agenda cover memorandum meeting date: … cover memorandum meeting date: november 19, 2012 ... a...

$: Agenda Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: … Cover Memorandum Meeting Date: November 19, 2012 ... A HIGH QL;AlXfY OF LIFE, ... Pls~re: Staten\ent,. ~-the$
Agenda Cover Memorandum

Meeting Date: November 19, 2012

Item Title: First Reading of an Ordinance for a Variance to Allow a Fence in the Front Yard at 2045 Farrell Avenue- Case Number: V-12-09

Action Requested:

~ Approval

D For discussion

D Feedback requested

D For your information

Staff Contact: James F. Testin, CP&D Director

Phone Number: 847-318-5296

Email Address: jtestin@parkridge. us

Background: Michelle Braccioforte, applicant and owner, requests a variance to allow the construction of a four-foot

high, traditional spaced picket fence in the front yard, which is prohibited by Section 11.4.E.2.a. That Section prohibits fences in the front yard, no matter what the height or material. The property in question

is a corner lot with the narrowest portion of the property being along Marcus Court East.

The zoning ordinance identifies the front yard, on a corner lot, is the narrower of the two frontages. By

code, the front yard for the subject site is along Marcus Court East and the area along Farrell Avenue is

considered a corner side yard. The home faces Farrell Avenue.

Fences are allowed in the corner side yard but not in the front yard. The attached map shows the area

that is allowed for a fence and the area the applicant proposes for a fence.

The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the variance, which was opened on October 25, 2012 and continued at the November 8, 2012 meeting. The continuance was to allow the applicant place

stakes on the property and submit a plat of survey showing the location of the proposed fence. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended City Council approval of the variance 4 to 3 with the condition

that no fence be constructed on Ferrell Avenue.

Recommendation: Move to approve Case Number V-12-09 (Major Variance) at 2045 Farrell Avenue, a 4' high, traditional spaced open fence with the condition that no fence be constructed on Ferrell Avenue.

Budget Implications:

Does Action Require an Expenditure of Funds: D Yes

If Yes, Total Cost:

If Yes, is this a Budgeted Item: DYes

If Budgeted, Budget Code (Fund, Dept, Object)

Attachments:

Rev 04118112

~No

0No

Agenda Cover Memorandum (Cont.)

• Draft Ordinance • Map showing proposed and allowed fencing • Staff Memorandum and application packet • October 25 and November 8, 2012 ZBA minutes

•

Page 2 of 2

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE GRANTING A VARIANCE

For 2045 Farrell Avenue

..

WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Park Ridge received an application for a

zoning variance, Zoning Case Number V-12-09, on property hereinafter described; and

WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City

of Park Ridge, held a public hearing on October 25 and November 8, 2012, to consider the application for

a variance; and

WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has made findings of fact in support of granting the

variance and recommended to the City Council of the City of Park Ridge that the variance be granted.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Park Ridge as

follows:

Section 1: The Mayor and the City Council approve and adopt the findings and recommendations

of the Zoning Board of Appeals and incorporate such findings and recommendations herein by reference

as if they were fully set forth herein.

Section 2: A variance is hereby granted to Section 11.4.E.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance of the City

of Park Ridge for the following described property:

LOT 125 (EXCEPT THE SOUTH 10 FEET THEREOF) IN SMITH AND HILL'S PARK RIDGE MANOR

UNIT NO. 2, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE SOUTH 1h OF THE NORTHEAST \.4 AND THE

SOUTH EAST \.4 OF THE NORTHWEST \.4 (EXCEPT THE WEST 217 FEET MEASURED ON THE

NORTH AND SOUTH LINE THEREOF) IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST

OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

Permanent Index Number: 09-22-201-054-0000

The property is otherwise known as: 2045 Farrell Avenue, Park Ridge, IL 60068

To allow a four-foot high, traditional picket fence to be constructed in the front yard, which is

prohibited by Section 11.4.E.2.a, at 2045 Farrell Avenue, Case Number V-12-09, with the

condition that no fence be constructed on Ferrell Avenue.

Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and

publication according to law.

Section 4: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish said Ordinance in pamphlet

form according to law.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Park Ridge, Illinois, this __ day of_, A.D. 2012.

VOTE:

Attest:

City Clerk

AYES __ _ NAYS __ _

ABSENT __ _ Approved by me this __ day of __________ ,A.D. 2012.

Mayor

\- f\1-L-C}WtjiJ "' depressed c:urb

f~LL - OHW---- OHII OHII ~HII . -JL ' v ]30"' 130.00" 1 " , ,~ , , ,L, , r-···-··---, 1

,-----------.-- "j\ .uk(WJ \ ' ' ' ' '09.9' I "- ' .0 ) I _3'.... I

3 ~ ~ v

~ c

~ \\> ~ ---\

DOCUMENT 14148903 RECORDED 09/19/1947 ~ ~ol\cf~ 11 I "..:. ,..; "i:

"

I I I I I I I I I

PART OF LOT 125/1/ 9,943 SQ.FT.

.!

I I ., b !i ..

I· ~-~'-----T ... ·:---..... .

w §

" z

~---~~~----··~-~~-·-·--_....·~·1!-g

• ~~ ,L!!I'o ; ~~ ... W lw ~~~.

EXHIBIT ... ~ l 11\~\~v

••-4ft'lii!"I~W.o.~l."St"'JQM;:;,.., .. !i!IUI..-t\~Jiii\1M:?t~...,MJ~~ n C'.

30' BUILDING LINE

'B1a a.{o~ -k.. toYS" fa.rr(l( ~

f (}.-{~ PJ ~ ':fl.,

'~---~ ...... -· I •0-

<(

{i I w >-,... :J

I F ::>

"'

-..11 I

\.

'""

! .! li " 0 ..

•

12·

•

) ./' ;:;r

•

• '

DEPARTMENT OF COJ\.fMUNIT'i PRESERVA TlON AND DEVELOPMENT

Date: October 25, 2012

To: Zoning Board of Appeals

From: Thomas Hoff, Zoning Coordinator

Subject: 2045 Farrell Avenue Case Number: V-12-09 (Major Variance)

Introduction

' •

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

Michelle Braccioforte, appliCant and owner, requests a variance to allow the construction of a four-foot high, traditional spaced picket fence in the front yard that is prohibited by Section 11.4.E.2.a.

The property is currently occupied by a single family residence and is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Single family residences are located adjacent to the property to the west, east and south. Maine East is located on the north side of Farrell Avenue, the comer side yard side of the subject property.

Notification requirements for this application have been satisfied. A legal notice for the public hearing was published in the Park Ridge Journal Topics, a sign was posted on the property and neighboring property pccupants were notified about the public hearing.

Staff Analysis ,~;·

The variance would allow a four-foot high, picket fence to be constructed in the front yard. Section 11.4.E.2.a prohibits fences in the front yard. no matter what the height or material. The property is a comer lot with the narrowest portion of the property being along Marcus Court East.

Board Action

If the Board decides to act favorably on the variance, the proposed motion would be as follows:

Recommend City Council approval of a variance to allow a four-foot high, traditional picket fence to be constructed in the front yard, which is prohibited by Section 11.4.E.2.a, at 2045 Farrell Avenue, Case Number V -12-09.

OUR MISSION: THE CITY OF PARK RlllGE' IS COMMriTED TO PROVIDING EXC'ELLHNC'E IN CITY SERVICES IN ORDER TO UI'HOLD A HIGH QL;AlXfY OF LIFE, SO OUR C'OMMUNIT\' RE~·MINS A WONDERFUL I'LAC'E TO LIVE AND WORK.

•

' '

NUMBER

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

EXHIBIT

Application

'

2045 Farrell Avenue Case Number V -12-09

Park Ridge, Illinois

MAJOR VARIANCE

Statement in Support of Requested Variance

Proof of Ownership

Disclosure Statement

'

October 25,2012

Site Location Map and List of Neighboring Property Owners a. Site Location Map b. List ofNeighboring Property Owners

Plat of Survey dated June 14, 2010

Site Plan/Detailed Proposed Plans a. Examples of 4' High Traditional Spaced Picket Fence b. Proposal with site layout

Resident Letter

City's Affidavit of Mailing

Applicant's Affidavit of Mailing

Legal Notice Published in the Park Ridge Journal Topics, dated September 6, 2012

Posting of Zoning Hearing Sign

•

' ' '

· ea~e-~~~,~~ . .- :~ ~ · Y~;L2. .. -~: Q~.-.. : ... · ._ .. · .. ·,.,. ;:_·_~, .-t~-~j varia~~~.'(~~~~~>.- · ... ,. ~~- · ·- ·:· ~~--~ . ~ ~- :- . . . - . . . .. ~ . . . ... : . .... . : : : .. -:: : . ;..~.'- '. "" -: . .... . . . . . . .. ~- . -·. .. . . ·- .

a Administratiye . · ... · ·:·· .·. ·. · ·, .. ' ,. ·. . ·--~··.:;_,; .. : ~-:~J:: : : :, ~-, ... ~- .. :.··,::-.:: ... : ~. . . ' :~~~ .. ": ... -.··: ;;;J''t~f/_::: -~~~~----~--:.: .. · ... :_~-- ·._ -:~: :·:~:: .. ·~~- .':· :.·<._.··. i">· ·: .. _.:. SubJe..ct-P.m~Jnfonnafion:·· ·. - · :, -.· ,· · ·. · · ~ · · .. ·.-·. · · · · ..-:. :.-·· ···-:;.,.:- ·· · =···"'-' '<... ·· · .. Addr~s: '.:{Q.Ht; --~E<i\r-;e;\,~:- ·f!;~---.. · · :_ .... _-_ .. _. __ ;·: ·-~~~~~:,ri~$~J::~::;: .. _: .. ~-~J<~;,~~--:·:·· _··./ ·

, t.eQat,~lkln ~ca:.'ana~ ~~~J: .·· o~e ~ s-tD~ , si:~gi0~h/(~ '_, , > .... · · ·A1~.b~.)_..:~<··.-· -/-1·.<~---;,_ .. ~-=~·~ ·>.~:\;,~·- .. --:---·· ·. -~<. :~ ·;·~:---.~~ :~~<;,:_,.::::.:: .... ·_.-.--:~\:>·:<~:-<:·.;:{;~-~:~~-->: .. ~!·:~:~,;::;;:.:::.·. = ·

• • 0 •• :~-. • - • • •• : 0 .. ~- .. ;. • • - •

' • 'o• I . ~-.· •• - ••••• ~;.,•._;,,• •• •', ,\,, ... ' ' .• :,~.:,0!:0•:': .. ,.• • ' • '1. • :. ...... -·t('~J- :· . . . . _. ... ~ ~

• ... ·. . . ':,.. ' ;· . ·-"'· _: ·=.: . _--, .-~ · .

• - j? ..• ,. : : ••. • .• ·.~£ ~ ' . . . . . .. . ~ ..

' . . · . . -:.-.. ... .. : ·~ .:) -~:. ........ \ . ·. .

. ': . . . : . ·~ ~· .. . ~ .. .• - .... · · .. : · .. · .. · ;. ;- · ... · ... ··: ·. ;.;. . :r.-:.~--,:r~~-i:;,. ""J.{·-· .. :-:.'.· . • --:-·. .. . ' '? ~. . . ... . . . :: :· . ... -j.::t-.-.= -:·;-:. ~- .· · ... ·---.· : • '-:=..; .:·. - . ~· ... ·• ,; .-.- ,:_ -. ·- -· • .. ·i . .- ..... _;: •. : __ ;.,. .... ?· .... :~. : .... : •• ~·.-.!: ..... :,. ~-- .. .': ·. . . .. . . . . !;"'.· ---~·- ·.~ .. ;:.~ .. ~·:~.::~· ~- . .:;,_: i.:· _ . ._ .· ~-~ ..[·. (: .. _. .. . · . -:~~-. srimmt.&·l:ff·PrC>pj)sed.zohin!f\laihi~-:o·eter·tcH~eetidri 4:4.eftfie:~n--~-'d'M~i:\~}: ·.· · ·"i>"· ~,-:; :-·~- · · · . · ::J}j~ ;±he. ~d/li~ d£.·~~&1\fe';f>~;~tte&td~~/~ckr.\ · . . ,k;' .\?!~ ':}h/ Sfm,;-:::Of-~h< b~e I .i:kifl;:~~n§ ;~~;·iJh se:o+;;y·, . -

. _l·b-H -G-.;~l~.:.a.,.:·t* f,be ___ 1J>\a.t.nj··Q(ot.ln,a.n~.· -w~_.tcJn .. s+a-k-~.-.·#a;:~7

-·te \'1t t'S etr e::. · ?'"0~ -do iA·e .. d ;· l_Y\ +h :c__ -~ ~ · \.j q..;rcA . · " .. ~ . . 't·~-.~.;,.....:......;..._...:·~:;::.;_.::.....:;§~:...;...;;;ii~~ ... l. - ,-~-·~-~~~~- ... ·· . -'_.·. . ; .. :·· ~-- ·:;. --~ . ·. _: · .. ~~- .· ·_· .. ···. . .... _'. . ·:·.· .

~L~.~ ~AA~HIBITfiqlq!J-~ ::~OfApPfl:cant ~ ·.·· r:x 3te_ :

'

• • • •

. · r

Minimum Firtng·Re.qui~nts

lhe~lion~be-~~-in ~~-~~ins~ 3.2 oflheZooi~-anfmt\cea~ Sec6Qn4.4 · ~Variances. The SP,Piica~-must be~ by~ follo.win9, unless specifically waived·by·the Zoning Administrator. ·

., ~pli~tion. ~all ~-inf~tion a~~ ~te ~ture(s). . . .

"'- Statemenl ~a ~t~ in~ with sedion 4.6 of the Zoning Ord"mance, that contains the foD~.. . · . ~ ~-Of·lhe speclfic vanance reqUest. including ~ specific section of the Zooing Ordioa;nce and· the ,spedfic

modificati.on !>( l1linimum requirements of the Zoning Onlinante Wblch woutd be necessary to pennillhe. proposed use or construction; . . . . ·

b. ~ particlllar reQWements of the Zonln9 ~which prevent lhe proposed'use or construetion; · c. The charad~ ~the sufJied propEirtY ~prevent-~ with the requiremen(s.of the Zoning Onf&Oance;

. · · d A response to Sec::tion 4.4.E.1 stating that no Vadance from the prQVisions of this ~ shaft·& ~¢ unless -~ Zoning Admini~tor. Zona:-9 Board of Appeals andlor the City Counci make· spOOific writt~ ~-of faCt

The strict ~tion.~9f'!the legns.u INs Zoning Ordinance 'Will result in undue hardship; • The prl9flt of:lhe Ownei- is due. to unique CircUmstances: and ..

. . .•.

based difecU1 on the $tandards ancJ conditions Imposed by this section, 'YAlk:h are ~s foil. • -

. 1 • The variance;· If granted. will not alter the essential d\aracter of the ~lily.. .. . . · .

. ·, P~-~ ~e~lp.· ~to the-subj~_property·or propertiesr ~ of a~~ ce.tificate ~ ~e · . ~-~~_(photoCopy). ~ ~ ~-~ I_'Ot ~owner,~ .$1Qne;d &tatement by the owner must be.submitted· · .. · .. ·

- .""".;.7 .. v~oftheappication.· · · . . ' · . · ·

4.· Pls~re:Staten\ent,. ~-the applicatic?C:' ·Js a maJor variance, complete this statemenf.located in the~ of.tfio· _. ·Zoning Otdinanoe or Artide 2. Chapter 24 Of tlie Municipal Code. . '- . · · .

. . : . . ... y5:-. SHe~ Map~ Drawf. to scale and show the land·use and zoc'ing designation of an properties within-~--feet.of.U\0 :, · ---:~·

. subject property: / . . . . . . . . , : 6.' ~-.o:rS.u~Y··-"0-.e,Piat ~be to liCale: Show-ail paree1s or Jots·('#t'hether in vdlole or in.part) ~~sUb)~:.

· .. · _·,pcq>erty>;lle ~dimensions ofthe'parccl{$) and aa:e:icisfing structures. · .. :·· . ~

. i . Plafts 311)<1 ~ocuments •. Submit the ~Ptans and documents.~ appr.eable: . . ... . . . a. ~ plan._ The. p1an ~be drawn to -scale. dlO'N~ ~ ·sulJied property and 9f8Phicaly 11~ the proposed

. va~ request. . . . . . . . .

~· ·Bulldi!'g.EieVafiot\$ aNt ~-Plan~. ShoW-the genemt 8l'chitecturat char.icter and~ layout of all PfOPOSed: buildings. structures additions; . . .

· · :c.·· Ofk~ farldng :~ ~ng: F~dnueS Pia(\.· Show the location. quantitY and dimensionS ~ alt· parkin~f.~ · ... · - · ·. ·. · · locdng facifdies.1n-acooc:da.noo with~ 12; and ·. .. · ' · · · -d. T.raffic Citcul;ltlon. and Ge~OC)- .$tudy. When cllanges are ~ in the ~ of ~ of ~ subi~

·.property,_.~--a:~ ~-·.by.'·a. qualified -professioqal· indicating Ute impact of_ the proposed ~nance on·. , ·.'existing lraftic patterns, ~-c:ircdation patterns, Bnd.pOOestrian· a«<Oss and saf~. a~ . . . .

. e. ·Sign P-lans •. Submit plans for. aa ~ used fot'identification. ~ include ~ location. design and. d~ ·Of ... . - ea<:h~:iri~wfth-~14. . . . . .

.. · 8. · ~~ ~~remen~ -(SeCtion 3.3); For administrative ~. 111e applicant &haa ~ wiih ~ ~ti<Xi • requirements in SeCtion 3.3:3 tO send notices between 15 and 30 days prior to the Zoning AdministrafO(s decisiOn 0:0 the

· r \ ·case.· For minor~ m*.i v3riances requiring a-public hearing,' lhe-.applicant will prepare a~ notice to be_~~ 1n: \.. ;\ lhe ~-newspaper-~_·1~ .an~t~ :da)'sipc\Qrtl>:lhe.-~ring. ir.-~-v.ith~ 3.3-A. ~-subffiit·~.1?-·

!\(]'_ Jhe"City. ·The appliCant tihal. cOchply. Wi1h Section 3.3.8.1 and 2 and ~ a maled· notice to send "to all prq;erti~ \J. . ~ 250 feet' Of the suqe;cl property between 15 and 30 days priQf to the hearing, return ~ to ~unity -~and~ sos.BuUer::PiaQe, Padc. Ridge, Illinois 60068. "In an cases. the.~ shalt prc>vide a list

· of piOperty Owners to receive the notice to the Zoning Administratpr at least five days priOr tO lhe ~ Mmlnistrator ~ iR adminisb';l~·varianoes orlhe-public,hea~. in the case~ a ~-or mai~:Varian<:e. _· . .

9. Posted Sign Noti~ (Section 3.3.C). For all variances, the ~Ot shaD ~ a _sign ~ by the Cit¥) on-~ subject property .for ~ 15 and 30 -days prior to the Zoning Adminislratoc"s decision. irf the case ~an ~ti~_ 1;

variance, and between 15-and 30 days prior to a~ hearing, in'the cs:se· of a minor or'majot variance~

· 10. Fee. A check. payable to the City of Part< Ridge shall accomPanY each apprecation. . p ·$1~10-~(~109~~~): . .

· 11~ ~es. submit~ original ~tion (with ·t:he ~ signature-) and an supporting documents •. along ¥lith ·1 COVf 0!· . e3ch item submitted widllhe appfK:ation.. AR documents must be on 8..5"' x 11• or 11·. x 1T paper. except whef'e specified · by the Zoning Administrator. ·

Revised 2-15-08

•

••• 'L •\:

' ' •

September 10, 2012

Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,

I write to you today to request a variance to Section 11.4.E.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance which

states that fences are prohibited in the front yard. Before you stop and think to yourself that

no exception can be made to this ordinance, I would like to further explain my situation.

My husband and I purchased our home at 2045 Farrell Ave a little over two years ago, in June of

2010. As you can see, it is a simple, ranch home on a corner lot, located across the street from

Maine East High School, Messiah Lutheran Church and Lutheran General Hospital (Figures 1

and 2). Furthermore, our home is located in 'The Manor', which used to be unincorporated Park

Ridge. This area was annexed to the City of Park Ridge in 1993. One of the unique features of

The Manor is the fact that there are essentially no sidewalks in the neighborhood. Furthermore,

many of the original, smaller homes such as mine, have been torn down and replaced with large,

new-construction homes.

EXHIBIT #d-

•

• • • •

..

Figure 1

• . '

• • •

We have two little boys, ages 19 months and 3 Y2 years. As all children do, they love to run

around outside and play with their outdoor toys. Unfortunately, we have a very small, narrow

backyard (Figure 3).

Our original thought was that that the kids could play out in the front yard, or on the side of the

house, or even on the practice fields across the street at the high school. Our realtor misinformed

us in saying that the fields were rarely used but for one annual soccer tournament. However,

over the last two years, we realized that the back yard is too small for the kids. Yes, we were

aware of this when we purchased the house. What we did not realize at the time was just how

busy Farrell A venue is.

During this time, I have learned that Farrell Ave is not the quiet side street I once thought it to

be. It is obvious that many motorists use Farrell Ave as way to bypass traffic on Dempster St.

Furthermore, there is a large amount of young student drivers speeding down Farrell Ave to and

•

• • •

from Maine East High School, which is located across the street. Finally, a significant number

of employees at Lutheran General Hospital, which is also across the street from my home, use

Farrell Ave to get to and from work. Another very important thing to note is that there are NO

sidewalks along the homes on Farrell Ave, so in order to go to the park and such, we need to

walk ON Farrell or at least CROSS it; there is no way to avoid this. Not only do all of these

factors contribute to a large number of cars passing in front of my home on a daily basis, but it

increases the amount of careless drivers who do not follow the speed limit. It always makes me

nervous pushing a double stroller with the speeding cars. One can argue that there are currently

STOP signs on the comer of Dee Rd and Farrell Ave, as well as Vernon Ave and Farrell Ave,

however, irresponsible motorists still use the distance in between these STOP signs to gain a

LOT of speed.

What we thought was a quiet neighborhood street where the kids could play in front of the house

has turned into a dangerous situation. The speeds at which some motorists drive down Farrell

Ave is downright scary! We are afraid to let the kids run around the front or side yard.

Furthermore, we realize the soccer fields in front of our home are in constant use for high school

football practice, cross country meets, little league tournaments, annual fireworks and more. I

always keep a close eye on my children, but I fear that they will be hit by a speeding car one day.

My next door neighbor has small children as well, in addition to many other residents in the

neighborhood.

This is the background for why I am here today. We are on a large comer lot, but are confined to

a tiny 'strip' of land which I referred to as my back yard. I thought perhaps it would help our

situation and give our kids a little more room to play if we fenced in a small area on the side of

our home, much like I have seen around my neighborhood (Figures 4-8):

'

s

' ' ' '

' '

This hom.e oiHhe corner of Vernon Ave and DeCook Ave is aiso a comerlot,. but they bave

a fence onthe.side of the!r home, Where it is considered

to betheirfrontyard. This was . installe.d prior to annexation to

Park Ridge. My proposal is similar to this.

'

Another neighbor with ·'front' yard fence on corner Jot

• '

..

Another nelghborwith 'front' yard fence~on corner lot

When I applied for a permit to install a fence, I was told that what I considered to be my front

yard (facing Farrell Ave) was in fact, NOT my front yard-that what I considered my side yard

(facing E. Marcus Ct) was in fact my front yard. I thought, 'how can this be?' My address is

2045 Farrell Ave, not E. Marcus Ct. My front door faces Farrell Ave, as well as my driveway,

my mailbox, the address number on my front door, the entire home itself all face Farrell Ave.

The staff member informed me that while this is all true, the side of my home that faces E.

Marcus Ct is the more narrow portion of the lot, therefore, it is considered my front yard. It was

suggested that I install a fence around my entire home, everywhere except the side that faces E.

Marcus Ct. To me, that did not make any sense. I believe that goes against what the ordinance

was trying to prevent in the first place, which is homes from installing fences in the front of their

homes in order to keep the neighborhood more aesthetically pleasing. If I were to install a fence

around what everyone would consider to be the front of my home, it would definitely be

unattractive. Technically speaking, yes, the part of my lot facing E. Marcus Ct is the front yard,

but practically speaking, the side of my home where I enter through my front door and greet

friends and family is my front yard. In fact, I have noticed that the 'new construction' homes on

corner lots in my neighborhood have all turned their homes to face away from Farrell Ave, for

this very reason. Unfortunately, I am not financially able to 'turn' my home or to build new

construction.

Because of this, I believe I have a unique situation in that my house is situated on a comer lot on

a very busy street. For me to put a small fence on the side of my home, only up to where the

structure ends, surrounded by nice landscaping would have no negative effect on the aesthetics

of the neighborhood (Figures 9-13).

Figure 9

. ··••··· ...... ··

.... ----·.

q

Figure 11

\D

l\

In fact, when I see people purchase homes that are adjacent to their existing homes, then go on to

demolish that home and make the lot a part of their backyard, leaving a fence between two lots

on the other side, I believe that is more aesthetically damaging to the neighborhood than any

fence I am proposing to install (Figure 14-16).

\~

1

\3

Summary:

A. Description of the specific variance request, including the specific section of the Zoning Ordinance and the

specific modification requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which would be necessary to permit the

proposed use or construction

I am requesting a variance to Section 11.4.E.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance which states that

fences are prohibited in the front yard. I would like it to be modified to allow those on comer

lots whose homes do not face the narrow part of the lot to be able to install a fence on which the

resident considers to be the side of their home.

B. The particular requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which prevent the proposed use or construction

The Zoning Ordinance considers the more narrow portion of my lot to be my front yard (E.

Marcus Ct). However, since my home is positioned so that it faces Farrell Ave, I consider

Farrell Ave to be my front yard.

C. A response to section 4.4.E.l stating that no variance from the provisions of this ordinance shall be

granted unless the Zoning Administrator, Zoning Board of Appeals and/or the City Council make specific

written findings of fact based directly on the standards and conditions imposed by this section, which are

as follows: a. the strict application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance will result in undue hardship

As I mentioned, with two young children, heavy traffic along Farrell Ave making the front of my

home too dangerous for play, lack of sidewalks and the fields being used by the school, I have

limited space in which my children can safely and privately play outdoors.

b. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances

I believe that the older ranch style homes which are positioned on comer lots in The Manor are

unique in having to follow this restriction. Furthermore, my comer lot is not located along the

more quiet residential side streets, but rather along Farrell Ave, which is one of the busier streets

in the City of Park Ridge. Additionally, my home is one of the 3, out of a total of 18 homes, on

Farrell Ave, between Potter Rd and Vernon Ave, that are on comer lots with front doors facing

Farrell Ave (Figure 17).

c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

The fence would be in good taste, low, traditional spaced with landscaping around it.

Furthermore, there are many homes in the neighborhood that already have fences on what the

ordinance would consider their front yards. These 'front yard' fences were installed prior to my

neighborhood's annexation to the City of Park Ridge. I believe that I have demonstrated that the

existing front yard fences do not alter the character of the neighborhood in a negative way.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Braccioforte

84 7-769-6424

•

Q/up"'*l-~

WARRANTY DEED ILLINOIS STATUTORY

Cool: 1019633089 FH: $40.00 Eugene •aene• Moore AHSP Fee:$10.00 cook County Aeoorder of Oeedl Date: 07/1,./2010 02:27PM Pg: 1 ol3

THE GRANTOR(S), John R. Thomas Company, of the ViUage of Niles, County of Cook, State of Illinois for and in consideration ofTEN & 00/100 DOLLARS, and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid, CONVEY(S) and Wammt(s) to Michelle Braccioforte and Antonio Braccioforte, Tenants by the entirety, H .... l.J ..J .;.(.'«

(GRANTEE'S ADDRESS) 1162 Northbury Lane, Wheeling, illinois 60090 of the County of Cook, all interest in the following described Real Estate situated in the County of Cook in the State of Dlinois, to wit:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATIACHED

SUBJECT TO: general taxes for the year 2009 and subsequent years including taxes which may

accrue by reason of new or additional improvements during the year(s)

hereby releasing and waiving all rights under and by virtue of the Homestead Exemption Laws of

the State of Illinois. / .

Pennanent Real Estate Index Number(s): 09-22-201.:.054-0000/ Address(es) of Real Estate: 2045 FlllTCll Avenue, Park Ridge, illinois 60068

Dated this '2'l.~ day of_/."'!.( ..::'l.l.:..:"'":::.~.:.... ___ _,_·-=-z..=-"::.......:.\.=.\:J

s '/ p } s J SC_J_

EXHIBIT #3 80l333-I:IJT f-

Public Record

Order: Non-Order Search Doc: 1019533099 Page 1 of3 Created By: dstaben Printed: 9/24/2012 9:19:12 AM CST

10195330990 Page: 2 of3

STATE OF ll..LINOIS, COUNTY OF COOK ss.

I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, CERTIFY

THAT John R. Thomas, personally known to me to be the same person(s) whose name(s) is

subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day in person, and acknowledged

that he signed, sealed and delivered the said instrument as his free and voluntary act, for the uses

and purposes therein set forth, including the release and waiver of the right of homestead.

Given under my hand and official seal, this "Z 't ~ \ day of ............ Q.... ,7-0'-0

Prepared By: Paul A. Kolpak

MaUTo:

6767 N. Milwaukee Avenue Niles, lllinois 60714

Mieholle Bnwiofuxte Wid AiitoriTO BNcciuforle 2045 Fmrcll Aveuue Pult-Ridsc, Uliaais 69968

Nt~~~~e & Address ofT~~Xp~~yer: Michelle Braccioforte and Antonio Braccioforte 2045 Farrell Avenue Park Ridge, Illinois 60068

~ lA It: Ut- IU.INUI~

'~ JU~-1.10 I REI'ILESTATE TRIWSFEHTA)C

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX

00390,00

FP103032

Public Record

"OFFICIAL SEAL" JoAnne Stanlalawakl

NOTARY PUBUC, STAll OF ILLINOIS t1V COMMISSION EXPIRES 4/25/201Z

,/.!!3 ,. ,.. . ' : ~ t1

Order: Non-Qrder Search . Doc: 1019533099 Page 2 of3 Created By: dstaben Printed: 9/24/2012 9:19:12 AM csr

.. 10195330990 Page: 3 of 3 ..

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

ORDER.NUMBER: 1409 NW7100536 SK

STREET ADDRESS: 2045 FARRBLL AVB CITY: PARK RIDGB COUNTY: COOK TAXNlJMBEll: 09-22-201-054-0000

LEGAL DESClUPTION:

LOT 125 (BXCBPT THB SOUTH 10 PBBT THBRBOP) IN SMITH MD HILL'S PAR1t RIDGB MANOR

UNIT NO. 2, BEING A SUBDIVISION OP THB SOUTH 1/2 OP THB NORTHDST 1/4 AND THB

SOUTH BAST 1/4 OF THB NORTHWBS'l' 1/4 (BXCBPT THB WBS'l' 217 PBBT MBASURBD ON THB

NORTH AND SOtml LlNB 'rHBRBOP) IN SBC'l'ION 22, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGB 12 BAST OP

THB THIRD PRINCIPAL MBRID~, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

U!OALD 06/7A/10

. E Order: Non-order Search Doc: 1019533099 Page 3 of 3 Created By: dstaben Printed: 9/24/2012 9:19:12 AM CST

.. ..

. - .

SECTION-2-24-lDISCLOSURE STATEMENT ·, -.

Name of Applicant f'l) i vb e ll e... 'B (a_ LC l ofo ( t-e-Subject Property Information: 1

. Address: 2-0 Y 5 Vet r r e-h A-iu__

.PJ.N·--~----------~--~----

- ----N~~~d business ~dress of any_ and all current holders ·of.legal ~r ~nefi~ial title to the Subject

PropenJ\ (attach.~ddttlona~ sheets ~frux:essary): A-n±no, 0 ~nx.U.! o:fuvi-L

-- - ·--------------~~------~------~~--------~~------~~---

. · : · ·r _.. Ifth~re.js. a, ~di!)g.~~tract for the Sale of the S~bject ProPertY, list the purchasing party's name:

. - · . N/A . · .. · · · .. ... • .... :. ·: ' '

• • • 't

LiSt any en~ities p~r than ·a natUral person .that hold legal or benefic~ titl~ ·and· that have a ·

.. -\ -. _-·great:er ~ 3% inler~ in ·the entity; ------------------___,o-----------1 .

. . ·· .· -:For·each entitY l!sted:above,list every director, officer ~d manager of.~ entity:------

--·- . _______ ---.: ___________ ~-----'----------__:.-~-~-------.. :F~r:each entity .list~ above that is a-limited partn~ or limited llab~ity company, list the .

· ·_· .· :-name of every t~ited o~ ge~eralpartne~:-or member:------------_._ __

.... For ~h limited P~~- ot-generat~er that is a Co~porate·enut:Y,tist the name of every ~rson -~-who holds a ~er than~% in~erest·in th~ coq>Orati.osi: · · · ·

. . .. . . •:'

-· -I aclai.~-,vl~g~ that I have. ~4 -~nd -un1J:e.:S~nd the·requifeme~ts of.A.rtiele l~ Chapter 14

of the Park Ridge Municipal Cocte ("Code"). I unde~d ·~ as-1he ··applicant, l..am

·J:,eqUired to ~P~ aU of the ~~ormatiop, on this· form .current and updated until fl:le Ciq

Couen·ta~tes final action. on mr request. I also underStand that if I fail to complY with

this requ~~ent, the City C.oaneil may d~re th.e ae~n it haS takin with resped:· to ~y ...

i"eCJ'!«?St JlaU· aod void. IIi ~!1-di~o~," the City ~oun$ may direet the initia~on- of legal ~dion.

for a viola~p, of the C~~ and may seek the penal~es set forth • ·S.ecti.on 2-24-4 of the

' . Code, mcluding daily monetalj fin~ ; .

. l·nn~erstal'ld that this.disd.os.ute:·statemeiit w~ b.e open-for pubU~ ~pection.and w~l be

. . posted .011; tlie ~·s websi\e prior to any m~ting when my r~~~t -,rill be~eted upo~ .

· I u~de~tand that ir the .Sabj~t'Property is ~~, transferred or if an agreen:tent is

entered .into t~ transfer ·any right, intereSt, or permit within ane year of the City Council's

rmal adio.n, there wiU be a rebuttable pr-esu~ption that the assignee or ttansferee h~d .

constru~tive control of the 'Subject· Propeny at the tiine of my applic:;ation.. ~e penalty

disc:usse<l above wUl be imposed for·any raiiute to disclose any S1leh·~ipee or tran~f~ree.,

I, the undersigned .appliea~t, hereby certify that' above statePlentS a~ true and ca-.:reei to the

.. ;~=~ .•. qJ.q\1~ Si[illrtU~ofApplica~ Date ·.

--~ ...... _. E HI

·.

•

·-

.. ~ ·- :_

<t)

~ City of Park Ridge

C-3•··

.. I

~;

s : • I

... ~.I ~ I ~! "i

~ I

.\: .I B-2 i i

0 60 100 200 e; 'Feet

C> 2012 Cl1y ol Pork Ridge. All RlgloiB R ... NOd.

,.. . , ........... , ... . : :Mt1 \ 2311 I Zl'l'l i 2MT

' I zm

L . ~ .. '! ·'·r

.. ! "" ;

I uatl I a,aD 23'tO i Uti [ 22&4 . . ....

!.

ZUJI I 23?1 \ ZIU ~ ~ 2!11?·\·~

i

·.1'" ..

/i

i ;

\! i .....

' ! ' !

I

I .. ·I

.. I ·R~1'

i ··\·

!

'·

§

§

'~1'. ... I I! . r - gj ' .,, : !!

! ihl '-

!

i'

I i-. . '

: ~ ., ...

'i

250 FT Buffer from

2045 Farrell Ave.

I

I H

I I.

'"'

, ...

20120921l_DRMMGP

..

..

9-J ~

~ City of Park Ridge

2205

a ...

~ ..-

N u; ..-

co c II>

A o 2s so 100 V P""""''iii*4 iFeet

0 2012 City of Park Rktge. All Rights Reserved.

C> N 10

C> u; ..-

\ ~ -r-~-I ~ I .-

.... ~

""

250 FT Buffer from

2045 Farrell Ave.

1964 i 1954

i -

\

1990

~

..

..

..

Address nu Street name Unit City State ZIP code PIN

1525 Marcus Ct W Park Ridge IL 60068 09-22-202-003-0000

1518 Vernon Ave Park Ridge IL 60068 09-22-201-033-0000

1522 Marcus Ct E Park Ridge IL 60068 09-22-202-008-0000

2155 Farrell Ave Park Ridge IL 60068 09-22-202-006-0000












1535 Marcus Ct W Park Ridge IL 60068 09-22-202-002-0000



2601 Dempster St Park Ridge IL 60068 09-22-101-001-0000

EXHIBIT Sb

l liO ; ..

PLAT OF SURVEY RESIDENcE

2045 FARRELL AVENUE PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS

..

MA~CUS COURT EAST H£RETI)Ftlfl£ DCDICAl!D 451' RIQ41'-0F'-WAY

alpfi~PQ'IW'IIInl

-

I

r

-----------. I • I ~

(@]CONSULTING, INC. -ACON &~ ~---

C:ONsuLnNo CML ENCit-t_. • I.ANO BUfWE'l'QI'tl .Kill~ aM: 1MI1.1CL u.- e• PM. IM'J) 21!-IIU I r-.r (117) ltit--1171

I'RtPAR[D 11M!~ 8lA.D[Ja IC. II',(:A,L[: , •• 10

l'lE\.0 OIOP.CCJ MD 'II)Ril:ot 1•;10 DIW1ID 11\"'..LH. CKCJCm 11'1':

II I ~ I c

:I I ~ I c

~ I I !i!

: I l

EXHIBIT 1/lfl

..

I " ! 1' <

I I eJ tp •:U

!o;::,:z ~c. S.!tJ

H ~ ~ d ~ 1 q ~ ~ : B i

• •

• •

Illinois Iron Works illm~lllll~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m

'total CustDmer Satis/aaion

Customer All r c)../ :E." L.Lf flR 8 cc I q E-o 0;,.,..~ Addntu ~ 0 qs: f-7AI(O,~''- SV<i= City, fAR!(' R I OE? .. ~·- Zip ~<to Hom. I Z Ill·~ ?6''7- b <'lft,Y Woril.

Job Site

' •

SrooldiM, Pftol» (7011441~

FIIXVOf1447..,

OATB 10-J'Z -12

------------------------~~~ A~-----------------------------City, __________ St._ Zip -

Sltet

TOW . . ft. ~ · · • WOOd- I d ' ft. Iron-Alum ft. H a Colar ·"" IJ p

__ ..... ,,,,VAno••-·, o'O' ·--·~·- • ...·.,, wN#W-io' ··-·~"••••' .,...., ,..._, ...-.--· ...... •••9>••••---., -,..-c ... -• ,._ ____ w..:_~.._..,;...,. .. ,,,,,, •.• _, __ '"'

~ .. ___ ..._ ___ ... __ _ ';. . ~ . ~--~ ~··· ....

~~-----------=~~--~--~~·------~--llllnoitllrCtt ~ R'f)1'81Mtalt.le ~~e::...._-b-=:::::J!Jai• . .L..l.L:::L.£:t.:k-

. ·1.· .. :. '

. \:1: ;,..: .. :

rr. ~-~·

.......... t :

G. tg.l . ·t:_:··.·· V'4oj .. ; 1 J~

l I <

. . j .. ~- . . . .. ~ :

··~

.z "\"

)"',

1.1!:

t 1: \ ( i

\

. .. . ~

•• .. ·····-'i"' .. {

f.

..:...__...: ...

: ... ---·!

.......... , ....

.: ........ ~

--~ .....

:-

.. """"""i ......... : ........ .

-v ·u . m ~:

·\!j ·'· "t\~

·~:.

v \.!) h: {::)•

0-

.~-

.. ,, ....

............ : ....

.;; ..

... ....

..-~ .... - -+---

;

·•·•·• 1

' ;

...... .;'

.i..

, ...... ·.~.· w ' .

.......... ; .... -~ .. ,..., .. •· >t: ~·

.:.~~ \S H 0 -~ "'"' -.~"

:, """'"'";... ...

··r -·f··

.. . .Jo,: ..

*T . .J ........ .. •. ~; .. i .

""'1 :y!

0 ~-

l

. .•.. ,..; ·--=·-·"'"''

I -~ .. ~ ... , ..

b{lo .. ::

..

September 15, 2012

City of Park Ridge

Community Preservation and Development

505 Butler Place

Park Ridge, IL 60068

To the Zoning Board of Appeals:

My name is Leszek Synowiec and I live at 1539 E. Marcus Court in Park Ridge. I am the

neighbor directly south of Michelle and Antonio Braccioforte at 2045 Farrell Ave. We have

discussed at length their proposal of a fence on the side of their home that faces E. Marcus Ct.

My family and I fully support their desire for this fence. We have witnessed first-hand their

limited outdoor space and the hardship it causes while their children play outdoors along a very

busy Farrell Ave. We believe it is in their best interest to fence in their desired area facing E.

Marcus Ct. We have no objection to this fence and do not believe it will negatively affect the

character or aesthetics of our home or neighborhood.

Leszek Synoweic

1539 E. Marcus Ct

Park Ridge, IL

EXHIBIT#~


PARK RiDGE. IL 60068 TEL: 847 I 318-5200 FAX: 847/318-5300 TDD:847/ 318-5252

U RL: http://www .parkridge.us

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PRESER VAT! ON AND DEVEL0Pf'v1ENT

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Thursday, October 25,2012 City Council Chambers

505 Butler Place Park Ridge, Illinois

MINUTES

DRAFT COPY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Chairman Gary Zimmerman called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.

A.

B.

Roll Call

Present Staff Alice Borzym-Kuczynski Tom Hoff Atul Karkhanis Jim Testin Missy Langan Adrienne Dulkoski Steven Nadler Linda Nagle City Council Salvatore Parenti Alderman Rich DiPietro

Gary Zimmerman, Chairman

Others Present Approximately 20 citizens

Absent None

Approval of Minutes

It was moved by Missy Langan and seconded by Atul Karkhanis that the minutes of the

September 27, 2012, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting be approved. Alice Borzym-Kuczynski stated on page 2, second paragraph, the word "which is" should be before "2 feet", the words "the sign is proposed at" should be before "13' 11 "", the words "11 feet" should be before "higher

than permitted". The third proposed sign should be added. Linda Nagle stated on page 4, her

name was misspelled.

Our Missio11: THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE IS COMMI'ITF.D TO PROV\IllNG EXCELLENCE IN Cwr· SERVICES IN ORDER TO UPHOLD A HIGH QL!.'ILITI" OF LIFE,

SO 0l'R COMMUl-<ITY REMAINS A WONDERFUL PLACE TO I..IVE .'-''ID WORK.

ZBA Minutes October 25, 2012

Vote on the motion was as follows:

A YES 1 Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis, Langan, Nadler, Nagle, Parenti, and Zimmerman

NAY .Q None ABSTAIN Q None ABSENT .Q None

The minutes were approved as amended.

C. Zoning Appeals- None

D. Variances

1. Variance at 1 South Washington Avenue/ 225 West Touhy Avenue- Case Number: V-

12-07 (Major)

Chairman Zimmerman summarized the continued request for a major variance from the

applicant and owner, Park Ridge 2004 LLC, for the Whole Foods Market to be built at 1

South Washington Avenue and 225 West Touhy Avenue for three variances to Sections

14.6.F.2, 14.6.F.1 and 11.4.M.2 to the Zoning Ordinance for signs and a retaining wall. He

explained the public hearing process and swore in all those interested in testifying.

Terry Doyle, Doyle Signs, stated at last months meeting the Board requested color renderings

of the 3 elevations illustrating the signs in relation to the building and the color. The Exhibits

entered were Exhibit 1, 3 elevations, Exhibit 2, comparative sign and Exhibit 3, plat. Mr.

Doyle explained, in relationship to other grocery stores in Park Ridge, Exhibit 2 illustrates the

comparison between the two large grocery stores and the proposed Whole Foods. Jewel Osco

store front sign is 7feet 3 inches by 42 feet 6 inches occupying 328 square feet with a length

of 226 feet. The two secondary signs add another 40 square feet making the total storefront of

368 square feet. Whole Foods proposed a sign 300 square feet. Dominick's sign is 7 feet by

48 feet, with a logo of 57 square feet totaling 393 square feet. Dominick's has 4 secondary

signs of 98 square feet totaling 495 square feet of storefront sign area. He stated Whole Foods

is 60 percent of the Dominick's sign.

Mr. Doyle stated in relation to the building the architectures details were excellent, Whole

Foods went thru the approval process with the Appearance Commission. The proposed sign

was part of the original drawings presented at the Appearance Commission but was not part

of the approval process. A Zoning Board of Appeals approval is needed before going back to

the Appearance Commission.

In last months meeting the Board questioned the luminal output of the Whole Foods signs.

Mr. Doyle stated the sign face is 16 lumens per square feet. All three sign faces are identical

in luminal output. When moving 8 feet away from the sign the lumen output per square feet

drops to .22 of 1 lumen. He stated there is no light spill from these types of signs and would

not affect the parking lot in any way.

Atul Karkhanis asked Mr. Doyle if the exhibit presented this evening, Exhibit 3, Ll, the

bubble diagram showing the exposure of the sign to the property line, if the luminosity chart

2

•


was the final lighting study. Mr. Doyle replied the bubble only illustrated the lighting from

the parking lot.

Steven Nadler noted on Exhibit 3, L1, the numbers were small and difficult to read. Mr.

Nadler inquired what the typical lumen level would be on the outer reign of the bubble and if

it would comply with the building code. Bart Friedman was not able to read the numbers to

answer the question, but confirmed the lumen level would comply with the building code.

Randy Drueck, P.E., Cowhey Manhard, explained to the Board three reasons a retaining wall

is required. 1. Site plan. 2. Layout of the site. 3. Drainage and handicap accessibility slopes

(permissible slopes on streets and sidewalks). The site plan shows moving the sidewalk by

the main entrance south allows more room for the pedestrian's to safely enter and exit Whole

Foods. This will move the required pavement width farther south, narrowing down the corner

property line. Mr. Drueck noted this is the only area the property corner wall is 1.25 feet

north of the property line, not 50 feet of wall with 1.25 feet away from the property line. The

wall extensions further west and south are to meet grading code and will be 5 feet off the

property line.

Mr. Drueck noted the south medical building driveway slopes north towards the Whole Foods

site. Mr. Drueck explained the drainage needs to be intercepted and conveyed into a storm

sewer by creating a swale along the property line to catch the runoff water will help it go

towards the storm inlet that is 10 feet off the property corner. Chairman Zimmerman

inquired about the north inlet. Mr. Drueck replied the inlet is at the curb line of the road. One

is a manhole with an open lid and the other is a catch basin, they both collect water. A catch

basin is placed in grass ground where there is run off water.

Mr. Nadler asked if the sidewalk on the south in front of the store has changed from the

previous presentation. Mr. Drueck replied it did not. Mr. Nadler stated he request an existing

grading plan to help understand the justification for the retaining wall and asked Mr. Drueck

if there was a preexisting condition or if the building was elevated with the surrounding

parking.

Mr. Drueck explained how the old driveway entrance off of Washington Street had pavement

that came up to the south of the driveways with the asphalt separating the two driveways.

Existing guardrails keep the cars from going onto each other's driveway. At that time the

drainage pattern for the stand-alone building would flow east. Mr. Drueck stated they are

trying to keep the same original drainage pattern. The difference now is the building would

be at a higher elevation than the previous existing building on 225 W Touhy. There is not a

cross connection between the buildings. But with the Whole Foods, traffic needing to

circulate safely, a driveway will cross the old property line to service the new building and

come off the existing grade at Washington Street with a safe and reasonable slope.

Mr. Drueck explained the safe slopes on Exhibit 3. In order to hold the existing grade without

a wall with a safe ADA maximum slope of 2 percent creating a lower grade in front of the

building. This will cause a 10 percent slope at the main entrance of the building, which is not

allowed for pedestrians and vehicles. Mr. Drueck noted how a safe slope at the main

entrance of the property corner with a landscape retaining wall of 2 feet high and tapering to

zero at the ends. The front wall drainage would be maintained so the adjacent property would

not be impacted. Allowing the curb and pavement to be raised to the safe ADA of 2 percent

slope from handicap parking stales, sidewalks across the street and into the building. A 10

percent slope with a 44 foot entry would be very inaccessible and unsafe for the carts,

3


pedestrians, wheel chairs and in winter. Mr. Drueck noted a 2 foot landscape retaining wall

with a grade change featured in masonry block which would be aesthetically pleasing, a safe

grade transition with drainage occurring in front of the wall handling the run off water from

the adjacent property.

Mr. Karkhanis questioned if the applicant self-created a point in the design, by placing the

south wall in its location, reflecting an inadequate distance for the 2 percent slope. Mr.

Drueck replied the site plan was given to the engineer. Mr. Karkhanis asked if more distance

was give between the south wall and property wall would that be adequate. Mr. Drueck

responded it would.

Mr. Zimmerman clarified the discussion between the two applicants. To maintain the 2

percent grade, how far does the north of the building entrance need to be. Mr. Drueck replied

50 feet with no retaining wall. Mr. Nadler asked if the medical office building with the

existing grade at the same elevation seemed to work in the past, and now a retaining wall is

needed to solve a problem that was created by the design and not the site.

Mr. Drueck noted the finish grade around the medical building is roughly 659 on the

pavement edge; the doorway of the existing elevation at 225 W Touhy Avenue was 662

making it a 3 foot difference between the buildings. Whole Foods grade is 660.2. Mr. Nadler

asked if Whole Foods is a larger footprint than the existing building. Mr. Drueck replied it is

in length, the existing building was deeper.

The applicant entered Exhibit 4, a view of the old site with Whole Foods imposed on the top.

Mr. Nadler questioned if a variance was to be granted for the retaining wall, it would not

create a hardship and a problem for the existing property overtime. Mr. Nadler is concerned

with vehicular traffic forcing down towards the roadway what would keep the retaining wall

from overturning. Mr. Drueck stated the retaining wall is not designed to be a structural wall,

it is to make a grade change and the road would not have an impact.

Chairman Zimmerman asked the Board to comment on what was requested in the staff

analysis report from the applicant. 1. Photo-metries study of parking lot lights and proposed

wall signs. Mr. Nadler stated what was received was hard to read. Ms. Borzym-Kuczynski is

concerned that a project of this magnitude, the documents were not provided to the Board

before this evening for review, there are no details, sealed by an Engineer or identified. 2.

Engineering Plans in particular and including the profile entrance from parking lot. Missy

Langan stated she agreed with Alice Borzym-Kuczynski, it was not identified and marked. 3.

Additional height of the building as a mezzanine housing offices or is it empty space.

Ms.Borzym-Kuczynski requested if it was a fa9ade wall or offices. Mr. Friedman responded

it would be a facade wall. 4. Grading Verification. Mr. Nadler stated new grades are clear but

the existing elevation was imposed onto the new plan and difficult to read. Mr. Nadler asked

Mr. Dureck to elaborate on how the detention basin impacts the site.

Mr. Dureck stated in the area north of the Pulte development, Washington, Northwest

Highway up to Touhy there is an existing detention with an open basin that collects the area

storm sewer water and managed. He was given a staff report given with plans to create an

underground storage basin replacing the existing open basin. The existing is a high water

elevation, if ever converted to an underground storage basin they would have to design

around it, creating the elevations safely above the high water elevations.

4


Mr. Karkhanis stated he is struggling to understand why the request for a zoning variance, a

need to build a retaining wall, and if it will not affect the property next door. On Exhibit 3,

detail b, Mr. Karkhanis questioned if the water from the adjacent property and retaining wall

will turn south and go towards the silt basin drain. Mr. Dureck stated it is a small drainage

and in a 10 year storm it will be fine. Mr. Nadler noted that he is still concerned with the

landscape retaining wall not staying in place. None of the board members had comment on

No.5, Reasons behind the evolution of the design.

Judy Barclay, 524 Courtland, spokesperson for curb, noted the applicant should have

submitted the requested material by the Board sooner than this evening to be reviewed and

voiced her objection that none of the material was online to view. Ms. Barclay commented

the retaining wall would encroach into the setback. This is new construction they should

follow the City Ordinance and build to fit the lot.

Barbara Heerman, 21 N Merrill, stated that she is a longtime resident and is concerned with

the issues Ms Barclay raised. She has been keeping track of the issues with Whole Foods and

questioned who is it better for? Another concern are the green neon lights that will be on till

eleven, twelve o'clock at night, shining on the residents that live on Touhy Avenue, Wisner

Street, Elmore Street, Pulte Homes and Berry Parkway. Vehicles driving on Touhy Avenue

or Washington Street will be misled the store may be open. Ms. Heerman commented Jewel

faced a new car dealership or a vacant lot for its entire existence, to show a light comparison

between Jewel and Whole Foods is absurd. Ms. Heerman stated with the 100 year storms,

she is deeply concerned the Touhy storm system would be overwhelmed, and the impact on

the neighborhood on all of the variations the Board addressed tonight. Whole Foods should

be expected to serve the same requirements that would be expected if she were to build an

oversize home on a lot. It should be built within the confines of the Park Ridge Ordinance.

Roger Ginger, 206 Berry Parkway stated he agreed with the previous residents comments.

Carol Backerd, 101 Merrill, questioned if the grade is being raised higher than the medical

building how is Whole Foods able to do this without triggering the investment and drainage

improvement for the whole property. Ms. Backerd stated it is wrong for Whole Foods to

raise the grade, protecting themselves at the risk of other buildings and neighboring

properties.

Chairman Zimmerman reiterated Ms. Backerd question to Mr. Drueck. If the entire Whole

Foods site is being raised higher than the existing building causing the 10 percent grade that

is in need for the retaining wall. Mr. Zimmerman asked where the location of the old and

new building and if the building was to be built lower would there be a need for a retaining

wall?

Mr. Drueck stated the entrance grade of the existing building at 225 Touhy Avenue was

roughly 660.2 with stairways that went up from the elevation to the building doorway of 662;

the existing building was not all one grade. Mr. Zimmerman questioned the grade of the old

building. The grade elevation was entered as Exhibit 5. Mr. Drueck noted the elevation of the

first floor of the existing building was 662.20 with Whole Foods, 1st floor elevation of

659.70. Mr. Zimmerman noted Whole Foods elevation is lower than the existing building

and Mr. Karkhanis commented that Chairman Zimmerman assumption is correct as shown in

Exhibit 5.

5

..


Mr. Karkhanis asked if the requested variance for the retaining wall was not granted, would

the building still be buildable and what the hardship is. Mr. Karkhanis noted he require to

know the actual feet that the building would have to be set back from the southeast corner

property line. Mr. Drueck stated the he cannot change the plan that was given to him from the

engineer but the pavement would be 8 feet further north, and create a ramp to meet ADA

Code on the east sidewalk. Ms. Langan questioned if the retaining wall would be 5 feet from

the property line would it make a difference. Mr. Nadler questioned the hardship; if the

entrance would be pushed back 3.75 feet with a retaining wall a variance would not be

needed. Mr. Friedman noted Whole Foods has spent a lot of time with market research and

cannot pinch the store any further in. This would create a domino effect of the lay out and

display of the store not having any room to expand east and west they would have to maintain

the north and south distance from a layout perspective. He stated he does not think the

entrance off Washington can be relocated further north without creating a traffic circulation

issue. This is the design history of Whole Foods and why dimensional it exists the way it

does. Mr. Nadler questioned why the design team was not present.

Ms. Backard commented the existing building grade may have been 660 with other areas at a

lower grade, it was smaller and located far from the street but now Whole Foods wants to

raise the whole property to 660.

Ms. Heerman is concerned regarding the differential between the sidewalk and elevation of

the store that is observable from the height of the fence in comparison to the elevation of the

land.

Ms. Barclay commented the pre-application proposal was originally thirty thousand square

feet and has increased to thirty eight thousand square feet. She questioned the board where is

the hardship in the land and the unique circumstance of the property that create the hardship

with the need to request a variance on the side setback.

The Board went into Executive Session

Chairman Zimmerman asked the board to comment on the three requested variance.

The Board agreed the applicant did not present the requested documents to Board prior to the

meeting for review. Chairman Zimmerman commented he visited the location of the

requested variance, and noted standing at the medical building parking lot Mr. Zimmerman

saw the back of other office buildings. Mr. Karkhanis questioned if the meter was at the face

of the sign at eight feet how many lumens would it be. Mr. Dureck stated 22 hundredths of

one lumen. Mr. Karkhanis stated he is not concerned about light spill on the parking lot sign.

The sign on the west side will face other business and is alright with the request at this time.

The third variance Chairman Zimmerman questioned hat was the hardship is and why the

right people were not present to testify.

Chairman Zimmerman questioned Alderman DiPietro if the Board were to vote on variance

one and two, move to continue variance three to the next meeting would it be permissible to

split the three ordinances.

Richard DiPietro, 1488 Parkside Drive, noted Chairman Zimmerman is asking a division of a

question. A division of a question is an order. To vote on the each individual is a division of

a question. Alderman DiPietro suggests the matter not be sent to the City Council until the

third item is acted upon.

6

..


Alderman Sweeny stated he wanted to be clear that the petitioner couldn't move ahead until

the variance goes before City Council for a vote. Alderman DiPietro stated a division of a

question does not need a motion as long as it is recognized as divided, it would be a request

from any member of the Board be divided and does not need to be voted on.

Mr. Karkhanis request to divide the four requested variances.

On a motion by Atul Karkhanis and seconded by Linda Nagle, the Board

AGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance for the Whole Foods Market at

1 S Washington Avenue and 225 W Touhy Avenue, Case Number V-12-07, subject to allow

a wall sign facing Touhy Avenue to be 12 feet above the main display window, instead of 10

feet required by Section 14.6.F.2 subject to all the lumen and foot candle statement mad by

the applicant in the presentation.


A YES .Q Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis, Nadler, Nagle, Parenti, and Zimmerman

NAY lLangan ABSTAIN Q None ABSENT Q None

AGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance for the Whole Foods Market at


a wall sign facing Washington Avenue to be 13 feet 11 inches above the main display

window, instead of 10 required by Section 14.6.F.2.


AYES NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT

1 Karkhanis, Nadler, Nagle, Parenti, and Zimmerman 2 Borzym-Kuczynski, and Langan Q None Q None

AGREED to recommend City Council approval of variances for the Whole Foods Market at


a wall sign not facing a public street to be 21 feet above the main display window, instead of

10 feet required by Section 14.6.F.2 and to allow the wall sign to be 300 square feet in area,

instead of maximum of 16 square feet, as required by Section 14.6.F.1 subject to all the

lumen and foot candle statements made by the applicant in the presentation.



1 Karkhanis, Nadler, Nagle, Parenti, and Zimmerman 2 Borzym-Kuczynski, and Langan Q None Q None

7

.. ..


On a motion by Atul Karkhanis and seconded by Missy Langan, the Board

AGREED to continue the public hearing for the Whole Foods Market at 1 S Washington

Avenue and 225 W Touhy Avenue, Case Number V-12-07, to the November 8, 2012, Special

Meeting subject to allow a retaining wall to be located 1.25 feet from the property line, instead

of 5 feet required by Section 11.4.M.2

Alderman Sweeny comment the motion made to continue needs to be withdrawn by the

commissioner and restate to continued the fourth requested variance.

Atul Karkhanis stated to withdraw the previous motion to recommend and restate to continue

the public hearing for the Whole Foods Market at 1 S Washington Avenue and 225 W Touhy

Avenue, Case Number V-12-07, to the November 8, 2012, special meeting subject to allow a

retaining wall to be located 1.25 feet from the property line, instead of 5 feet required by

Section 11.4.M.2


AYES 1 Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis, Langan, Nadler, Nagle, Parenti, and

NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT

Zimmerman Q None Q None Q None

2. Variance at 212 Gillick Street- Case Number: V-12-08 (Major)

Chairman Zimmerman summarized the request for a major variance from the applicant and

owner, William and Amy Douglass, for a variance to allow a semi-covered walkway with a

width of 13 feet to remain, as it exists. Per Section 16.3, the definition of a semi-covered

walkway allows the maximum width of a semi-covered walkway to be 60 inches (5 feet). He

explained the public hearing process and swore in all those interested in testifying.

Jim Griffin, representing the applicant, stated the existing structure was denied a variance to

allow less than a 10' separation between it and the detached garage. Since then, the City

amended the zoning ordinance defining a semi-cover walkway verses a pergola as noted.

With this new provision, the structure and its function is a semi-cover walkway between the

principal structure and the detached garage that opens to the alley. The function of the wood

covered structure is to be the connection point of the rear entrance of the principal structure

and detached garage. The adopted definition limits the width of a walkway to 5 feet. The

applicant is requesting a variance of the existing walkway to allow a width of 13 feet.

Chairman Zimmerman stated the Exhibit packet presented in to nights meeting will be

renumbered from Exhibits 1 thru 7 to Exhibits 8 thru 14.

William Douglass, owner, stated the walkway connecting the rear of the house to the

detached garage was built by the prior owners in 2005 preceding the recently amended

ordinance. The intended usage of the structure was and is used as a walkway. Mr. Douglass

noted the structure is aesthetically pleasing and it is not used as a seating area that will block

access between the two buildings. He was not aware of any objective to the structure, it is

8

..


not visible by the rear, has not received any complaints from the neighboring citizens but find

it aesthetically pleasing. Does not intend to expand or enclose the structure that provides

aesthetically pleasing function between the two buildings.

Mr. Griffm asked Mr. Douglass to identify to the Board Exhibit 8. Mr. Douglass stated

Exhibit 8 was the rendering submitted to him by the architect from last years hearing. It is the

design of the wooden structure showing the dimensions of 13 feet wide and 12 feet and one

half inches in length. Mr. Griffin asked Mr. Douglass to explain why Exhibit 11,12 and 13

has a 13-foot width of the semi-covered walkway. Mr. Douglass stated the mud room is 12

feet and \l.i inches The structure would straddle the mud room with offset posts that would not

block the access of the house and garage, this 2 inch separation of the post and house was the

minimalistic approach to achieve this.

Steve Lenet, Landscape Architect and Urban Planer, stated he reviewed the area of subject

property. In his opinion it meets the standards for a variance. The hardship of the doors

location to the garage and home are offset. Mr. Lenet noted the scale is appropriate with the

given dimensions that lead from the mudroom to the garage, minimizing to 5 feet would be

out of scale and functional be inappropriate.

Linda Nagle questioned Exhibit 2 statement if the 2005 ordinance had a definition of a semi

covered walkway. Ms. Nagle noted she did not understand the cover connection to the rear

door of the detached garage that the walkway provides if the new ordinance states the

walkway has to be 25 percent open. Mr. Lenet stated on exhibit 9 it is open more than 25

percent. The only variation requested is the width to be allowed from 5 feet to 13 feet.

Steve Nadler questioned if a permit was required 2005. Tom Hoff noted it would have been

treated as a pergola in 2005 with a 10-foot separation between the house and structure. Alice

Borzym-Kuczynski questioned Exhibit 9 showing the door from the garage to the house if the

walkway could curve connecting the two buildings. Mr. Lenet commented, even if the

structure were curved the width of the covered walk way would still be 13 feet. Chairman

Zimmerman stated the hardship on the doors do not appear to be offset by 13 feet in Exhibit

9. Mr. Lenet noted the structure is in scale to the covered area of the two buildings.

Chairman Zimmerman questioned what was unique about the property.

Mr. Nadler questioned if the structure was attached to the buildings. He stated a 5-foot wide

structure could be installed with the post in front of the windows. Mr. Lenet noted Mr. Nadler

is correct. Ms. Nagle questioned Mr. Douglass if he attended the public hearings for the new

ordinance and if City Council was aware ofthe structure.

Mr. Douglass commented they were present, raised the issue to the City Attorney and

Alderman. A proposal went before the regulations community and was requested by City

attorney to attend the City Council meetings. The proposal was approved late last year giving

them full amendment relieve. Mr. Douglass stated he was asked for his input throughout the

process, but not on the 5 foot requirement. Cathy Doczekalski contacted Mr. Douglass in

June notifying him of the 5 foot requirement making the structure illegal that it would need to

be removed.

Ms. Nagle stated the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to provide relief to residents

in unique circumstances where there is a hardship and not having to go before City Council

for a text amendment. The City council are the elected officials but is at a loss to what the

board can do, it has been made clear what the City Council intended to do.

9

..


Mr. Griffin commented, the City Council did not have a particular structure in mind when

enacting the 5 foot maximum width. Mr. Griffm noted the Zoning Board of Appeals and the

City Council maintains the full authority to grant variances for the new provisions. Mr.

Griffin stated the present circumstance of 5 foot width will not be an inappropriate connect

point between the two buildings presenting a hardship with no harm to the neighboring

properties. He noted the structure is a semi-covered walkway not a pergola.

Chairman Zimmerman stated he was confused the applicant was not informed of the 5 foot

requirement when he was required to attend the City Council meetings and questioned if the

ordinance were read out loud. Mr. Douglas stated he was requested to attend when the

proposal was being considered.

Jim Testin stated the 5 foot requirement went before the Planning and Zoning Commission, a

public hearing, in May before two readings in front of Council. Mr. Testin noted when

discussing a walkway 5 feet is a typical width for sidewalks. Mr. Testin clarified a specific

element is used when discussing a 5 foot walkway between two structures. Mr. Douglass

commented the City reached out for his input up to a certain point.

Chairman Zimmerman questioned the maximum offset width between the two doors. Mr.

Lenet noted 7 to 8 feet. Mr. Nadler questioned the definition of a pergola and required

distance from the building. Mr. Testin stated it was the bases for a previous variance. Until

this year we did not have semi-covered walkways. The previous application was for a

pergola, requiring a 10 foot setback from a structure. The updated code requires a variance

for the width described as a semi-covered walkway. Mr. Lente stated on the previous

application this was categorized as a pergola, it was noted it functions as a breezeway and not

used as outside seating. Mr. Testin stated at that time semi-covered walkways and

breezeways were considered pergolas.

Richard DiPietro, 1488 Parkside drive, stated at the request of the City Attorney, the matter

went before the City Council Procedure and Regulation Committee. Mr. DiPietro wanted to

clarify the text amendment process. 1. The matter goes before the City Council Procedure and Regulation Committee

2. Sent to Planning and Zoning Public Hearing 3. Goes before City Council Text Amendment Zoning, requiring 2 readings

a. 1 Public Hearing b. 2 Readings before City Council

There are 3 opportunities to address the matter.

Judy Barclay, 524 Courtland, questioned where the unique circumstances in the land created

a hardship and the applicant can now follow the ordinance. Ms. Barclay stated there are no

unique circumstance in the land that prohibits the applicant to conform to the ordinance.

The Board went into Executive Session

Atul Karkhanis questioned Tom Hoff when he was made aware of the matter. Mr. Hoff

replied when the property was being transferred, there was an inspection. The letter of intent

gave the option to remove the structure or apply for a variance.

Mr. Nadler stated the new code for a semi-covered walkway does not meet the pergola 10

foot distance limitation from the house. He noted it was not in compliance with the code then

10

•


or now, and was constructed without a permit. Mr. Nadler stated the semi covered walkway

can be constructed, may not look as good as the existing but does not see the hardship or

unique circumstance.

Missy Langan agreed the structure aesthetically looks nice but the permits and process are to

follow the ordinance. Ms. Langan stated she did not hear a genuine hardship on the land; the

difficulty in the structure in relation is to the doors, not the land. Ms. Langan commented the

City is not in the habit to process an ordinance to meet an individual applicant.

Chairman Zimmerman stated he always looks for reasons to grant a variance oppose to not

granting the variance. The offset of the doors does not run with the land. There is no hardship

or a unique circumstance. Mr. Karkhanis stated it is an open structure, not obstructing or

devaluing the neighboring property and is in favor this time verses last time. Mr. Nadler

stated he is concern about setting a precedent if the variance were to be granted allowing a

semi-covered walkway with an unlimited width or length. Other Board members agreed.

On a motion by Missy Langan and seconded by Linda Nagle, the Board

AGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance to allow a semi-covered

walkway to be 13 feet wide, instead of 60 inches ( 5 feet wide) as required by Section 16.3 as

defined, at 212 Gillick Street, Case Number V-12-08



2. Karkhanis, and Parenti )_ Borzym-Kuczynski, Langan, Nadler, Nagle, and Zimmerman

Q None Q None

3. Variance at 2045 Farrell Avenue- Case Number: V-12-09 (Major)

Michelle Braccioforte, applicant and owner, requests a variance to allow the construction of

a four foot high traditional spaced picket fence in the front yard that is prohibited by Section

11.4.E.2.a. Ms. Braccioforte noted Farrell Avenue is a busy street used by students/parents

to Maine East High School and as a shortcut to Lutheran Hospital. There is a great distance

between stop signs. The school field across the street is not allowed to be used; Messiah

Church fenced their playground area, which also is not allowed to be used. Ms. Braccioforte

stated it would be in her children's best interest to fence the front and side yard of the house.

When a permit was applied for she was told Marcus Court East is her front yard, not Farrell

A venue. According to the ordinance for a comer lot, a fence cannot be installed in the front

yard. Ms. Braccioforte stated the proposed fence would be 4 feet high, open fence, up to the

trees and aesthetically pleasing. The property is unique being a comer lot on a busy street;

this would give her children a safe place to play.

Chairman Zimmerman questioned Exhibit 6 if the depressed concrete curb still exists.

Anthony Braccoioforte, husband, noted it will be removed. Mr. Zimmerman confirmed with

Tom Hoff the Zoning Ordinance and noted putting a fence on Farrell Street would be

unique. Atul Karkhanis questioned if the applicant was going past the building line, the

applicant commented they would install within the building line. Steve Nadler stated

Exhibit 6 shows the property to be long and substantial in comparison to other properties in

Park Ridge, did not understand the hardship. Ms. Braccioforte noted the property is long

11

• • •


and narrow. Alice Borzym-Kuczynski questioned figure 10 and 11, if the fence would pass

the trees. Ms Braccoiforte commented the fence would be integrated with the trees.

Pam Muscia, 1519Marcus Court East, commented the homes on the street have the same

front yard with wide open areas, large set backs and no sidewalks, intended to give a large

country feeling. The applicant currently has a 15 to 18 feet narrow backyard fence, enough to

protect the children. Ms. Muscia is concerned if the variance is granted it will be used as a

backyard by the present and future owners and would change the character of the

neighborhood, she suggested a wrought iron fence verses the cedar wood fence. Linda Nagle

questioned the 34 foot building line. Tom Hoff commented when the property was re

subdivided a 30 foot building line was establish, average of the block would be the required

front yard. The Board questioned if there would be enough property to install the fence.

Richard DiPietro, 1488 Parkside, stated residence on Marcus Court expressed concerns with

the fence effectively running along the front yard on Marcus Court East. A wrought iron

fence is a good suggestion and compromise. The Manor was annexed into Park Ridge

without any sidewalks.

Ms. Braccoiforte noted in conversation with Jack Muscia she explained the proposed fence,

he was fine with it and suggested a black chain link fence like his nephews. Exhibit 9 was

entered showing the nephews black chain link fence. Ms. Braccoiforte stated she mentioned

to Mr. Muscia it was not to her liking and felt a cedar fence would be aesthetically pleasing to

the neighborhood. Neighbor directly across from her wrote a letter in support of the proposed

fence.

The Board is concerned with the building line on the survey, not having enough room to

install the fence. The Board questioned if it would alter aesthetically the character of the

neighborhood, not sure were the fence is being installed. Alderman Sweeney questioned the

details on the fence estimate. The Board needs additional information and would need the

title policy.

On a motion by Missy Langan and seconded by Linda Nagle, the Board

AGREED to continue Case Number V-12-09 to the Special Meeting on November 8, 2012,

subject to submitting plat of survey, title policy, Exhibit 6 needs to be clear, where the fence

is being installed, what is removed, added, show trees


AYES 1 Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis, Langan, Nadler, Nagle, Parenti and

NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT


E. Other Items for Discussion-None

F. Citizens Wishing to Be Heard on Non-Agenda Items- None

12

..

ZBA Minutes

G. City Council Liaison Report-None

H. Adjournment -The meeting was adjourned at 11: 10 p.m

Date Gary Zimmerman, Chairman

Adrienne Dulkoski

Recording Secretary

October 25, 2012

These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings.

13

ZBA Minutes

In the matter of

Park Ridge 2004 LLC

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS

) ) )

FINDING OF FACT

October 25, 2012

Case No. V-12-07

This matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of Park Ridge

2004 LLC for three variances at 1 S. Washington Avenue and 225 W. Touhy Avenue, Case Number V-

12-07, to allow a wall sign facing Touhy Avenue to be 12 feet above the main display window, instead

of 10 feet required by Section 14.6.F.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; and the Board having held a public

hearing as required by law on October 25, 2012; 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 proposed signs are designed to meet the ordinance requirements regarding size but cannot be

located entirely within the 10 feet space above the main display window.

Therefore, the strict application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship.

2. The property location and building design requires the most appropriate sign locations to be higher

than 10 feet above the top of the display window on the first floor.

Therefore, the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances.

3. It will permit the proposed signs to be located in the most appropriate architectural elements of the

structure.

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 ofthe meeting of October 25,2012.


Date Approved

14

ZBA Minutes

In the matter of

Park Ridge 2004 LLC

'


) ) )

FINDING OF FACT

October 25, 2012

Case No. V-12-07


2004 LLC for three variances at 1 S. Washington Avenue and 225 W. Touhy Avenue, Case Number V-

12-07, to allow a wall sign facing Washington Avenue to be 13 feet 11 inches above the main display

window, instead of 10 required by Section 14.6.F.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance; and the Board having held

public hearing as required by law on October 25, 2012; 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,


1. The proposed signs are designed to meet the ordinance requirements regarding size but cannot be

located entirely within the 10 feet space above the main display window.


2. The property location and building design requires the most appropriate sign locations to be higher

than 10 feet above the top of the display window on the first floor.


3. It will permit the proposed signs to be located in the most appropriate architectural elements of the

structure.



the minutes ofthe meeting of October 25, 2012.


Date Approved

15

ZBA Minutes

In the matter of

Park Ridge 2004 LLC

II


) ) )

FINDING OF FACT

October 25, 2012

Case No. V-12-07


2004 LLC for a variances at 1 S. Washington Avenue and 225 W. Touhy Avenue, Case Number V-12-

07, to allow a wall sign not facing a public street to be 21 feet above the main display window, instead of

10 feet required by Section 14.6.F.2 and to allow the wall sign to be 300 square feet in area, instead of

the maximum of 16 square feet, as required by Section 14.6.F.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and the Board

having held public hearing as required by law on October 25, 2012; 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,


1. Without the sign, there will be confusion as to where the entrance is located due to the majority of the

south fayade being glass line.


2. The retail building will be built along Touhy Avenue with the main parking lot located behind it, off

the public street.


3. The sign illumination will not create luminous glare issues on neighboring properties or their patrons.

Additionally, the site will be heavily landscaped which will shield the signs visibility from

neighboring properties.



the minutes ofthe meeting of October 25,2012.


Date Approved

16

' '


In the matter of

William and Amy Douglass


) ) )

FINDING OF FACT

Case No. V-12-08

This matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of William and

Amy Douglass for a variance at 212 Gillick Street, Case Number V-12-08, to allow a semi-covered

walkway to be 13 feet wide, instead of 60 inches (5 feet) as required by Section 16.3 as defined of the

Zoning Ordinance; and the Board having held public hearing as required by law on October 25, 2012;

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,


1. The semi-covered walkway was constructed by the prior owners to a width of 13 feet, constructed

prior to the enactment of the provisions of the Ordinance, which limited semi-covered walkways to 5

feet in width. The layout of the rear entrance to the home and rear entrance to the garage require the

13 feet width for both functionality and aesthetics.

Therefore, the strict application of the terms of this Zoning Ordinance would not result in undue

hardship.

2. The semi-covered walkway, and the walkway was installed before the amendment to the Zoning

Ordinance was enacted restriction the width of such structures to 5 feet. The layout of the rear

entrance to the home and the rear entrance to the garage, and the other elements of the rear yard are

unique and for aesthetic and functional purposes the 13 feet wide walkway is necessary.

Therefore, the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances.

3. The semi-covered walkway is not easily visible from outside of the property.


The Board denied the variance.


Date Approved

17

DEPARTMENT' OF COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

.. ..


PARK RIDGE. IL 60068 TEL: 84 7 I 318-5200 FAX: 847/318-5300 TDD:847/ 318-5252

URL:http://www.parkridge.us

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Thursday, November 8, 2012 City Hall, Council Chambers

505 Butler Place Park Ridge, Illinois

MINUTES

Chairman Gary Zimmerman called the meeting to order at 7:35p.m.

A. Roll Call

Present Alice Borzym-Kuczynski Atul Karkhanis Missy Langan Steven Nadler Linda Nagle Salvatore Parenti Gary Zimmerman, Chairman

B. Approval of Minutes

There were no minutes to approve.

C. Appeals- None

D. Variances

Staff Tom Hoff Sue Battaglia, Secretary

City Council

Draft Minutes Not for Publication

Alderman Sweeney, Council Liaison Rich DiPietro

Others Present Approximately 8 citizens

1. Variance at 1 South Washington /225 West Touhy Ave Case Number: V-12-07 (Major Variance) CONTINUED from October 25, 2012 meeting.

Our Missioll: fHE CiTY OF PARK RIDGE IS COMMI'n'ED TO PROVIDING EXCELLENCE IN Cm· SERVICES IN ORDER TO UPHOLD A HIGH QUAun· OF LIFE,

SO OUR COMMUNITY REMAINS A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.

..

ZBA Minutes November 8, 2012

Included in your packed is a letter from Bart Friedman stating that they are unable to attend tonight's meeting. I have been in contact and explained that our next meeting is December 6, 2012.

Tom Hoff said the next meeting will probably be at the Public Works Service Center next month.

On a motion by Alice Borzym-Kuczynski and seconded by Missy Langan, the Board

AGREED to continue Case Number V-12-0 to the December 6, 2012 meeting.



NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT


2. Variance at 2045 Farrell Ave Case Number V-12-09 (Major Variance)

A request to allow a fence into the front yard.

Michelle Braccioforte located at 2045 Farrell, distributed information which is (Exhibit 1 -Pictures of her lot.)

Michelle Braccioforte wanted to summarize: I am located at 2045 Farrell Ave and I want to put a fence in my yard. My lot is a corner lot and it is unique the way it is positioned .. I do have two small children and I would like to install a fence for own enjoyment and also protection. I was told I could not put a fence on Marcus Court East, but I could on Farrell Avenue. I understand and respect that front yard ordinance but I don't think this applies to me. My home faces Farrell A venue.

Michelle Braccioforte said to refer to Figure 5. Her proposed area is in red, the yellow is what I am allowed to fence in. I believe that a variance is applicable here. What the City of Park Ridge considers my front yard, I consider my side yard. Do you really want me to fence in the entire yellow area? It is only a 4' fence

Michelle Braccioforte summarized that the hardship is Farrell Avenue which is an extremely busy street between the High School and the Hospital and also because Farrell Avenue is used as a cut-through.

Atul Karkhanis had a concern about the trees on the property and if they would be in or out of the fence?

Michelle Braccioforte answered showing in Exhibit Figure 1A- the fence will not be going past the easement line.

Atul Karkhanis asked if you looking for privacy or safety and if open fence is their preference?

2

'

• •


Michelle Braccioforte explained open fence- picket fence. Page 24- 4 Foot and open fence.

Chairman Gary Zimmerman asked a question about quality title. There is no other covenants other than the 30' building line on the subject property.

Linda Nagle commented no documents covering structure?

Alice Borzym-Kuczynski said she contacted an attorney for his legal opinion and he advised that this is not a violation of a set back

Chairman Gary Zimmerman swore in residents in the neighborhood.

John Benka located at 1522 Marcus Court East and my house sits across the street from this particular parcel of land. I am here to oppose because it would change the nature and character of our neighborhood. I have been a residence in Park Ridge for 38 years. The lots are 80 x 140- my front yard and picture window will forever look out onto someone's fence. I have also put in a lot of money in landscaping This will create a backyard playground. The petitioner already has recreational equipment in their yard and I am very concerned for the overall ambiance because we have 7 figure homes on Marcus Court East. Please be concerned for those of us who live on this street.

Richard DiPietro located at 1488 Parkside Drive also expressed opposition to the fence and also wanted to mention that you might consider metal ornamental fence or a row of hedges.

Michelle Braccioforte stated that she can't believe these residents are complaining and she has only the best intentions to keep up the ambiance of Marcus Court. My neighbor Les provides support, which was provided in the packet last month. Les is located at 1539 Marcus Court East. Michelle also commented that John Benka does not live right across the street or next door, but a few doors down.

Alice Borzym-Kuczynski questioned Mr. Benka about his location from Michelle Braccioforte house. Alice stated that he lives 3 houses down from Michelle.

John Benka agreed with Alice.

Chairman Gary Zimmerman started the executive session.

Atul Karkhanis stated that they can still use it as a yard whether they put up a fence or not.

Missy Langan stated that she feels the hardship being a comer lot and the side/front nonconformity.

Alice Borzym-Kuczynski said that she disagrees respectively. She feels her lot is more of a front lot than a comer lot.

Steve Nadler- It is a comer lot and all comer lots have peculiarities about them. We did not write the code, planting is still a viable option. I am not seeing where there is a hardship.

Sal Parenti said he agrees with Alice and would be in favor of an open fence.

3

• • •


Chairman Gary Zimmerman said there is no way we would let them put a fence on Farrell. Does it create a hardship- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Where I am on this- I am fine if we but a provision on it such as 4' high and open. I would not like to see a 5' metal or wood.

Atul Karkhanis wants to know if they will be planting bushes in front of the fence. If so have to be pushed back by 3 feet or so.

Gary Zimmerman asked the Petitioner to please come back up to the podium and asked Michelle Braccioforte if she would be able to follow the restriction of a 4' open fence and also no fence on Farrell

Michelle Braccioforte replied, yes, that is our plan.


AGREED to recommend City Council approval of a variance to allow a four foot high, traditional open picket fence to be constructed in the front yard, which is prohibited by Section 11.4.E.2.a.with the condition that no fence be constructed on Farrell Avenue at 2045 Farrell Avenue, Case Number V-12-09.


A YES 1 Borzym-Kuczynski, Karkhanis, Parenti, and Zimmerman NAY l Langan, Nadler, and Nagle ABSTAIN Q None ABSENT Q None

3. Variance at 1409 Potter Road Case Number V-12-10 (Minor)

Chairman Gary Zimmerman said the reason for the meeting is a request to allow restoration to a non conforming structure.

Steve Nadler asked Tom to explain the situation for the above Variance.

Tom Hoff said there is a requirement from the insurance company to get construction built sooner than later. Correspondence from the insurance company is to be distributed tonight.

Chairman Gary Zimmerman swore in all of the parties involved.

Theresa and John Jensen located at 7008 Beckwith Road, Morton Grove, IL Alexandra Jakubowski, architect located at 146 Catalpa, Wood Dale, IL 60191

John Jensen explained that his in-laws are the Heneghan's. Mr. Heneghan, who is 90 years old, needs assistance and they would rather have a caretaker in the house than send him to an assisted living facility. This being said, this is the rooms that they want built which will be for the care taker and the care takers children. Need to add on five feet to the front of the house.

4

• •


We are running close to the deadline of March when they would have to start paying the relocation fees themselves. They are both on a fixed income and do not have the ability to afford the additional expenses.

A family member is going to move in and take care of them as Mrs. Heneghan is going in for surgery next week.

Theresa Jensen submitted Exhibit 11- (distributed to everyone). A letter from Farmers Insurance stating that they will allow a certain amount of time to have the house rebuilt.

Alexandra Jakubowski, the Architect, said they were hired to design, prepare the drawings and they were submitted the end of July. We received corrections within a week and revised the drawings and resubmitted the drawings. Unfortunately due to some vacations - the zoning department was unable to review them.

Hardship for the owner - existing ranch house and we have decided to design a one-story addition as two story would not be good for these people. If we have to move this garage wall back we would have to eliminate one bedroom. All of the bedrooms are allocated to Mr. & Mrs. Heneghan's caretaker and their kids.

The garage burned down but the house did not. Where was the old garage? It is shown on the drawing on Page 10 - existing living room, family room, and l-ear garage. Looks like the new garage is moved back from the existing garage.

Atul Karkhanis said to read #22 and #36 for explanation. On page 10- existing overhead door tag line 22. Read 22- Existing overhead garage door to be removed. #36- Outlined of the proposed addition. New one is behind the old one by 2 feet.

Steve Nadler said he would like to be clear on set-back requirements and which is the front yard and which is the side yard?

Tom Hoff said the attached garage setback is required to be 5' behind the main building facade. The attached garage was burned down in the fire.

Atul Karkhanis said it was nonconforming garage and by doing the new addition will be minimizing the nonconforming.

Missy Langan said to refer to Page 6- Dimensions ofthe new garage that is 26.53 being proposed is actually 23 feet vs. the existing 20 feet as opposed to the 20 feet. If you are looking for a replacement for a legal nonconforming- even though they are setting it back they are getting a larger space and still asking for a variance. They are getting 3 more feet in the garage but still asking for a 5 ft. variance.

Atul Karkhanis noted that they have a wood deck in the back now.

Steve Nadler wants to be crystal clear. Which is the front yard, which is the side yard, and what are the setback requirements. Look at C12. What does the code require and what are they doing. He also stated that it doesn't seem like we are talking structure, but replacement cost.

5

• • II


Tom Hoff said on this particular property it is considered to be a corner lot with their front

yard facing Potter Road.

Steve Nadler asked ifthe setback should be 12 feet?

Tom Hoff said the setback is currently 8.12.

Alice Borzym-Kuczynski asked what is the history of what happened here on March 8th?

Alexandra Jakubowski stated that the garage and portions of the living room or family room

and mud room were burned on March 81h, 2012.

Alice Borzym-Kuczynski asked if the garage was attached to the brick home.

Alexandra Jakubowski said yes.

Several questions were asked if more than 50% of this structure was destroyed by this fire?

Alexandra said she was not prepared to answer that question, as she did not bring all of her

files with her.

Steve Nadler was asking ifl heard you correctly- in the new plan the mud room, the new foyer - would they have to meet the requirement? He also is questioning the impact of the

design.

Gary Zimmerman Code says you have to go 5' behind the front of the house.

Chairman Gary Zimmerman swore in the neighbor.

Antoine Karam located at 1406 Potter Road. I see no objection to what they are proposing and will not effect people on Potter Road and it

is a good improvement.

Alexandra Jakubowski also stated that both neighbors on either side also do not object. I

have letters to prove this.

Steve Nadler was asking what part of the change and the remodel is beyond our control and

what is the hardship?

Theresa Jensen said the hardship for her parents is being out of the house, which is affecting

their health and quality of life. Since the house was burnt down, now is the time to make changes and make room for the caretakers.

Chairman Gary Zimmerman said to go into executive session.

Gary Zimmerman also commented that the City of Park Ridge loves detached garages. Attached garages - do not want two things - big garage doors sticking out and also not one

big garage door- but two smaller doors. Would also love the garage in the back of the house.

6

•


Alice Borzym-Kuczynski what are the dimensions ofthe proposed garage and said if this was about their living room then we would not be here tonight.

Atul Karkhanis explained to look on Page 11 -23' 1 O"plus the little nook. So just over 27' and without the mud room 23' 1 0" for the garage- correct? Little over 400 square feet.

Alice Borzym-Kuczynski asked if this is new construction or replacement.

Chairman Gary Zimmerman- Was 50% more or less of this property damaged?

Tom Hoff explained that this is an attempt to have them apply for a minor variance instead of a major variance.

Alexandra Jakubowski said the existing 1st floor was bigger and please refer to Page 8.

Chairman Gary Zimmerman stated if they do not get this done by March the insurance company stops paying relocation.

Alice Borzym-Kuczynski stated on Page 8 + 9 F2.C says a detached garage should be a minimum of 5' behind the front facade of the house.

Steve Nadler stated the reason we are here is because they changed the design and so essentially half the house will be a new addition and half the house will be a gut and rehab.

Missy Langan commented that they are not replacing exactly what they lost - they are not even using the same foundation. They are still adding more than 50% of what they lost. So this goes beyond what we consider replacement.

Alice Borzym-Kuczynski said she would like to see something in writing stating exactly what they are doing, whether it is 50%

Theresa Jakubowski said they need a full foundation because of the bedrooms that they are adding.

Chairman Gary Zimmerman commented that they are putting new construction on an oddly shaped house. I think it is unique and I do not think it alters the charter of the neighborhood. I do not have a big concern on this.

If it turns out to be under 50% - they will have to come back anyways for the garage door.

Missy Langan commented that they are not replacing exactly what they lost, they are adding and I feel more than 50%

Theresa Jensen said her brother gave her figures for the cost of the addition to be 70K, and the appraisal value in 2011 of the current home was 360K.

Steve Nadler said it looks like a reasonably good design but would have to see everything in writing. My struggle is who really created the situation and I believe it is because they changed the format of the structure.

7

•


Alice Borzym-Kuczynski commented that she feels we need to ask Buzz to help us with this and she made a motion to continue Case V-12-10 to December 6, 2012.

Missy Langan seconded the motion.

Atul Karkhanis said he doesn't understand why we need more information.

Alice Borzyn-Kuczynski asked if they can they amend their application?


AGREED to continue Case Number V-12-0 to the December 6, 2012 meeting.



NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT


E. Other Items for Discussion-None

F. Citizens Wishing to Be Heard on Non-Agenda Items- None

G. City Council Liaison Report-None

H. Adjournment- The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m

Date Gary Zimmerman, Chairman

Sue Battaglia

Recording Secretary

These minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting but a summary of the proceedings.

8

ZBA Minutes

In the matter of

Michelle Braccioforte

•


) )

)

FINDING OFF ACT

November 8, 2012

Case No. V-12-09

This matter having come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing at the request of Michelle

Braccioforte for a variances at 2045 Farrell Avenue, Case Number V-12-09, to allow a four-foot high,

traditional picket fence to be constructed in the front yard, which is prohibited by Section 11.4.E.2.a.

with the condition that no fence be constructed on Farrell Avenue; and the Board having held public

hearings as required by law on October 25, 2012 and November 8, 2012; 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,


1. The lot is very small with a narrow backyard.

Therefore, the strict application ofthe terms of this Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship.

2. The house is situated on a comer lot on a very busy street, across the street from Maine East High School, Messiah Lutheran Church and Lutheran General Hospital.


3. The fence would be in good taste, low, traditional open spaced not impeding on site lines on the

block.

Therefore, the 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 forth in the minutes ofthe meeting ofNovember 8, 2012.


Date Approved

9

agenda cover memorandum meeting date: … cover memorandum meeting date: november 19, 2012 ... a...

Documents