CITY OF PARK RIDGE

505 BUTLER PLACE

PARK RIDGE, IL 60068

TEL: (847) 318-5291

FAX: (847) 318-6411

TDD: (847) 318-5252

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (CP&D) URL:http://www.parkridge.us

OUR MISSION: THE CITY OF PARK RIDGE IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING EXCELLENCE IN CITY SERVICES IN ORDER TO UPHOLD A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE, SO OUR COMMUNITY

REMAINS A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK.

DATE: 29 August 2019 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) FROM: John Carlisle, AICP, Planner THRU: Jim Brown, Director, Community Preservation and Development (CP&D) SUBJECT: 116 S. Clifton Ave. / Case Number: VA-19-0012

SUMMARY

The applicant proposes demolishing all existing structures on the 40-foot-wide zoning lot at 116 S.

Clifton Avenue and constructing a new single-family home and detached garage. The minimum lot width

is 50 feet. The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record, but the exceptions for building upon a

nonconforming lot may not be applied, so zoning relief is required.

Proposal Information

Case No.: VA-19-0012 Requested Actions: Approve a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot width by

twenty percent (20%) to allow a new single-family home and detached garage

Address: 116 S. Clifton Ave., Park Ridge, IL 60068

Owner/Applicant Information Property Owner and Applicant: Anthony Mitchell Agent and architect: Pawel Matyja, DM Architects

Subject Property Information

Existing Zoning: R-2 Residential Existing Land Use: Residential, single-family

Adjacent Land Use/Zoning: To the northeast: Residential, single-family / R-2

To the northwest: Residential, single-family / R-2

To the southeast: Residential, single-family / R-2

To the southwest: Residential, single-family / R-2 Size of Subject Property: Property History:

7,167 square feet in area (conforming); 40 feet in width (nonconforming) Existing house was built in 1922 and is not a historic landmark (local, state, or national)

Zoning History: None

2

SUBJECT PROPERTY

3

ZONING REQUIREMENTS

Section 16.3 of the Zoning Ordinance defines “Nonconforming Lot of Record” as “A lot of record that

does not meet the lot area or lot width requirements of this Ordinance for the zoning district in which it

is located.” Section 7.3, Table 3 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes that R-2 zoning lots have a

minimum lot width of 50 feet. Lots with a width of less than 50 feet may have options for certain

projects under the rules of Section 15.5.B. Paragraph 1 begins with “A nonconforming lot may not be

improved.” During demolition and new construction (teardown), a lot goes from being improved, to

temporarily vacant, to improved again. Therefore, a teardown project constitutes an improvement and

triggers the prohibition in Paragraph 1.

However, exceptions are listed, and the following is useful for many R-2 lots throughout the City:

“In all residential districts, except for the R-1 District, a single-family dwelling may be erected on

a single nonconforming lot of record that is at least six-thousand one-hundred fifty (6,150)

square feet in lot area, provided that the lot meets all other zoning district bulk requirements,

and that is was a lot of record as of September 2, 1975.”

This allowance is designed to accommodate the many lots that do not meet the 6,500-square-foot

minimum lot area requirement but do meet the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement. The amount of

relief requested is 20 percent, from a minimum requirement of 50 feet to 40 feet. Section 4.4.d.2.a.i.

categorizes the request as a minor variance: “A variance of the applicable minimum lot size requirements

for single-family and two-family dwellings may be granted for a vacant lot provided that the minimum

lot area shall not be reduced more than ten percent (10%), nor shall the minimum lot width requirements

be reduced more than twenty-five percent (25%).” In this case, “vacant lot” is applicable based on the

same reasoning stated above that applies to “be improved.” Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals

shall consider this minor variance and render a final decision.

APPLICATION

Property owner Anthony Mitchell proposes demolishing the existing structures at 116 S. Clifton and

building a new single-family home and detached garage. The proposed home would be 31 feet, 11

inches tall (maximum is 35 feet) and have 3,121 square feet of floor area. The project would include an

unenclosed porches on the front and rear, as well as a rear terrace. The proposed three-car detached

garage would utilize alley access. The project would be a conforming use, be built according to the

required setbacks, and be built within the zoning bulk constraints such as height, floor area, lot

coverage, and open space. See Exhibit C to review the submitted plans.

STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES

Section 4.4.e.1 of the Zoning Ordinance contains three standards for variances:

a. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in undue hardship;

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

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

4

Additionally, Section 4.4.e.2 includes six “evidentiary issues” which the ZBA may take into consideration:

a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific

property impose a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere

inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out.

b. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having a

proprietary interest in the property in question nor by any person in privity with the person

having a proprietary interest.

c. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare in the neighborhood

in which the property is located.

d. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent

property, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire,

endanger the public safety or impair property values within the neighborhood.

e. The proposed variance is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and the

adopted Comprehensive Plan.

f. The value of the property in question will be substantially reduced if permitted to be used only

under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located.

STAFF COMMENT AND ANALYSIS

Per Section 4.4.e, variances must be granted based on standards, but the Ordinance does not require a

request to meet all three standards to be approved.

Standards

Undue hardship:

The applicant states: “The requirement of minimum lot width applied to the lot in question renders the

lot unfit for redevelopment. There is only limited potential to enlarge the existing structure due to

currently non-conforming setbacks and shallow basement depth. Strict application of the ordinance will

result in the house having a complicated structural system, an awkward setback on the second floor and

a remaining setback nonconformity.”

Comment and analysis: The applicant is correct that the current house is nonconforming in terms of the

minimum interior side yard on its north side and also correct to point out that demolishing and building

a new home would eliminate this nonconformity. The minimum interior side yard is five feet, and the

house foundation is at approximately three feet. Therefore, if the applicant pursued an alternative

project to add a second-story addition, they would need to “step back” the second floor so that the

portion that was new construction complied with the current Ordinance or pursue a variance to allow

the second floor to encroach to the same degree as the first floor. See Figure 33 from Section 15.4.A:

5

FIGURE 33: ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS

Note: The above figure is valid for both the vertical and the horizontal.

On the other hand, the applicant has shared the house is not encroaching into the side yard on the

south elevation; in fact, there is additional width in the buildable area before running into the interior

side yard line on that side. See the Staff Photos on Page 8 to see the space between the existing home at

the subject property and the homes to both the north (112 S. Clifton) and south (122 S. Clifton). The ZBA

should ask the applicant to elaborate on the “complicated structural system” that would be necessary to

design a project that complies with the Ordinance.

Unique circumstances:

The applicant states: “The unique circumstances exist because the area was subdivided and recorded

prior to the existence of zoning regulations that would dictate minimum standards for lots within this

zoning district. Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance rendered the once buildable lot as nonconforming.”

Comment and analysis: In the area bounded by Greenwood Avenue (west), Cumberland Avenue (east),

and two alleys to the north and south, we calculate sixteen lots that are nonconforming with regard to

width. A field tour of the area reveals that most lots are improved with original homes built in the 1920s

and 1930s. There may have been small alterations over time, but all in all, these homes mostly resemble

their original footprint and construction. Homes at 112 S. Clifton, immediately to the north of the

subject property, and 114 S. Chester, one block to the west are obviously examples of homes that were

enlarged; however, these properties were enhanced via addition projects permitted by the exception of

Section 15.5.B, because the improved status of their lots did not change. This is in contrast to a

teardown project, which is proposed by the applicant.

6

Figure. Nonconforming lots in general vicinity

Not altering essential character:

The applicant states: “The essential character of the neighborhood will not change. There are other lots

on the same block that have similar lot width. The proposed development will be a single-family

residence the meets all other zoning regulations including lot area, bulk, height, setback, lot coverage,

and open space. The proposed development will fit into the context of the neighborhood.”

Comment and analysis: The applicant does not seem to have made a compelling argument that

nonconforming lots are unique; on the contrary, they have successfully argued their situation is quite

common. Throughout Park Ridge there are nonconforming lots in single-family neighborhoods. In some

cases, it may be possible for an existing structure on a nonconforming lot to be enlarged, maintaining

the existing foundation and retaining some historic elements. In others, preserving even a portion of the

home may be onerous and unreasonable. In our opinion, this applicant’s request as shown in the

submitted plans to construct new structures that would conform to the Ordinance aligns with essential

character.

ZBA ACTION

In making a recommendation to the City Council, the ZBA shall make findings of fact. In making its

findings, the ZBA may inquire into standards and evidentiary issues, as well as any other issues it deems

appropriate, per Sections 4.4.d. and 4.4.e. When the ZBA has finished taking comment and its

deliberations on the matter, the ZBA may move forward with a motion.

Motion:

“I motion that the ZBA approve a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot width by twenty percent

(20%) to allow a new single-family home and detached garage at 116 South Clifton Avenue, as shown in

the submitted plans attached to the staff memorandum for Case VA-19-0012.”

7

Findings of Fact:

Draft findings of fact are included with the packet. At the time of the vote, the ZBA should, if necessary,

remove or add language so that they may be approved and a written copy may be signed by the Chair.

ATTACHMENTS

Exhibit A: Draft Findings of Fact

Exhibit B: Variance application and required documents

Exhibit C: Submitted plans

8

STAFF PHOTOS

116 S. Clifton (left) and 112 S. Clifton (right)

116 S. Clifton from the rear

Side yard area (south) between 122 S. Clifton (left) and 116 S. Clifton (right)

Side yard area (north) between 116 S. Clifton (left) and 112 S. Clifton (right)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVAL

On An Application for Minor Variance Regarding Property at 116 South Clifton Avenue, Park Ridge, Illinois

Tony Mitchell August 29, 2019 7324 W. Howard Street Niles, IL 60714 RE: 116 S. Clifton Ave., Park Ridge, IL 60068 Mr. Mitchell: On July 29, 2019, you submitted an application to Department of Community Preservation and Development staff for a minor variance for property at 116 South Clifton Avenue in Park Ridge, Illinois. In accordance with Section 4.4(d)(2) of the City of Park Ridge Zoning Ordinance, this request was forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which may render a final decision. The nature of the variance request is as follows: To seek relief from the minimum lot width by twenty percent (20%) for the R-2 zoning district as contained in Section 7.3, Table 3 of the City of Park Ridge Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of constructing a new single-family home and detached garage. Following due notice, as required by the City of Park Ridge Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on August 29, 2019 in the City Hall council chambers. Upon having reviewed materials submitted by the applicants and a staff memorandum with attachments prepared by the Department of Community Preservation and Development, and having heard City staff comments and sworn testimony at the public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals deliberated and reached the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the strict adherence of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will / will not result in undue hardship because:

a. The existing single-family home structure can / cannot undergo a reasonable addition project to achieve the same or similar outcome as a new single-family home; and

b. ______________________________________________________________________________________.

2. The plight of the owner is / is not due to unique circumstances, because:

a. __________________________________________________________________________________; and

b. ______________________________________________________________________________________.

3. The variances, if granted, will / will not alter the essential character of the locality, because:

a. The proposed project will, aside from lot width, conform to all bulk requirements; and

b. The proposed project will / will not complement the single-family home aesthetic of the block; and

c. ______________________________________________________________________________________.

Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby approves / denies the variance for minimum lot width in order to allow construction of a new single-family home and detached garage on the subject property as shown in the submitted plans attached to the staff memorandum for Case VA-19-0012. Any other variances necessary for the proposed project at the subject property will need to be approved in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Chair / Acting Chair Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) City of Park Ridge