Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. OLD BUSINESS 9/2/03 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JULY 11, 2003 PZ- 18-03 - vARIATION (EXTERIOR SIDE YARD) 420 N. FAIRVIEW AVENUE BRIAN & JULIE PREMPAS - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-18-03, a request for a 3-foot exterior side yard in order to install a patio, as described in detail in the attached staffreport. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their June 26, 2003 meeting. The subject property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The proposed patio would encroach into the required yard and create a 3-foot exterior side yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 20~foot setback and the petitioner is seeking a variation for the proposed 3-foot setback. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the petitioner's plans for the patio and how the fence referenced in the Petitioner's application would require relief from zoning regulations for its location. The petitioner clarified that they would not install the fence, but would use landscaping to screen the patio and secure the play area for their child. The Commission commented on the square footage of the house and noted how comer lots have less usable yard space than other lots. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 4-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a variation to allow a 3-foot exterior side yard subject to the petitioner installing bushes at a height of no less than 3-feet along the exterior property line for the property located at 420 N. Fairview, Case No. PZ-18-03. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 15, 2003 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-18-03 Hearing Date: June 26, 2003 PETITIONER: Brian and Julie Prempas 420 N. Fairview PIN #: 03-34-124-012 PUBLICATION DATE: June 11, 2003 REQUEST: Variation MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chairperson Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolty, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Brian and Julie Prempas Jim Wallman Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Matt Sledz made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 22 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The May meeting minutes were approved 4-0. At 7:39, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-18-03, a request for a variation to install a patio that would encroach into the sideyard setback. Mr. Rogers said the Village Board decision would be final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case and said that the subject property is located at the southwest comer of Memory Lane and Fairview Avenue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The subject property, rectangular in shape, is zoned R-A Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R-A district on all sides. Ms. Connolly said that the width of the subject property is 49'2", which is slightly less than the 50-feet required by current zoning regulations. The existing attached garage and 5'x12' concrete patio do not meet the 20-foot setback regulations. The garage is located 22-feet from the rear lot line, almost 17-feet from the exterior lot line, and the patio has an 11-foot setback. However, the Zoning Ordinance classifies these structures as legal nonconformities that are permitted to be maintained and repaired. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner is seeking a variation to replace the existing concrete driveway and patio with brick pavers. As part of the project, the petitioner would like to increase the size of the patio anff maintain a 3-foot exterior side yard instead of the existing 11-foot exterior side yard. She said that the petitioner's application includes installing a perimeter fence that would be installed to screen the patio from passersby and that the fence would include flowerpots to enhance the view. Ms, Connolly said that the petitioner is seeking relief from code requirements for the exterior side yard setback. She said that as part of the review, staff found that the location of the proposed perimeter fence intended to screen the patio would require relief from Zoning Ordinance regulations because the fence would not be located entirely behind the principal structure. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-I 8-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. She said that the petitioner is proposing to increase the size of the patio, resulting in a 3-foot exterior side yard setback. The subject property is rectangular in shape and has a slightly substandard width. She said that the placement of the house oil the property, as well as the narrow lot width, creates challenges for locating a patio that meets current zoning regulations. However, a smaller patio could be located along the south elevation of the house and meet the required setbacks. Ms. Connolly said that the Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances". She said that although the site is restricted by its small lot width and corner location, these conditions exist throughout the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore not unique to this property. In addition, the location of a fence required to screen the patio would need relief from zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner has the option of replacing the existing patio in kind, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, and using it and the driveway as a de-facto patio. Also, they could construct a second patio along the south elevation of the house. Ms. Connolly reported that although the proposed patio may be constructed in an attractive manner, its location is extremely close to the lot line. She said that staff can appreciate the intent of the petitioner's request, howeger, locating a patio 4-feet from the sidewalk is a significant deviation from zoning regulations. The petitioner has other alternatives that would meet zoning regulations. Based on this analysis, Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards for a Variation listed the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the P&Z recommend that the Village Board deny a Variation to allow a 3-foot exterior side yard setback and proposed perimeter fence for the residence at 420 N. Fairview Avenue, Case No. PZ-18-03. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Brian and Julie Prempas, 420 N. Fairview, were sworn in and testified that they did not understand the rationale behind the Zoning Code. Ms. Prempas said that it seems to be based on tradition rather than safety. She said they are having a child and want to have a pool. Also, the traffic in the area is heavy with many inexperienced drivers, due to its proximity to the high school. She said that putting the patio behind the breezeway would be a huge safety issue and it would also create a water runoff problem. Jim Wallman, 421 N. Forest Avenue, was sworn in and said their back yard abuts the Prempas residence and they have no objection to this project. He said there are just two houses on Memory Lane. Ms. Prempas came back to the podium and showed pictures of properties with similar patios to what they were requesting. Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 7:50. Leo Floros said that tile Commission had reviewed similar problem cases with corner lots and would support the request due to safety concerns. Matt Sledz suggested a grassy area be used rather than paving the area. Ms. Prempas said she sould rather have a fire pit and barbeque on a paved area. She said they want to do things the right way, but felt they were being penalized by being forthright with their request. ~. Mr. Cotten asked the square footage of the house and Mr. Prempas said it was 1200 s.f. Ms. Prempas added that they both come from large families and have large gatherings that spill out onto the lawn. Matt Sledz said he could support the request if there was a condition that there was a landscape buffer. Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development, pointed out that the petitioner was also adding a request for a fence and that its location would require another Variation. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-18-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 The Petitioner clarified that they would rather install landscaping than a fence to screen the patio. Matt Sledz made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the requested Variation for the sideyard setback with the condition that the patio area be enclosed with 3' bushes, for Case No. PZ-18-03, 420 N. Fairview. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Rogers, and Sledz, NAYS: None Motion approved 4-0. Village Board decision final. At 11:40 p.m, Matt Sledz made motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Ftoros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ( Jfidy Conn011y, AICP, Senior Pla._~ Village of Mount prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 18-03 LOCATION: PETITIONERS: OWNERS: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 420 N. Fairview Street Brian & Julie Prempas Brian & Julie PremPas 03-34-124-012-0000 0.15 acres (6,472.5 square feet) RA Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Variation - Exter/or Side Yard Setback LOCATION MAP Iai 519 518 517 516 515 514 513 512 509 508 5O7 5O6 505 504 503 501 500 519 518 517 516 $11 510 509 508 507 506 505 503 502 501 $00 Memor Lane 419 418 417 416 415 414 413 412 4ll 410 409 408 407 406 , 405 404 403 , 401 400 419 418 413 412 4il 410 Gregory Street 521 520 519 518 517 516 515 511 SlO 509 508 507 $05 506 503 502 ~, ~oo 419 418 417 4i6 415 414 413 412 411 410 409 408 407 406 405 404 403 402 401 400 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JUNE 19, 2003 HEARING DATE: JUNE 26, 2003 SUBJECT: PZ- 18-03 - VARIATION (3-FOOT EXTERIOR SIDE YARD) 420 N. FAIRVIEW (PREMPAS RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public heating has been scheduled for the June 26, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Brian & Julie Prempas (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 420 N. Fairview (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 3-foot exterior side yard along the Subject Property's north lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot setback. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the June 1 I, 2003 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Heating sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located at the southwest comer of Memory Lane and Fairview Avenue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property, rectangular in shape, is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RA DiStrict on all sides. The Width of the Subject Property is 49'2", which is slightly less than the 50-feet required by current Zoning regulations. The existing attached garage and 5'x12' concrete patio do not meet the 20-foot setback regulations. The garage is located 22-feet from the rear lot line, almost 17-feet from the exterior lot line, and the patio has an Il-foot setback. However, the Zoning Ordinance classifies these structures as legal nonconformities that are permitted to be maintained and repaired as detailed in Sec. 14.402 of the Zoning Ordinance. SL.~,WIMARY OF pRoPosAL The Petitioner would like to replace the existing concrete driveway and patio with brick pavers. As part of the project, the Petitioner would like to increase the size of the patio from 5'x12' to approximately 24'x13' and maintain a 3-foot exterior side yard. The Petitioner states in the attached application that a perimeter fence would be installed to screen the patio from passersby and the fence would include flowerpots to enhance the view. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The existing rear and exterior side yards are legal nonconformities and are allowed to remain. However, new construction is required to meet current regulations and the Petitioner is seeking relief from code requirements for the exterior side yard setback. As part of the review, Staff found that the location of the proposed perimeter fence described in the Petitioner's application used to screen the patio would require relief from Sec. 14.304.D. 1 .e.(2) of the Zoning Ordinance because the fence would not be located entirely behind the ptincipal structure. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. Z-18-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2003 Page 3 RA Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 30' No change Interior 5-feet 8-feet (house) No change Exterior 20' 16' 3-feet for patio Rear 25' 22' No change LOT COVERAGE 50% Maximum 37.3% 41.2% VARIATION USE STA2h~DARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: ,, A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; · Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and · Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to increase the size of the patio, resulting in a 3-foot exterior side yard setback. The Subject Property is rectangular in shape and has a slightly substandard width. The manner in which the house is located on the Subject Property, as well as the narrow lot width, create challenges for locating a patio that meets current zoning regulations. However, a smaller patio could be located along the south elevation of the house and meet the required setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances". Although the site is restricted by its small lot width and comer location, these conditions exist throughout the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore not unique to this property. In addition, the location of a fence required to screen the patio would need relief from zoning regulations. The Petitioner has the option of replacing the existing patio in kind, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, and using it and the driveway as a de- facto patio. Also, they could construct a second patio along the south elevation of the house. RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed patio may be constructed in an attractive manner, its location is extremely close to the lot line. Staff can appreciate the intent of the Petitioner's request, however, locating a patio 4-feet from the sidewalk is a significant deviation from zoning regulations. The Petitioner has other altematives that would meet zoning regulations and a 24'x13' patio is not essential, but more of a convenience. Based on this analysis, Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the P&Z recommend that the Village Board .deny a Variation to allow a 3~foot exterior side yard setback for the residence at 420 N. Fairview Avenue, Case No. PZ-18-03. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: ~""~' l;one~,~AJ, ~irlctor o f Community Development William J. ' VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUN1TY DEVI=,I OPMENT DEPAR~ - Planning Division I00 S. Famrmn Strut Mount Pro,peet, Illinois 60056 Phon~ 847.818~328 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 REVIKW [21 Village Board Final[21P&Z Final Ca~ Number l~veloprmnt N~/Addre,~ Date of Sub~on H~n~ Dam Common Addrcss(~) ($~,~t Number, Strew0 ~12'o N, ~r~,'~ T~ I.D. Nm~r or Coun~ ~i~ Pin O3-3~-I~- Oi~- oooO ~ D~pfion (~h ~ddifio~l ~ if Nama Telephone (day) Corporation Telephone (evening) SUe. ct Address Fax: Ci~ Stu~ Zip Code ?agcr Developer II NameAtt°mey k(~~Jj ~ '~e'~'rni°O-~ . Telephone(day) 70g' W, Surveyor Nsme Telephone (day) Address Fax Name Tclcphonc (day) Addr~s Fax Architect Nam~ Telephone (da~): Address Fax Landscap~ Architect Name Telephone (da~): Address Fa~ 1. We think that we qualify for a variation as we really do not have a backyard. We purchased this home with the idea that we would utilize part of the side yard, develOp a private area with a fence, and make a small patio. We signed a contract with United Brick Pavers who did an excellent job on downtown Mount Prospect. However, at~er putting $I 500 down in January, we were informed last month that they would be unable to break ground on May 15, 2003, as they could not obtain a permit. 2. The specific shape of our lot allows for us to make part of our side yard, which we would make private with either a fence or bushes, part of oUr backyard. We live on a comer lot and therefore cannot have two front yards. Our address is 420 Fairview and we bring our garbage out to the street on Fairview. Therefore, we consider Fairview the front of our house. The side of our lot is extremely long and if we utilize a small portion of that side yard, it will still look aesthetically appealing. We plan to put colorful flowerpots on the outside of the fence, which is what would be visible from the sidewalk. 3. The purpose of this variation is definitely not based upon a desire to increase financial gain. If our variation is approved, we plan to stay in this house a lifetime. If our variation is not approved, we will be forced to move. We have done nothing to create the hardship as we just purchased the home 2/27/02. The granting of the variation will actUallY be beneficial to the improvements of the neighborhood and in no way will be detrimental. The attached driveway would also consist of the same brick as the patio. Several other Mount Prospect residents Said that we should just do it, but we prefer to have proper authorization. 6. The granting of the variation will not alter the character of the neighborhood because several other comer lots have similar fenced in areas. We plan to take pictures of these and present them as needed. 7. The proposed variation will not impair any supply of light or air to adjacent areas. It is well away from other neighbors. It wi!l not increase any congestion of the public streets. There will be no danger of fire, or any impairment of drainage. There will be no endangerment to public safety. If anything, it would improve property values in the neighborhood. Without approval of the extended patio, we will not be improving the cracked driveway or anything. ode Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested Iq. t ooS' Summary and Justification for RequesF.,d Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations Please note that the application will not be a~cepted 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 lmowledge. 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 Depashnant of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 ~Connolly, Judy From: Sjwalljc@aol,corn Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:27 PM To: Connolly, Judy .Subject: Zoning for Julie & Brian Prempas Our names are Jim & Sally Wallman, we live at 421 N. Forest Ave M.P. We are the neighbors of the Brian & Julie to the West on the corner of Memory & Forest. We would like to state that we have no objections to the variation Brian & Julie seek to construct a patio on the exterior side of their home and feel it would be a nice improvement to the neighborhood. Respectfully yours; Jim and Sally Wallman 847-577-5384 6/26/2003 Z FAIRVIEW AVE LAT OF SURVEY JAMES M. ELLMAN LTD. MEMORY LANE & 0.3 ~/, 3L05 ~ ~-ASPHALT ON LINE ASPHALT 0.2 N. Ordered by: EUGENE F, LAPD~TE Order No: 020821 Bose Scole: 1 inch = 20 feet Date: FEBRUARY lB, 2008 STATE OF ILLIN01S) COUNTY OF COOK) SS I, JAMES M, ELLI4AN, DO HEREB"f CERTIIt'Y T~-[&T THE ABOVE Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~~x~ WILLIAM J. COONEY, JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN*F / JULY 29, 2003 SUBJECT: PZ-18-03: PREMPAS RESIDENCE ~ 420 N. FAIRVIEW VARIATION (EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK). As you may recall, during the July 15th Board meeting the Trustees reviewed the variation request by Mr. & Mrs. Prempas (the "Applicant") for a side yard setback variation to allow a fenced in patio area Within their exterior side yard at 420 N. Fairview. Following the July 15th meeting, the Applicant submitted the attached revised plan that includes a smaller patio area, a greater setback from the northern property line (the proposed setback has been increased from 3 feet to 5 feet), and a 4-foot high bridk Wall ~hat w0uld separate the existing driveway from the proposed patio area. Although the revised plan requires less relief from the Village's zoning regulations it is still in excess of the regulations and would require approval by the Board Of Trustees. In addition, during the Board's review of this matter on July 15~h Mr. & Mrs. Prempas submitted several pictures of nearby properties that they felt had existing improvements similar to those they were requesting. In response, staff has reseamhed each of the properties to determine the history of the various improvements shown in the photos. The following is a summary of each of these properties and staff's findings: · 310 N. Rnssel St. - Fence located within the exterior side yard: Existing fence received a permit in 2002 and complies with the Village's regulations. · 400 N. Russel St. - Covered portico located within the exterior side yard: The eXisting covered portico was permitted during the existing home's construction in 1968. 601 N. Russel St. - Corner Iot with a circular drive way: No evidence of permit for the construction of the existing circular driveway. Driveway is shown on a Plat of Survey submitted for other permit in 1998. Current regulations require conditional use approval for a circular driveway. 400 N. Elm St.- Fence within the exterior side yard: Fence originally approved in 1971 and partial replacement approved in 1998. A portion of the original fence does not meet current regulations and is therefore considered a legal non-conforming structure. 220 N. Eastwood Ave. - Front stoop/patio located within exterior side yard. Existing patio/stoop was approved in 1996 as part ora replacement of the home's previous stoop/patio. Village Code permits the replacement of existing driveways, patios and sidewalks provided lot coverage ratios are met. Z-20-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 23, 2003 Page 2 221 N. Eastwood Ave.- Fence within the exterior side yard: Existing picket fence complies with current zoning regulations and was constructed prior to room addition to the rear of the home. Existing privacy fence shown in picture is also in compliance with the Village's regulations. 401 N. Wille St. - Fence located within the exterior side yard: Existing fence was approved in 2000 and complies with the Village's zoning regulations. 323 N. Maple St. - Fence located within the exterior side yard: Existing fence received approval in 2003. Upon further review, the permit for the portion of the fence that is not located entirely behind the principal building was issued in error. This is one of several zoning issues that staff will bring forward for discussion with the Village Board at a Committee of the Whole meeting in September. 120 N Fairview Ave. - Front stoop located within the exterior side yard. Existing stoop allowed as replacement of home's original stoop. 113 N. School St. - Fence located within the exterior side yard: Existing chain link fence was approved in 1960. Fence is a legal non-conforming structure since it does not comply with the Village's current zoning regulations. 300 School St. - Fence located within the exterior side yard. No evidence that a permit for the fence was issued; however, existing fence location appears to comply with the Village's zoning regulations. 201 N, Emerson St. - Fence and brick patio located within the exterior side yard. No evidence that a permit for the fence was issued, however, existing fence appears to comply with the Village's zoning regulations. Existing patio would not meet today's regulations and no evidence of a permit for the patio has been found. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their August 5th meeting. Staff will be present at the Board meeting to review this matter and answer any questions. · ' o ey, Jr MEMORY LANE NEW REVZSED I/~tRZANC~,ARE,~ NOTES: 1.} PATIO AREA HAS BEEN REDUCED $IGN]~FZCANTLLY BY [NCREASING THE SET BACK FROM THE SZDE WALK FROM ,3 FEET TO 5 FEET,. AND REDUCING THE LENGHT OF THE PATTO AREA BY 4 FEET, 2.} A 4 FOOT HtGH BR'rCK WALL HAS BEEN ADDED AS PART OFTHE PAT~rO. WHICH WILL SEPARATE THE PATIO AREA FROM THE DRZVEWAY TO PREVENT THE PATZO AREA FROM BE?NG UESD AS A PARKING AREA, AND WH'I'CH CAN ONLY BE REMOVED WI'TH A PERM*rT. kad 7/01/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420 NORTH FAIRVIEW AVENUE Lot WHEREAS, Brian & Julie Prempas (hereinafter referred t° as "Petitioners") have filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 420 North Fairview (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follOWs: 1 BloCk 5 in Prospect Manor Subdivision of part of the south % of the west ½ of the west ½ of Sec. 34, Township 42 North, Range 11 East oftheThird Principal Meridian, in Cook Country, IL. Property Index Number: 03-34-124-012 and WHEREAS, the Petitioners seek a Variation to allow for the construction of a brick paver patio, with a three-foot (3') exterior side yard setback; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation being the subject of PZ-18-03 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26th day of June, 2003, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 11th day of June, 2003; 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. 420 N. Fairview Avenue 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 14.203.C.7 of the Village COde, to allow the construction of an brick paver patio, with a three-foot (3') exterior side yard setback subject to landscaping perimeter of patio with three-foot (3') tail bushes in the three-foot (3') 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 ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\GEN\file~W~N\ORDtNANC/VariatiOn,420 Fairview setback patio,}uly 03doc ' 4917",. FAIRVlEW AVE illage of I lount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE MANAGER AUGUST 29, 2003 ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT At an earlier Village Board meeting, the Mayor and Board of Trustees considered an Ordinance that would establish joint and several liability between landlords and tenants for obligations incurred with the Village. The concept behind the Ordinance was to ensure that the Village was made whole for legal obligations to pay for services such as water or monies expended by the Village in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of private property. Given that the rental of property, whether residential or commercial, was an arms-length business transaction between the landlord and the tenant, and that the landlord was benefiting financially from this relationship, the landlord should be ultimately responsible for certain obligations related to the tenant's use of said property regardless of whether the landlord actually benefited directly from the service; i.e., water. At the time of the first reading, a local realtor came forward in opposition to the Ordinance and asked that in the first instance, the Village Board not enact the Ordinance and, in the second, to consider modifications that would limit the landlord's liability for such debts as parking tickets and failure to purchase a vehicle sticker. At that time, the Village Board directed staff to work with local realtors On reasonable modifications. At this time, said modifications have been made in such a manner as to protect the Village with regard to debts incurred directly related with use of the rental property and specifically excluding obligations that are clearly personal to the tenant. Representatives from the local realty industry are satisfied with our changes. Staff recommends that the Ordinance be adopted. MEJ/rcc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTFES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Chapter 25 entitled "The Village Code" of the Village Code of the Village of Mount Prospect shall be amended by adding a new paragraph D to Section 25.104 entitted "Joint and Several Liability of Landlord and Tenant" which new paragraph D shall be and read as follows: D. Joint and Several Liability of Landlord and Tenant. If the Village Code applies any fee, fine or penalty requirement to any tenant or occupier of a premises because of that person's use or occupancy of that particular land or that particular premises; the occupant or tenant and the owner or landlord shall be jointly and severally liable for such fee, fine or penalty. This subparagraph D shall not apply to criminal or quasi-criminal activities of a tenant or landlord, except to the extent such activities are the cause of Village Code violations pertaining to the condition of the premises. SECTION 2: That 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 ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk