The city of Park Ridge Zoning Board of Appeals met Sept. 22 to review variance requests.
Here are the meeting's minutes, as provided by the board:
CITY OF PARK RIDGE
505 BUTLER PLACE
PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
TEL: 847-318-5200
FAX: 847-318-5300
TDD: 847-318-5252
www.parkridge.us
M I N U T E S
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
505 BUTLER PLACE
PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 AT 7:30 PM
Commissioner Karkhanis called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.
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
Jim Brown, Interim CP&D Director
Howard Coppari, Zoning Coordinator
Kerry Cwick, Administrative Assistant
Brigid Madden, Senior Administrative Assistant
Julie Tappendorf, City Attorney
Others Present
5 audience members
II. Approval of Minutes – August 25, 2016
On a motion by Commissioner Leslie, seconded by Commissioner Bunting, the Board agreed to
approve the minutes from the August 25, 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
III. Appeals
IV. Variances
1. Variance at 733 & 801 S Prospect Avenue – Case Number: V-16-09 (Two Minor Variances)
Per section 15.5.A.1, the two adjacent lots are currently considered one zoning parcel. In order
to perform this task, the owner needs to apply for two minor zoning lot width variances for:
733 S. Prospect Avenue: Parcel 1 (lot 17) – 8,309.28 SF; 48’ (Width) by 173.11’ (Length) (per
Section 7.3, Table 3 – min. lot width)
Minutes for the Zoning Board of Appeals (Cont.)
2
801 S. Prospect Avenue: Parcel 2 (lot 16) – 8,308.32 SF; 48’ (Width) by 173.09’ (Length) (per
Section 7.3, Table 3 – min. lot width)
Paul Kolpak of Kolpak & Lerner, 6767 N Milwaukee Avenue in Niles, is the attorney for the applicant,
Thomas Durham. He requested a continuance for Case Number V-16-09 to the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to
continue the variance request at 733 & 801 S Prospect Avenue, Case Number V-16-09 (two minor
variances) to the October 27, 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
2. 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.
Minutes for the Zoning Board of Appeals (Cont.)
3
Mr. Bauer explained that he would like to address the questions, comments and concerns from the
previous meeting and referenced his letter to the Board dated September 16th
. He stated that the
variance request is a result of efforts to market, finance and provide various alternatives for the
property as it exists today. He emphasized that the applicant does not intend to modify the site plan.
Mr. Bauer addressed conditioning the variance approval, which is outlined in points #1 and 2 in the
letter to the ZBA. He explained that the applicant is agreeable to approval of the variances,
conditioned upon the requirement that the variances be limited to improvements on the property as
currently constructed; the variances will terminate upon redevelopment. The second condition
requires a Declaration of Cross Easements and Cost Sharing Provisions, which must be approved
by the City Attorney.
Mr. Bauer referenced point #3 of the letter, which states that the variances reflect existing conditions
and no site plan modifications are planned or proposed. He explained that point #4 was not
specifically discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Bauer stated that the site planned approved in
June 2013 indicates that a bank branch is intended for proposed Lot 2. Since the site plan approval
and redevelopment of the site, there has been a change in market conditions. Mr. Bauer indicated
that banks who have expressed interest in the site require the opportunity to acquire that portion of
the subject property now or in the future. He explained that in order to secure a bank tenant, a lease
with an option to purchase is required.
Mr. Bauer stated that marketing, leasing and financing flexibility are key considerations, along with
tenant flexibility. He explained that subdivision of the property enables the applicant to more
accurately and equitability proportion the real estate taxes to the tenants under a triple net lease.
This would allow the property owner to maintain affordable and equitable rental rates for tenants.
Mr. Bauer next spoke about hardship and unique circumstances. He stated that the property was
recently redeveloped and any attempt to minimize the number of variance requests would require
significant modifications to the site. He noted the irregular, semi-triangular shape of the subject
property, which dramatically narrows by 42% from its west lot line to its east.
Point #7 explains that of the nine requested variances, seven pertain to landscape requirements.
Mr. Bauer stated that the landscape improvements as they exist today are a significant improvement
over the condition of the property prior to its redevelopment. The two remaining variances pertain to
building setbacks. The first concerns a building that was not redeveloped; the existing condition has
been in place for an excess of 50 years. The second is the setback along Talcott Road which
reflects what was specifically submitted to and approved by the City.
Mr. Bauer explained that the variances and subsequent subdivision would be indiscernible and
unnoticeable because there would be no changes to the property.
Mr. Bauer spoke about the issue of uniqueness of the case given that the variances already exist.
He explained that the Board has the benefit of seeing the improvements as they exist today and
knowing that they are not a detriment to the neighborhood.
Lastly, Mr. Bauer explained that the City’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes market changes and the
community should be responsive to those changes. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan
specifically states that community planning is a continuous process sensitive to changing needs.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as vital to the community and recognizes
the need to enhance the shopping center.
Chairman Karkhanis explained that a letter was provided from Patrick Corrigan of Corrigan
Ventures Inc. Mr. Bauer explained that Patrick Corrigan was the previous broker for the subject
property; he was involved in the redevelopment and secured leases for the existing tenants. This
letter was entered into the record as Exhibit N, which discussed the difficulty in finding a bank tenant
interested in Lot 2.
Minutes for the Zoning Board of Appeals (Cont.)
4
City Attorney Julie Tappendorf prepared a memo for the Board intended to answer questions from
the previous meeting. Chairman Karkhanis and the Board found that the memo was sufficient and
did not have further questions.
Howard Coppari explained, that at the request of Commissioner Nadler, the building set plans were
provided, along with an area map/site plan, stamped and received by the Community Preservation &
Development Department on April 9, 2014, and a zoning schedule. The plat of survey was also
provided, dated December 23, 2014.
Chairman Karkhanis asked Mr. Coppari to clarify for the record that the survey indicates a setback of
5.02 feet. Mr. Coppari explained that the zoning schedule indicates an ordinance requirement of
zero feet and five feet is provided under the column “actual.”
Chairman Karkhanis asked that the setback on Talcott Road be treated as a separate issue and if
the variance is denied, the City Council can discuss enforcement.
Commissioner Nadler asked for clarification on where the corner side yard is located and whether a
seven-foot setback should be required. Ms. Tappendorf stated that, as indicated in the memo, the
ZBA is not the body to look into this matter. She agreed with the importance of determining what the
zoning requirement is and what currently exists. Commissioner Nadler disagreed and stated that the
documentation provided is not clear. Alderman Moran explained that the City Council was looking
into the matter and Jim Testin provided an internal memo to City Council.
Chairman Karkhanis referenced the draft of easement agreement, entered into the record as Exhibit
L. Ms. Tappendorf explained that it is subject to review by the City Attorney. The language
regarding the conditions of approval would be added to the Ordinance prior to City Council approval.
Pat Livensparger, 413 Courtland Ave, was sworn in by Chairman Karkhanis. She asked if the
variances would remain if they were approved but the subdivision was not. Ms. Tappendorf
explained that the variances for the setback restriction would remain because they are not related to
the subdivision of the property, but the remaining would not because they are not necessary without
a subdivision. The case will come before City Council as a package after the subdivision request
goes before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Livensparger asked if the five-foot setback
variance would apply to the entire lot. Ms. Tappendorf explained that the variance would be granted
for the building, not the lot in its entirety, and this would be clear in the ordinance.
Mr. Bauer was given an opportunity to respond and clarified that no variances are proposed for
proposed Lot 2. Any development on Lot 2 is subject to site plan approval.
Commissioner Nadler asked if the cross easement agreement would conflict with existing tenant
leases. Mr. Bauer explained that the agreement is the obligation of the property owner, not the
tenants. Commissioner Nadler also inquire as to whether or not these types agreements become
problematic as properties age. Mr. Bauer described the agreement as “commonplace.”
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to
close the public hearing.
Chairman Karkhanis polled the Commissioners to determine how to group the variances. It was
determined that the landscape variances would be grouped together and the two setback variances
would be voted on individually.
Commissioner Nagle explained that she only heard testimony regarding economic hardship
regarding Lot 2. She asked Mr. Coppari how many variances would be required to subdivide the
property into two lots instead of three. Mr. Bauer explained that the existing legal description does
not coincide with Lots 1 and 2, it is not a single Metes and Bounds lot as it exists today. He stated
that some of the landscape variances would remain if the property was subdivided into two lots
instead of three.
Minutes for the Zoning Board of Appeals (Cont.)
5
Mr. Bauer added that one motivation for the subdivision is to allow Walgreens to pay its own real
estate taxes directly to the Assessor’s office. He reiterated the concern regarding the option for a
bank to own its own lot. Commissioner Nagle explained that a subdivision is not required to obtain a
separate tax number for Walgreens.
Commissioner Langan asked if the landscape and parking requirements would be affected if the
building on Talcott Road was required to be move to comply with the setback requirement. Mr.
Bauer explained that it would affect parking and interior landscape requirements due to the limited
width, resulting in reduced parking stall depth or narrowed islands.
The Commissioners discussed the discrepancy regarding the setback on Talcott Road. Chairman
Karkhanis explained it is a significant problem, but it will be taken up by the City Council.
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to
recommend approval for the following seven variances, subject to the conditions that 1) the
variations be limited to the improvements on the property as currently constructed and would
terminate upon redevelopment of those portions of the property for which the variations are now
required and 2) the approval is subject to the recording of a Declaration of Cross Easements and
Cost Sharing Provisions reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney.
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]
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]
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 5 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Leslie, Nadler,
and Schilling
NAYS 2 Commissioners Langan and Nagle
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 0 None
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to
recommend approval for a reduction in the minimum required northern corner side yard along Talcott
Road from 7 feet to 5 feet for the existing building, per sect. 8.4, table 5, Case Number V-16-08.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 4 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Leslie,
and Schilling
Minutes for the Zoning Board of Appeals (Cont.)
6
NAYS 3 Commissioners Langan, Nadler and Nagle
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 0 None
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, the Board agreed to
recommend approval for a reduction in the minimum required eastern corner side yard along
Prospect Avenue from 7 feet to 1 foot for the existing building, per sect. 8.4, table 5, Case Number
V-16-08.
Vote on the motion as follows:
AYES 4 Chairman Karkhanis, Commissioners Bunting, Leslie,
and Schilling
NAYS 3 Commissioners Langan, Nadler and Nagle
ABSTAIN 0 None
ABSENT 0 None
V. Other Items for Discussion and Updates
Commissioner Bunting asked a question of Ms. Tappendorf regarding the case continued earlier in
the meeting at 733 and 801 S Prospect Ave. She explained that a permit will have to be pulled for
the property within 1 year of the variance approval. The applicant can request a longer time frame.
VI. Citizens Wishing to be Heard on Non-Agenda Items
VII. City Council Liaison Report
VIII. Adjournment
On a motion by Commissioner Bunting, seconded by Commissioner Langan, 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 8:40 PM.
These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings.
BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS
In the Matter of )
) Case No. V-16-08
800 W Devon Avenue )
FINDINGS OF FACT
This matter having come before the Board for hearing at the request of Talcott Terrace, LLC, 100 S Prospect
Avenue, Suite 11, Park Ridge, for nine Major Variances:
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]
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]
and the Board having held a public hearing as required by law on August 25 and September 22, 2016, and
having heard evidence on the matter, based on the evidence presented, as reflected in the minutes of these
proceedings, and for the reasons indicated in the minutes of this Board in this case.
The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the following facts have been established:
1. The subject property was recently redeveloped. Due to changes in market conditions,
subdividing the property into three lots would allow increased flexibility for financing and
marketing options.
2
Therefore, the application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship.
2. The variances will preserve the existing condition of the newly redeveloped property. No site
plan modifications are proposed or planned in conjunction with the request.
Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
3. The variances requested reflect existing conditions. Any future redevelopment and the
development of proposed Lot 2 are subject to site plan review.
Therefore, the Variance would not have an adverse impact on the locality.
Therefore, the Board recommends that the City Council approve of the Variances, as requested, Zoning
Case Number V-16-08, on the terms and conditions set forth in the minutes of the meeting of August 25 and
September 22, 2016.
Alerts Sign-up