The city of Park Ridge Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 25 to approve variance requests.
Here are the meeting's minutes, as provided by the board:
"A seven-member board, appointed for overlapping terms of five years. Its responsibilities include hearing requests for variations and interpretations to the Zoning Ordinance. The ZBA has authority to approve certain variances in cases of hardship (authorized variance), while others must be approved by the City Council, after a recommended by the ZBA (unauthorized variance)."
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 505 BUTLER PLACE PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2016 AT 7:30 PM
Commissioner Karkhanis called the meeting to order at 7:33pm.
I. Roll Call
Present Garrick Bunting Atul Karkhanis, Chairman Missy Langan Rebecca Leslie Steven Nadler Linda Nagle Steve Schilling
City Council Alderman John Moran
Staff Howard Coppari, Zoning Coordinator Brigid Madden, Administrative Assistant
II. Approval of Minutes
III. Appeals
IV. Variances
1. Variance at 800 W Devon Avenue – Case Number: V-16-08 (Nine Major Variances)
Proposed Lot 1
A. A reduction in the minimum required parking lot perimeter landscape yard from 4 feet to 2 foot along the northern lot line between proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 2; [sect. 13.9.b]
B. A reduction in the minimum required parking lot perimeter landscape yard from 4 feet to 3 foot along the northern lot line between proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 3; [sect. 13.9.b]
C. A reduction in the minimum required parking lot perimeter landscape yard from 4 feet
to 0 feet along the eastern lot line between proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 3; [sect. 13.9.b]
D. A reduction in the minimum required interior parking lot landscaping percentage from 10% to 9%; [sect. 13.10]
Proposed Lot 3
E. A reduction in the minimum required parking lot perimeter landscape yard from 4 feet to 1 foot along the southwestern lot line between proposed Lot 3 and proposed Lot 1; [sect. 13.9.b]
F. A reduction in the minimum required parking lot perimeter landscape yard from 4 feet to 1 foot along the western lot line between proposed Lot 3 and proposed Lot 2; [sect. 13.9.b]
G. A reduction in the minimum required parking lot perimeter landscape yard from 4 feet to 0 foot along the western lot line between proposed Lot 3 and proposed Lot 1; [sect. 13.9.b]
H. A reduction in the minimum required northern corner side yard along Talcott Road from 7 feet to 5 feet; and [sect. 8.4, table 5]
I. A reduction in the minimum required eastern corner side yard along Prospect Avenue from 7 feet to 1 foot, [sect. 8.4, table 5]
Steve Bauer of Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle - 300 Wacker Drive in Chicago is the attorney for the applicant, Talcott Terrace, LLC. Chairman Karkhanis swore in Ms. Nancy Gillick of Talcott Terrace, LLC.
Mr. Bauer explained that the applicant is seeking nine minor variances for the property at 800 W Devon Avenue. Seven of the nine variances pertain to landscape requirements, either for internal or perimeter requirements. The intent of the variances is to subdivide the property into three lots of record. Mr. Bauer stated that as it exists today, the property is nine lots of record that operate as one, with shared parking.
Mr. Bauer described the variances as “de minimis in nature” and pertaining to existing conditions. He noted that none of the requested variances will result in modifications to the property. Mr. Bauer explained that only undeveloped lot would be proposed Lot 2; redevelopment of this lot would be subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC).
Mr. Bauer explained that the two of the variances which do not pertain to landscape requirements are related to building set back requirements.
The motivation for the subdivision request is related to marketing, leasing and financing objectives. Mr. Bauer explained that the intent is to keep the center fully leased by a variety of tenants. The subdivision would allocate the tax burden more fairly and proportionally. Mr. Bauer indicated that the subdivision would allow for more flexibility when securing financing for future redevelopment.
Mr. Bauer explained that the two buildings existing on Lot 3, one on Prospect Avenue and the other on Talcott Road, have existing setbacks which have been approved through the site plan process. He specifically referenced the five foot set back at Talcott Avenue which was approved during the permitting process.
Commissioner Nadler asked about the required setback from Talcott Road. He understood it to be seven feet. Howard Coppari explained that he and Mr. Bauer met prior to the hearing to review the plans and permits for the building on Talcott Road. He stated that the stamped spot survey indicates a five foot setback. He noted a discrepancy in the review process. The zoning schedule on the plans indicates the rear yard at zero and the proposed building at five feet.
Commissioner Langan explained that the site plan specifically required a seven foot setback.
Mr. Coppari stated that the building is “legal” and has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy.
Commissioner Nadler asked that the yards of the property be defined. Mr. Coppari explained that the front yard is Prospect Avenue, the corner side yards are Talcott Road and Devon Avenue, and the rear yard is the west side of the Walgreens along the Park District property. This is documented in the zoning schedule.
Commissioner Nadler explained that the plans do not reflect the zoning schedule.
Mr. Bauer explained that the site plan approved in June of 2013 depict an encroachment just the same as it exists today. He also stated that the zoning schedule is not inaccurate if the yards are placed the way the planner identified them, with Talcott Road as a rear yard instead of a corner side yard.
Commissioner Nadler requested to see any documentation which indicated Talcott Road as the rear yard.
Commissioner Langan asked if there was any indication during the site plan review of the future subdivision. She explained that based on the subdivision, Talcott would be the rear yard.
Commissioner Leslie asked why the subdivision did not occur at the time of the redevelopment. Mr. Bauer explained that the motivation behind the subdivision is current marketing conditions. Commission Leslie asked if the conditions have changed that dramatically since the property was redeveloped. Mr. Bauer stated that the property has new tenants and new lease agreements. The subdivision would allow the applicant to modify rental rates to attract tenants and tie improvements to specific tenants. He described the endeavor as “business friendly.”
Commissioner Leslie explained that the variances are based on economic constraints instead of land constraints. She expressed concern with allowing nine variances on a property that was recently redeveloped.
Commissioner Nadler asked if it were normal to subdivide a shared retail space to benefit the tenants. Mr. Bauer explained that it was and he has worked on similar projects in the past.
Commissioner Nadler inquired about the shared parking and how that would be addressed with future tenants. Mr. Bauer explained that zoning requirements would dictate the type of business allowed. He added that tied to the subdivision would be a reciprocal easement agreement, which would specifically address maintenance, access/location of curb cuts and parking. The agreement would indicate a declarant and responsible party, i.e. the owner or property manager. Shared costs built into the lease agreements would be pooled and used for maintenance and landscaping.
Commissioner Nadler asked why the Board should approve the variance from a seven foot setback for Lot 2, the proposed bank building. Mr. Bauer explained that they are not asking for a setback variance for Lot 2, which is currently not developed. Commissioner Bunting confirmed that the applicant is not seeking any variances for Lot 2. Mr. Bauer stated that the plan for Lot 2 will have to come before the PZC for site plan approval.
Chairman Karkhanis acknowledge that the variances requested to subdivide the property are for economic reasons. He finds that the applicant could achieve the same benefits without formally subdividing.
Commissioner Nagle responded to a question from the Chairman. She explained that the reciprocal easement agreement (REA) would be recorded and any subsequent owner would be subject to it. All parties would need to agree on any amendments.
Because the lots are under single ownership, Commissioner Bunting concluded that that function as a single lot for zoning purposes. Mr. Coppari confirmed this. Commissioner Bunting stated that the variances are needed in order to sell the lots individually.
Mr. Bauer explained that if the lots were sold to three different owners, changes could not be made without an amendment to the site plan. He added that any changes would have to work functionally with the other lots and allow for internal circulation. Mr. Bauer explained that the REA was put together in “good faith” to demonstrate how the lots will function together. It would ultimately need to be approved by the City.
Commissioner Bunting stated that a condition requiring the REA can be added to the variance approval.
Commissioner Nadler explained that the building on Talcott has a nonconforming setback, which never goes away. He questioned whether the City could require that the building be fixed to meet the setback requirements. Alderman Moran stated that because a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the building, it is now a legal nonconformity.
Commissioner Langan expressed concern with the site plan approval and it’s disconnect from the building plans. She recalled a specific condition of the site plan approval which required a seven foot setback.
Commissioner Langan discussed the landscape variance (E.) which calls for a reduction in the minimum required parking lot perimeter landscape yard from 4 feet to 1 foot along the southwestern lot line between proposed Lot 3 and proposed Lot 1. Mr. Bauer explained that the lot line is interior to the parking. Chairman Karkhanis explained that it is no different than the approved site plan.
Commissioner Leslie asked if the applicant had attempted other configurations to eliminate some of the variance requests. Mr. Bauer stated that they did attempt other layouts but this configuration would allow each lot to stand on its own in terms of parking. He noted the tables on Exhibits E and F which indicate the number of provided parking spaces compared to the parking requirement.
Commissioner Leslie asked whether the applicant would consider removing parking stalls in order to eliminate landscape requirements. Chairman Karkhanis pointed out that the variances, as request, do not require any changes to the site plan. Mr. Bauer added that the application specifically avoided site plan modifications.
Commissioner Langan explained that the applicant has a self-created hardship; it does not fit the criteria for a variance request. Mr. Bauer explained that the hardship is driven by market conditions, with respect to tenant objectives and financing. Commissioner Langan explained that information has not been provided to back up that statement. She added that the property was redeveloped with the current tenants in mind.
Commissioner Nagle expounded on Commissioner Langan comments regarding hardship. The taxes can be allocated differently to each tenant without subdividing; it would just be more difficult. She explained the property would be more difficult to manage with three different owners. She defined “hardship” as a property that cannot be used as its best possible use. Commissioner Nagle finds that the property can be used in its current state; it is just more difficult.
Alderman Moran asked if the applicant had letters from tenants expressing support from the subdivision or proof of difficulty securing financing. He explained that those documents would support the applicant’s hardship and back up their statements.
Commissioner Langan explained that the standards for a variance are “land loaded,” and the criteria does not include approval based on an economic hardship. Mr. Bauer stated that the standards for review included in the Zoning Ordinance do not refer to economic hardships as inappropriate criteria. He again stressed that the improvements exist today and the variances would not result in any physical change to the property.
Commissioner Nadler asked Mr. Bauer to outline the unique circumstances. Mr. Bauer explained that the uniqueness relates to the existing conditions. He stated that the Board has the benefit of seeing the development in its existing state and its impact on the surrounding area.
Pat Livensparger, 413 Courtland Avenue, was sworn in by Chairman Karkhanis. She referenced a yellow strip at Devon Avenue, Lot 1, which in the legend indicates is the perimeter yard. Her concern is whether this area meets the perimeter landscape requirement as determined by the approved site plan. She explained that landscaping requirements in the Zoning Ordinance are just as important as the building and engineering. Ms. Livensparger read Section 13.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, which outlines perimeter landscaping and Section 13.10 on interior parking landscaping. She addressed the five foot setback approved through the permitting process, which differs from the PZC’s site plan approval. She read from the minutes of the June 11, 2013 meeting, which state that the building should conform to a seven foot setback at Talcott Road. Ms. Livensparger referenced Section 15-1-4 of the Municipal Code, which requires a foundation only permit to ensure the foundation meets all setback requirements. She suggested the applicant be held responsible for the error.
On a motion by Commission Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Leslie, the Board agreed to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Leslie explained that she understands the applicant’s economic hardship, but unfortunately the ZBA focuses on land based hardships and constraints. She stated that she does not know why the need for the subdivision was not foreseen and does not believe that economic conditions would change so quickly.
Commission Nadler stated that the hardship is “self-inflicted.” He is concerned with the REA and having three different property owners in the future. He explained that the five foot setback is his greatest concern.
Commissioner Nagle explained that the City Attorney indicated during her training with the ZBA that economic factors can be considered as a hardship. If that is the case, Commissioner Nagle stated that evidence of that had not been presented to the Board.
Commissioner Langan explained that nine variance approvals create many new nonconformities and she does not support that.
Commissioner Bunting questioned whether the variances are needed prior to selling of the different lots. He stated that the variances are unique in that the development is already built. He acknowledged the applicant’s ability to minimize their request, but struggles with whether there is a hardship.
Mr. Coppari referenced Exhibit C and explained that the property is two different PIN numbers presently and making the change to three lots does require the variances.
Commissioner Schilling recognized that there will be no physical changes to the property. He explained that the current landscaping is significantly less than what is depicted in the title survey in Exhibit C. He suggested approving the variances with the condition that variances apply only to the existing development.
Chairman Karkhanis agreed with Commissioner Nagle regarding the consideration of an economic hardship. He asked Mr. Coppari to confirm that the development was built according to the PZC approved site plan, with the exception of the setback on Talcott Road. Mr. Coppari explained the approval process by the planning and zoning departments. Chairman Karkhanis recognized the error in the setback on Talcott Road but explained that it is beyond the Board’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Bauer was provided the opportunity to respond to the Board. He first addressed the nonconforming setback on Talcott Road. He described it as the least relevant problem because it appears to be a mutual fault and questioned the meeting minutes in which it was listed as a condition.
He next addressed the suggestion by Commissioner Schilling to place a condition on the approval limiting the variances to the building as it exists today, meaning that any redevelopment must comply with current Zoning Ordinance at the time of redevelopment.
Mr. Bauer addressed Commissioners Langan’s comments regarding the creation of new nonconformities. He explained that this concern could also be address by placing a condition on the approval.
Commissioner Langan had stated that the Board has never approved variances for a development that is already built. Mr. Bauer explained that every case is distinguishable, and this “retroactive request” is as well.
Mr. Bauer confirmed that the applicant is not selling the property to Walgreens. He then reviewed the findings of fact for variance approval and explained that the Zoning Ordinance does not exclude economic consideration. Commissioner Schilling explained that only three standards of review are required to be considered, numbers one through three; the additional factions, number four through nine, may be considered but are not required.
Mr. Bauer reiterated the uniqueness of the request and the applicant’s hardship. He explained that the applicant is willing to provide documentation which supports claim that the variance is based on financial constraints.
Commissioner Leslie asked if it would be more appropriate for the development to be a “planned development.” Mr. Coppari explained that the property’s zoning was changed to allow for the drive-thru at Walgreens. He stated that a planned development would have allowed for more flexibility.
Commissioner Schilling explained that typically variances expire 12 months after their approval. He asked how this would apply given that the development is already built. Commissioner Langan explained that they would not expire. Mr. Bauer added that because the improvements already exist, the provision would apply to any redevelopment, which the applicant is not requesting at this time.
At the request of Mr. Bauer, Chairman Karkhanis polled the Board to determine whether documentation supporting the applicant’s economic hardship would be helpful in their decision-making. Commissioner Schilling stated the he was inclined to approve the variances given the condition that the variances only apply to the development in its current state. Commissioner Bunting agreed. Commissioner Langan questioned the addition of the condition and explained that additional information would likely not change her mind. Commissioner Nagle stated that the financial documentation might change her decision. Commissioner Nadler stated that it would not change his vote and Commissioner Leslie explained that the financial information is important. Chairman Karkhanis explained that the information would not affect his decision. He stated that a draft of the REA would be helpful though.
The applicant will provide documentation of the financial information at the next meeting as well as a draft of the REA. The Board requested a memo from the City Attorney providing language for the addition of a condition on the variance approval as well as an interpretation on considering economic hardships.
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to continue the variance request at 800 W Devon Ave, Case Number V-16-08 (nine minor variances) to the September 22, 2016 meeting.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 7 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Langan,
Leslie, Nadler, Nagle and Schilling NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 0 None
V. Other Items for Discussion and Updates
The Board will continue to meet at 7:30pm on the fourth Thursday of the month.
VI. Citizens Wishing to be Heard on Non-Agenda Items
VII. City Council Liaison Report
Alderman Moran reported on the variances at 1200 Elm Street. The City Council upheld the approvals of the ZBA. He also addressed the discussions regarding remote participation in City Council Meetings.
VIII. Adjournment
On a motion by Commissioner Langan, seconded by Commissioner Bunting, the Board agreed to adjourn the meeting.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 7 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Langan,
Leslie, Nadler, Nagle and Schilling NAYS 0 None ABSTAIN 0 None ABSENT 0 None
The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 PM.
These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings.
Alerts Sign-up