Minutes 08-26-2010 for ZBA - City of Park Ridge

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 26, 2010Lot 5 is a private lot behind a dental office, having 18 parking spots.Mr. Stapleton added that lots 1, 2 and 4 are commuter lots. Lot 2 is the most full, but none arefilled to capacity. Lot 1 is available after 4:00 p.m. and lot 2 is available after 7:00 p.m.Alderman Sweeney asked staff if the lots are available after 6:00 p.m. Cathy Doczekalski statedthat the commuter box lot is available after 7:00 p.m.Sarah Mitchell stated that the ordinance for lot 4, the Fairview permit lot does not become publicafter hours.Chairman Zimmerman asked if cars can be towed at night.Mr. Stapleton stated that lots 1 and 2 are vacant in the evening.Chairman Zimmerman asked staff if the parking variance granted to the previous tenant, Walter’sRestaurant, runs with the business or with the land.Attorney Henn stated that the variance runs with the prior petitioner.Mr. Stapleton stated that the prior ordinance granted a variation of 23 parking spots.Michael Athans, 506 Elmore, stated that he owns the adjoining building at 32 Main Street. Histenants work nights and weekends, with most clients staying one to one and a half hours. Hestated that lots 1 and 2 are the only parking lots subject to consideration, and asked if the rooftopseating was taken into consideration when determining the number of required parking spaces.Tom Hoff stated that rooftop seating is not included in off-street parking requirements.Dr. Athans questioned the timing of the survey since most people go on vacation during themonth of August prior to the beginning of the new school year.Mr. Brinkman stated that the survey numbers vary no more than 10 to 15 percent during thecourse of the year.Atul Karkhanis stated that he was missing his copy of the ordinance granted to the previoustenant.Tom Hoff stated that he can verify that the petitioner was granted the variance.Mr. Karkhanis stated that he wanted to see the language in the ordinance and information on theprevious restaurant in that location.Chairman Zimmerman stated that Walter’s was in existence since Mr. Zimmerman moved to ParkRidge in 1982. It was a fine dining establishment.Mr. Stapleton stated that O’Reilly’s will occupy the same space and footprint as Walter’s, onlyslightly larger since they will also occupy the storefront formerly occupied by Two Sisters. Heplans to rip of the floors to remedy a sewage problem.Ed Berry stated that the seating capacity is determined by Ordinance. The seating is comparablesince some space will be allocated to the enlarging of the bathrooms.3

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 26, 2010Chairman Zimmerman asked the applicants if they plan on using valet parking.Mr. Stapleton stated that he is planning on using valet parking and has also entered into abusiness agreement with Park Ridge Taxi for discount rates for his patrons.Missy Langan stated that the parking studies are based on evening hours and asked if therestaurant would be open for lunch. She added that rooftop seating was not counted in thevariance request because we live in a four season climate, therefore, the rooftop seating wouldonly apply to a few months of the year.Mr. Stapleton stated that he would be open for lunch but expected most of his clientele to work inthe immediate vicinity, therefore most would walk at lunchtime.Sheila and Fred Duda, 1501 Vine, owners of Tealula, 11 South Fairview, have owned theirbusiness for two and a half years. They stated that their busy hours are 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.and 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. They voiced their concern that the lunch hour traffic would negativelyimpact parking on Fairview.Mr. Berry stated that peak lunch hours would be from noon until 1:30 or 2:00 p.m.Chairman Zimmerman asked for the dates and times of the traffic study.Mr. Brinkman stated that the studies were done on Wednesday, August 11 th from 11:00 a.m. to9:00 p.m., Saturday, July 17 th for 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday, August, 14 th from5:00p.m. to 5:00 p.m. He explained that studies were done on Saturdays since that is the daymost people go out. Wednesdays are used since it is the middle of the week and allows forpeople that may be out of town for a long weekend.Mr. Duda asked what Mr. Stapleton plans to do to let customers know that the parking lots areavailable.Chairman Zimmerman suggested that signs in the public lots be changed if the ordinance isapproved. He requested that Alderman Sweeney go back to the City Council with his request.Pat Livensparger asked if the applicants plan to rent the lots for parking or do they plan to allowparking on the neighboring streets.Mr. Karkhanis stated that this was a valid point. It is his experience that most valets park indesignated lots.Ms. Mitchell stated that she would check into the process. She stated that Affresco has valetparking, probably within their own lot.Mr. Stapleton assured Ms. Livensparger and the Board that parking on private streets will nothappen. He stated that the parking study shows more than adequate parking. He has anagreement with Park Ridge Taxi, and has done research on valet parking.Mr. Karkhanis expressed concern that Mr. Stapleton did not have specific information on valetparking.Mr. Berry stated that Mr. Stapleton has gone to considerable expense, been a good customer andcitizen, forging a good partnership with the City to do what it takes.4

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 26, 2010Jim Davis, 235 Murphy Lake, owns a dental practice at 20 Main Street with hours until 7:30 p.m.He stated that he wants a vibrant block and has never had patients complain about parking. Hevoiced his support for the variance and said he would be willing to negotiate an agreement forparking. He added that Anthony Valentino Salon was also fully supportive of the applicant’srequest for a variance.Mrs. Duda stated that she and her husband are glad they attended tonight’s meeting.expressed her support for the variance and restaurant plans.SheNo other residents addressed the Board regarding the case.The Board closed the public hearing.Kevin Barnes, stated that he has experience in the restaurant field. He recognized the investmentmade by the applicants and supported passing on a variance granted to the prior owner.Missy Langan stated that when the proposal for O’Reilly’s came before the Procedures andRegulations Committee, the calculations were incorrect. She asked staff if additional parkingspaces were required for live entertainment.Attorney Henn stated that the restaurant use is the most restrictive and that was how the parkingrequirement was determined.Ms. Langan stated her concern that the B-2- license may be adding a new or additional use to thecurrent liquor license and that this new or additional use may not have been addressed in thezoning ordinance. She said that O'Reilly's would be the second or third business that would havea B-2 license, as Romano’s is the first.Chairman Zimmerman stated that it was the responsibility of the Board to make a determinationbased on the parking situation.Chairman Zimmerman asked Mr. Brinkman what the parking demand was after 9:00 p.m.Mr. Brinkman stated that the lots are virtually empty after 8:00 or 9:00 p.m.Alderman Sweeney stated that he had concerns about parking in the Uptown area and had staffprepare a list of available parking in the area. The subsequent report showed almost 1500 parkingspaces in the Uptown area.John Sclafani stated that he lives three blocks from the proposed restaurant. During the 14 yearsthat he has resided in the area, parking has not been an issue. He stated that O’Reilly’s would bea great addition to the area.CITYCOUNCILACTIONREQUIREDOn a motion by Atul Karkhanis and seconded by Kevin Barnes, the BoardAGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance to allow the reduction in thenumber of off-street parking spaces to zero, from the 26 off-street parking spaces required bySection 12.13, Table 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit a restaurant/live entertainment use at28-30 Main Street, Case Number V-10-09.Vote on the motion was as follows:5

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 26, 2010AYE 5 Board members Zimmerman, Barnes, Sclafani, Karkhanis, LanganNAY 0 NoneABSENT 2 Bloom, Borzym-Kuczynski2. Zoning Case Number V-10-08: 1112 South Rose Avenue (Major Variance)John and Harriet Harty, applicants and owners, request two variances to allow an addition to asingle family residence. The first request allows the one-story addition with a side yard setbackof 8.25 feet. Per Section 7.3, Table 3, the required side yard setback is 10 feet. The secondvariance is to allow the one-story addition with a rear yard setback of 16.83 feet. Per Section7.3, Table 3, the required rear yard setback is 40 feet.Chairman Zimmerman swore in all citizens interested in testifying about the case.Mrs. Harty stated that she and her husband have been Park Ridge residents for over 14 years.They have lived in their current home for over five years. They love their neighborhood and theway the property sits on the lot.Chairman Zimmerman distributed exhibit 13, an aerial view of the subject property andsurrounding area.Tom Hoff stated that the neighborhood was annexed to Park Ridge in the 1960’s. Ingress andegress are part of the private property as an easement.Chairman Zimmerman stated that there was a unique circumstance in that the homes on the blockare set back for the possibility of the dedication of the streets at a later date.Mrs. Harty stated that she and her husband like the sprawling ranch style home. They enjoy theview to the west and would like to enlarge their kitchen and bedroom and add a family room,continuing the lines of the original footprint of the home on the north. Adding onto the south sideof the home would require them to reconfigure their entire layout. Despite the proposed sideyardencroachment, there is a large open space between their home and the property to the north.Adding to the south side of the home would obscure sunlight and require the applicants to changethe entire layout of the home.Atul Karkhanis stated that the 64 foot building line is unique, but he was looking for ajustification to support the side yard variation.Kevin Barnes stated that the neighbors to the north are a great distance to the north from theapplicants, but very close to the property directly to their north.Mr. Karkhanis stated that he did not feel he could take away the rights of the neighboringproperty.Chairman Zimmerman asked the petitioners if they would consider modifying their proposal toeliminate the sideyard encroachment.Mrs. Harty stated that they wanted to keep the lines of the original house. She and her husbanddiscussed the variance request with their neighbors to the north, and received their support.6

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 26, 2010On a motion by Atul Karkhanis and seconded by Kevin Barnes, the BoardCITYCOUNCILACTIONREQUIREDAGREED to recommend City Council approval of two variances to allow an addition to a singlefamily residence at 1112 South Rose Avenue, Case Number V-10-08, subject to:1. Allowing an addition to encroach 1.75 feet into the required minimum side yard setbackof 10 feet, as required by Section 7.3, Table 3; and2. Allowing an addition to encroach 23.17 feet into the required rear yard setback of 40 feet,as required by Section 7.3, Table 3.Vote on the motion was as follows:AYE 4 Board members Zimmerman, Barnes, Sclafani, KarkhanisNAY 1 LanganABSENT 2 Bloom, Borzym-KuczynskiE. E. Other Items for DiscussionF. Citizens Wishing to be Heard on Non-Agenda Items - NoneG. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m.Zoning Board of Appeals_____________Gary Zimmerman, ChairmanDate ApprovedThese minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings.7

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 26, 2010ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSOF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOISIn the matter of ) Case No. V-10-09)Declan Stapleton and Ed Berry )FINDING OF FACTThis matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of DeclanStapleton and Ed Berry for a variance for O’Reilly’s Public House at 28-30 Main Street, Zoning CaseNumber V-10-09, to allow the reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces to zero, from the26 off-street parking spaces required by Section 12.13, Table 9.The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the following facts have been established:1. The subject property provides no off-street parking on site, but is located near public parking lots.O’Reilly’s Public House will replace the former Walter’s Restaurant in the same location, whichwas granted a variance for 23 parking spots, Ordinance 82-22 under the old Zoning Ordinance.Without the variance, the applicants will not be able to open their restaurant.Therefore, the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unduehardship.2. Strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would require 26 off-street parking spaces. Theapplicant would be unable to open a restaurant at this location without a variance. Any businessopening in this location would have similar parking issues.Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.3. The subject property is zoned the B-4 Uptown Business District, Uptown Core Subdistrict. Theproperty adjoins similar business districts and R-2 Single Family District on Third Street. It wasdetermined that traffic generated by this use does not make a significant impact on thesurrounding area.Therefore, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.The Board recommends approval of the variance to the City Council on the terms and conditions set forthin the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 2010.Gary Zimmerman, ChairmanDate Approved8

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 26, 2010ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSOF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOISIn the matter of ) Case No. V-10-08)Harriet and John Harty )FINDING OF FACTThis matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of Harrietand John Harty for a variance at 1112 South Rose Avenue, Case Number V-10-08, to allow anaddition to encroach 1.75 feet into the required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, as required bySection 7.3, Table 3The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the following facts have been established:1. The subject property encroaches into the existing required rear yard setback and has a 64-footfront setback including easement for roads.Therefore, the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unduehardship.2. The subject property was built prior to the enactment of the current Zoning Ordinance. Theapplicant did not cause the hardship with the existing house. Without the variance, it would bedifficult for the applicants to add onto their house.Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.3. The subject property contains a single-family residence and the addition to the house would enhancethe neighboring area.Therefore, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.The Board recommends approval of the variance to the City Council on the terms and conditions set forthin the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 2010.Gary Zimmerman, ChairmanDate Approved9

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 26, 2010ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSOF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOISIn the matter of ) Case No. V-10-08)Harriet and John Harty )FINDING OF FACTThis matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of Harrietand John Harty for a variance at 1112 South Rose Avenue, Case Number V-10-08, to allow anaddition to encroach 23.17 feet into the required rear yard setback of 40 feet, as required by Section7.3, Table 3.The Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the following facts have been established:1. The subject property encroaches into the existing required rear yard setback and has a 64-footfront setback including easement for roads.Therefore, the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unduehardship.2. The subject property was built prior to the enactment of the current Zoning Ordinance. Theapplicant did not cause the hardship with the existing house. Without the variance, it would bedifficult for the applicants to add onto their house.Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.3. The subject property contains a single-family residence and the addition to the house would enhancethe neighboring area.Therefore, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.The Board recommends approval of the variance to the City Council on the terms and conditions set forthin the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 2010.Gary Zimmerman, ChairmanDate Approved10