HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 12/08/1998 - 98-8/LOT 2 TOUHY AVE V �
ELK GROVE VILLAGE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 8, 1998
Present: R. Phillips, Chairman
E. Hauser
C. McClelland
J. Oliveto
R. Penley
T. Rogers
G. Schumm
Staff: A. Boffice, Director of Engineering &
Community Development
Others: J. Gullo
Zoning variation - Docket 98-8,
Parking Stalls Lot 2, Touhy Avenue
Chairman Phillips called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The
Chairman advised the Zoning Board that the President and Board of
Trustees had remanded this Docket back to them to consider
additional information which had been presented to the Judiciary,
Planning and Zoning Committee and further was identified in an
October 1, 1998 memo from the Director of Engineering & Community
Development to the Village Manager.
Mr. Boffice explained that the October 1, 1998 memo identified
additional factors regarding the property and location, which may
be influential in the review of the variation requested. He
indicated that the Zoning Ordinance currently permits 17 ft.
stalls (a reduction in parking stall depth of 2 ft. ) when the
stalls are located on the perimeter of lots and the overhang area
is landscaped. He pointed out that the adjacent property has a
paved driveway along the lot: line common to both properties,
which effectively increases the driveway width and parking stall
depth on the Gullo property.
Page 2
Mr. Boffice identified the fact that the parking area where the
size reduction is being requested is for long-term employee
parking. Employees will be parked during the entire working day
in this area. Salesman and customer parking areas will be in
front of the building and be built to regulation.
Finally, it was noted that the granting of the variation would
result in the construction of fourteen (14) additional parking
spaces and a much more functionally operational parking lot.
Mr. Penley indicated that he had concerns over the utilization of
the adjacent asphalt pavement without a legal agreement that
would guarantee its continued use.
Mr. Boffice stated that if the Zoning Board were inclined to
recommend the granting of the variation, it would not be out of
place to make that recommendation subject to the execution of an
appropriate legal document securing the ongoing use of the
adjacent property.
Mr. Rogers stated that he had difficulty identifying the hardship
associated with this case in light of the fact that the
petitioner had designed the building, ordered steel and had begun
construction before ever requesting a variation. Mr. Boffice
discussed the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and stated that
"hardship" was only one of several criteria which could be used
to demonstrate the need for a zoning variation. He also stated
that the construction plan, as submitted, had met all of the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and could be built without a
zoning variation. The variation, however would improve the
overall project.
Mrs. McClelland highlighted the fact that the village Board had
directed the Industrial/Commercial Revitalization Commission to
review the parking requirements and that there was the
possibility that the parking regulations would be changed later
in the year. Mr. Boffice confirmed that parking stall depth and
width were two items which would receive close scrutiny by the
Revitalization Commission.
Page 3
The Zoning Board continued its discussion over the merits of
attaching the condition of requiring a legal agreement between
the two properties for the use of the five-foot wide asphalt
strip. Mr. Gullo was asked if he believed he could acquire such
legal permission from the adjacent property owners. Mr. Gullo
indicated that he knew the owner well and believed there would
not be a problem.
It was moved by Mr. Penley, seconded by Mrs. McClelland to
recommend that the variation be granted subject to the execution
of an acceptable legal agreement, which would allow for the
continued utilization of the adjacent five feet of paved
property. Upon roll call (E. Hauser, C. McClelland, J. Oliveto,
R. Penley, T. Rogers, G. Schumm AYES, J. Franke, P. Kaplan
ABSENT) the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hauser voiced his concern over the manner in which this
entire variation request had proceeded. First, the petitioner
had not posted the appropriate signage on the property and the
original hearing had to be continued to a future date. At the
rescheduled hearing, the petitioner presented no evidence on his
behalf and the overall presentation was inadequate. Finally, the
Zoning Board had to rehear the case as remanded by the Village
Board based on additional information that was presented to the
Judiciary, Planning and Zoning Committee and the Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. Boffice indicated that a revised application could eliminate
a petitioner's inability to comprehensively discuss the criteria
associated with the granting of a variation. He advised the
Zoning Board that he would be working on revised forms.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
AlaJ7 J. office, Director of
Engli2eering & Community Development
AJB:pcd
Page 4
C: Chairman and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, President and
Board of Trustees, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager,
Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern, Director
of Engineering & Community Development, Director of Public Works,
Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief (2) , Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman
and Members of Plan Commission