Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. NEW BUSINESS 9/3/02 illage of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER J. DAVID STRAHL, ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER CABLE PRODUCTION COORDINATOR DATE: AUGUST 28, 2002 SUBJECT: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN VILLAGE AND R TRAILS PARK DISTRICT TO PROVIDE TELEVISION PROGRAMMING PRODUCTION SERVICES Attached please find a~greemen, t ,between the Village of Mount Prospect and the River Trails Park District tb--PYovide television production services through December 31, 2002 similar to those currently provided to the Mount Prospect Park District, the Mount Prospect Public Library and School Districts 26, 57 & 59. River Trails has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Mount Prospect Park District, and will be filling a portiOn of MPPD's current magazine show Inside the Park as well as getting coverage of RTPD events. This agreement will not result in additional production hours or production labor. Staff has also been informed that the Prospect Heights Park Distdct has agreed to enter into a production agreement as well beginning in January 2003. Once details are negotiated, documents outlining requirements for that agreement will be forwarded for approval. Thank you. c: Velma Lowe, Village Clerk Ross Rowe RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 40-02 AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TO ADOPT AN AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT FOR GOVERNMENT ACCES~ CABLE TV SERVICE PRODUCTION WHEREAS, on August 6, 2002, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect (hereinafter referred to as "the Village") determined that it was in the best interests of the Village to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") with the River Trails Park District for the production of River Trails Park District activities on the Village's government access cable television channel; and WHEREAS, the Agreement was approved for a pedod beginning July 1, 2002 and ending December 31, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Agreement originally approved has subsequently been amended to provide television production services for a term beginning July 1, 2002 and ending December 31, 2002, with the River Trails Park Distdct contributing a total of $3,500,000 to the Village of Mount Prospect. WHEREAS, said Agreement, as amended, is a direct benefit to the Village of Mount Prospect and its residents by providing extensive coverage of services, programs, and governmental proceedings throughout the Village· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: ~E~JQJ~LQt~ The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect are hereby authorized to execute the amended Intergovernmental Agreement with River Trails Park District, attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit "A." VOMP/RTPD TV Agrmt. Page 2/2 SEC, ZtDJ~L_TW_Q: That this Resolution shall be in full fome and effective from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk MPTV- MOUNT PROSPECT GOVERNMENT TELEVISION/ RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT LETTER OF AGREEMENT- TELEVISION PRODUCTION This document represents an agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect (hereafter referred to as "Village") and River Trails Park District (hereafter referred to as 'RTPD") to participate in programming and production activities for the Village's government access cable television channel (hereafter referred to as "MPTV") for a pedod beginning July 1, 2002 and ending December 31,2002. The agreement is as follows: For a pedod beginning July t, 2002 and concluding December 31, 2002, RTPD will contribute a total of $3,500.00 in funding assistance for television production services coordinated by the Village's Community Producer and supervised by the Village's Cable Production Coordinator based at MPTV. Payment for services is due upon initiation of the contract. This position will perform the following functions: 1) The Community Producer will produce programming for RTPD to be shown on MPTV on a regular basis under the supervision of the Village's Cable Production Coordinator. The Community Producer will be considered an employee of the Village and Village projects will be first priority of the position. The Village will provide a bener~ package for the position equivalent to a basic full-time permanent position. 2) A minimum average of 1 hour of original programming per month will be created, the subject of which shall be determined by the entities' needs. Additionally, a 20-minute segment of the magazine show Inside the Park will focus solely on RTPD activities; again the subject matter will be determined by the entities' needs. 3) The Community Producer will meet with officials from RTPD on a regular basis to determine what types of programming are to be produced, and inform the Village of these productions. Programming produced for RTPD will be scheduled by MP'I'V to balance with municipal programming as much as possible, but Village programming will remain first priority. The selection of programming relevance or scheduling shall be the sole responsibility of the Village. 4) The Community Producer will maintain and update information messages for RTPD on MPTV's Community Information Guide and in the Cable Views Village newsletter insert. These messages will be submitted to MPTV by the RTPD in an appropriate format for display. 5) The Community Producer will coordinate volunteer efforts to preduce the RTPD programming. 6) RTPD will ask for volunteere to be trained by the Community Producer to help increase the volunteer pool available to produce pregramming. 7) The Community Producer will provide, on a monthly basis, a report of all production activities for the entities involved in this agreement including number and length of programs produced, pre-production and post- production hours, training of volunteers and interaction with RTPD staff. If any of the participants who are a party to this agreement becomes dissatisfied with the level of service provided, the entity must put the specific grievance in wdting and forward it to the Village for review. After receipt of the grievance the Village shall have ninety (90) days to respond and attempt to resolve the issue. If the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the agency, the grievant may withdraw from the agreement, and receive a prerated refund of its contribution based on the amount of time left on the agreement provided a ninety (90) day written withdraw notice is forwarded to the Village prior to withdraw. If participation and funding is withdrawn the Village shall not be obligated to fund the Community Producer position beyond the conclusion of the Village's fiscal year in which the withdraw action occurred. By entedng into this agreement each participant acknowledges their willingness to .annually budget the necessary funds to cover their assigned portion of the costs. If any other entity who provides services to the Village residents determines such participation in this agreement would be beneficial, all participants shall review the funding requirements for the position to determine whether additional governmental participation is possible within the existing programming limitation. Any additional participant shall be assigned a cost as determined by the Village. This agreement shall expire on December 3'1, 2002. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the agreement, the position will be re-evaluated by all parties. If the agreement is extended the projected annual cost of salary and benefits of the position may be increased to a proportional amount representative of the original pereentage of cost contribution ofthe original agreement. All undereigned parties involved are hereby committed for the length of the agreement, unless one or more parties withdraws under the withdraw provisions of the agreement. SIGNED Village of Mount Prospect Date River Trails Park District Date illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 30, 2002 PC-07-01 - LOFT SUBDIVISION 303-307 E. KENSINGTON ROAD KENSINGTON LAND GROUP, INC. - APPLICANT The Planning and Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PC-07-01 Loft Subdivision, a request to reconfigure property lines as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the request at their May 23, 2002 meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed plat and found that the plat and proposed shared access agreement meet Village codes. The P&Z voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the Loft Subdivision, Case No. PC-07-01,303-307 E. Kensington Road. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their September 3, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, AICR MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PC-07-01 PETITIONER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: August 22, 2002 Jeff Martinez Kensington Land Group, Inc. 303-7 E. Kensington August 7, 2002 Plat of resubdivision creating two lots Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning None Chairperson Arlene Jumcek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Approval of the minutes was tabled to the September 26 meeting since a quorum of members from the July 25 meeting were not in attendance. At 8:35, after hearing three cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PC-07-01, a request to create a two-lot subdivision. She explained that this case would be Village Board final. Ms. Juracek remarked that she remembered the Village Board approving the proposed restaurant some time ago. Judy Connolly, Senior Plam~er, presented the case. She reported that the plat is part of a zoning case that granted conditional use approval for a fast-food restaurant ~vith a drive-thru. The proposed plat of resubdivision was one of the conditions of approval and that the plat seeks to create two lots of record by subdividing a portion of one lot and consolidating it with the other lot. She said that the Lot 1 created by this plat includes the existing lot at 303 Kensington and the rear 250 feet of the lot at 307 Kensington; Lot 2 is the remainder of 307 Kensington. Ms. Connolly said that Lot 1 would be a shared parking lot for the existing Loft Restanrant and the proposed new restaurant. Although there is currently one owner for both lots, she said that there is a shared access agreemeut that runs with the land. Ms. Connolly said that the plat and new lots comply with Development Code requirements and that the petitioner is not seeking relief from the Development Code or the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Loft Resubdivision for the property located at 303 and 307 East Kensington, Case No. PC-07-01. Ms. Juracek summed up the request as being a final "housekeeping" issue for the proposed restaurant and asked if anyone in the audience had come for this case. There being none, she closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. lanning & Zoning Commission PC-07-01 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Leo Floros moved to recommend that the Village Board approve the proposed resubdivision o£the property at 303-7 E. Kensington Rd., Case No. PC-07-01. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. At 8:39 p.m., Joseph D0nnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~'y C~n411y, Sel~ior-Pianner H:\ GENXPL g2qiqlNG\r, Ia = n in g & Zoning COMM~P&Z 2~2~Minutcs~C-07-01 303-7 Kensington Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIR SUZANNE MAS~), LONG RANGE PLANNER AUGUST 22, 2002 JULY 25, 2002 PC-07-01/LOFT SUBDMSION/303 & 307 E. KENSINGTON ROAD Back~round Petitioner/Owner: Requested Action: Kensington Land Group, Inc. Jeff Martinez 303 East Kensington Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Plat ofresubdivision creating two lots Analysis The petitioner seeks to create two lots of record by subdiving the portion of one lot and consolidating that portion with the abutting lot. This plat is part of ZBA-04-00 for a conditional use for a drive-thru restaurant located at 307 Kensington. Lot 1 created by this plat includes the existing lot at 303 Kensington and the rear 250 feet of the lot at 307 Kensington. Lot 2 is the remainder of 307 Kensington. The consolidated portion of Lot I will be a shared parking lot for the existing Loft Restaurant and the proposed new restaurant. Therefore, the plat includes a shared access agreement. Currently, there is one owner for both lots. The agreement is included on the plat to ensure continued shared access in the case one of the lots is sold to a different owner. A proposed site plan is attached for your information. The proposed plat of resubdivision seeks to create two lots of record. The plat and new lots comply with Development Code requirements and the petitioner is not seeking relief from the Development Code or the Zoning Ordinance. C-07-01/Loft Subdivsion/303 & 307 Kensington July 10, 2002 Page 2 Recommendation The proposed plat of resubdivision is complete and has been prepared in accordance with the Development Code requirements. Therefore, staff' recommends approval of the Loft Resubdivision for the property located at 303 and 307 East Kensington, Case No. PC-07-01. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP Director of Community Development /sm H:\GEN~PLNG~PC\PC 200I\StaffMemos~PC-02-01 Maughan Resub(801 Cathy Ln).doc LOFT SUBDIVISION. LOT 2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PROPOSED RESTAURANT WNL 8~9~2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF RESUBDIVISlON FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 303 & 307 EAST KENSINGTON ROAD WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Jeff Martinez (d/b/a Kensington Land Group, Inc.), has requested approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision for the purpose of creating two lots of record with shared access, by resubdividing two existing lots; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The resubdivision of two lots of record to create two new lots of record is hereby granted for the property at 303 and 307 East Kensington Road, and the Final Plat of Subdivision attached to this Resolution as Exhibit"A" is hereby approved for appropriate execution and recording. Such Plat and its legal description are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution. SECTION TWO: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount PrOspect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 30, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-22-02 - VARIATION (SETBACK) 419 OJIBWA EARL & ONEITA BRAN-DON - APPLICANTS The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-22-02, a request for a five-foot setback, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their August 22, 2002 meeting. The subject property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood and abuts the Mount Prospect Country Club Golf Course. The petitioners would like to construct an attached 2-car garage in front of the existing garage, which would be converted to a storage area. The existing attached 2-car garage does not meet the current setback requirements and is located 5-feet from the side lot line. It is a legal non-conformity and is allowed to remain, however the new garage is required to meet currant code and maintain a ten-foot setback. The proposed five-foot setback requires Village Board approval because it exceeds more than 25% of the required setback. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the request at length. They noted that the house had two entrances from Ojibwa, but locating the garage so it meets the 10-foot setback would create an unfavorable entry, i.e. have to go through the garage to get into the kitchen. The location of the septic tank in the front yard was discussed in addition to the size of the subject property and setbacks required in other zoning districts. The P&Z concluded that the large lot size, the floor plan of the house, the location of the septic tank, and that 5-feet was an approved setback in other zoning districts met the standards for a variation. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 4-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a five-foot side yard setback to allow for the construction of an attached garage for the property at 419 Ojibwa, Case No. PZ-22-02. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their September 3, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TIdE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-22-02 Hearing Date: August 22, 2002 PETITIONER: Oneita & Earl Brandon PROPERTY ADDRESS: 419 S. Ojibwa PARCEL NUMBER: 08-13-218-008 PUBLICATION DATE: August 7, 2002 REQUEST: Variation to construct an attached 2-car garage that would encroach 5' into the required side yard. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Flores Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: Earl & Oneita Brandon Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Approval of the minutes was tabled to the September 26 meeting since a quorum of members from the July 25 meeting were not present. At 7:36, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-22-02, a request for a Variation to construct an attached 2-car garage to encroach 5' into the required side yard. She explained that this case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner presented the case, reporting the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. She said that the applicant proposes to convert the existing attached garage to storage space and construct a new 2-car attached garage in front of the existing garage. The garage addition would have the same setback as the existing garage, which is 5-feet. Ms. Connolly said that current regulations require a 10-foot setback and that the petitioner is seeking a Variation to construct the new garage in the required setback. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner stated that the location of the septic tank in the front yard and the floor plan of the home prevent the new garage from being constructed along the southwest portion of the house, where they could meet the 10-foot setback. The petitioner noted in his application that the new garage will be located more than 36-feet from the adjacent house and that the setback would be in character with the neighborhood. The garage addition would be constructed with materials that match the existing house. Ms. Connolly informed the Commission that the request must meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance in order to approve the variation. She summarized the standards and described the subject property and noted that the size and shape of the subject property are typical of most residential properties in the Village. Ms. Connolly said that the layout of the house is not unique, but that the septic field and its location are not typical for most residences in Mount Prospect. In order to build the 2-car garage, the house would have to be remodeled si~tificantly and/or the septic tank would have to be removed. She said that constructing a garage that would comply with zoning regulations would be possible, but would require considerable modifications to the site. Although the petitioner is creating his own hardship by constructing a 2-car garage 5-feet from the side lot line, the manner in which the site is developed is a unique condition. Also, the proposed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-22-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly pointed out that the proposed variation would not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character and the location of the septic tank and development of the property supports a finding of hardship, as required by the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the convenience of having a 2-car garage does not meet the standards for a variation and the petitioner is creating the need for a variation. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Plamfing and Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the proposed Variation to permit an enclosed structure to encroach five-feet into the required 10-foot side yard setback for the residence at 419 Ojibwa, Case No. PZ- 22-02. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek pointed out the proposed garage is within the size permitted by Code and the Variation was requested for the setback encroachment. Joseph Donnelly said this request appeared to be for an extension of the garage and asked how would it affect the limit to the allowable square footage. Ms. Connolly said that an attached, tandem garage would be limited by the 32-foot maximum driveway width. Merrill Cotten called attention to the fact that the existing garage setback was a legal nonconformity and asked how it affected this case. Ms. Connotly said the legal nonconformity was for the original structure, but did not apply to new additions. She said new additions must meet current regulations. Mr. Dom~elty said the lot coverage figures seemed to be inconsistent, having less coverage after the addition than before. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner ~vas going to reconfigure the service walk and would build the addition on an already paved area, which results in less lot coverage. Mr. Floros asked if the house was built before the property was annexed to the Village. Ms. Connolly said it was probable. Earl Brandon, 419 Ojibwa, was sworn and testified that he had no storage space other than the garage and that their vehicles must remain outside the garage. He said that they have only a partial basement. Ms. Juracek asked if there would be a wall between the new and old garage. Mr. Brandon said yes, but it would only be a double door for pedestrian access. Ms. Juraeek asked if that space would be wide enough for a car to pass through. Mr. Brandon said it would not. Mr. Donnelly asked if access between the house to the new garage would be internal. Mr. Brandon said yes. Mr. Floros asked if this was the only improvement being done at this time and if Mr. Brandon was the original owner. Mr. Brandon said it was the only improvement and that he was not the original owner. Ms. Juracek said the Commission recently denied a similar request because it obstructed the sight lines of the next-door neighbors. She asked if his neighbors approved of his proposed project. Mr. Brandon said his property line is 36' from the next house and would not detract from any other property. Mr. Donnelly asked about city sewer and water service hooks up to the site. Mr. Brandon said his house and the house next door are on well and septic. At the time city sewer and water became available to the property, Mr. Brandon said it would have cost him $45,000 to connect. Mr. Cotten said that the property was the next to last house on a one-way dead end street, with a very spacious front yard and that he felt the proposed project would not detract from the area. Ms. Juracek said there appeared to be no opposition by neighbors and she closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Floros agreed that the property had a spacious front yard and said that he had no objection to this reasonable request. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-22-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Mr. Donnelly said that since the property has two front doors, the garage could be shifted over 5' and cover only one door and still allow easy access to the proposed garage. Ms. Juracek observed that a 5' setback would still be maintained and that in the event the lot were subdivided to a smaller lot the 5' setback would be appropriate. Leo Floros moved to recommend that the Village Board approve the proposed Variation to construct an attached 2-car garage that would encroach 5' into the required side yard, Case No. PZ-22-02. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. At 8:39 p.m., after hearing three more cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: AUGUST 15, 2002 HEARING DATE: AUGUST 22, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-22-02 - VARIATION (SIDE YARD SETBACK) 419 OJIBWA (BRANDON RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: Oneita & Earl Brandon 419 S. Ojibwa Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owner 08-13-218-008 22,200 square feet RX Single Family Residence Single Family Residence 26% existing 25% proposed (35% maximum permitted in the RX district) REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATION TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE THAT ENCROACHES 5-FEET INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED VARIATION The subject property is located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street and contains an existing residence with related improvements. The applicant proposes to 'officially' convert the existing attached garage to storage space and construct a new 2-car attached garage in front of the existing home. The garage addition would encroach five-feet into the side yard, maintaining the existing setback. Per the Zoning Ordinance, residential properties in the RX Zoning District are required to maintain a 10-foot side yard setback. The garage's existing setback is a legal nonconformity, however the proposed addition would have to meet the 1 O-foot setback requirement. Due to these circumstances, the petitioner is seeking a Variation to construct the new garage in the required setback, as shown in the attached site plan. As outlined in the enclosed application, the petitioner states that the location of the septic tank in the front yard and the floor plan of the home prevent the new garage from being constructed along the southwest portion of the house. The petitioner states that the new garage will be located more than 36-feet from the adjacent house and that it would be in character with the neighborhood. The garage addition would be constructed with materials that match the existing house. Z-22-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 22, 2002 Page 2 To conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations are contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. These standards relate to: · A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; · lack of desire to increase financial gain; and · protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel (22,200 square feet) is not located within a flood zone and is primarily rectangular in shape. The parcel contains a single family home and a 2-car attached garage. The applicant proposes to convert the existing garage to storage space and construct a 2-car garage in front of the existing garage that would encroach five-feet into the front yard. The size and shape of the subject property are typical of most residential properties in the Village. While the layout of the house is not unique, the septic field and its location are not typical for most residences in Mount Prospect. In order to build the 2-car garage, the house would have to be remodeled significantly and/or the septic tank would have to be removed. Constructing a garage that would comply with zoning regulations would be possible, but would require considerable modifications to the site. Although the petitioner is creating his own hardship by constructing a 2-car garage 5-feet from the side lot line, the manner in which the site is developed, i.e. septic tank and floor plan, is a unique physical condition of the subject property. In addition, the proposed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION The proposed variation would not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character and the location of the septic tank and development of the property supports a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the convenience of having a 2-car garage does not meet the standards for a variation and the petitioner is creating the need for a variation. Based on these fmdings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the proposed Variation to permit an enclosed structure to encroach five-feet into the required 10-foot side yard setback for the residence at 419 Ojibwa, Case No. PZ-22-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Lincoln Street 401 405 415 421 Mount Prospect Country Club 700 704 708 707 ~ ~ ~ 708 Lonnquist Boulevard 61'/ 619 ?05 70'/ PZ-22-02 419 Ojibwa Brandon Residence Variation - Side Yard Setback VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request The Zoning Board of Appeals has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW Q Village Board Final [21ZBA Final Development Name/Address ."' ' .. . ' ":' · '.'. '"' : "' '.' ' ."" '. : DateofSubmission · .. ': · .. · ....... .' Hearing .Date...'.' .i ': .': . · i' · .. ':..". ' · · ' ' Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) Tax I.D. Number or Co~ Assigned P~ Number(s) -Legal Description (a~ach additional sheeB if necessa~) Name Telephone (day) Corporation Telephone (evening) Street Address Fax CiW State Zip Code Pager Interest ~ Prope~ ode Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner ~.~ ~. ~ Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 PI A T OF SUt? VE Y tAAN AVENUE JON P. TICE TICE SURVEY CO, ilNOIS 60068 REGISTERED ILLINOIS LAND SURVEYOR PHONE: 823-S947 I, JON P. TICE, a Rec; I[I. Land Surveyor, do Stere of Illinois '~. Count~ of Cook j ss ?I/.0' wd 8/29/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 419 OJIBWA TRAIL WHEREAS, Earl and Oneita Brandon (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners") have filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 419 Ojibwa Trail (hereinafter referred to as the 'Subject Property") and legally described as follows: The south 11' of Lot 4 (except the W. 33' thereof) and Lot 5 (except the W 33' thereof) in Willson and Florence's Country Club Subdivision of the E 233' (as measured on the N line) of the NW % of the NW % of the SW % of Sec. 11, Township 4t North, Range 11 East of the 3rd Principal Meridian, also together with all that part of vacated Ojibwa Trail lying E of and adjoining the S 11' of Lot 4 & Lot 5 in Willson and Florence's Country Club Subdivision aforesaid, all in Cook COunty, IL. Property Index Number. 08-1t-300-016 and WHEREAS, the Petitioners seek a Variation to allow for the construction of an attached garage, with a five-foot (5') encroachment into the rear side yard setback; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation being the subject of PZ-22-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 22nd day of August, 2002, pursuant to p~per legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 7u' day of August, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation would be in the best interest of the Village. 419 S. Ojibwa Trail Page 2/2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation, as provided in Section t4.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of an attached garage, with a five-foot (5') encroachment into the ten foot (10') required side yard setback, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 30, 2002 PZ-24-02 - VARIATION (SETBACK & GARAGE SIZE) 915 S. OWEN STREET GEORGE A. SCHUBKEGEL - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-24~02. 2.16-foot side yard setback, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their August 22, 2002 meeting. request f6r a The subject Property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood· The petitioner would like to construct a 10'x24' addition to the existing garage for non-vehicle storage only. The current setback is a legal non- conformity and is allowed to remain, however the 10'x24' addition is required to maintain a five-foot setback. The proposed 2.16-foot setback requires Village Board approval because it exceeds more than 25% of the required setback. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the size of the garage with the proposed addition, which would measure 768 square feet, and the requested 2.16-foot setback· After lengthy discussion regarding how the structure would be used, the difficulty in matching the existing roofline with the roofline of an addition that met the 5-foot setback requirement, and the aesthetic impact of the addition, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to approve a 10'x24' addition to the existing garage subject to the following conditions: I. A shed cannot be constructed on the subject property; 2. The existing rear garage wall will remain, but modified to allow a door no larger than 3'6" to provide access between the addition and the garage; 3. The exterior access door to/from the addition cannot exceed six-feet in width. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 4-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a 2.16-foot setback to allow for the construction ora 10'x24' addition to a detached garage for the property at 915 S. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-24-02. E e Planning & Zoning Commission's vote on the variation to exceed the maximum garage size was fina. l~. wever, I have appealed the decision to provide the Village Board with the opportunity to review this matter in ht of the amount of discussion that the Board bas recently had on accessory structure sizes. ~ Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their September 3, 2002 meeting. Staffwill be present t9 answer any questions related to this matter. · ' .on y, ., CP illage of Mount prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: WILLIAM J. COONEY JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 27, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-24-02 - APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE TO APPROVE A VARIATION FOR GARAGE SIZE Pursuant to Section 14.203.C.8 of the Village Code, I hereby am filing an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to approve a 770 square foot garage at 915 S. Owen Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision would otherwise be final on this component of the petitioner's request since the request is less than 25% over what Code permits. The petitioner's request for a variation to extend a 2.2' setback along their side yard will be presented to the Village Board at their September 3, 2002 meeting (the P & Z recommended approval of this request by a vote of 4-0). Without this appeal, the Village Board would not have the right to review the request for the garage size variation, an issue that the Village Board has recently discussed at length. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their meeting on September 3, 2002. Staffwill be present at that meeting to further discuss this matter. ~lh~m~J. ~ooney Jr. ' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-24-02 Hearing Date: August 22, 2002 PETITIONER: George Schubkegel PROPERTY ADDRESS: 915 S. Owen Street PARCEL NUMBER: 08-13-209-008 PUBLICATION DATE: August 7, 2002 REQUEST: Variations: 1) size of garage; 2) side yard setback. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Flores Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: George Schubkegel Patty Schubkegel Karen Schubkegel Joe Schubkegel Stephan Godommer Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Approval of the minutes was tabled to the September 26 meeting since a quorum of members from the July 25 meeting were not present. At 8:09, after hearing two other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-24-02, a request for Variations to (1) the size of a garage, which would be P&Z Commission final and (2) the side yard setback, which would be Village Board final. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly to verify why this project is considered a garage enlargement versus brick shed, which abuts a garage. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, responded that the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum three-foot separation between a shed and a garage and that in this case there is a walt with cross-access. She then reported that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street and that the applicant wants to construct a 10'x24' addition to the existing detached garage. The addition would match the garage's existing side setback, which is 2.16-feet. She said that the petitioner is seeking a variation for the size and location of the structure since the garage would exceed the 672 square foot maximum permitted by code and the addition would not comply with the required five- foot setback. The new area would be used to store lawn and garden equipment and would have a separate entrance, but include a pedestrian connection to the existing garage. Ms. Connolly said that the 'garage' portion of the structure would not be modified, but the footprint of the structure would be increased to 768 square feet, which exceeds the maximum size permitted for a detached garage. Ms. Connolly reminded the Commission the request has to meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance in order to approve the variation. She summarized the standards and described the subject property. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-24-02 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the applicant would like to construct a 10'x24' addition to the existing 22'x24' garage to create additional storage space, while maintaining the existing setback. She said that the location of the addition increases the amount of the nonconforming setback and is required to maintain a five-foot setback. The addition to the garage is larger than the maximum size allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Although the addition would not be visible from the street, the request does not meet the standards for a variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that an alternative to the applicant's proposal would be to construct a smaller addition to the garage and a shed. This approach would not exceed lot coverage and would comply with the Village regulations. Ms. Connolly said that although the requested variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to support a finding of hardship, which is required by the Zoning Ordinance. She said based on these findings, staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to permit a 768 square foot garage to be located 2.16-feet from the side yard for the residence at 915 S. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-24-02. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for the size of the garage, but that Village Board approval is required for the 2.16-foot setback. Ms. Juracek said that this case differs from the case heard earlier this evening because this case is a detached garage, which has a size limit on the structure. Mr. Floros asked if the size limit of 672' was the limit that the Village Board wrestled with and agreed upon earlier this year. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the regulations for detached garages were recently increased from 600 to 672 square feet. Ms. Juracek asked if it was possible to approve the request with the condition that a shed could not be built and asked how this condition of approval would be tracked and enforced. Ms. Connolly said the GIS system would "flag" this condition if the property owner applied for a shed permit. Also, the resolution granting the variation is recorded so it could appear in future title searches. George Schubkegel was sworn in and testified he needs an oversize garage for storage. He stated the house is setback from the property line the way the house was built 35 years ago. He said they moved here 17 years ago from a house in Chicago that had a 2-1/2 car garage and basement access to the outside. They do not have that luxury in this house and that they must go through the kitchen down to the basement. He said that he is actively into model airplanes and that the planes are getting larger, which requires more storage space. The six-foot wingspan makes it difficult to bring the plane in and out through the house. He explained that the intention was to extend the garage back 10' because it is 18' from the lot line with an 8' easement, which leaves 10' that could be added to the garage. He said he would remove the vinyl siding from the back wall and use the siding on the addition. Merrill Cotten asked about the access from the old garage to the new garage. Mr, Schubkegel said there would be access through a three-foot wide "man-door". He said that there would be an outside door on the back of the addition and the type of door would be determined later. Ms. Juracek asked if there was a specific reason for the 10' dimension. Mr. Schubkegel said it was just for additional storage. Mr. Donnelly asked why they couldn't make the addition 10x22 instead of 10x24 and maintain a 5' setback. Mr. Schubkegel said that would be an irregular shape and make it difficult to match the roof. He added that there were several garages in the area much larger than his proposal. Ms. Juracek said there was an e-mail from the neighbor at 911 S. Owen and a letter from the neighbor at 917 S. Owen that stated they had no objections to the proposal. Mr. Schubkegel added that the neighbor at 913 S. Owen was at the meeting and wanted to address the Commission. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-24-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Stephen Godommer, 913 S. Owen, was sworn in and said that he had no objections to the proposed project. He said the Schubkegels have been wonderful neighbors and that other neighbors stated their support of the project to him. Joe Schubkegel, 1745 Verde Drive, was sworn in and said he was Mr. Schubkegel's brother and a Mount Prospect resident. He said a shed would detract from the neighborhood, whereas a larger garage would enhance the neighborhood. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Donnetly asked if it was necessary to have the access from the old garage to the new portion. Mr. Schubkegel said it was for convenience. Ms. Juracek said the alternative to this project would be to reduce the garage addition and to put a shed on the property. Mr. Donnelly said the project should remain in the context of a garage and not a shed. Mr. Floros said he was concerned that this request is almost 100 square feet larger than what is permitted by code and is occurring soon after the Village Board increased the size of detached garages. However, erecting a smaller addition and a shed does not make sense in this case. Mr. Cotten said he did not want people to have the perception that the Commission would make it a practice to allow garages larger than 672 s.f., but that this case was a special circumstance and would not harm the neighborhood. Joseph Donnelly moved to recommend approval of Variations to permit a 768 s.f. garage to be located 2.16' from the side yard for the residence at 915 S. Owen Street., Case No. PZ-24-02, subject to the following conditions: 1.' A shed cannot be constructed on the subject property; 2. The existing rear garage wall will remain, but modified to allow a door no larger than 3'6" to provide access between the addition and the garage; 3. The exterior access door to/from the addition cannot exceed six-feet in width. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, DonnelIy, Floros, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. At 8:39 p.m., after hearing another case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~d37 Con{~/fll3~, ~e~ior Planner - d~ H:\GEN~PLANNING~Planning & Zoning COMMW&Z 2002hMinutes~PZ-24-02 915 S Owen,doc Village of Mount P pect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBTECT~ MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER AUGUST 15, 2002 AUGUST 22, 2002 PZ-24-02 - VARIATIONS: 1) SIZE OF THE GARAGE; 2) SIDE YARD SETBACK 915 S. OWEN STREET (SCHUBKEGEL RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: George Schubkegel 915 S. Owen Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owner 08-13-209-008 8,712 square feet R1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residence 39% existing 42% proposed 45% maximum per R1 district REQUESTED ACTION: VARIATIONS TO ALLOW A 770 SQUARE- FOOT GARAGE WITH A 2.2- FOOT SETBACK. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on a single-family residential street and contains an existing home and detached garage. The petitioner would like to construct a 240 square foot addition (10'x24') to the existing 528 square foot garage. The addition would be 10-feet deep and attached to the rear portion of the existing garage. The addition would be setback 2.16-feet from the side lot line, which would match the garage's existing setback. The petitioner is seeking a variation for the size and location of the structure since the garage would exceed the 672 square foot maximum permitted by code. Also, the addition would not comply with the required five-foot setback. As outlined in the attached application, the proposed addition would be used to store lawn and garden equipment. The addition would be constructed in place of a 10'x12' shed as permitted by the Zon'mg Ordinance. As indicated on the attached exhibits, th~ proposed addition would hay9 a separate entrance. The existing rear garage wall would be modified to include a three-foot wide door that connects the garage to the storage area. Motor vehicles could not be stored in the 10,x24' addition. Z-24-02 Planning & Zoning Meeting August 22, 2002 Page 2 Although the 'garage' portion of the structure would not be modified, the footprint of the structure would be increased to 768 square feet, which exceeds the maximum size permitted for a detached garage. To conduct its analysis of the requested Variations, staffreviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations are conta'med in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation~ These standards relate to: · A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not gene-rally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; · lack of desire to increase financial gain; and · protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel, which measures 8,712 square feet, is rectangular in shape and is not located in a flood zone. The parcel contains a single family home and detached garage. The applicant would like to construct a 10'x24' addition to the existing 22'x24' garage to create additional storage space. The addition would extend the width of the existing garage, which has a 2.16-foot side yard setback. The current code regulations require a five-foot setback, and although the garage is a legal non-conforming structure, the addition to the garage does not comply with Sec. 14.402.B of the Zoning Ordinance. This section of the code states that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged, maintained, repaired or altered as long as the nonconformity is not increased or an additional nonconformity is created. The location of the garage addition increases the amount of the nonconforming setback and is required to maintain a five-foot setback. While the addition to the garage will not be visible from the street, it is larger than the maximum size allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance was recently amended to increase the size of detached garages from 600 square feet to 672 square feet. The petitioner's request does not meet the standards for a variation listed in the zoning ordinance. An alternative to the applicant's proposal would be to construct a smaller addition to the garage (up to 144 square fee0 and a 120 square foot shed. This approach would not exceed the maximum 45% lot coverage and would comply with the Village's zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION Although the requested variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to permit a 768 square foot garage to be located 2.16-feet from the side yard for the residence at 915 S. Owen Street, Case No. PZ-24-02. Please note that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final with regards to the proposed size of the garage, however, Village Board approval is required for the proposed setback (since the requested variation is more than 25% of the required setback). concur: Wi!am J~. C2~, AIC~P, D '] r~eltor of Community Development Lonn~ uist Blvd. 801 800 803 802 805 804 807 806 809 808 811 810 813 812 815 814 801 800 803 802 805 804 807 806 809 808 811 810 813 812 815 814 Sunset Road Sunrise Park Mount Prospect Park District Sunset Road Golf Road PZ-24-02 915 S. Owen Street Schubkegel Residence Variation - Oversized Garage & Side Yard Setback ' VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division I00 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 o Village Board Finalo P&Z Final Case Number PZ - ~ 02 Development Name/Address Date of Submission Hearing Date Common Address(es) (S~:eet Number, Street) Tax I.D, Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) Name Telephone (day) ~-~-o~&t' /~. .?g//t4/3/~' ~ ~:rZ-- Co~orafion Telephone (eyeing) S~eet Ad.ass Fax Ci~ S~te Zip Code Pager ode Section(s) for w~ch Variation(s) is (are) Requested Summary and Justification for Requested Variatiun(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials. have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is slxongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as ail supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant errrployees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property dm/rig reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby afl.mn that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with tlfis application are tree and If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Deparmaem of Community Development 100 South.lEmarson Street, Mount Prbspect Illinois, 60056 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847:818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 ~ 24'5 " NEW 4" SLAB ON 4" OF STONE, WiTH 18" DEPTH X 6" WiDE GRADE BEAM ON 3 SIDES DOWEL 24" O,C TO OLD GARAGE SLAB OLD GARAGE SLAB FOUNDATION PLAN 24'5 NEWAREA OLD GARAGE / / '/ i / ~, ] ' - N PLAT OF SURVEY 685-407; 685-407~ NORTHWEST SURVEY SERVICE 4425 W. IRVING PARK RD. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60641 Lo% Fif~ ,"o~:r (~;i~) ~, Clea£~r~ok ~.~t~.~. be~.n~ ~ ~u~,~on o~ %h~t par~ c~ %he We~t half (~,) ~f ~h~ S Scale 1 inch,. ~ feet, VWL 8/29102 8/30/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 915 SOUTH OWEN STREET WHEREAS, George Schubkegel (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 915 South Owen Street (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 54 in Clearbrook Estates, being a subdivision of that part of the W. % of the W. ~ of the NE ¼ of Sec. 13, Township 41 North, Range 11 E of the 3rd Principal Meridian, lying N of the center line of Golf Road as per plat of dedication, recorded October 11, 1929, as Document # 10494973, according to plat of said Clearbrook Estates, registered in the office of Registrar of Titles of Cook County, IL on August 21, 1956 as Document #1690611. Property Index Number: 08-13-209-008 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation to allow a detached, 768 square-foot garage to encroach 2.84 feet into the interior side lot line; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation being the subject of Case No. PZ-24-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the nd Village of Mount Prospect on the 22 day of August, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 7~ day of August, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation would be in the best interest of the Village. Page 2/2 915 S. Owen Street NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow a 768 square-foot detached garage to encroach 2.84 feet into the five foot (5') required side lot line, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald b Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~~,,~ WILLIAM J. COONEY, JR., AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOP AUGUST 29, 2002 COOK COUNTY ZBA (DOCKET # 7305) - TATOO STUDIO, 2501 E. OAKTON ST. The Cook County Zoning Board of Appeals recently held a public hearing regarding a requested Special Permit (for a "Unique Use") to allow a tattoo studio within the existing tenant space at 2501 E. Oakton Street. The tenant space is located within an existing commercial shopping center on the south side of Oakton Street, between Elmhurst Road & the Northwest Tollway, in unincorporated Cook County. During the August 19e public hearing staff presented the Cook County ZtlA Chairman a letter (see attached copy) from the Village of Mount Prospect requesting that the Special Permit application be denied, The Village's letter of objection was read into the official record, however, the Chairman indicated that the Village must follow specific guidelines with regards to written protests. In response, we have prepared the attached resolution expressing the Village's opposition to the requested Special Permit. Please forward this memorandum and attaclunents to the Village Board for their review and consideration at the September 3~ meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions regarding this matter. William J Cooney, Jr, KIi2P erald £. Farley Mayor Phone: Fax: TDD: 847/392-6000 847/392-6022 847/392-6064 Village of Mount Prospect OFFICE OF THE MAYOF~ 1 O0 South Emerson M~unc P~ospecr~ Illinois August16,2002 Cook Coun~ Zoning Board of Appeals Re:. Docket #7305 - 2501 East Oakton Street Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members: The Village of Mount Prospect has been informed of a request for a Special Permit to allow the, operation of a tattco parlor within the existing commercial tenant spac~ at 2501 East. Oakton Street. Althodgh the subject property is located outside of Mount Prespect's corporate boundaries, it is directly aoross the street from an existing multi-family residential development located within the Village. The Village of Mount Prospect is concemed that a tattoo parlor is not appropriate for the proposed location and thus we request the Special -Use be denied. The Village of Mount Prospect currently prohibits tattoo padors throughout the community. Granting the requested Special Permit would support the establishment of uses prohibited within the V'dlage to locate just beyond our boundades. Thank you for your consideration. · Sincerely yours, GERALD L. "SKIP" FARLEY Mayor GLF/mj mwj 8~28/02 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO COOK COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DOCKET 7305 - SPECIAL USE (UNIQUE USE) FOR A TATTOO PARLOR AT 2501 EAST OAKTON AVENUE WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has considered the application, supporting documents and evidence presented at the public hearing on August 19, 2002, regarding Cook County Zoning Board of Appeals Docket 7305 requesting a Special Use (Unique Use) for a tattoo parlor at 2501 East Oakton Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The Village of Mount Prospect does not believe the proposed use is in conformance with Cook County's standards for a Special Use (Article 13). Spec'~ically, the Village of Mount Prospect believes the proposed use will be a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare given that no formal licensing for the business or its employees is required by Cook County or the State of Illinois. In comparison, the Village of Mount Prospect has adopted requirements that it shall be unlawful for any person who is not a qualifie~l., licensed medical professional to apply a tattoo to the body of anY person or to othe~ise operate as a tattoo artist in the Village of Mount Prospect. If the requested Special Use (Unique Use) is approved, the Village of Mount Prospect requests that a condition be placed on the approval that would require any tattoo artist within the business to be a qualified, licensed medical professional, as is currently required within Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The Village of Mount Prospect does not believe the proposed use is in conformance with Cook County's standards for a Unique Use (Article 8). Specifically, the Village of Mount Prospect does not believe the proposed use complies with the standards for a Unique Use since the proposed tattoo parlor will not be an affirmative benefit to the surrounding properties and neighborhood from a land use or economic standpoint. SECTION THREE: Based on the findings above, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby~request that the Cook County Zoning Board of Appeals and the Cook County Board of Commissioners deny the requested Special Use (Unique Use) for a tattoo parlor at 2501 E. Oakton Avenue. SECTION FOUR: This Resolution shall be in full rome and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law, AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002 ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\GEN~files\WII, ARES~Tatoo protest resolufion,sept,02.doc