ZBA Minutes 2 24 2011 redlined - City of Park Ridge

CITY OF PARK RIDGE
505 BUTLER PLACE
PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
TEL: 847/ 318-5291
FAX: 847/ 318-6411
TDD:847/ 318-5252
URL:http://www.parkridge.us
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, February 24, 2011
City Hall, City Council Chamber
505 Butler Place
Park Ridge, Illinois
M I N U T E S
Acting Chairman Karkhanis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present
Atul Karkhanis, Acting Chairman
Kevin Barnes
Alice Borzym-Kuczynski
John Sclafani
Missy Langan
Absent
Gary Zimmerman
Anita Bloom
Staff
Tom Hoff
Sophie Tidd
City Council
Alderman Joseph Sweeney, Council Liaison
Others Present
Approximately 15 citizens
B. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Missy Langan and seconded by John Sclafani that the minutes of the January 27,
2011, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting be approved. Judy Barclay, 524 Courtland Avenue,
stated that page nine, paragraph four, sentence two should read: “Tonight’s applicants should
have appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to having their cases heard before the
Appearance Commission.”
Vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES 4 Board members Karkhanis, Langan, Borzym-Kuczynski, Sclafani
NAY 0 None
ABSTAIN 1 Barnes
ABSENT 2 Bloom, Zimmerman
The minutes were approved as noted.
OUR MISSION:
THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING EXCELLENCE IN CITY SERVICES IN ORDER TO UPHOLD
A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE, SO OUR COMMUNITY REMAINS A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
C. Zoning Appeals – None
D. Variances
1. Zoning Case Number V-11-01: 41 South Prospect Avenue (Major Variance)
Rahul Patel, applicant and owner of Enopi Learning Center of Park Ridge, requests a variance to
allow a second wall sign facing a public street, instead of one wall sign allowed by Section
14.6.F.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Acting Chairman Karkhanis swore in all citizens interested in testifying about the case.
The Board decided to continue the public hearing at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting dated
January 27, 2011. The Board requested the proposed sign be submitted to the Appearance
Commission for review. At the February 17, 2011 meeting, the Commission agreed to approve
the wall sign subject to aligning the sign with the base of the Pines wall sign and positioning it
over the doorway in front of the transom opening.
Mr. Patel stated that at the January 27, 2011, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, there were four
main reasons the Board objected to the sign. The reasons were the Board was not in favor of the
size and location of the proposed sign. Additionally, the raceway did not match the façade of the
building. The applicant was required to appear before the Appearance Commission and to submit
color photographs showing the sign in the proposed location.
The applicant stated that he has addressed the Board’s concerns, reducing the size of the proposed
sign from 16 to seven square feet, and submitted Exhibit 1, showing the location of proposed
sign, which was approved at the February 17, 2011, Appearance Commission meeting. The
photograph shows the raceway of the sign matching the limestone façade of the building. Mr.
Patel stated a previous tenant submitted a letter of objection, but was not present at the zoning
hearing or the Appearance Commission meeting.
Mr. Karkhanis read the minutes of the February 2011 Appearance Commission meeting. He
stated the minutes did not specify a side mount, but showed the sign raceway to be recessed with
the letters being flush with the building.
John Sclafani stated the applicant has a window sign above Pines on the Summit side of the
building. He asked the applicant if he would consider moving the sign to the south, and aligning
it with the Pines sign.
Kevin Barnes noted that Exhibit 1 shows five-inch thick letters on raceway with a depth of four
inches. He stated that the nine-inch sign would not be flush with the doorway.
The applicant stated that the doorway was deeper than nine inches and could accommodate the
sign.
Alice Borzym-Kuczynski asked if the sign would be attached to the transom above the door.
Mr. Patel stated that the sign would be attached to the sidewall in front of the transom.
Judy Barclay, 524 Courtland Avenue, stated that what the Appearance Commission
recommended violates the Zoning Ordinance, that a wall sign is not permitted in a doorway or
window. The applicant would require two variances. Applicants need to go to the Zoning Board
2

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
of Appeals first.
Mr. Karkhanis disagreed with Ms. Barclay, stated that they are considered on a case-by-case
basis.
Tom Hoff stated that his interpretation is that Section 14.6.F.3 does not apply in this situation.
No other residents addressed the Board regarding the case.
The Board closed the public hearing.
Mr. Karkhanis agreed with staff’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski stated the detail the applicant put forth was to her satisfaction. She did
not think he needed a second variance.
Mr. Sclafani said the sign belongs next to the Pines sign.
Missy Langan stated the shared doorway was an issue. Letters of objection were presented from
other second floor tenants. Ms. Langan was present at the Appearance Commission meeting and
is torn in her decision.
Mr. Karkhanis asked staff that if the city attorney determines that a second variance is required, if
the applicant could amend his application.
Tom Hoff stated that the Board is responsible for the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. He
was confident it did not apply unless the Board wanted to take further action.
Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski suggested that staff ask the city attorney for his opinion on the matter.
Mr. Patel stated that a previous tenant submitted the same letter of objection to both the Board
and the Appearance Commission. She was not serious enough in her concerns to attend either
meeting. He has landlord approval, and has no issue going back before the Appearance
Commission if required.
Mr. Karkhanis discussed the possibility taking two votes pending the city attorney interpretation
of Section 14.6.F.3.
Alderman Sweeney stated he was not comfortable addressing City Council without prior
recommendation from the city attorney.
On a motion by Alice Borzym-Kuczynski and seconded by Missy Langan, the Board
AGREED to continue the public hearing for 41 South Prospect Avenue, Zoning Case Number V-
11-01, to the April 7, 2011, meeting.
Vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES 5 Board members Karkahanis, Sclafani, Barnes, Langan, Borzym-Kuczynski
NAY 0 None
ABSENT 2 Zimmerman, Bloom
3

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
2. Zoning Case Number V-11-02: 1020 Harrison Street (Major Variance)
Ashley Chin and Zbigniew Hamielec, applicants and owners, request two variances regarding a
single-family addition. The first is to allow the attached garage with a door 16 feet wide, rather
than the maximum allowable width of nine feet, as required by Section 11.4.F.2.a. The second is
to allow the attached garage to encroach 10.9 feet into the required rear yard setback of 20 feet, as
required by Section 7.3, Table 3. The case was continued from the January 27, 2011, meeting.
Acting Chairman Karkhanis swore in all citizens interested in testifying about the case.
The case was originally heard at the January 27, 2011 meeting, and continued pending
verification of a full foundation under the breezeway and the Appearance Commission
determination of whether the garage would require two separate garage doors.
Ms. Chin submitted additional exhibits, which included a letter of support and stamped plans
from a structural engineer, recommending two additional footings for the breezeway. Ms. Chin
asked the Board’s consideration in making their determination. She stated that their intentions
were good, but mistakes were made. In hindsight, they should have called the City when the
rotten beams were exposed.
No other residents addressed the Board regarding the case.
The Board closed the public hearing.
Alice Borzym-Kuczynski struggled with her decision, but facts could not be overlooked. There
were no permits for the breezeway and garage. Red notations made on the site plan indicate the
walls were to remain. She stated that she did not hear anything related to hardship. It was a
heartbreaking case, but a valid argument was not made.
Missy Langan stated that the information provided was distracting, and a hardship was not
proven. Traditionally, the Board would consider an already constructed structure as a fresh set of
plans. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would not prohibit the applicants’ full use of
their property. The corner lot was merely an inconvenience after the fact. Ms. Langan could not
find undue hardship or unique circumstance.
Ms. Langan compared this variance request to Zoning Case Number V-10-16 at 410 West
Cuttriss, where the applicant requested a variance to allow a screened porch to encroach one foot
into the interior side yard setback. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance. The
applicants are asking for an encroachment of almost 11 feet.
John Sclafani asked staff about the scope of the permit. He recalled the case of a neighbor who
was constructing an addition and was required to leave a wall standing. The wall was unstable
and the homeowner called the city, at which point he was allowed to remove the wall.
Alderman Sweeney stated that if the variances were denied, the applicants would need to consult
with city staff and see how to proceed. The City took every available precaution telling them not
to remove the walls.
Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski stated that the applicants could go to the Circuit Court for an
administrative review if the variance was denied. The Court would determine if the Board abused
their discretion, if there was an error of law, and if the evidence supported the findings.
4

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
Acting Chairman Karkhanis asked the applicants how they would like to proceed.
Ms. Chin stated that the addition was constructed with insurance proceeds following the death of
her mother. They have no additional funds to take down the garage and breezeway.
Mr. Karkhanis stated that he was sympathetic with the applicant. It is the Board’s responsibility
to uphold the Zoning Ordinance. The city did everything they needed to do, and the builder
ignored the city’s instructions. When the Board votes, it has to be under a set of rules.
Ms. Chin asked if there was an option to fine the builder.
Mr. Karkhanis stated the applicants would have that recourse and would have to consult their
attorney.
Rich Hamielec, 6 North Elmore, stated that the intent of the applicants was to build an addition
onto the existing home. They tried to make one cohesive structure. He said the rotting walls
were replaced with like construction, with the same dimensions as what was submitted to the
Appearance Commission and building department. What was approved is standing there.
Earl Hayden, 220 Arthur, asked what the city would have done if the applicants had called when
the rotting wood was discovered.
Tom Hoff stated the process would have been the same but the work would not have been done.
Mr. Hayden asked if the city would have allowed them to build onto the rotting sills. He has
lived across the street from 1020 Harrison for twenty years. The footprint has not changed. The
applicants improved their property. The applicants are not residing at the property. Work has
stopped and the building is not done.
Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski read the definition of the word breezeway. She stated that the applicant
said the breezeway was heated. Her impression was that a breezeway was a passageway,
commonly four to five feet in width. The applicants’ breezeway is actually a room that counts in
floor area.
Mr. Karkhanis stated that the applicant had no idea that the breezeway needed a foundation. He
stated for the record that is not the same structure. The engineer stated it needs a foundation.
Mr. Hamielec stated that he purchased the property four years ago. He had never heard the term
breezeway until the plans were drawn. He thought it was a family room. The previous owners
sat and watched television there. The hardship is that he purchased a two-bedroom home with
two bedrooms in the attic, an attached garage and family room. His wife’s father is paralyzed and
it is easier to transport him through the garage.
On a motion by Kevin Barnes and seconded by Missy Langan, the Board
AGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance to allow an attached garage to
encroach 10.93 feet into the required corner rear yard setback, instead of the 20 feet required by
Section 7.3, Table 3.
Vote on the motion was as follows:
5

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
AYES 2 Board members Barnes, Sclafani
NAY 3 Langan, Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis,
ABSENT 2 Zimmerman, Bloom
The variance was denied.
On a motion by Missy Langan and seconded by Kevin Barnes, the Board
AGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance to allow a garage door at 16 feet in
width, instead of the maximum allowable width of nine feet, as required by Section 11.4.F.2.a.
Vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES 2 Board members Barnes, Sclafani
NAY 3 Langan, Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis,
ABSENT 2 Zimmerman, Bloom
The variance was denied.
3. Zoning Case Number V-11-03: 2701 Cherry Street (Major Variance)
Laura and Dean Morask, applicants and owners, request a variance to allow a patio to encroach
into the required rear yard by more than five feet, in conflict with Section 11.5, Table 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Morask stated that she and her husband have resided in Park Ridge for 20 years. In 1994,
after an exhaustive search, they purchased the unique split level with a hunting lodge feel. The
property is an irregularly shaped lot, and the only one in the subdivision with no back yard. The
back yard consists of three patios with connecting walkways.
When the applicants first moved in the patios were in good condition. Since that time, the patios
have raised up from between two and a half to three inches, due to increased flooding since 2005.
The applicants have installed a sump pump, generator, and pond to help with flooding issues.
However, the patios have become unusable since they are a dangerous trip hazard.
Strict adherence to the Zoning Ordinance would not allow replacement of the patios and prohibit
the applicants from fully utilizing their property. The irregularly shaped lot has a 14-foot setback
on the southwest corner and a 25-foot setback on the southeast corner. As a result of changes to
the Zoning Ordinance, the required setbacks of the property are now located inside the house.
Mrs. Morask stated that she and her husband did not create the unique circumstance. The
proposed patio will help alleviate future flooding by installing sub-gravel and grading to allow
water to flow to the sewer in the street. In addition, some of the concrete will be removed. The
proposed lot coverage will be at approximately 42 percent.
Kevin Barnes stated that he is in the construction trades and has done a lot of excavation and
storm water management. He stated that the applicants’ proposal was vague.
Mrs. Morask stated that she has a pond for water run-off. In addition, she is changing the
concrete to paver blocks.
Mr. Barnes noted that the Public Works department approved their proposal, but a drawing would
be helpful.
6

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
Alice Borzym-Kuczynski stated that their situation is visually shocking. She noted that the plans
are labeled Phase 1, and asked if there was a Phase 2, and a Phase 3.
Mrs. Morask stated that the patio adjacent to the porch is the greatest problem.
Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski stated that the proposed variance is for the center third. If the applicants
choose to do the rest of the patios, an additional variance would be required. She asked if the
variance included the sidewalk on the west side of the property.
The applicant stated that the walkway would be replaced with stone edging and brick steppingstones.
She said that there is a drain at the bottom of the basement stairs.
Atul Karkhanis asked the height of the patio.
Mrs. Morask stated that it is level with the ground.
Missy Langan stated that this case was a pleasure, and a perfect example of when a variance is
necessary. Following the ordinance would render the yard unusable. The applicants are
proposing to improve something that is broken, and adding green space. She complimented them
on their presentation.
John Sclafani agreed, and advised the applicants to provide a site plan for the City Council
hearing.
Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski approved of the plan. She stated that she would like to see more green
space in Phases 2 and 3, but this was a good step in the right direction.
Mr. Barnes would like more information and details of the plan.
Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski asked Mr. Karkhanis if it was appropriate to verify the height of the
patio.
On a motion by Alice-Borzym-Kuczynski and seconded by Missy Langan, the Board
CITY
COUNCIL
ACTION
REQUIRED
AGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance to allow a patio to extend to the
rear lot line, instead of the 20 foot rear yard setback as required by Section 11.5, Table 8 at 2701
Cherry Street, Case Number V-11-03, subject to the grade of the new brick paver patio not being
higher than the top of the foundation.
Vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES 4 Board members Langan, Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis, Sclafani
NAY 1 Barnes
ABSENT 2 Zimmerman, Bloom
4. Zoning Case Number V-11-04: 119 South Northwest Highway (Major Variance)
Jon Buerg, Wilkus Architects and Jim Stadelman, Chipotle, applicants, request a variance for a
Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant at 119 South Northwest Highway to allow seven off-street
parking spaces, instead of the ten required by Section 12.13, Table 9.
Acting Chairman Karkhanis swore in all citizens interested in testifying about the case.
7

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
Mr. Buerg stated that the subject property is approximately 50 percent building and 50 percent
parking. They are requesting a variance of three parking spaces. He stated that he is confident
the neighborhood can support it due to quick customer turn around.
Mr. Stadelman stated that about 50 percent of the customers dine in. The average timeframe per
customer is 17 minutes. Store hours are 11:00 am to 11:00 pm, based on market conditions. No
delivery is provided.
Atul Karkhanis asked if there was a corporate parking policy.
Mr. Stadelman stated that most employees take public transportation. Six to eight employees
work during peak hours.
John Sclafani asked if the restaurant had a liquor license.
Mr. Stadelman stated that they applied for a beer and margarita license, which accounts for about
two percent of sales.
Mr. Karkhanis referenced Exhibit 15, a letter of objection from Rocky Mountain Chocolates. He
asked Tom Hoff if staff ever considered 10 minute pick-up parking.
Mr. Sclafani stated that he is in downtown Park Ridge three days a week. There is a lot of
parking available, especially in the Uptown Development.
Mr. Stadelman does not see a problem and offered to put flyers at the register with parking
alternatives.
Mr. Karkhanis asked that Mrs. Stadelman’s comments be put on record.
Kevin Barnes asked where refuse containers would be located.
Mr. Buerg stated that there would be an indoor trash corral located near the back door. A normal
Chipotle is 2200 to 2400 square feet. This store is larger and could accommodate it.
Mr. Barnes asked about seating and peak times at the restaurant.
Mr. Stadelman stated that the restaurant seats 46. 11:30 am is the peak time. The restaurant has
approximately 500 transactions a day. Most customers come early, or late. There are about 49
customers per hour, with 1.7 people per transaction.
Missy Langan stated that she is a 20-year veteran in the restaurant business. She said most people
are on their lunch hour and have work to return to work.
Judy Barclay, 524 Courtland Avenue, credits any business willing to take a chance in this
economy.
CITY
COUNCIL
ACTION
REQUIRED
On a motion by Kevin Barnes and seconded by Missy Langan, the Board
AGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance to allow seven off-street parking
spaces, instead of the ten required by Section 12.13, Table 9, for Chipotle Mexican Grill at 119
South Northwest Highway, Zoning Case Number 11-04.
8

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
Vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES 5 Board members Langan, Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis, Sclafani,
Barnes
NAY 0 None
ABSENT 2 Zimmerman, Bloom
E. Other Items for Discussion
Board Members
Alderman Sweeney stated that interviews were conducted for two vacancies on the Zoning Board
of Appeals. The results are forthcoming.
F. Citizens Wishing to Be Heard on Non-Agenda Items
Zoning Approval
Judy Barclay stated that staff should direct applicants to the either the Zoning Board of Appeals
or the Planning and Zoning Commission to address zoning issues prior to going before the
Appearance Commission.
Ms. Barclay stated that she attended the February 17, 2011, Appearance Commission meeting and
read Section 14.6.F of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertained to the Enopi sign. The Appearance
Commission disregarded her comments, and stated that if a variance were necessary, the
applicant would need to apply for one. She stated that the applicant informed the Commission
that placement of the sign in the approved location was not allowed. If the city attorney upholds
it, the Appearance Commission created the requirement of a second variance for the applicant.
Atul Karkhanis stated that Appearance Commission approval does not constitute zoning approval.
Every situation is unique. In the case of the Enopi sign, the applicant needed to go before the
Appearance Commission. What the applicant had proposed to the Zoning Board of Appeals was
inappropriate for the building and he needed help. It was absolutely necessary to have the
applicant get Appearance Commission’s opinion. It is the applicant’s decision. He thanked Ms.
Barclay for her comments and opinion on the matter.
John Sclafani stated that applicants should have counsel.
Mr. Karkhanis agreed, however, not all applicants can afford it.
Ms. Barclay stated the applicants at 1020 Harrison should have been told they had a legal nonconformity,
and come before the Board. They should have been told they could proceed, and if
they took down the walls, their variance would be over. Ms. Barclay stated that the Zoning Board
of Appeals has more control and would be taken more seriously by the applicants. People don’t
understand what constitutes a hardship. They hear what they want to hear.
Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski stated that the Appearance Commission did the applicant a disservice.
She felt it was a peripheral matter.
9

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
G. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals
_____________
Gary Zimmerman, Chairman
Date Approved
These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings.
10

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS
In the matter of )
) Case No. V-11-02
Ashley Chin and Zbigniew Hamiliec )
FINDING OF FACT
This matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of Ashley
Chin and Zbigniew Hamielec for a variance at 1020 Harrison Street, Case Number: V-11-02, to allow
an attached garage to encroach 10.9 feet into the required rear yard setback of 20 feet, as required by
Section 7.3, Table 3, and the Board having held public hearings as required by law on January 27,
2011 and February 24, 2011; 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 dimensions of the subject property are 75 by 125.5, which is larger than other lots on this
block.
Therefore, the strict application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would not result in undue
hardship.
2. The applicants applied for a permit for a second story addition. City staff marked the plans in red
ink instructing the applicants that the walls of the breezeway were to remain. The contractor
replaced rotten sills and reconstructed the breezeway without consulting with city staff, creating a
self-imposed hardship.
Therefore, the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances.
3. The addition was designed to maintain the character of the existing home, therefore enhancing the
character of the neighborhood.
Therefore, the variance would not have an adverse impact on the locality.
The Board denied the variance.
Gary Zimmerman, Chairman
Date Approved
11

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS
In the matter of )
) Case No. V-11-02
Ashley Chin and Zbigniew Hamiliec )
FINDING OF FACT
This matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of Ashley
Chin and Zbigniew Hamielec for a variance at 1020 Harrison Street, Case Number: V-11-02, to allow
a garage door at 16 feet in width, instead of the maximum allowable width of nine feet, as required by
Section 11.4.F.2.a, and the Board having held public hearings as required by law on January 27, 2011
and February 24, 2011; 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 has the similar lot dimensions as other lots on this block.
Therefore, the strict application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would not result in undue
hardship.
2. The applicants applied for a permit for a second story addition. City staff marked the plans in red
ink instructing the applicants that the walls of the breezeway were to remain. The contractor
replaced rotten sills and reconstructed the breezeway without consulting city staff, creating a selfimposed
hardship.
Therefore, the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances.
3. The addition was designed to maintain the character of the existing home, therefore enhancing the
character of the neighborhood.
Therefore, the variance would not have an adverse impact on the locality.
The Board denied the variance.
Gary Zimmerman, Chairman
Date Approved
12

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS
In the matter of ) Case No. V-11-03
)
Dean and Laura Morask )
FINDING OF FACT
This matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of Dean and
Laura Morask for a variance at 2701 Cherry Street, Case Number V-11-03, to allow a patio to
encroach into the required rear yard by more than five feet, in conflict with Section 11.5, Table 8; and
the Board having held public hearings as required by law on February 24, 2011; 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 house on the irregularly shaped lot with virtually no back yard was constructed prior to the
enactment of the current Zoning Ordinance. Strict adherence to the Zoning Ordinance would not
allow the applicants the full use of their property, since the rear yard setback would be located
inside the house.
Therefore, the strict application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would result in undue
hardship.
2. The existing patio is legal, non-conforming. It has buckled due to extreme weather conditions,
rendering it a dangerous trip hazard and unusable.
Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
3. The proposed paver patio would increase green space and improve drainage.
Therefore, the variance would not have an adverse impact on the locality.
The Board recommends approval of the variance to the City Council on the terms and conditions set forth
in the minutes of the meeting of February 24, 2011.
Gary Zimmerman, Chairman
Date Approved
13

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 24, 2011
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS
In the matter of ) Case No. V-11-04
)
Wilkus Architects )
FINDING OF FACT
This matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing Wilkus Architects for a
variance for a Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant at 119 South Northwest Highway, Case Number V-
11-04, to allow seven off-street parking spaces, instead of the ten required by Section 12.13, Table;
and the Board having held public hearings as required by law on February 24, 2011; 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 provides three off-street parking spots on site, but is located near to public
parking lots.
Therefore, the strict application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would result in undue
hardship.
2. The subject property is zoned B-4 Uptown Business District, Uptown Commercial Subdistrict.
Strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would require 10 off-street parking spaces. The
applicant would be unable to open a restaurant at this location without a variance. Any business
opening in this location would have similar parking issues.
Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.
3. The subject property is surrounded by other commercial uses. The restaurant would open in a
currently vacant commercial space.
Therefore, the variance would not have an adverse impact on the locality.
The Board recommends approval of the variance to the City Council on the terms and conditions set forth
in the minutes of the meeting of February 24, 2011.
Gary Zimmerman, Chairman
Date Approved
14