST 1I4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, Tolv'NSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. \lD FENCE POST 0.7 \/. S. 0.7 N. OF LOT CORNER \.ID FENCE: POST 0.81,/.8.0.75 N'~ ~ LOT CORNER I 63.00' 0.5 s. . \iD FENCE 0.25 S. a. O.S 'IJ. IRON PIPE '; ~. ------- CONC. 1.6 'J. DECK 0.9 E. I 1 I I 001 !"') lril !"') .....1 'J, FACE OF 'w'D FENCE 1.1 \'/. CONC. 0.7 'J. 'w'D FENCE 0.4 V, ~'. - RAD,-I532.00' . .~.~ 76.00':," . . IRON ~:IPE. . HOPI LANE REVISED STREET NAME 7/12/07 Ordered by: CAROLINE HO~IMERDING Order No: 070512 Base Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet Date: MAY 7, 2007 THIS PROfESSIONAL SE;.RVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLINOIS MINIHUM STANDARDS FOR A BOUNDARY SURVEY. COMPARE AU. POINTS BEFORE BUILDING BY SAME AND AT ONCE REPORT AHf DIFFERENCE. rOR BUIU)lNC lINE ....ND OTHCR RESTRICTIONS NOT SHOWN HEREON REfER TO YOUR ABSTRACT. DEED. CONTRACT AND ZONING ORDINANCE. NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED STATE or ILUNDIS) COUNTY OF COOK) !, JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE OESCi"BEO PROPERTY HAS BEEN SURVEYED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT THe: PlAT HEREON DRAWN IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATiON OF SAlO SURVEY. 'f} BY y"-' 1H ~ . ILUNOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR LICENSE NO. lB.-00274. <35-002159> EXPIRES 04/30/200'3 Address: 1BOB HOPI LANE, MT, PROSPECT, ILLINOIS ; \/000 FENCE ; C/. n;NCE ~. ~I ; CONCRETE '.tD FENCE POST 0.7 '.t. 8c 0.7 N. OF LOT CORNER '.tD FENCE POST 08 '.t. 8c 0.75 N.) OF LOT CORNER I '.tD FENCE 00' 0.5 S. .. 0.25 S. 8c 0.5 '.t. 63. _ - D '.t. FACE DF '.tD FENCE 1.1 '.t. CONC. 0.7 '.t. '.tD FENCE -0..7-..\.. , '- ",15 FENet 0.4 "'. IRON PIPE : "!' " " ' ~' . ~ ..~. ..... '.4:' ... ".'A .,4, A ~." .~' 76.00' '..~ 4 > AI,:: . .:4 , . ~ . . . ~. .: . " .~ ==- FOREST DRIVE I"""'~._' i ~ 0 \'- ~'" . ~.. v -Q) \ - "':;-'" \-;;;:y (" 1(\, 't- ~ .''''; I r ~;C~~,;""..,,".,..~:.,~,,~<> . De::}( Id:r. )/F:.f!et'v"',~...J-. ~...(p~...~/.J " . _, ,'iFf.\l. ....,{ .- ..k'" . ?/" fl' I" J~ ~ .L_ ......-_..--+-~...:.._. . -.~.-._~ j I /1 ~ . \) (b - ,:,-t.~P- ~. \\\ J:>- ~R' It ~ " .,.,,'" ?t' I \ . . l 'r?... I ~ ~.r:>!CC~~ -:_-\}_._-~--/ _-.-....-.~_'"'"~i<"_...._.._.",!""". ~O J !)tP<;< ., '-:Y j I .. J . .1 ~~ I .._..;....:.~ W. mla 7/31/08 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION (SIDE YARD SETBACK) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1808 HOPI LANE WHEREAS, Caroline Hommerding (Petitioner), has filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 1808 Hopi Lane ("Property') and legally described as follows: Lot 46 in Forest Manor Unit No.2, being a Subdivision in the Southwest X and the Southeast X of Section 25, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal, Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 03-25-306-025-0000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation to allow a one (1 ') foot side yard setback along a portion of the west lot line for an accessory structure as shown on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variation being the subject of PZ-20-08 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th of July, 2008 pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal on the 9th of July, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request, being the subject of PZ-20-08; 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 Variation for a one (1 ') foot side yard setback for an accessory structure as shown on attached Exhibit "A" would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: 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 a Variation, to allow a one (1 ') foot side yard setback for an accessory structure as shown on Exhibit "A" which is attached to and made part of this ordinance. SECTION THREE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. "B1- 1808 Hopi Lane Variation - side yard setback Page 2 SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this th day of August, 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H :\CLKO\WI N\ORDINANC\variationsideyardsetback 1808hopiaug2008.doc t., " .. f" "1-'1 :...:~ t; J..~.1 600 E. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY SUITE 121 PALATINE. IL 60074 PHONE (847) 25J-6566 j 1 PLAT OF SURVEY -BY- JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. LOT 46 IN FOREST MANOR UNIT NO.2, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTHIJEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST l/4 OF SECTION 25, TOIJNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. \.ID FENCE POST 0,7 1,/, I. 0.7 N, OF LOT CORNER \.ID F'E,NCE POST 0.,8 \,t. L 0.75 N. ~ ~ LOT CORNER I 63.00' 0.5 s. . "0 FENCE 0.25 S. . 0.5 ". DECK O.B E. I I / Ii 001 l"') ~j '"'"/ ". FACE OF 'aiD F'ENCt 1.1 1,/, DECK 0.9 E. CONC. 0.7 ". W'D F'tNCt 0,4 IJ. IRON PIPE: .': 4' IRON -JP1PE: - HOPI LANE REVISED STREET NAME 7/12/07 Ordered by: CAROLINE HOMMERDING Order No: 070512 Sase Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet Dote: MAY 7, 2007 STATE Of' IlliNOIS) COUNTY OF COOK) !, JAMES M, ELLMAN LTD. 00 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE DESCi<lBED PROPERTY HAS BEEN SURVEYED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT THE PL.AT HEREON ORAWN IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF SAID SURVEY. 'f} BY. Y c-., 1.f ~ . ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR LICENSE: NO. 184-0D2744 (35-002159) EXPIRES 04/30/2009 THIS PROF'ESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLlNOIS MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR A BOUNDARY SURVEY. Address: 1808 HOPI LANE, MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS ::; \-IOOD FENCE :: elL rENCE ~.. '1 = CONCRETE COMPARE ALL POINTS BEF"ORE BUILDiNG BY SAME AND AT ONCE REPORT AXY DiFfERENCE. FOR BUILDING LINE ANO on.tER RESTRICTIONS NOT SHOWN HEREON REF'E:R TO YOuR ABSTRACT. DEED. CONTRACT AND ZONIN(: OROINANcr. NOT VAl-IO UNLESS EMBOSSED o mla 7/31/08 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION (LOT COVERAGE) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1808 HOPI LANE WHEREAS, Caroline Hommerding (Petitioner), has filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 1808 Hopi Lane ("Property') and legally described as follows: Lot 46 in Forest Manor Unit No.2, being a Subdivision in the Southwest % and the Southeast % of Section 25, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal, Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 03-25-306-025-0000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation to allow maximum lot coverage of fifty-five (55%) percent, as shown on Exhibit "An; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variation being the subject of PZ-20-08 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th of July, 2008 pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prosoect Journal on the 9th of July, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees for the request, being the subject of PZ-20- 08; 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 Variation for maximum lot coverage of fifty-five (55%) percent as shown on attached Exhibit "An would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: 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 a Variation, to allow maximum lot coverage offifty-five (55%) percent as shown on Exhibit "An which is attached to and made part of this ordinance. SECTION THREE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. ~;>.. 1808 Hopi Lane Variation - lot coverage Page 2 SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this th day of August, 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WI N\ORDINANC\variation lotcoverage 1808hopiaug2008 .doc ';19 (I" " /' ." ";';"1; ," .. ...~\.. 1';:':""l:;.J 800 E. NORTHWEST HiGHWAY SUITE 121 PAlATINE. IL 60074 PHONE (847) 25J-6566 J 1 PLAT OF SURVEY -BY- JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. LOT 46 IN FOREST MANOR UNIT NO.2, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTH VEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TDVNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE II EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. IJD FENCE PQST 0.7 IJ. .. 0.7 N. QF' LOT CORNER IJD n:NCE POST 0..8 IJ. I. 0.75 N. ~ ~ LOT CORNER 1 63.00' 0.5 s. . YO rENCE 0.25 S. .. 0.5 IJ. I I I I Oel l"'l enj l"'l .-of I Y. rACE or \iD rENCE 1.1 1,/. DECK 0.9 E. Qc ~ ~ ~ ~ CONC. 0.7 Y. 'w'D FENCE 0.4 IJ. IRON -JPIPE HOPI LANE REVISED STREET NAME 7/12/07 Ordered by: CAROLINE HoMMERDING Order No: 070512 Bose Scale: 1 inch = 20 reet Date: MAY 7, 2007 THIS PRorESSIONAL SERVICE CONrORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLINOIS MINIMUM STANDARDS rOR A BOUNDARy SURVEY. ~ STATE Of iLLINOIS) COUNTY or COOK) !, JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. 00 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE DESC'''BED PROPERTY HAS 8EEN SURVEYEO UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT THE PLAT HEREON DRAWN 1$ A CORRECT REPRESENTATION :, SAIO SURVEY. P ~ -if ~ . Address: 1808 HOPI LANE, MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS = \JOOD rENCE = ell rENCE: ~. . .1 = CONCRETE IlliNOIS PROf'ESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR LIceNse NO. le~-002744 (35-002158) F;xPIRES 04/30/200., COMPARE All POINTS BEF'ORE aUILDING BY SAME AND A.T ONCE REPORT AAY DIFFERENCE. rOR eUILDING liNE: AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS NOT SHOWN HEREON REr,R TO YOIJR ABSTRACT. DEED. CONTRACT AND ZONING ORDINAN'~. NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED , Mown Prospect ~ Village of Mount Prospect Fire Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS FROM: FIRE CHIEF DATE: JULY 30, 2008 SUBJECT: FIRE LANE ORDINANCE UPDATE The attached ordinance updates the Fire Lane section of the Village's Traffic Code. The ordinance amends Article XX entitled "Fire Lanes" of Chapter 18, which was last updated in 2000. This update includes the addition of 22 new fire lanes that have been created as a result of building construction and/ or renovation. Michael J. Figolah MF / cp C:\ Documents and Settings\kdewis\ Local Settings\ Temporary Internet FiIes\ OLK6B\Fire Lane Ordinance Update Memo (7-30- 08).doc c f ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XX ENTITLED "FIRE LANES" OF CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC CODE) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2014 entitled "SCHEDULE XIV -FIRE LANES" of Article XX of Chapter 18 (Traffic Code) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by inserting, in alphabetical and numerical sequence, the following: 1400 W. ALGONQUIN ROAD The entire 20 foot perimeter paved drive adjacent to the building including the parking lot drive aisle in front of the building. 1631-1637 W. ALGONQUIN ROAD The entire 20 foot paved drive adjacent to the south and west of the building. 601 W. DEMPSTER STREET The entire 20 foot perimeter paved drive adjacent to the building including the parking lot drive aisle in front of the building. 1-15 S. EMERSON STREET The 20 foot paved alley located in the rear of the complex extending from Central Road to Emerson Street. 1070 S. ELMHURST ROAD The entire 20 foot paved drive adjacent to the south and west of the building including the 20 foot paved area adjacent to the property line on the south drive. 1700 S. ELMHURST ROAD The entire 20 foot paved circular drive from LaSalle Street. 301 E. EUCLID AVENUE The 20 foot paved area at the south entrance of the building. 700 -715 FRENCH WAY The 20 foot paved drive throughout the complex extending from Northwest Highway to Dale Avenue. 404 E. GREGORY STREET The 20 foot paved drive beginning at the west entrance on Gregory Street extending north east to the far eastern parking lot and extending south to the east entrance on Gregory Street. 603 E. KENSINGTON ROAD The 20 foot paved perimeter drive adjacent to the building. , Page 2 Fire Lanes 420 KINGSTON COURT The 20 foot paved perimeter drive adjacent to the building including the access road on the south of the building. 201 - 205 N. LOUIS The 20 foot paved drive extending from Thayer Street to Louis Street. 20 S. MAIN STREET The designated thirteen feet of the paved roadway adjacent to 20 South Main and 11 South Wille along the entire most northern portion of the drive aisle extending from Main Street to Wille Street. 501 MIDWAY DRIVE The 20 foot paved drive from the northwest corner of the building extending to and including the bulb of the cul-de-sac. 105 E. PROSPECT AVENUE The 20 foot paved drive from Emerson Street to the rear of the complex. 600 E. RAND ROAD The 20 foot paved perimeter drive adjacent to the building on the south, east and west side of the building including the 20 foot paved area adjacent to the curb on the north and side of the building. 905 E. RAND ROAD The entire 20 foot paved drive adjacent to the north of the building. 600 S. SEE GWUN AVENUE The entire 20 foot paved drive adjacent to the north and east of the building. 1500 -1556 STONEGATE MANOR The 20 foot paved drive beginning at the northwest Camp McDonald Road entrance extending through the complex to the northeast Camp McDonald Road entrance. 1630-1780 S. WALL STREET The entire 20 foot perimeter drive adjacent to the buildings including the center parking lot drive aisle in front of the buildings. 701-705 WHEELING ROAD The entire 20 foot paved perimeter drive adjacent to the buildings, including the drive aisle in the front of 705 Wheeling Road. 11 SOUTH WILLE STREET The designated thirteen feet of the paved roadway adjacent to 20 South Main and 11 South Wille along the entire most northern portion of the drive aisle extending from Main Street to Wille Street. * Page 3 Fire Lanes SECTION TWO: 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 th day of August 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk C:\Documents and Seltings\kdewis\Local Seltings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\CH 18 Scheduled Fire Lanesaugust2008.doc