Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 10/18/2006 - PC 06-8 ONE 6 MOTORSPORTS 610 BENNETT Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes October 18,2006 Present: J.Glass F. Geinosky T.Thompson D.Paliganoff E.Hauser P.Ayers C. Henrici J.Meyers D. Sokolowski Absent: NONE Staff: M.Roan,Assistant to the Village Manager Petitioner: M.Johler,J&Z Auto Repair J.Jobler,father of the petitioner J.Clery,Attorney Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Item 1: September 6 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Meyers motioned to approve the meeting minutes.Commissioner Henrici seconded the motion. Upon voting(Geinosky,Hauser,Henrici,Sokolowski,Paliganoff,Thompson,Meyers,AYES, Ayers,ABSTAIN,Glass)the motion carried Item 2: PC Docket#06-8: One 6 Motorsports—Special Use 610 Bennett Road Commissioner Meyers questioned why the meeting was not a public hearing. M.Roan stated that he had asked the Village Attorney if this should be a public hearing. M.Roan noted that the Village Attorney informed him that it was not since the hearing was closed and since they were only reconsidering their recommendation. Commissioner Ayers stated that the Village Attorney's memo noted that the Plan Commission placed too much emphasis on the legal action taken against the petitioner by the Village. Commissioner Ayers stated that he did not come to that conclusion based upon the minutes. Commissioner Ayers noted that the Plan Commission was concerned with the petitioner's character,but the Commission also had other concerns that were raised. Chairman Glass stated that the Village Attorney addressed his concerns with the decision rendered in the memo that was distributed in the Plan Commissioners packets. - 1 - J J.Clery stated that the previous meeting was properly published,yet no one showed up to testify at the hearing. J. Clery also stated that there was additional information that his client would like the Plan Commission to be aware of before rendering a decision. M.Johler noted that he was present six(6)weeks prior and did receive an unfavorable recommendation. He noted that he hoped to come back in front of the Plan Commission and prove that he does not have a bad character. M.Johler stated that he would like to clean up the outside appearance of his building and install fencing. He also presented photos to the Commission that showed the shortage of parking not being created by his business but by all the businesses located along the street. M.Johler stated that he has made some changes in since the last meeting. Commissioner Sokolowski noted that there was a big emphasis on the legal issues at the last hearing and asked if they had been resolved. J.Cleary stated that all legal issues had been resolved. He noted that the petitioner had made mistakes,but would like to move forward. Joseph Johler,M.Johler's father,asked to address the Plan Commission's concerns about his son's character. He noted that his son is a young,energetic businessman who made mistakes,but did not hurt anyone but himself. Commissioner Sokolowski asked if the petitioner was getting everything up to code in the building. M.Johler stated that he was. Commissioner Hauser questioned why this was not a public hearing. Commissioner Henrici noted that everything that takes place would still appear in the meeting minutes. Commissioner Hauser stated that this was still not a public hearing. Chairman Glass stated that there would still be an official record of the meeting since the minutes are a public record,but that there would just not be an official transcript. Chairman Glass read the meeting minutes remanding the recommendation back to the Plan Commission from the September 26,2006 Village Board meeting. Chairman Glass noted that there was nothing in their decision to remand the recommendation back to the Plan Commission that stated that the Plan Commission should take additional testimony. Secretary Geinosky referenced the second paragraph of the Village Attorney's memo that asked the question: does this Special Use request differ from other similar Special Use requests? Commissioner Ayers stated that it does. Commissioner Meyers stated that this automotive use is different than other automotive uses. J.Johler asked to address the Plan Commission. He noted that he was in the first graduating class of Elk Grove High School,and through their vocational program his first job was in the Elk Grove Business Park. He noted that his son used his school's vocational program to get his start.J.Johler had hoped that M.Johler would be able to provide the opportunities that they were both given through their schools' vocational training programs to other high school students at his shop in the Business Park. He also stated that his son saved his own money to start his business four(4)years ago and also saved his own money to purchase the building. J.Johler stated that his son has never been arrested,nor kicked out of high school and had graduated on time. He stated that he was a proud parent. He also stated that he felt his son was intimidated being in front of the Plan Commission for the first time and likely did not do a good job answering the questions asked of him. - 2 - J.Johler stated that his son did make mistakes,particularly from misunderstanding the Village Code. He noted that the area that his son chose to operate his business appears to be an area that allows automotive repair. He noted that there are several other businesses in the area that do similar work as his son. J.Johler noted that some of the work done by his son results in loud mufflers. J.Johler stated that he operates a successful motorcycle shop,and that some of his customers also have loud mufflers. J.Johler stated that the products being sold by his son are designed specifically for off-road use. He stated that he is not sure how a seller can be held responsible for what the buyer of the product does once he leaves his store. He also noted that there are other high performance automotive shops that do exactly what his son does located in the same neighborhood. J.Johler noted that he is not asking for anything out of the ordinary. He noted that his son has not been able to perform any installation for the past two(2)months and that he has been just selling parts. J.Johler stated that he was disappointed in the outcome of the last hearing,but also stated that he was more disappointed in his son for not spending the time to learn the code. He noted that his son should not have tried to do everything on his own to save money and should have obtained legal assistance earlier in the process. M.Johler stated that he chose the location because he feels the Elk Grove Business Park is a great place to be. In addition,he noted of all the other automotive repair and installation shops in the neighborhood, and also noted that he shares customers with two other performance automotive shops. M.Johler stated that if he gets approval,he would like to install fencing and additional landscaping as soon as possible. In regard to previous concerns regarding parking,he stated that he is doing his best. He noted that it is a small street with a lot of businesses,so not all the cars are his. He stated that he is working to educate his customers on parking behind his building. Commissioner Hauser noted that he had concerns that the petitioner would not be able to confine all of his operations to his building. He noted on a past occasion that he had observed 7 cars in the street,with 2 having their hoods up and an individual under one of those cars. He also noted that on a Saturday he observed two cars parked in front of his building next to a"No Parking"sign. Commissioner Hauser stated that when he stopped by the building yesterday he saw no cars in the street,but one car in the driveway. M.Johler stated that they would keep all cars inside or in the rear of the building,and noted that they currently cannot have cars in the building since they do not have the Special Use. M.Johler stated that they do not work on cars in the street. He also stated that whether or not someone was looking at something on their car in the street,it may or may not have occurred. Commissioner Meyers also noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that no vehicles shall be disassembled on site. He noted that he observed what appeared to be a disassembled car on site. M. Johler stated that the race he observed was the businesses racecar that had been parked there following the previous weekend's race. M. Johler noted that the rear bumper had been removed due to clearance issues. Commissioner Meyers stated that if he were in the petitioner's situation he would not have placed that car there. _3 . Commissioner Meyers noted that an individual located near his personal shop operates a similar business as what was being proposed. He also noted that the business test-drives their vehicles in front of his shop all the time. M.Johler stated that he has purchased a Dyno machine to test all the vehicles inside their shop. Commissioner Meyers asked if he would be test-driving them on the street. M.Johler stated that he would not do that,but also noted that he could not promise that some of his customers would not be driving on the streets in front of his shop. Commissioner Meyers stated that he did not consider this use as automotive repair. Commissioner Meyers questioned how many others were located near by. J.Jobler stated that he counted eight(8)other automotive repair facilities in the surrounding area,of which two(2)worked exclusively on performance automobiles. Commissioner Henrici asked if the Dyno was installed,would the petitioner be installing the soundproofing. M.Johler stated that he would install the soundproofing. He stated that it looks like the inside of a paint booth,but with insulation. Secretary Geinosky asked if staff had approved the parking layout. M.Johler stated that it was not yet approved. M.Roan stated that any recommendation by the Plan Commission for the parking plan would be contingent upon final approval by staff. Commissioner Thompson questioned the petitioner's first zoning request that stated he was a metal manufacturer. M.Johler stated that when he began the focus of his business was the fabrication of metal manufacturing and machining. He stated that he has his own line of products that is required to be fabricated on site. He stated that he knew he would also conduct retail sales. M.Johler stated that after moving in,they experienced excelled growth,and as a result they began performing installations. Commissioner Thompson questioned why the petitioner did not consider going back to the Village to inquire whether or not that component of his operation was legal. M.Johler stated that he did not think to go back to the Village. Commissioner Thompson noted that the petitioner was asking the Village to grant a request,yet the petitioner ignored the Village's laws. Commissioner Thompson stated that he should be punished by not being allowed to perform installations for a period of one(1)year. M.Jobler stated that lessons have been taught. Commissioner Sokolowski noted that when the petitioner began he made numerous mistakes. Commissioner Sokolowski stated that it was his understanding that the petitioner is working with the Village to rectify the errors that have been made. He noted that the petitioner has agreed to clean up the property. Commissioner Sokolowski stated that he felt the petitioner learned his lesson and did not see any problems with issuing the Special Use permit. He noted that it would be the Village's job to regulate the business and take care of any problems that arise. Commissioner Ayers stated that he did not believe they should issue a permit if the Plan Commission perceived that problems would arise. Commissioner Ayers noted that his original application stated that he would be performing fabrication and warehousing. Commissioner Ayers questioned what the petitioner's intentions were when he moved into a 5,000 square foot facility,since only 600 square feet would be used for retail. Commissioner Ayers also noted that the Village requested he obtain a Special Use when inspector,saw him performing installation work,yet he ignored and ended up in Housing Court. Commissioner Ayers noted that it was not until the courts threatened incarceration that the petitioner stopped doing what he was asked not to do. -4 - Commissioner Ayers noted that the petitioner stated he would be operating three(3)service bays in the shop. Commissioner Ayers asked if he would be employing three(3)mechanics. M.Johler stated that he would only be employing two(2)mechanics. Commissioner Ayers asked if the petitioner was a working owner. M.Johler stated that he was a working owner. Commissioner Ayers noted that 60-75%of the business is retail. He questioned if someone would be selling the product. M.Johler stated that he oversees the selling of the products. M. Johler noted that it would be the two(2)mechanics and himself that would be working at all times. He also noted that they share responsibilities at times. Commissioner Ayers indicated that he felt parking would be a problem. Commissioner Ayers stated that he is not sure how so many automotive uses ended up in this area of the Business Park. He noted that he did not remember any of them performing the functions that the petitioner was requesting. He also noted that the clientele the petitioner is seeking to serve is totally different than the typical automotive repair clientele. Commissioner Ayers noted that he felt the petitioner's disregard for the Village's zoning ordinances was an important issue. He noted that he was afraid if the petitioner received approval that the Village would be stuck regulating his business. M.Johler stated that it was never his intention to disregard the Village's zoning ordinances. He noted that the day the inspector informed him of the violation,he went to Village Hall to file the paper work. He stated that he did disregard the Village's zoning ordinance,but stated that he only did so because he .panicked and did the work to get the cars done for his customers. M.Johler stated that the Business Park is a great area to be located in because there are no homes nearby to wont'about bothering. He noted that he had looked all over for a building to buy,but that the building in Elk Grove was the only one that was not neighboring a residential neighborhood. M.Johler stated that his business performs more than just installing performance exhaust systems. He noted that he also sells suspensions,wheels,tires,and other parts for road racing. M.Johler also stated that he has never had a neighbor complain to him or tell him they had an issue with what they were doing. He noted that if they ever did,he would have addressed the problem. Commissioner Paliganoff asked what kind of financial burden the shutdown has had on the petitioner. M. Johler stated that he has lost a lot of business because of the shutdown. Commissioner Paliganoff asked what kind of effect a one-year ban would have on the petitioner's operations. M.Johler stated that he would likely be forced out of business. J.Cleary asked the Plan Commission if it was their intention to force the petitioner out of business. Commissioner Paliganoff stated that the Plan Commission needs the petitioner to resolve his issues and commit to not being a problem for the Village. Commissioner Paliganoff asked the petitioner if he had a business plan. M.Johler stated that his plan was to continue doing what he was doing,which is to stay busy. The petitioner stated that they currently do a lot of shipping of parts. He stated that he would prefer to only fabricate and sell his products,but unfortunately in order for him to obtain the sales he is also asked to install the parts he is selling to his customers. - 5 - Commissioner Paliganoff asked Chairman Glass if the Special Use stays with the building or the use. Chairman Glass stated that the Special Use is only tied to the business at the specific location. Commissioner Paliganoff informed the petitioner that the Plan Commission would like to see some rigidity and commitment from the petitioner. Chairman Glass questioned how long the petitioner had been in business. The petitioner stated 4-1/2 years. Chairman Glass questioned what the petitioner did prior to owning his own business. M.Johler stated that he held various jobs. He stated that he saved the money he earned for three to four years while working a job in metal manufacturing. Chairman Glass noted that the petitioner must have been doing well if he was able to purchase his own building. Chairman Glass noted that the need and reason for permits is to protect neighbors,the building owner, and the environment. If people were allowed to do what they wanted,there would be chaos. Chairman Glass stated that there would be penalties for those that break the law. He noted that housing court was one penalty,and that not being able to operate appears to have been a huge financial burden. Chairman Glass noted that sometimes people make mistakes and as a result have a price to pay,but Chairman Glass questioned if the petitioner had learned from the mistakes that he made. Chairman Glass noted that he had issues with asking the Village to continue policing the petitioner. Chairman Glass stated that he was not happy with what he had heard from the petitioner and noted that he could not remember the last time someone had come before the Plan Commission with this many problems. Chairman Glass also noted that a lot of tax dollars were spent getting the petitioner to this point in the process. Commissioner Henrici noted that the Village Attorney's memo stated that monetary sanctions had already been placed on the petitioner and that the Plan Commission's decision should not have anything to do with the violations that have already been paid with fines. Commissioner Ayers noted that the Plan Commission would be asking a lot from the petitioner,and stated that the petitioner would be required to control his customers and their actions. Commissioner Ayers stated that he was willing to give the petitioner an opportunity. Commissioner Ayers also wanted to know if the Plan Commission would be able to revoke the Special Use if the petitioner did not live up to the Commission's requests. Commissioner Hauser noted that the Director of Engineering&Community Development's memo stated that the petitioner must show that his actions can be confined. Chairman Glass stated that the petitioner cannot control what happens up and down the street. With no further questions,Chairman Glass asked for a motion. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Henrici moved to recommend approval of the special use petition for Mr.Mark Johler at 610 Bennett Road based up on the following conditions: I. All open storage areas for vehicles waiting to be serviced shall be located behind the principal building and screened by a'six-foot(6')solid fence or wall; 2. No vehicles shall be stored for more than thirty(30)days; - 6 - 3. No vehicle shall be disassembled on site except for the purpose of repairing or replacement of damaged or unusable components thereof; 4. No vehicle or parts thereof shall be rented,leased, sold,or auctioned from the site; 5. A parking plan shall be submitted to the Department of Engineering&Community Development for final approval; 6. All operations shall be completely confined within the boundaries of the lot; 7. None of the activities of One 6 Motorsports,or the activities of his customers,shall have a deleterious affect on any of the surrounding properties; 8. Soundproofing shall be used at all times; 9. No work or inspection of vehicles shall take place in front of the building or in the street; 10. Installation of fencing shall take place before operations are allowed; 11. The site shall be landscaped; 12. Signage shall be provided which indicates"No Noise"and"No Working on Vehicles;" 13. Village staff will review the Special Use in one(1)year to ensure that One 6 Motorsports is in compliance with all the specified conditions and shall present that report to the Plan Commission for review; and 14. The Special Use will be null and void if One 6 Motorsports ceases to operate. Commissioner Paliganoff seconded the motion. Upon voting(Gemosky,Hauser, Sokolowski,Meyers, Paliganoff,Ayers,Henrici,Glass,AYES,Thompson,NAY)the motion carried. Item 3: Adjournment Commissioner Meyers moved to adjourn. Commissioner Thompson seconded the motion. Upon voting (Gemosky,Hauser,Henrici,Sokolowski,Meyers,Paliganoff,Ayers,Glass,AYES,Thompson,NAY)the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a ekoan 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,Director of Engineermg/Community Development,Director of Public Works,Police Chief,Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2),Inspectional Services Supervisor,Village Attorney. - 7 -