Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 12/03/2003 - 115 GAYLORD Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes December 3, 2003 Present: J. Glass F. Geinosky C. Henrici P. Ayers D. Sokolowski T. Thompson J. Meyers Absent: D. Paliganoff E. Hauser Staff: M. Roan, Assistant to the Village Manager Petitioner: I. Rejdak C. VanderVennet, Attorney Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Item 1: November 12 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Henrici requested several changes to the wording of the motion. Commissioner Geinosky moved to recommend approval of the meeting minutes with the requested changes, and Commissioner Thompson seconded the motion. Upon voting (Glass, Geinosky,Meyers, Henrici, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES,Paliganoff, Hauser, ABSENT, Ayers ABSTAIN) the motion carried. Item 2: PC Docket 03-10: 115 Gaylord—Special Use Chairman Glass read the petition into the record. C. VanderVennet, attorney for Fosco,VanderVennet&Fullett, identified himself and noted that he would be representing the petitioner. Secretary Geinosky swore in the petitioners. C. VanderVennet began by noting that the petitioner was seeking a special use permit to operate an automotive repair shop in an 1-1 Industrial District. Ile also noted that on Tuesday, December 2"a the petitioner submitted a letter authorizing the attorney to represent her at the hearing. C. VanderVennet noted that the petitioner already operates another facility, but has a contract to purchase the property thereby allowing them to relocate to Elk Grove. In response to staffs concerns, C. VanderVennet noted that the petitioner would have 3 repair stalls and will employee approximately four to five employees. In addition,he noted that the Village Code requires 1.5 parking stalls per repair station and five more for employees. Therefore, the petitioner will make available ten to twelve parking stalls in the back of the property and will also fence it in. - 1 - Furthermore, C. VanderVennet noted that the Fire Department indicated several safety concerns, all of which are agreeable to the petitioner. C. VanderVennet also noted that the petitioner will have room inside the building for eighteen vehicles, which is more than what the petitioner intends to work on at one time. Commissioner Thompson asked if the petitioner was proposing an auto repair or auto body shop. I. Rejdak replied that they were an auto body shop. Commissioner Thompson asked if the petitioner was going to make twelve to fifteen parking stalls available in the back of the property. I. Rejdak replied that there would only be ten to twelve. Commissioner Thompson stated that there was not much room in the back of the property for vehicles to tum around. He also noted that he examined the back of the property and did not feel it would be able to accommodate ten to twelve vehicles. L Rejdak noted that their estimate might have been wrong. Chairman Glass noted that they would need an isle 24-feet wide and would also need to stripe the lot. L Rejdak noted that they do have the ability to park cars inside the building. Chairman Glass noted that they need parking for employees and that the spaces need to be 19'x9'. Commissioner Thompson asked the petitioner if they intend on purchasing the property, and 1. Rejdak stated that they would be purchasing the property. Commissioner Thompson asked if they had another operation. I. Rejdak noted that their current business is located at 1910 5s'Street in River Grove. Commissioner Thompson asked how many cars they work on at a time. I. Rejdak noted that they average approximately ten cars within a 3,500 foot facility and that this facility is 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Thompson asked if they planned on repairing the facility. I. Rejdak noted that they do not plan on conducting any major remodeling,but will change the inside of the facility to meet their needs. Commissioner Thompson asked if they were going to do any work on the outside of the facility, and I. Rejdak noted that they would add a fence to the property. Commissioner Thompson asked if they were going to repair the roof, and I. Rejdak noted that they would be repairing the roof within one year. Commissioner Thompson also noted that the site looks like a junk yard, to which I. Rejdak noted that they do realize the property needs work, such as paving and tuckpointing, and that they do want to want to make the property look nice. Commissioner Thompson questioned where the petitioner receives their business. L Rejdak noted that their business comes primarily from insurance companies, such as Farmers Insurance. Commissioner Thompson then asked how the petitioner was going to move the cars around in the back parking lot since this is normally done with a tow truck. L Rejdak noted that most cars are still drivable. Commissioner Thompson also noted the Engineering review comment regarding the thirty day period for parking vehicles. L Rejdak replied that they are required to get to the cars as soon as possible due to the fact that most insurance companies are paying for rental cars while the other is being repaired. As a result, she noted that it is not their policy to leave cars idle. Commissioner Sokolowski asked if the petitioner received the special use, would the back of the property be cleaned up and repaved. 1. Rejdak noted that they will clean and repave the property if the special use is received. - 2 - Commissioner Sokolowski questioned whether or not employees would be allowed to park on the side of the building. 1. Rejdak noted that employees would park in the back since they would need the side to move cars around. Commissioner Sokolowski asked if the petitioner would be storing junk parts in the back of the building, and I. Rejdak stated that all parts would be kept inside the building. Commissioner Sokolowski then asked where the dumpster would be located. I. Rejdak stated that it would be kept in the back of the building. Commissioner Sokolowski then noted that with the parking of cars and dumpster located in the back of the building, that this area may be too small for the petitioner and could be an issue. 1. Rejdak noted that most all of their business is done inside, which would free up area outside for other things. Commissioner Sokolowski questioned when they were negotiating for the property if they asked what happened to the north side of the building. I. Rejdak stated that they had not since they were waiting for the special use before they paid any additional money for in-depth inspections. Commissioner Ayers commented that the petitioner should only have to demonstrate that they have enough parking and inside storage and also provide the Plan Commission with a layout for the parking. He then noted that this is not the place to manager the petitioner's business affairs. Commissioner Meyers questioned how many repair stations there would be in the building. I. Rejdak stated that there would be three. Commissioner Meyers stated that he agreed with the rest of the Commissioners concerns regarding parking and the location of the dumpster. Commissioner Henrici noted that the petitioner should be required to meet the Village's ordinance regarding parking and the staff should make sure they are in compliance. Commissioner Henrici questioned whether the main access to the building would be the front overhead doors. 1. Rejdak noted that they would use both the front and back overhead doors. Commissioner Henrici asked how many cars they would be working on at a time, and 1. Rejdak noted that they typically work on ten cars at a time. Secretary Geinosky agreed with the rest of the Commission regarding the parking. He also noted that he does not have any problems with the proposed business. He also stated that he was concerned with the appearance of the business and property since the Village has invested so much money into beautifying the Business Park. He noted that they must conform to the ordinance and make the property look good. He also noted that they should see staff and work on an approved parking plan. C. VanderVennet agreed that work needs to be done on the parking plan. Secretary Geinosky asked where the primary parking would be for employees. 1. Rejdak noted that if they had to, they could fit two to three cars in the front for employees. C. VanderVennet also noted that they can fit eighteen cars inside the building. Secretary Geinosky asked if the petitioner would be doing any adjusting or estimating for the insurance companies inside the building. 1. Rejdak stated that they are allowed to and would do it inside the building. Commissioner Henrici then questioned the petitioner as to who owns the bus parked in the back of the property. I. Rejdak noted that to the best of her knowledge the bus belongs to the owner of the property,but she stated that it would be moved if they purchased the property. Chairman Glass then asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak. P. Kasson, who owns a business at 199 Gaylord, stated that parking was his main concern and that he takes pride in the appearance of his building. I. Rejdak noted that appearance was also important the her, since it would be their own building and since it is also important to potential customers. - 3 - P. Kasson questioned whether the south portion of the property covered in grass was considered for parking. I. Rej dak stated that they had thought about using it. P. Kasson then asked Chairman Glass what a special use permit was, and Chairman Glass then explained the process and purpose. L. Kasson also commented,noting that their business is approximately 7,500 square feet and they are only able to provide eight parking spots. She also noted that with the available space, they would not be able to comfortably maneuver the vehicles and suggested possibly parking the employees cars in front of the building. Chairman Glass noted that parking is not allowed in the driveway. L. Kasson questioned the petitioner as to how they would dispose of oil and other fluids. L Rejdak noted that they only do body work, not automotive repair. In addition, she stated that they would have to comply with all building code requirements. Although he noted that he had no problem with the type of business, Chairman Glass then stated that he would continue the hearing to January 7"'. In the mean time, the petitioner will need to comply with the Village's parking ordinance by submitting a parking plan to staff for their review. Additionally, they will need to show the location of the dumpster and ingress and egress. He also requested that the petitioner put together a plan to show how they will be sprucing up the property. Item 4: Adjournment Commissioner Meyers moved to adjourn and Commissioner Henrici seconded the motion. Upon voting(Glass, Geinosky, Ayers Meyers, Henrici, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES, Paliganoff, Hauser,ABSENT)the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, A 'X� Assistant to the Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees,Village Clerk, 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, Village Attorney. - 4 -