Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5. New Business 01/15/2013
Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: DECEMBER 14, 20'12 SUBJECT: PZ -13 -121 PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION 1212 E. RAND ROAD The Petitioner, Joseph F. McCarthy, is seeking approval of a Plat of Consolidation for the property located at 212 E. Rand Road. The Plat of Consolidation was a requirement of the zoning and the building permit approvals granted to the Subject Property for an animal hospital. The Plat of Consolidation would create one lot of record and grant the required easements along the property lines. Public utility and drainage easements measuring five feet (5') wide along the side and ten feet (10') wide along rear property lines would be dedicated. Staff reviewed the plat and found that the plat was prepared in accordance with the Village Code. The consolidation of the property will not create any zoning nonconformities. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, December 13, 2012, and by a vote of 7 -0, recommended approval of the Plat of Consolidation for the property located at 212 E. Rand Road. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their January 15, 2013 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. 11Vt11vhl hsd$TLANT1anniag & Zoning COMMT&Z 20121M EJ MemosTZ -13 -12 212 E. Rand Rd. (Plat of Consolidation)Ad X x ! 'f Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department .CASE SUMMARY — PZ -13 -12 LOCATION: PETITIONER; OWNERS: PARCEL M LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE; REQUEST: 2I2 E. Rand Road Joseph F. McCarthy -JF McCarthy Construction Raj inder Kumar and Mohammad Fatima 03 -34 -200- 013 -0000 28,914.19 sq.ft. (.66 acres) B3 Community Shopping Commercial (under remodel for an animal hospital) Plat of Consolidation LOCATION MAP 1( Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM r� FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON CONSUELO ANDRADE, SENIOR PLANNER DECEMBER 2, 2012 DECEMBER 13, 2012 PZ -13 -12 / 212 E. RAND ROAD / PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION MOUM PrUSPLCt A public hearing has been scheduled for the December 13, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Joseph F. McCarthy (the "Petitioner ") regarding the property located at 212 E. Rand Road (the "Subject Property "). The Petitioner is seeking to consolidate the property to create one (1) lot of record. The plat request was properly noticed by posting a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located at the north side of Rand Road and is zoned 133 Community Shopping. The Subject Property contains a commercial building with related improvements. The Subject Property is bordered by the B3 District on all four sides. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Subject Property received Conditional Use approval to operate an animal hospital in 2011. The Petitioner is currently remodeling the Subject Property for the animal hospital. A Plat of Consolidation was a requirement of the zoning and the building permit approvals. The Plat of Consolidation would create one lot of record and grant the required easements along the property lines. Public utility and drainage easements measuring five feet (5') wide along the side and ten feet (10') wide along rear property lines will be dedicated. Staff reviewed the plat and found that the plat was prepared in accordance with the Village Code. The consolidation of the property will not create any zoning nonconformities. RECOMMENDATION The proposed plat has been prepared according to all Village Codes and requirements noted in Sec. 15.304. Based on this, Staff recommends that the P &Z approve the following motion: "To approve_ i 1 0 PZ -13 -12 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 20I2 Page 3 A Plat of Consolidation, titled "212 East Rand Road Plat of Consolidation ", benefiting the property at 212 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ- 13 -12." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. rY P 212 East Rand Road I � * wsArloNAUP Plat of Consolidation being L 1 GMPHx: aCAL A SLISOINSION OF THAT PARTOP THE NORTHEAST IM OF THE NOMW6 ST tM OF SEOIlON 3", z e 1p T Ip�Z NORTN.RluKiE tT. EAST OF THE T1eFD PFEHCIPJLL MFIiIOfAY. ,NfbOxppylsfY, I Q ILLINOIS o n nA�ro +mxarfowrxc s a m�arama I Tj,•uuirrrtW hurTUllHrsMUtlwxiir[� a wre ' Z O r x.+r rp a r s.c �[ -u.rr xFa�nrnrca.m,se`i etl.cswwFl n.raowxel� °m c'ras��� [ w rx[ oxx[.a rx[ amrarry a wo.mo.xx x ss Q IZI aw mxwTxa vlu•aawnWrrw.osar.00 nrxwerxwi I "{ $ LIJ Grlsn .. ®:�wn':":w rxra•.f:�f ,. I 9�NrYVfY10x, d N $ 7 wr ®• QTR q � .max�xw..,.�a._ar� : axnr. ., "�, x .rc.,,»„x,,,m mxrr.x • j 1°oaur�aw iro.e s � �'+ m z ly . � � r°[` �TM.u:xPCw er,+o enusofraan.xaf�� I J U1 A� uyy Ate ° , w+.n[.cwna. mrxasnev wurnwwwwr�.io Y�� wuamar.cr rcn r�cufcF wo awF[66 rxrr� n rsrnmF iL WA`""" _______ -_____ a•[xixmfwwx[xcxor waxuMa_wv TOW A. . t70 *o E Jaxx w ar x. .er•a .xa m nnauml r0 - ' MY ruWm W cu0xl� xovwr � f .+u�cuaiw�wwwwxowrwwcccwnw mcwwwxFrxwfe A� u IX0.YwPNMFlGWlrR BOYgfi Tx416a0FLp�"!ax r z[_, aoawnumamxxma wt�nF� r�e�antTa+nrN[[woowna u ®a�. "�.WrFP[ew 4 ur[.[ua«alm $ � i I s � xrAa.`"�'.cr'u1°F°.rr wx...swnf.oannw �•awea[M1Wrr ramroca.l f I $� � j 1 ; � oovx,r,uixx'"`, . uvscxwxaxa [,ww.fcarwmaor�roFFCmn a _ ;T 6Bx ura .D 0 m•rt.raxnea' m..w,cs...eioemrroewansmerw � [ 10 a x rawtl oc_ I �s i rurow mo[nraruanex[uwa[nrwwr � ~ �on� � r+wffva mfmrcr.wr o•a i� �I � b ; cu "`mra.xuw.rrunr.,c . wfxr o-rf y_,H ms I I, _� ; I y m . N px •F,[m- a,,.x[ma.f PF'ar'N - saw N a a m«[...•xM, m:evtccuscna I ' ° "x:FS9oxFaww LU d I cow..ncow' "� o-f aG;xixvrW[x,wFr.D.TMr°� CV Ot q � � � Lot � axnaw+aa.cxpra[w FA, 9 el I m ,7 0 �cow«aoxnrK s ° � o rax.xwm:rf.Yx ,rwrcoull" � ,� h w coN�i iu a� mrforura) anx � CaFFI a S 1 1 MNTOtpmr .•roa.•axoue.uux• NVKVTrt n E �mx ° «uwrsa.swnsoa «mar.[mrrcu® 1 1 � "Trorrasawvmawr uorn io�am�a+[ xx,xxmm� wao-ncaaFwo.oamnc . uc , { 4ypifxr maamxa trw VMW /4 w. axw paAb +N .Ya4x ifi�l .�' i Ew raa �� j ! r !Tj .x. . —on L li - N �..g Ya. tl,� ,e LL,a INS wn a.v�eeeM wMLL m�w'•a [uvula w Ala wn` sanaN aN vwRVw. Ysrunr�a as 1>�IwW o[u•m .a-_o � � N �6 ` wipNx,rn� gw �/eeeY � [MM. w Ixw „ax � :l,H�mirw.'e eNeN aw sw n.a. +aaN 7 a a..N a.•r Tsa..�r. Tha ¢.....af: vwvo 3i g UINI [arn•wl: � (w inrw rlVWa� �wI�+.NY�nM M1 w oxwea•n M canarrxlMn .,f gtlM wxwwuxwww sarx» lbrab'. W dx >N.yy 4MV�N.. s tl. xN s b..a s« er ero: W As Ysal' dWrgYU M x•IL xl,rtlr F.•9tL k4br au. w Mm m tut! ..M« awb muanW a.+er aN � � a �If '� 6 � 5 ��'' I•wM �M J�Y 1 N wN xx eriJ cwaar •ux w v� I,wamx pu.s. w on aEAmnl lab. ax rm�nm wn w �r�: prt Y or4 m.. ,nm,. ...a ......:e0: N wrt�o• w m ev orsmu .a, ....xe. sv +orarnmra>: � i m « � � a�u uw�nr[ " M•n 0....a w rMl Y ..I. ww w w.xa.a wr+r � o.axr xf.nw. w wa a .,. a.'+.sr Nea e. xrewlsxcar [ AMS eLLryxuwl '°r�r+x �:�mg wroumrra,af: +xs•f pl I `y.<r„1 rxaFx" x sx wm�wr.moxl s g,' H N « rr4MuP.d w ex.e� N ar .0 w wx .samra �\ I ' P.wN b wlwmx Nx ax Psu «uaxn a aunmwxs rd. exact. cbxxm�wN� w��+9 r rnn r.,n. can M1 w emawwaur. aromrrw: CMrir ]I! a rc.mu[.exaoora. arena [e.�f�xru.rwwcx.wwnarmraunx.xne C n w l� a - 4 M wn .m,x.a w x•wJ a • M1L teat w vxx N n! xoow.x xr M1auldN xa ti Ma.ar N Nrd r[sppmrn•xowxrom ! rox ru FU.r[axoxxarex _ � M1 rww{ 4 .W[ s w a s[uaev� Y w fsaxWy nwtl ieLL [rw w v.w Mqh 1M Ma"r1 N4rMat .•.. .vmmM[muwiwiowxx6 9UOrtK1Wlra'M ; s a �aw.ww. Fwpvs. rmf la.r ..N• a a,w.•. eaaa �.wwnn•. npr: w•: wxxai�ixoY•rrxwaurn oymdr++xrw I {ir ,wx t ..�a e.w w x.a; w o,...� o raasuam nwxarionnr. E • 40-d ��'� { �r�x : wld �: roei� � .a��•+erw.l�on� ear ae..we b• e+ry aww �+c+u�r xrxuwwwxorwncexexl.�.wror J� � - �O e [.xaaa er M1.aw .x w an or o-ar� s a.f w v. oa � aa.r, wLL .•xx rw.»• � y+,e , rw..: ae' P1 a.. s o. u. as .rar,wM.au..u .xv,..�. rmw..wc x.r..tl � .f.nax...m..n,.x ��xo-maM1aF .FM1..xo�.rx�wx.am•aFwxr. xa,o..a.x� �,:ana.jmitlYaM "' rr"'� ti `°O1• �d,.® �' �`Y was � xwww wv�. w wm' � �� •e m.ec�.d,a'.wi�:[ � �sr•� �rn[u.wxnwswwexw� WLrxrlfrfe rrt Wrua[[[ inin"r [xtta[r.. WniiRmlm6MxOMrWru ..wfn.ier.e.w umxarn ° A� 'oY"wfro-mw.em,x..a.a t o- , � on xw�maawa+ mxrxxwaxn .fncFr�nrmRwca[.rmwnlr[awmnv us,�a «nan Fnfw�onor4d�rriF�rxm1EFIMR61x000 [CLL.rn.Yl� x•x �w�a�i.x �r4�iuMMV,�4wM ®isyelr.almwa vW.wlK� nF �[ nwa� Nrx CAUU¢Y.u1.xLrt.4wliau o.mam wv�w. a��n [wiwKwxo�uxWYa�i.e� 4n.aNwr.q�o.•,rowarx�q+w �xwn.n r�a[.WBIw �axNRM Jmx:xm2xwuuxwartoOtNOWIKReCO W �rnen�i.r�anl�wn W wr ��ua ��® ea. M0.NTwvu[nr mMVMr[N...mtMl MSx16Vt E 5 y § x w exa«prn� Y,avr,xCaxwma WfY a1LL8rllaNaia _ yauval«wNWAxM Rxrtaa.Mtmta6 x«,rar.LL.nsxMx ®raxowMxaM Lwlwu �•m �gM1Yi.uYa.x �` rFru,rW xxrrwxara a.rfwxo Tx[ rtlaEFnxE• FMl[ Na• MfEM[4r'ZpRa>'ramoonumrw.oro[•i Wx�«•xvxunx[1M � �� �rM,eu varax.l _ w.a•,MxaM1ax.mnnw•sr.xsNmex nW CFxr�ry Txar.pr(aa'FxF MFUrmnxrllmaxara .an116VMrr1Ra5W .nvr°i°";.Mw �.c�a..w +.r �MOaYnu �.wwxawna. r w�w. v.[ vum[. xrn. rwetlww ,wwumm..rn.•ue�e.a.asu.•+. � ms• a r+f.wr•ocxrwwmac n•r.m..xrw l*f x`�avo`�'ric�.�w.m:[ur"�an m wumulA�xe�oe�ewH ® m9u.tOraaMtE �Y "a w[OU�FNxalltllxliMBiMB.9m oow v�P1 x[W� ' ®m ° ��FmwyYxWloria k� d E 3 C d : R�.ain.�w�.w.ri�iu�ow.�nwMNRI w.o r:_ w .`r xw,.xTx[nu[,W.[munxoxr.n.xre�maa xnuofrrwwwo�reoaMSo-.e aw o.a. mYY ��..+ ° , :." :.:cr ° io�ao.�",mo O1 w ° as« mrtoreum, vax.um •i+nu.+f�iwon uro awxtwmw.aui,o, auxcae,rroxrmrwuxuaraxrwimaa a•w• w p6` �� .P a 6F Fj�` - rx.[M xeg0 .aF9xgpopu�grta•xmxdrKxnrwwauTl iaeWx.+mr[Rx[am f .r. �',.0� / .t • :" O M. rtuwum .ornar�vawFffxwnaoamraxwo�rw bw;'010�11 a 3' OlAlllA t k � ��� ' JEAN }tl° v *4 �� � llxN�r Ei- f440GM� �� "��� 1.vNm� xwuw vwxraram I;� rvamriarw �sr,, NeTER w° g Ica=t7c * fi a � r � .,w 8FJ10 [IAIIRE TNF aILta TO; - 0.�OPJ3D: ±'� �a u�N.eSt wu 00xa x�D1]903]43�� OR RAa1GERR1pAN ' 1, * p� °''" � so —1 , T m RL601IGMY WTVAN "T To, orsax�roWilm n w.E¢.Y �a P TO tl A x'J IMRRRYOxill tfOxeERS sox >7a �'uMxa•M'�'� "`NxxwrM" I V =01 IL111 I IM 0 10 [Q A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION, CREATING A LOT OF RECORD, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 212 EAST RAND ROAD, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Joseph F. McCarthy, J F McCarthy Construction (Petitioner) has requested approval of a Plat of Consolidation for the purpose of creating one lot of record and granting the required easements along the property lines, as legally described in Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, the plat creates one lot of record and dedicates five feet (5') wide public utility and drainage easements along the side property line and ten feet (10') wide public utility and drainage easements along the rear property line of the consolidated lot of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE That the Plat of Consolidation creating one lot of record and granting the required public utility and drainage easements along property lines for property located at 212 East Rand, attached as Exhibit "A," is hereby approved for appropriate execution and recording. Such Plat and its legal description are incorporated into and made part of this resolution. SECTION TWO: That 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 , 2013. Paul Wm Hoefert Mayor Pro Tern ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H: \CLKO \WIN\ RESOLUTION\ PlatConsolidation212randjan152013 .doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM ' TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2012 SUBJECT: PZ -25- 1 2 1 317 S. EMERSON ST. I VARIATION (DRIVEWAY) The Petitioner is seeking approval of a Variation to increase the driveway edge on the interior of the yard by nine and a half (9.5) feet beyond the opening of the garage door for the residence located at 317 S. Emerson Street. The Village Code limits the driveway edge that is on the interior of the yard to a maximum three (3) feet beyond the opening of the garage. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, December 13, 2012, and by a vote of 7 -0 recommended denial of a Variation request to increase a driveway extension from three (3) feet to nine and a half (9.5) feet beyond the opening of the garage door for the residence located at 317 S. Emerson Street. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their January 15, 2013 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP WfAvh1hcd$ PLAThP[anning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 20M?M Mem TZ -25 -12 317 S. Emerson SL(V.ri.a..- Dri— y)Denied.d— Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY — PZ -25 -1 2 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNERS: PARCEL #c 317 S. Emerson Street Stanley Koscinus W Stanley Koscinus, Nick Koscinus, Christina Koscinus, Konstantinos Koscinus, Xirogiannis Konstantinos 08 -12 -121- 021 -0000 LOT SIZE: 0.18 acres (7,862.5 square feet) ZONING: RA — Single Family Residence LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUEST: Variation to the driveway extension allowed beyond the opening of the garage door LOCATION MAP t Village ®f Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON CONSUELO ANDRADE SENIOR PLANNER OCTOBER 12, 2012 OCTOBER 25, 2012 Mmint Pmspea PZ -25- 12 1 317 S. EMERSON ST. / VARIATION TO THE DRIVEWAY EXTENSION ALLOWED BEYOND THE OPENING OF THE GARAGE DOOR A public hearing has been scheduled for the October 25, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Stanley Koscinus (the "Petitioner ") regarding the property located at 317 S. Emerson Street (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to extend the driveway into the front yard. The P &Z hearing was properly noticed in the October 10, 2012 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 Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the east side of Emerson Street and contains a single - family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R1 District to the east and the RA District to the north, west, and south. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Subject Property currently includes a one -car attached garage and driveway that measure just over twelve feet (12) wide. The Petitioner currently owns two vehicles and parks them outside. The ViIlage's Police Department has ticketed the Petitioner for parking one of the vehicles in the grass. In response, the Petitioner would like to expand the driveway to allow parking of the two vehicles side by side. As proposed, the driveway would extend a total of nine and a half (95) feet beyond the opening of the garage door when the Village Code limits the extension to a maximum of three (3) feet. Section 14.2215 of the Village Code limits the driveway edge that is on the interior of the yard (as opposed to the edge of the driveway to the perimeter lot line) to a maximum three (3) feet beyond the opening of the garage. Variation approval is required to allow the driveway to extend nine and a half (9.5) feet beyond the opening of the garage door. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations. The principal structure does not meet the required front or interior side yard setbacks provided in the ordinance. The principal structure is setback twenty and seven tenths (20.7) feet from the front property line and four and seven tenths (4.7) from the interior PZ -25 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 25, 20I2 Page 3 south property line when the Village Code requires a minimum of thirty (30) feet and five (5) feet respectively. The primary structure is considered non - conforming and is allowed to remain in the current location. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. With the exception of the driveway width beyond the opening of the garage door, the proposed improvement would meet the Code's requirements. The italicized text denotes the item that requires zoning relief from the Village Code. VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Per the Petitioner, families no longer own just one car. The Petitioner owns two cars, but can only park one vehicle in the driveway because of existing width and length. The existing driveway is too narrow and short for parking two vehicles. In addition, the driveway slopes up. The Petitioner further states the driveway expansion is necessary to allow for the second vehicle to be parked on an approved surface and avoid getting ticketed by the Police Department. Prior to applying for the Variation, Village Staff discussed a permitted alternative with the Petitioner. A driveway extension of one and a half (1.5) feet to the north and four and seven tenths (4.7) feet to the south would provide a driveway width of eighteen and a half (18.5) feet wide and would be allowed by Village Code. The Petitioner found this option undesirable and financially prohibitive due to the existing grade difference between the driveway and the south end of the property. While staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire for a larger driveway, there are no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property that would not exist in other properties. The Subject Property complies with the Village Code's two (2) space parking requirement for a single - family dwelling. The Subject Property currently provides one parking space in the attached garage and one parking space in the driveway. The alleged hardship presented in this case is directly related to the Petitioner's own use of the property. The Variation request would serve as a RA Single Family District Requirements Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front Min. 30' 20.74' No change Interior Side (N) Min. 5' 5.01' No change Interior Side (S) Min. 5' 4.78' No Change Rear Min. 25' 81.10' No Change Overall Lot Coverage Max. 50% 29% 31% Front Yard Coverage Max. 50% 40% 48% Driveway Width Beyond - Opening of Garage Door Max. 3' 1.5' 9.5' VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Per the Petitioner, families no longer own just one car. The Petitioner owns two cars, but can only park one vehicle in the driveway because of existing width and length. The existing driveway is too narrow and short for parking two vehicles. In addition, the driveway slopes up. The Petitioner further states the driveway expansion is necessary to allow for the second vehicle to be parked on an approved surface and avoid getting ticketed by the Police Department. Prior to applying for the Variation, Village Staff discussed a permitted alternative with the Petitioner. A driveway extension of one and a half (1.5) feet to the north and four and seven tenths (4.7) feet to the south would provide a driveway width of eighteen and a half (18.5) feet wide and would be allowed by Village Code. The Petitioner found this option undesirable and financially prohibitive due to the existing grade difference between the driveway and the south end of the property. While staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire for a larger driveway, there are no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property that would not exist in other properties. The Subject Property complies with the Village Code's two (2) space parking requirement for a single - family dwelling. The Subject Property currently provides one parking space in the attached garage and one parking space in the driveway. The alleged hardship presented in this case is directly related to the Petitioner's own use of the property. The Variation request would serve as a PZ -25 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 25, 2012 Page.4 convenience to the Petitioner. The Subject Property currently has a one -car attached garage, which can be used to park the second vehicle. In addition, the Petitioner has the option to expand the driveway, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, while complying with Code requirements. RECOMMENDATION The Variation request to allow a driveway to extend nine and a half (9.5) feet beyond the opening of the garage door does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this finding, Staff recommends that the P &Z deny the following motion: "To adopt staff findings in the staff report as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of a Variation request to increase a driveway extension from three (3) feet to nine and a.half (9.5) feet beyond the opening of the garage door for the residence located at 317 S. Emerson Street, Case No. PZ- 25 -12." This case is Village Board final since the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community De elopment H:)PLA1W1anning& 7on1ng COI.4W&Z2nUTZ-25-123, 175 -Em n5t.(VAR- Dsivcwey).do- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-25-12 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: December 13, 2012 317 S. Emerson Street Stanley Koscinus October 10, 2012 08-12-121-021-0000 Variation to the driveway extension allowed beyond the opening of the garage door Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Tom Fitzgerald Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber Keith Youngquist None Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Peter Stamatis, Stanley Koscinus Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Ms. Hinaber made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the Minutes were approved 5-0 with Mr. Beattie and Mr. Youngquist abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced CasePZ-25-12, 3 17 S. Emerson Street at 7:33 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for IIZ-25-12 was requesting a Variation to increase the driveway extension allowed beyond the opening of the garage door for the property located at 317 S. Emerson Street. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property included a one (1) car attached garage and driveway that measure just over twelve ( 12) feet wide. Ms. Andrade stated from the opening of the garage door, the existing driveway extends one (1) and a half (1/2) feet towards the front door. The Petitioner owns two (2) vehicles and has been parking them side-by-side. Since the driveway is not wide enough for two (2) vehicles, the Village's Police Department has ticketed the Petitioner for parking on the grass. In response, the Petitioner would like to expand the driveway an additional eight (8) feet for a total width of 20.27 feet. Ms. Andrade said as proposed, the driveway would extend a total of nine (9) and a half (1/2) feet beyond the opening of the garage door when the Village Code limits the extension to a maximum of three (3) feet. Variation approval is required to allow the driveway to extend nine (9) and a half (1/2) feet beyond the opening of the garage door. Section 14.2215 of the Village Code lit - nits the driveway edge that is on the interior of the yard, as Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-25-12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page I of 4 opposed to the edge of the driveway to the perimeter lot line to a maximum three (3) feet beyond the opening of the garage. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The summary of these findings include: A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner noted in his application that the driveway expansion was necessary to allow for the second vehicle to be parked on an approved surface and avoid getting ticketed by the Police Department. Prior to applying for the Variation, Village Staff discussed an option with the Petitioner to expand the existing driveway while meeting code requirements. A driveway extension of one (1) and a half (1/2) feet to the north and four (4) and seven (7) tenths feet to the south would provide a driveway width of eighteen (18) and a half (1/2) feet: wide and would be allowed by Village Code. The Petitioner found this option undesirable and financially prohibitive due to the existing grade difference between the driveway and the south end of the property. Ms. Andrade stated while staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire for a larger driveway, there were no unique conditions that existed on the Subject Property that would not exist in other properties. The Subject Property complies with the Village Code's two (2) space parking requirement for a single-family dwelling. The Subject Property currently provides one (1) parking space in the attached garage and one (1) parking space in the driveway, The alleged hardship presented in this case is directly related to the Petitioner's own use of the property. Ms. Andrade said the Variation request to allow a driveway to extend nine (9) and a half (1/2) feet beyond the opening of the garage door did not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this finding, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt its findings in the Staff Report as the findings of the Commission and recommend denial of the motion listed in the report. The subject case is Village Board final. Chairman Rogers swore in Attorney Peter Stamatis, 77 W. Wacker, Chicago, Illinois, and the Petitioner Stanley Koscinus, 317 S. Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Chairman Rogers asked if Mr. Stamatis registered with Staff before the meeting. Mr. Stamatis stated he did not as he was contacted earlier in the afternoon by the Petitioner. He stated the Petitioner was not feeling well and asked him to help facilitate at the public hearing. Chairman Rogers said that he wanted Mr. Stamatis to be held to the same standards that the Village has for everyone, but realized that he was an attorney and did not have be sworn in. He confirmed that Mr. Stamatis would register with Staff after the hearing. Mr. Stamatis discussed the south side of the property where Staff recommended the driveway could be expanded without a Variation. He said the drop off on this side of the property would make the driveway expansion not practicable. Mr. Koscinus stated that the drop off on the south side of the property was approximately sixteen (16) inches. Mr. Stamatis and Mr. Koscinus both agreed that the neighbors to the south would not like the driveway expanded in their direction. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the Petitioner has the higher side of the slope on his side of the property and stated that the driveway could be extended to the property line. He asked how much space there was between the end of the driveway and the property line. Mr. Koscinus said the driveway could be extended, but there's a Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-25-12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 2 of 4 sidewalk underneath that goes upwnaoangle. Chairman Rogers also mentioned that the Petitioner Could place a stair or two off the end of the driveway. &4r. Stuniutio stated that the Petitioner could install u sidewalk extending fronu the front mu1g' stairwell to the sidewalk ou the north side of the drive way without any Variation. He said the only issue would be the exia(nooc ofu car slightly in front wf the house; the sidewalk would not cover the entire front ofthe house and probably not even the entire length ofthe front stairs. There was general discussion regarding construction costs if concrete was placed on either side of the driveway. The Petitioner believed by placing concrete on the uu/tb aide would he more coot effective than breaking up the uoucnctc and adding a step down on the south side. Mr. Beattie stated the concern from the Zoning Code was turning the front yard into a parking lot. Mc. Kusciouy ytu1od the main factor for iuoreoybnO the driveway size was to prevent any additional bokcta being issued by the Police. He stated his intention is not to park the our as far {nthe oodb as possible. The Coounnioeiou asked the Petitioner p/kv u vehicle could not be parked in the garage. K4r. Koycinua said there was oumdzcr vehicle in the garage. He stated that the imnoc with the driveway was how the house was built. Cbuiuoao Rogers asked if the Petitioner would consider expanding un the south side as opposed to obtaining the Variation. Mc. Koeuioum stated that if he had no choice, hc would look into that option. He did not believe it would look aesthetically pleasing i[it was expanded (othe south. Chairman Rogers did not believe the driveway would took good io front of the front door and living room window. Mc Fitzgerald said that if the Petitioner expanded tothe south, the neighbor would still look g the driveway at higher grade; just closer tothe property line. The step off would ,000miu identical to the criodoS driveway. Mr. YoungquiaL stated that the existing driveway currently does not have anything protecting it from avcbic|u driving off o[it10 the south. He recommended that if the Petitioner would expand to the south, then he could add u six (6) inch curb or whatever the Village Code allows to add some protection. He did not believe the neighbors vvoold object to adding the driveway to the property )inc as it's u||o`ved by Code. Mr. \,ounAquiot stated that the Petitioner could dbeo add some steps off of the driveway to the sidewalk that leads to the backyard. &8r. l,ouogquimt could not envision another nine (9) and one (l) half feet (o the north o[the existing driveway. He stated by adding to the south would align the driveway better tu the home. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, be closed the public portion of the uuuo at 7:50 pm. and brought the discussion back tothe board. Chairman Rogers asked Staff how much space was between the cod of the mouth aide of the driveway (uthe lot line. Mm. /\odrmdc stated 4.87 feet. Chairman Rogers stated that two (2) vehicles could be parked on unevenieen (l7) foot driveway without any issues. Mr. Yoou&quioT confirmed with Staff that the Petitioner could legally add one (1) and one-half (l/2) feet tm the north of the driveway unwell. The total driveway could be eighteen (i0)k` nineteen (|V) feet without uVariation. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if lie would like to adjust the proposal according to the recommendations made by the Commission. Mr. Starnatis agreed with the recommendations and Staff confirmed that no Variations would 6e needed to add the driveway iu the lot line. &4s. Beattie noudc m nuodnu, ecunuded by Mr. F|orom to approve u \/uria1iVo request to increase u driveway extension frorn three (3) feet to nine and a half (9.5) feet beyond the opening of the garage door for the residence located u13]7 S. Eznuroou Street. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-25'12 Planning 8c Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page of UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Fitzgerald, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers The motion was denied 7-0. This case is Village Board final since the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. After hearing one (2) additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to adjourn at 8:16 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-25-12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 4 of 4 • S` VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT MwntProspec-t COMMUNITY DEVEI,0I'MI;N'1" 1)] I'AR '1'MF;N 'I'- Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Zoning Request Application ZONING RHQUEST (s): ❑ Conditional Use for Variation from Sec._ rn i V N O ❑ Zoning Map Amendment: From to ❑ Text Amendment: Section(s) (orrice 0111,.) - ❑ other: • P & 7. final. © - - - - -- - - - - - -- -__ _. - - - - -- • Village Board Final p JVlVIIVU11\I \JI 1AJ III -J 1VIN J iv r ren � ]� 01e 1»/ \A�� !V l n / / � 4 jncr .rte e__ h_ .the..dry.i<_e - :►u / - aoe.a4d 4�wgl parxi av,,rV 6 gn: � - Fyr - B &�h --B&: _ 4he Mount Prospect Dcpartmcnt of ('onun Lill ity Development 50 South Frierson Street, 1\401-111t Prospect Illinois www.)nountprospect.org ] Phony 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 .rare I Name -- ' . Y Interest U in Property rty 4 Mount Prospect Dcpartmcnt of ('onun Lill ity Development 50 South Frierson Street, 1\401-111t Prospect Illinois www.)nountprospect.org ] Phony 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 .rare I ca Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Prop erty owner sank, as applicant - -- T - - „So IYOVn ame Lot Area (Sq.Ft) Zoning District ca Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Address(es) (Street Number, Street) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and I low the Proposed Use Meets the Standards For the Zoning „So IYOVn Request Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) Lot Area (Sq.Ft) Zoning District I'nial Building Sq. Ft. Sq. Pt. Dcvotcd to Proposed O w e 9 use Sctb cks: �O Front hear 79. 6 aS Side lVaf�h Side cam, t _--- - — _ I [OUI "5 OI OpG - a �_..----- - - - --� _- e y o Building I[eighi ffoW ovc ge °o) Standard Parking Spaces Accessible Parking Spaces U. O A djacent band 1Jses: \Forth South Fast West W sin rami U Property Index Number(s): Q- — •- -'- OHO i n (auach additional sheets if necessary) L6; Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary)s ca Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Proposed Use (as listed in the "zoning district) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and I low the Proposed Use Meets the Standards For the Zoning Request Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) O w �O _ - t _--- - — _ I [OUI "5 OI OpG - a �_..----- - - - --� _- ca Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www.mountprospect.org 2 TDD 847.392.6064 Addresses) (Street Number, Street) Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847,818.5328 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 www,mountprospect.org 3 TDD 847.392.6064 I Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Community Development Department's Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. 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 at the time of 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. "]'he applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the properly grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agent's 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, Applicant Date (signature Print Name ,SN - -_ I%C.� s__ -_ If applicant applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the zoning requests) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner ._ {signature) Print Name -- S- ?Zt41e-jV Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois www.mountpi Date _..__T _ W � Phone 847.81 8.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847392.5064 _, ,• N� o p cWam l y s r 4 N W N �ti a� �a� ACC o f9 [% g �f+ i f0 4'6TON IR A Ncm NO w - R 0 000 � C � o =� zpx o 2 3 IL o r C' e=° p_ mm 10'09 F Gar m m m n J Q C LL O� A 'S x c o a a NI � �^ R a .c ooi m zti �v�o pp N E m ° .LY'L �2 v w ui F u£N "N mom `o �f w m C1 C LL ° c U = 0 moo � r C m W 3 t 2 o m o c E N d a � m CL p o o d _ N ZU S zti _ Y O 41 O Lli Y O — _ c N V mm h m 'v' 4O g to 'e N "Z4 .ZL ya E w � o IL (n a W C ~ Y m Oyc] c U 5 J '2 r. c m co y c c g o_ W �QY W <� ¢dam r ° _ a r m N C O m C L6 O Y�V in O to"s n JM'Zi a� J � N � p � O m U .0'6DL = WD]82J Si Ul r !�� f ap2AY0'J p O'p S ge p oW P }m N } y s Yj a 0 U 4mJ eleaua,J N LL >V CD -CD lean s g9 uos wg 'S LL � m ono Z 0 g � �a o �cV C 0 aSe -%f Standards for Variations The Planning & Zoning Commission is guided by seven standards listed in Zoning Code Section 14.203.C.9. Those standards relate to conditions applicable to the property for which the Variation is requested, the owner's motives for the requesting the Variation and potential effects on nearby properties. The standards for Variations are: 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a specific hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if strict letter of the regulations was to be applied; If the City of Mount Prospect does not grant this variance it will cause a Very Tremendous hardship for any family to live in this house. The home was built prior to the current modern vehicle situation we all live in. No family any longer owns just one car, Over night parking on the side streets of Mount Prospect are not allowed. Current Driveway only allows one vehicle to park. Mount Prospect Police Department has ticketed the second vehicle because " VEHICLE PARKED IN THE GRASS MUST BE MOVED ONTO OTHER IMPROVED SURFACE ". 2. The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification; The property of the driveway has up hill slope. Also the driveway is short, only allowing for one vehicle to park. One vehicle parking is not enough. The other properties around have longer driveways that allow many vehicles to be parked. Also the other properties don't have a uphill slope going to their garages. 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase financial gain; The purpose of the variation is to be able to park a second vehicle in the driveway, not parking on the grass, avoiding getting tickets by the Mount Prospect Police Department. Allowing Vehicle Driver enough room to exit the vehicle, to step onto a concrete slab to walk to the front stairs of the home. f 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Chapter and has not been Created by any person presently having an interest in the property; The hardship is caused by not having enough room to park a second vehicle in the driveway and receiving tickets by the Mount Prospect Police because the vehicle is stepping on the grass. 5. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which property is located; In Granting this variation, this will not be at all detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which this property is located. South Emerson Street is a narrow side street compared to other side streets in Mount Prospect. In fact, this will probably improve the overall situation at this property since the 2 vehicles will properly and safely be parked on a designated parking space. 6. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and By the City of Mount Prospect granting the variation, this will not at all alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It will improve the essential character because the second vehicle will be parked on solid cement slab instead of delicate grass surface. 7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not at ALL impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. By granting this variation; A. It does not obscure the sun or air because it is only a concrete - r slab. The concrete slab would also not bring the property over the allowable ground cover. B. It does not change the overall traffic on the street as the current residents currently own 2 cars. The new concrete slab would be for the second vehicle. C. It does not increase the danger of fire as this is only a concrete slab. D. It will not impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties. The additional concrete is a negligible amount of concrete and again, it does not exceed the maximum ground cover requirement for this property. E. It will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. In fact, it will be a better situation since the second vehicle will not park on the grass area anymore. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION (DRIVEWAY EXTENSION) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 317 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Stanley Koscinus, ( "Petitioner"), has filed a petition fora Variation permit to increase the driveway extension for property located at 317 South Emerson Street ( "Property ") and legally described as: Lot 29 in Waldemar Krause's Addition to Mount Prospect, in the East %2 of the Northwest 1 /4 of Section 12, Township 41 North Range 14 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois commonly known as: 317 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Property Index Number: 08 -12- 121 - 021 -0000; and WHEREAS, the "Petitioner" seeks a Variation to increase a driveway extension from three feet (3') to nine and a half feet (95) beyond the opening of the garage door; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ -25 -12 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 13 day of December, 2012, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10 day of October, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ- 25 -12; 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 request meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation for driveway extension, would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant approval of a Variation for driveway extension, for the property located at 317 South Emerson Street as legally described in the Plat of Survey a copy of which is attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FIVE 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. Page 2/2 PZ -25 -12 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of, 2013. Paul Wm Hoefert Mayor Pro Tern ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H: \CLKO\ WIN\ ORDINANCE2\ variation317emersonstreejan2013 .doc