The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. OLD BUSINESS 09/16/2008 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM ~ TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~t.. \Jon, QSO& 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. . (~. \ JlJJll ~~ 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: I) 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-I 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 ofthe R-I 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 Change Rear 15' (accessory) 0.5' (Gazebo) No change 12' (deck) FAR 50% Maximum No Change 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 Rl 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 LTD, 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 ofthe 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 Staffs 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 ifthey 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. ,':./7 ..../1 / >~' ~~ Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant RECE\VED "'"' 2. G 200i . Villoge,ot ~e~~\~~en' Co",",un\ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Mount Prospect COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP AR TMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.8] 8.5328 FAX 847.8]8.5329 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 - ~ -<1:--- Development Name/Address ~~ a: = 00 '- tl Date of Subm ission Zl.: -.... ~~ L:o:l Hearing Date 0 ~ z o ~ .~ a: o '- z - L:o:l ~ - (fJ z o ~ < ~ a:1 ~t: Z ~ - .- 00.. Z 0. ;::;l< 01 Cl:: I.:' ~ U -<I: = Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) LEGAL DESCRIPTION sec. 2~_ TwP. 42 North Range 11 I (U" aOOltlonal she.." If necenary) Lot Forty-six(46) in Forest Manor Unit No.2, being a i SubdivisIon in the Southwest Quarter and the Southeastl Quarter of Section 25, Townsh~p 42 North, Rangel1 EaSt 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 209::lLf.96.** C!:ro!'1I e Corporation s/e; ;dfess I-{O City )vfT. t /-a,Y)~ State rL Zip Code . - 0056 Interest in Property OWner-- z o 1= <<t: ~I c::: ~ ~ ~ zo ... ;>, o t Z Q) ::J g- oct C:::1 r.J ~ U <<t: CQ 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) 0 I ... r- Vl Address Fax <<t:<ii ~ g c::: "Vi Email o~ ~ 0 Z ... ...0.- o E Engineer Z Q) ::J E Name Telephone (day) o g- c:::-v Address Fax c..? > ~a U1 Email <<t: CQ Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Email Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Email Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Cf\ 0___..I..L 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~ure4 a little over 11' 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 simple maintenance; therefore, a patio of paverssetin sand is my choice. I understand if you replace a deck,. it states. it must. be replaced in the same footprint and with'the exact same material I wanted t.o make it smaller, not elevated, and ofa product that.is appealing and easy.tOJ1laifltain (I recommend. that stipMlation of exact same product be amended so that people can use an environmentally friendly, a product made of recycled materials, an ~y to maintain product, etc. to stay up to date with the new products of the 21 at century). Wllenall gr~ space. was considereclon. my pr~r1Y, I met the 45% 8}.'een space requirement plus some,. I am askingfOl'a variatiol1 in thezoning-requirement for.this.brick patio. The. 0Id.deckwas..8Eof the lot line at the North end; the new p;;Jtio is 1.0E. Therefore~it is further fr.om tl1e lot line than the original deck The oldd.eck was.. 9Eafthe lot.line a1tl1e South end, the new patio is 11 E 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~~ Bquar'e feet. In 3eCOrdan<:e with Your standard. variatiQD.s., I am requesting a variation for the brick paver patio because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the property that a hardship vvould result ifthe strict letter of the ~ationU\las. tobe.,applied Also, the'grantingofthe 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 neigbbQrhood ~ I have lived in the hQtne since 1914. We have always worked hard tQntaintaiD and improveOUl' property. I need to replace this deckwith an attractiv.e, easy to maintain product, in a more attractive shape that the rectangular wood deck I 3Jl1 witbin my lot lilies and not causing a'hardship on any other neigJ1oor. Rather, I am improving the aesthetics of the backyard. The pavers and sand immediately soak up the rain, so water . is not standing, asitsometimes does on a wood.deck, whicbcanmakeitslippety, As I did some research, ldid.findadjacent v1tIagesdesire brick pavers and do notrequirea pennit to use the product, because no part of its constrUction is placed in cement they are not nailed or perntanentIy attached to anything, ~ tl1erefQre..are. notconsidet:~ a permanem.1mure.. Therefore, I trust you will be able to approve this variation request accurate to the /7 t Print Name C~r() 'he - Date " -.,,75- CJ J Applicant 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. Property Owner Date '-- 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 Affidavit of Ownership COUNTY OF COOK ST ATE 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 /g'oS -Ify; La K S .~ dyee-ij I L ~ Cl <'\ ~ (, and drQ/~ <"" that 't s~ ,t, ::6 "'.'1" ~ '7 property IS owned by as of this date. /" / Subscribed and sworn to before me this J(.PJ day of .OFFICIAL SEAL" Adam E. Harville Notary Public, State of Illinois Cook County My Commission Expires April 1 , 2012 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development so ~()l1th Prnpr",,...n ~tr<><>t l\A~,,~+ n_~~___. T1"__ _' '^^~, Phone 847.818.5328 (DO NOT FILL IN SHADED AREAS) ZONING REVIEW CHECKLIST I ADDRESS: PROPOSED SETBACKS [1] [2] [3] [4] ZONING: LOT AREA [A]: 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) 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) HOUSEFOOTPRINT+ATTACHEDGARAGE~ /Il~ (.:rntLlu..d,.IIl.! Wo...lk~a.1~ DETACHED GARAGE [C] ______ DRIVEWAY [D) .._------- 757 W ALKW A YS [E]/------- PATIOS AND/OR DECK [F) fltPb 3~3 j)eek. 'LOt) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1*** [G) $j3.+-PaJ T:lJ::-...:c.J<.. 187S ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 2*** [H) r;:Q..~O I()fj . TOTAL 16S'~ LOTCOVERAGE(TOTAL/~]) 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 GREEN SPACE - BACK, YARD 1. 506.25 2. 200 3. 132 4. 25 5. 43.75 6. 6.25 7. I&.. 75 8. 25 9. 226.25 10. 187.50 11. 84 12. .61 13. 500 14. 175 15. 77 16. 14 17. 100 If, ~'I, 75 ,5-D TOTAL = 2,3 &1. 1j"' D2, 410, GREEN SPACE FRONT YARD 1. 37-6 2. 325 3. 147 4. 112.5 5. 488 6. 343.75 7. 244 t[, 7.5- TOTAL=~ dll/I, 2.s- - .GRANDTQTALGREENSPACE=~ ~ '-IS d:l3. 7..6 LOT SIZE 69.5 X 138.23 = 9607 45% = 4323 D 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. ~.1,p,r6~rty;lb~~~ri4itlaCl~ffi@tl4ri'fdt this PIN MOUNT PRQSPECT IL 600561918 ~.rMY:Qflb1,YI!(IJlI"WM~MOC';"'; $ 3,221.43 BY 12/03/07 (on time) .",~._" ~""" ,..,. ""." ".~","'~"",-., -....,.,.. ~-r.;r;t:-,--"'" IF PAID LATE 12/04/07 . 01/01/08 $ 3,269.75 1808 E HOP I LN Taxing District SUBURBAN T B SANITARIUM NW MOSQUITO ABATEMENT WATER RECLAMATION DIST RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT HARPER COLLEGE'DIST 512 HIGH SCHOOL D I STR ICT 214 SCHOOL D I stR I CT 26 ff[. PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ROAD AND BR I DGE WHEELI NG WHEELING GENERAL ASSIST, TOWN'OFWHEELING FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT CONSOLI DATED ELECT IONS COUNTY OF COOK COOK COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COOK COUNTY HEALTH FAC I L. (DO NOT PAY THESE TqTALS) 2006 Second Installment Property Tax ,Bill Properly Index Number (PIN) Volume Code Tax Year (Payable In) <, 03-25-306-025-0000 233 38044 2006 (2007) Township WHEELING IF PAID LATE 01/02/08 -02/01108 $ 3,318.07 IF PAID LATE 02/02/08 - 03/01/08 $ 3,366.39 LA PENALTY IS l.5,o/~ PER MONTH, "" STATE LAW. / I .;,' -l...?- ",.;"~~ ,:.::....,;.),~, ..~:-.-f:it:~i,,:~i:~,- "f"~ Property Glassification 2-07 ,/ / 28';:~ ":' o~:' ...".. / 200' Tax ":' :0:' 7,00 0,009 / 0,009 220,85 0,284 13,22 / 0,315 376,38 0.484 40,4W 0.480 .I 223,96 0,2883." 0,281 1,417.66 1.823 49/76 1. 759 2,369.50 3.047 ~. 76 2.880 374.83 0.482 / 0.466 l 657.89 0.846 /130.64 0.827 10.11 0,013 / . 0.012 7,78 0.010 / 0.009 33.44 0.043 ./ 0.041 44.33 0.057 / .77 0.060 0.00 O. .000/ 0.014 207. 63 0.~6 . 92.54 0.274 101.09 O. 0 0.147 80.10/103 0.112 6,136.44 .891 C( 7.691 pb1- j.\ ~'1Il) ~ " rT , c: , .~ " .;: :~ C 'il!': ~::t "~ t~ --.., , .~ 3,79 6.82 238. 78 363.85 213..01 1,333.37 2,183.13 353.24 626.89 9.10 6,82 31. 08 45.48 '10.61 207. 71 111. 43 84.90 5,830.01 WALLACE J HOMMERDING 1808 HOPI LN MTPROSPECT IL 60056-1918 ~ I. F.' 'V'O' 'U' R T'.'X.I:S A"i'i~$ft,j,l.iI;;.t(.:i",rM""~A" ."G"E "E'S' 'C' n,O" W BE' S.U.... ...."'."jj;olf"Tp'JD';s.~BL'H"iflfi;;tl-"!tt '~j#~l''(\~,~.~t?~!_~~~!!;l!,;,:j$,t.;.;;. . '. ",: . "_ .,',_"A' -I;' "", '~-';l7f-\ .,~~~ ,Qi_"<;. ,._..~.~.~_. "'" -:- "", ft.' ',:, -t .' " ',_ AIi:~; IN\J '-'."w,:<:.u-~~ -,-; .:~_~::- t._;. ';, ,~'\~: <: "-.:,.,:,,..:.,_:,_~t;:::~:;~:c:::.~y.;,.-",::::,:,(.,;,-, ;'-> ':..' ',', t- OJ V' " ') ~ .> .. , Z n::" ~ (' 2 Ei5 u ") CO .- co c: I:G (; c: c: f"" rc c I ~, v; <;:...1 ~ .,;; <l: , ...~. ~ m C ~ ~ C', d UII'1l III is (~ .0 (c c'j 0 c' 0 C.:-, 's d '-; 1\ ~ UiIUUIIlI(~"I" II . ((~ I I l-. :? o::t :0.:- ,- ,u ,-, i- t-- ,u c; (/j (h iJ) iJj iJ) (1i Vi ,- ... 0 (J 0 0 0 2 0 z (j; (L el D- o. n. D- .n " L..J u..' L.J L.LJ ..u ~ wJ ? E L",) 0 CJ CJ 0 0 CJ ('"1... 0 ::l 'c: ~ "- -:s:: :::s:: :::s:: ~ .>: Z l.) U () () u u u -' W 4- G <( - </) '.J.l UJ UJ W Lu UJ I.J.J 0 C :j;, I T I :r: :r :r I 0 0:: ::l C.l U U U () U () U I- 0 <l: 0 ? CJ '-' U ,- iiiiiiiiiiiii l) (t) oi'l <1' ~ Vi Z iiiiiii <( .... :> ~ w - 0 '", tY. ," ~ CJ:: 5 ~ U) - ,~ 'f) If) !JJ (I) l:...J <1: UJ uJ <( <( <( - (.~. 0:: w (j) 0 _I ..J (/) Z Lu LJJ l.L; :r z l- et. n. ~ <( 0:' (r. 0:: ~ ~ 3: a:: .2 "". 0 <( <( <( 0:: 0 :.-, I,. f-. >-', 0:: 0 <( tl) 0:: Z Z <( (/) w. 0 0 0 <( .~-k Z ~~ <( <( u.. u.. IJ.. W 0 U U l1.. iiiiiiiiii (/) ill U (I) Lu ..J if) t- o:: (/) w 0 0 ..J LLJ (f} c....' 0., 0: :::s:: :::s:: ::l:: w !!!!!!!!!!! (Ii ':::1 W ::l:: ~ ~ :r ,- <( <( 0 0 0 0 1-' ,_J <( W <{, - <:l.> :::J :.? -.' l- I-- 0 tn ::r: ~ UJ <( 8 0 0 t- iiiiiiiii Q a: <( -c! ~ (3 U :::s:: u 0 0- W U () (f) - - 1 ~ iiiiiiiiiii CI) ~ - <lJ <: .Q iiiiiiiiiiiiiii ~ E - 0 '5 :3 ~ .;. " '* .. '* - -0 <lJ ->c: (!) ('j I'- I'- 0 M N fI} "" U) ill I~, c:l '" 0 ('~ l-- ~ 00 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii "-' ~~, u LO ill ill I'- eo eo eo co co co to to 00 O'l O'l Cl () "" <lJ f") rr> f") f") (I) f") ('1) Cf} fD ('I) l'<} (f") CI) (I) f'l f") = Z 'n; ~. I- .J::; Lf) LO LO U) LO LO L!l L!l lO L!l L!l L!l L!l L!l LO LO U orl ,-i ~~ M M M M M M M ..... ~~ M ..-i ..-i ,-i <l: <:( u 15 z 1 iiiiiii (f) <ll (:J w l? II> 8- cc. a ~ Ii" z < z U 'C '0 "0 "0 '0 '0 <Il ~ ~ 0 ~~, III OJ C!i <l! a: Q) Cl '!2 1Ii Q <:( i= .~ ,~ .~ > > > ,~ ::; ..<:: a. 0:: 0:: (.) (j) (JJ <IJ iii 'iii ';j; OJ s. 2 -' -' u.J u u 0 '-' '-' '-' u 0:( -' ~ r- <C u (l) QJ QJ Q. Q) Q) QJ <t; it; 6 ;; <:;f Ii! f'l {1) f") ('t} ~ f") r'l f") (f) <:;f ~ .:t 0 r.n n:: 0: lY. 0: 0: 0:: 0: ... Z (l) \ !il '0 0 ~-~ ~::' 0 0 0 ~, 0 0 0 0 c C> 0 0 0 :rl "- '!.:. (I) t~ Vl III I/) (I) .:s:: ... ~" " ~ '-- " ~ " '-- " '- , ......... -, 0 "C 0:( '-0 '0 ''0 '9- '0 -0 "0 ~ u ~ Z ' 'f")' f't) Ci) CfJ (l) f") (i) ('1) f'l r'l (<} rn f<l fl'l ('i) rrf a: C5 c: c c c: c: C QJ I- W [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ~ I- ~ ~ ::l ::l :5 :J :J :J V5 .r: ::J !.I.I ~ tJ,J a: ~ u., IJ.. l.L. tL. I.J... u.. l.L. U V) z: I 0 (~ u.; ~ ~ :5 n: :J: 3J; ~ I- -' ~ (/) 'i:; -=l: :::> to to ~ ~ ~ ~ o;t co s S f") ,-1 r- eo <:;f o;t <:;f ~ '<t ~ ~ co O'l O'l Ol rry ~ ~ :J: <lJ 9 Q N ~-, !:" ~'i r~ !"l () Q.; M rl orl ..... N r, r~ N 01 N r, N N ('oj 0,J 0 III I.Ll " , " ". " " , .......... " " ~ , " ~ a:: < 15 ri>' frj '. <:>'), C'i)- (~ f")- :z: ~ ~- N' '" M r0 N N N N N 01 f" N r, ('. N N N (f") Z (.) :::J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (.) :::J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + , STATE OF' IlUNOJS) COUNlY or COOK) !, JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE DESCi<lBED PROPERTY HAS BEEN SURVEYED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT THE PLAT HEREON DRAWN IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION or SAlO SURVEY. -f} BY' Y"- 1" ~ . 800 E. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY SUITE 121 PALATINE. Il 60074 PHONE (847) 253-6566 PLAT OF SURVEY -BY- ~ 1 JAMES ELLMAN LTD. M. LOT 46 IN FOREST MANOR UNIT NO.2, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTH'w'EST 114 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TO'w'NSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. \.to n:NCE POST 0.7 1,/, , 0.7 N. or lOT CORNER \lD FENCE POST 0.8 '1,/, I. 0.75 N. ~ :: lOT CORNER I 63.00' 0.5 s. . \NO n:NCE 0.25 S. a. 0.5 \I. 'W. rACE or \iD fENCE 1.1 1,/, DECK 08 E. I I / I 001 f"l ;41 >-1/ DECK 0.9 E. CONC. 1.6 'W. 1)'<> \; CONC. 0.7 'W. 'w'D fENCE 0.4 V. IRON PIPE .. ~. RAD.=1532.00' .~ 76.00':" . . IRON . .-4;IPE . '4'. . HOPI LANE REVISED STREET NAME 7/12/07 Ordered by: CAROLINE HOMMERDING Order No: 070512 Bose Scale: 1 inch = 20 feel Dcle: MAY 7, 2007 THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT IlllNOIS MINIMUM STANDARDS ,OR A BOUNDARY SURVEY. Address: 1808 HOPI LANE, MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS = \/000 ,ENeE = ell fE,:NCl:: l~ ~I = CONCRETE ILUNDIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR LICENSE NO. 184-002744 (35-002158) EXPIRES 04/30/2009 COMPARE ALl. POINTS BEF'ORE BUILDINC BY SAJ.lE AND AT ONCE REPORT AN'{ DIFFERENCE. FOR BUII.DINC LINE AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS NOT SHOWN HEREON REFER TO YOuR ABSTRACT. DEED. CONTRACT AND ZONING ORDINANCE. NOT VAlID UNLESS EMBOSSED 'vID FENCE POST 0.7 'vi. 8. 0.7 N. OF LOT CORNER 'vID FENCE POST 08 'vi. 8. 0.75 N'J OF LOT CORNER I 'vID FENCE 63.00' 0.5 ~ " 0.25 S. 8. 0.5 'vi. - D 'vi. FACE DF 'vID FENCE 1.1 'vi. DECK 0.9 E. CONC. 0.7 'vi. 'vID FENCE .0..1.\01. . L 'wIIi FENCt 0.4 'wi. IRON PIPE: :~. '. '. . ",' . ..:.....-. ...,.. A':' 76.00":: · '.. '.::- .. . A ... .... . ,q~ IRON . . '~PIPE . :. ". .... . :.' :." . . . 00 . 040" 4 ..... ," ". ..A"...."o ..;,5 == FOREST DRIVE r~.-''--''~'-~- r ..<'\ I 1-..1 . ./ ,i " De:.}( t.."1 I &J. eiH t' .~t. . . ~ r <' \- e: \~ 'CJ 1(\\ ';. ~. " . ~~,. -0 ,~ ':;''' (" ~ ~-2.. .:,-[~P- ~ :1\ P- ~W' ~ It (> ("l .~ 7t- ;..-.~ Jfl J ~ ,L-rc II j I I \ I ~~~t~-~- ~O ; Oe.;<:. '--=f j j J . .1 ."-..:-.,-.:.1 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 Y-t and the Southeast Y-t 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 Prosoect 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. B 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\WIN\ORDINANC\variationsideyardsetback1808hopiaug2008.doc 800 E. NORTHWEST HICHWAY SUITE 121 PAlATINE. IL 60074 PHONE (847) 253-6566 ~ I REVISED STREET NAME 7/12/07 Ordered by: CAROLINE HOMMERDlNG Order No: 070512 80se Scale: 1 inch = 20 feel Dole: MAY 7, 2007 Address: 1808 HOPI LANE. MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS STATE or ILLINOIS) COUNTY OF COOK) !. JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. 00 HERE8Y CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE OESCll/SED PROPERTY HAS SEEN SURVEYED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT THE PlAT HEREON DRAWN IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION ::. S1J0 SURVEY. fJ ~ 4, ~ . IWNOIS PROFESSIONAL lAND SURVEYOR LICENSE NO. 184-0027" (35-002158) (XPtR(S 04/30/2009 PLA T OF SURVEY -SY- JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. LOT 46 IN FOREST MANOR UNIT NO.2, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTHVEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOVNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST Dr THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY. ILLINOIS. VD FENCE POST 0.7 1,/. , 0.7 N. OF LOT CORNER IJQ rENCE POST o.e 1,/. , 0.75 N. ~ ~ LOT CORNER I 63.00' o.S s. . VD FENCE 0.25 s. , o.s 1,1, DECK O.S E. v. FACE OF VD FENCE I.l V. DECK 0.9 E. Ocl l"l It'ij l"l >-oft cot y CONC. 0.7 V. IRON "; 4.P1P( ~........:. -..J~~~~ .... .....IS HOPI LANE THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLINOIS MINIMUM STANDARDS F'OR A SOUNDARY SURVEY. . '.JOOD FENCE = elL tENeE" ~'.. '1 . CONCRETE COMPARE AL.L. POINTS BEF'ORE BUILDING BY SAME AND AT ONCE REPORT Nf( DIFFtRENCE. F"OR 8Ull.DING UHE AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS NOT SHOWN HEREON REFtR TO YOUR ABSTRACT. DEED. CONTRAcT AND ZONINC ORDINANCt. NOT VAL-IO UNL.ESS EM80SSED 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 Prospect 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 "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 maximum lot coverage of fifty-five (55%) percent 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. t < 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\WIN\ORDINANC\variationlotcoverage 1808hopiaug2008 .doc J 1 JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. ~ 800 E. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY SUITE 121 PAlATINE. IL 6007. PHONE (S47) 25J-6566 PLA T OF SURVEY -SY- LOT 46 IN FOREST MANOR UNIT NO.2, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTH'WEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 Dr SECTION 25, TO'WNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. IJD rENCE POST 0.7 101. ~ 0.7 N. or LOT CORNER \lD rENtE POST O.S 101. ~ 0.75 N') ~ LOT CORNER I 63.00' 0.5 s. . IJD rENCE 0.25 S. ~ 0.5 101. IRON PIPE: .' ~.~..:.........: DECK D,S E, 101. rACE Dr IJD rENCE 1.1 101. INGROUND POOL DECK 0.9 E. . . .CONC'.. ~ ,'. .- -,,' Qo ~ ..... ~ ..... CoNC. 0.7 101. IJD rENCE 0.4 101. RAD.=IS32.00' .' . "." 76.00'-' :.. ..' -J~7~~ ,.' . . .. .- .... - BOPI LANE REVISED STREET NAME 7/12/07 Ordered by: CAROLINE HOMMERDING Order No: 070512 Base Scale: 1 inch - 20 feel Date: MAY 7, 2007 THIS PRorESSIONAL SERVICE CONrORMS TO THE CURRENT ILLINOIS MINIMUM STANDARDS F'DR A BOUNDARY SURVEY. COMPARE ALL POIN1'S BEFORE 8U1LOJNG BY SAME AND AT ONCE REPORT ANt DIFFERENCE. FOR 8U1U)INC UHE AND OTHER RESTRICllONS MOT SHOWN HEREON REFER TO YOUR ABSTRACT. DEED. COHlRACT AND ZONING OREXNANCE. NOT VAUO UNLESS EMBOSSED STATE or IWNOlS) COUIlTY or COOK) !, .....a M. ELLMAN LTD, DO HERf8Y ctRTlN THAT THE ASavE OESCl<JSED PROPERTY IW5 BEEN 5URVEYED UNDER lIT SUPERVISION AND THAT THE PlAT HEREON DRAwN IS A COIIRECT REPRESENTATION :. SiJD SUrMY. f) c-, 1.f ~ . IWMQl5 PRortsslONAl. LAND SURVEYOR LICENSE NO. 184-1102744 (3:5-00215B' EXPIRES 04/30/2009 Address: 1808 HOPI LANE, MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS = 11000 rENCE = C/L rENCE ~:", ~I = CONCRETE