HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 07/15/2010 - VARIATION/2050-2100 LIVELY/DOCKET 10-4 ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
July 15, 2010
Present: P.Kaplan,Chairman
J. Oliveto
L. Dohrer
G. Schumm
J. Meister, Sr.
S. Carlson
D. Childress
Absent: J. Walz
Staff: J. Polony,Plan Reviewer, Community Development
Zoning Variation—Docket# 104 2050-2100 Lively Blvd.
Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pin and read a statement describing the
hearing notification procedure as well as the legal notice. The petitioner, Mark Dudek,was
sworn in and asked to present his case.
Mr. Dudek indicated the intent of the proposed parking was for a more convenient location to the
new tenant located at 2100 Lively Blvd. Mr. Dudek also indicated the proposed parking would
allow for an accessible parking stall for 2100 Lively Blvd.
Mr.Kaplan opened the meeting to questions from the board.
Mr. Childress stated that the driveway construction has already started and the proposed parking
stall layouts were already spray painted on the grass. Mr. Childress proceeded to ask a few
general questions about the relocation of any utilities or existing landscaping.
Mr. Dudek indicated the utilities would not have to be relocated based upon the proposed
configuration; however if need be the proper procedures for relocation would be followed.
Additionally Mr. Dudek indicated the existing trees and shrubbery would be replaced per
Engineering Department standards.
Mr. Oliveto indicated he was concerned about the dangers of the parking stalls being located in
such a close proximity to Lively Blvd. and Arthur Avenue. He believed the parking stall
locations and shrubbery screening would produce a visual hazard for the occupants parking in
these proposed locations.
Mr. Dudek indicated the parking stalls would.be arranged so the occupants would be able to
adequately see down the adjacent streets without being visually impaired by the shrubbery.
I
i
Mr. Meister noted a strong concern for the parking stalls being blind to the loading dock areas.
He indicated the parking stall locations would not allow occupants to adequately see if a truck or
van was pulling out the dock areas. He additionally asked the petitioner if a traffic analysis was
conducted for Lively Blvd. and Arthur Avenue.
Mr. Dudek indicated the Ioading dock doors would be open if a truck was using the dock area so
the parked cars would notice the dock was is use. He also indicated no traffic study had been
done on the area at this time.
Mr. Meister then noted that safety is an important factor which must be considered when
designing the parking stalls. He indicated that four(4)out of the five (5)parking areas are
located adjacent to dock doors or drive in doors,which posed a safety hazard. He asked the
petitioner if 2100 Lively(Unit B)was occupied at this time.
Mr. Dudek indicated that both the truckers and the car passengers shall be aware of their
surroundings at all times when operating motor vehicles. Mr.Dudek indicated the 2100 Lively
Blvd..unit will be leased by a freight shipping,business within the next month.
Mr. Meister mentioned the freight shipping business will produce a heavy amount of truck
loading and unloading at the tenant space.which would make the parking stalls more susceptible
to collision:
Mr. Dudek agreed that the new tenant space would produce a high amount of traffic in and out of
the dock areas.
Mr. Carlson asked the petitioner if the loading-docks could fully accommodate for a sixteen (16)
wheel or eighteen(18) wheel.truck. He expressed a concern about the trucks encroaching into the
parking stall areas and blocking occupants fiom leaving.
Mr.Dudek indicated the trucks would partiallybe extending out from the loading dock areas
whtich may impede exiting.
Mr. Dohrer expressed concerns about the excessive.amount of loading dock and drive in door
openings on Lively Blvd. and Arthur Ave in respect to traffic moving in and out. He additionally
indicated there may not be enough room to install bollards at the gas meters and the stalls
adjacent to 1050 Arthur Avenue may not meet the nine foot(9')by nineteen(19) foot criteria
established by the Engineering Department.Mr. Dohrer then mentioned that there is an
abundance of parking located in the rear of the building and he sees no real hardship in the
proposed parking stall locations on Lively.Blvd. and Arthur Avenue. Mr.Dohrer indicated he
was opposed to the parking stalls located adjacent to the dock doors and drive in doors due to
excessive amounts of traffic these areas produce.
Mr. Dudek said he would insure there would:be enough room for the bollards and parking stalls.
He additionally indicated the need for the parking.was for a convenient location for 2100 Lively
Blvd. tenants so they didn't have to walk around.the entire building to enter their space.
I
7
I .
i
Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner if he could use the additional parking at the rear of the building
if need be and asked how the screening would decrease visibility of the parking stalls.
Additionally Mr. Schumm indicated he did not see.any type of real hardship for the installation
of the proposed parking stalls.
.:I
Mr. Dudek indicated he could use the rear parking lots for tenant parking if necessary and the
parking stalls would be located directly.next to the building to help decrease visibility of the
parking areas.
Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner if he had any designs for a flashing light or mirror system
installation at the parking stalls adjacent to"the dock doors that would notify parked cars of trucks
leaving He stated this system would be helpful.to parked cars so they were aware that a truck or
van was leaving the dock area.
Mr. Dudek indicated he had no proposed design for systems mentioned by Mr. Schumm.
Mr. Meister again expressed a concern for the heavy traffic in and out of the dock areas and the
possibility of the trucks blocking in cars when loading and unloading. He additionally indicated a
large amount of the parking stalls proposed,would not be necessary and only a few would be
practical for the 2100 Lively Blvd. tenant.
Mr. Kaplan asked the petitioner if any.other configurations could be used for the parking stall
design and if he was willing to reconfigure,the design..He also indicated due to heavy traffic
along Lively Blvd., it is recommended to remove those parking locations for safety purposes.
Multiple other members of the board reiterated their concerns for safety and the idea for redesign
of the parking stalls.
Mr. Dudek said he was willing to redesign the parking stalls based upon the suggestions of the
Zoning Board and needed to verify the redesign with his superiors prior to a final design.
Mr. Kaplan called for a continuance of the hearing based upon redesign of the parking stalls on
Thursday July 22,2010 at 7:00 pm.The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectf lly submitted,
ed Polon
y
Plan Reviewer, Community Develo ent
C: Chairman and Membe ning Boards of A peals,Mand Boar of �SteesZant Village Clerk, Village/Attorney, Village ager, eputy Villag /Ianage , Ass
Village Manager, Dzr ctor of the Enginee g an Community Develop nt,Direct of
Public Works, Fire hie Deputy Fire. ief(2), Inspectional Service upervisor,
Chairman and Membe�of Plan Commission