Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 09/17/2008 - SPECIAL USE/935 LEE STREET Elk Grove Village Plan Commission Minutes °: ,. ; September 17, 2008 OCT -g W k Present: P. Ayers F. Geinosky VILE 0ttLERK'S OFFICE J. Glass E. Hauser C. Hearici --- J. Meyers D. Paliganoff D. Sokolowski T. Thompson Absent: Staff- B. Jacobsen, Assistant Village Manager S. Trudan, Deputy Director of Community Development Petitioner: Raj Shah, Property Owner, 935 Lee-Street Ann Seger, Gardi & Haught, Ltd. Commissioner Geinosky called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Meyers motioned to name Commissioner Geinosky Acting Chairman. Commissioner Ayers seconded the motion. Upon voting, (Ayers, Geinosky, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES, Glass ABSENT) the motion carried. Commissioner Meyers motioned to name.Commissioner Paliganoff Acting Secretary. Commissioner Sokolowski seconded the motion. Upon voting, (Ayers, Geinosky, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES, Glass ABSENT) the motion carried. Item 1: September 3,2008 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Meyers motioned to approve the September 3 meeting minutes. Commissioner Ayers seconded the motion:'Upon voting, (Ayers, Geinosky, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski, Thompson, AYES, Glass ABSENT)the motion carried. Item 2: 935 Lee Street—Special Use Chairman Geinosky read the legal notice-for the record. Commissioner Paliganoff swore in the petitioner Raj Shah and his legal counsel Ann Seger. Ms. Ann Seger, legal counsel for the petitioner briefed the board on the petitioner's,history in the Village. Mr. Shah has been in business in Elk Grove for eight (8) years. His first business was on Lively Boulevard for four(4) years. His second business in the Village was at this property before the Commission today, 935 Lee Street. Half of his building is used as an electronic distribution warehouse and half is being leased to a tenant for truck repair. The Special Use permit was initially applied for because the Village found Mr. Shah's tenant operating without a Special Use permit. Ms. Seger claims Mr. Shah was unaware of the Special Use requirement and claims he made every attempt to comply with the requests of the Village, although she admits-there was some confusion over Mr. Shah being able to operate the truck repair business while waiting for the Special Use hearing. He stated the truck repair business only works on large trucks and tractors, although Mr. Shah stated that his tenant has worked on Police and Fire Department vehicles in the past. Commissioner Thompson questioned the tenant's claim regarding working on Police and Fire vehicles due to the previous statement that his business only worked on large trucks and trailers. These statements support Village staff comments, which noted that the tenant was operating a truck repair business-while waiting for the Special Use hearing. The tenant was absent from the meeting and unable to provide additional details to either of these claims. Commissioner Thompson questioned Mr. Shah's claim of naivety, as he previously stated he has been a business man in Elk Grove for over eight (8) years and has hired counsel who should be providing him with guidance regarding Village procedures. Commissioner Thompson also questioned Mr. Shah's claim that he was unaware of Village procedures, although it was made clear that both an Illinois State Representative, and a State Senator were contacted. Ms. Seger confirmed that the tenant contacted a State Representative because he felt it was unfair for him to close his business while waiting for a Special Use permit. She went on to say that the tenant is from Bosnia where people are fearful of the government and he over-reacted due to a cultural misunderstanding. Commissioner Hauser asked Ms. Seger when the lease began at 935 Lee Street and if the tenant was a relative of Mr. Shah's. Mr. Shah stated that the lease began in January of 2007. Ms. Seger stated that the tenant was not a relative of Mr. Shah, but was notable togive the Commission the tenant's formal name. Commissioner Hauser noted that all of the correspondence from Ms. Seger were not dated and on company letterhead. He also questioned if she were legal counsel for the tenant as well. Ms. Seger stated she could speak on behalf of Mr. Shah and the tenant. Commissioner Hauser then asked if she were under a retainer with the tenant although she wasn't able to provide the Commission with his name. She then stated she is only under a retainer with Mr. Shah. Commissioner Hauser questioned the letters submitted to the Village, specifically statements such as, "approximately 16 parking spaces" and "three to four repair stations." He also was confused about having three (3) repair bays and only two (2) employees. 3 Commissioner John Glass arrived and allowed Commissioner Geinosky to remain the acting Chairman at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Seger stated that the documents submitted on July 10 showed five not six parking stalls. She explained two stalls are for customers, one is for Mr. Shah, one is for the tenant, and one for his employee. Commissioner Hauser was critical of several items drawn on the site plan. He noted thafthe Village Code requires parking spaces to be at a minimum 8.5" by 19" but due to the clientele on this business,parking stalls would have to be much larger for tractor trucks to park in. He also noted that the building was divided into four rectangles, three stating, 20" by 30" and one 20" by 40". Ms. Seger stated it was a typographical error on her behalf. Commissioner Hauser noted that when he drove by the property on September 11, 2008 there were two semi tractors parked in the 25-foot setback. He questioned how the Village could ensure this would not happen consistently. Ms. Seger stated she was not aware of a 25-foot setback. Commissioner Glass noted that the petitioner and his counsel have stated that Mr. Shah was not aware of the Special Use permit or of the Zoning Code, yet claimed he will comply with both of these rules. He then asked how can the Village can ensure compliance if the petitioner is not currently in compliance and claims to not know the Village code. Ms. Seger stated that Mr. Shah will make himself aware of the rules and make every attempt to comply with Village ordinances. Mr. Shah stated he would put up No Parking signs in the setback. Commissioner Glass asked why the petitioner waited until this meeting to express his intent to become compliant when he was given a letter from the Village on July 29 that stated he was in violation of Village Code. As late as September 11, nearly two months later, he was still violating the Village Code. Mr. Shah stated that the truck drivers do not know the setback rules. Ms. Seger stated that he was not operating a business out of this facility and was not there to enforce the rules. Commissioner Glass questioned why trucks would park on his property if they were not doing business with his tenant. Mr. Shah stated that Village staff told him trucks could park in his lot and previous customers were showing up for work to be done. Chairman Geinosky noted that he stopped by 935 Lee Street on Monday, September 15, and saw two tractors parked illegally within-the 25-foot setback outside of this business. In fact, Mr. Shah came out and introduced himself to Chairman Geinosky. Ms. Seger reiterated that the tenant could not be present because he was currently in Bosnia. Commissioner Meyers-noted that all trucks have their business name and phone numbers on them. Mr. Shah could have easily called the company and asked that they move their trucks off his property. Mr. Shah noted that most of the time there are no trucks at his property, but when they do pull up while he is there, he tells them to leave. Ms. Seger dovetailed on Mr. Shah's i i i ' 4 comments stating he has made every attempt to not have trucks parked on his property. She apologized on his behalf and confirmed he will meet every Village Ordinance in the future. Commissioner Glass asked if the number of estimated parking spots in their plans meet the Zoning Code. The Deputy Director of Community Development stated it was difficult to know, without a proper description of the second half of the property, not being identified. Commissioner Sokolowski stated on April 30, the Village placarded the building stating the use was not approved under Village Code. He felt if the petitioner put everything into his legal counsel's hands at that point, this process may have gone smoother. Ms. Seger stated there was a lot of communication back and forth between herself and the Village. Commissioner Sokolowski asked if she advised her client of the appropriate procedure to follow. Ms. Seger refused to answer the question under attorney/client privilege. She reiterated the fact that the tenant was scared and he is not from the United States. Commissioner Glass questioned Ms. Seger's comments regarding the business owner's naivety because he knew enough about government to call his Senators. He does not buy the argument that these two businessmen do not know the rules of business. Ms. Seger stated the tenant called State Representatives out of frustration but since obtaining legal counsel, he has made every attempt to meet Village Code. Commissioner Glass stated that Mr. Shah is to blame for allowing the tenant to start up this business within his building. He added that the tenant and the owner blatantly contradicted the Village Code, and he doesn't trust them as business owners in the Village of Elk Grove. Ms. Seger asked why Mr. Shah would put over$300,000 into the Village's economy and try to scam the Village. She added that the business works on Police and Fire vehicles. Commissioner Glass responded noting he never called the business a"scam." Furthermore, if the petitioner has invested over$300,000 into his business and the Village he clearly is not the naive businessman she is attempting to portray. He stated it does not make sense'to allow this gentleman to continue to operate an illegal business in Elk Grove. Mr. Shah stated in two and a half months only one truck has come inside his building. Ms. Seger asked Commissioner Glass what illegal activity he was alluding to. Commissioner Glass stated the activity he was referencing was the improper operation of a truck repair facility within the building at 935 Lee Street. It does not comply with Village Code. Ms. Seger responded that the petitioner would like to work and repair vehicles and regain his livelihood and he has every intent to obey the laws. Commissioner Sokolowski asked.if Mr. Shah employed anyone within the distribution center. Mr. Shah stated that he previously ran the distribution company on his own, although he has since retired. Commissioner Sokolowski told Ms. Seger the plans she submitted on Mr. Shah's behalf should have been done professionally. Ms. Seger responded that unfortunately, due to the money already invested in this process, it was not feasible at this time to have them professionally done. 5 Commissioner Meyers stated that his views have already been addressed by the other Commissioners, and due to the site layout, which is not feasible for parking in the rear of the building, and the history of Village Code violations, he will be voting against this Special Use permit. Commissioner Ayers added that he also does not support approving a Special Use to a property that does not meet Village Code. Parking is supposed to be in the rear of the building and this site does not have room in the rear. He also noted that Mr. Shah is not a new business owner and even if he were, one should not open a business without knowing the Village Codes and Regulations. Commissioner Ayers is not pleased that the tenant and business owner of the truck repair shop is not at the Public Hearing and his name has not even been given for the record tonight. He stated that he would be voting no for the Special Use, and feels the petitioner has questionable character. Commissioner Henrici noted Village Code does not allow the first two parking stalls on the site plan and the fence in front is also not allowed. He stated the plans submitted have numerous flaws and he would not approve a plan that does not meet Village Code requirements. Commissioner Paliganoff stated that the tenant most likely has violated the terms of his four-year lease if he has been operating an illegal truck repair business within Mr. Shah's property. He asked if he had a copy of the lease with him. Ms. Seger stated that the tenant might have unintentionally broken the contract. Mr. Shah stated that his broker drafted the contract. Commissioner Paliganoff told Mr. Shah he has not been getting good legal advice. He stated that the tenant most likey has violated the lease by violating Village Code. He went on to tell Mr. Shah that his existing counsel should be giving him advice to be able'to move forward and get a new tenant. Chairman Geinosky asked if the business only works on tractors, where do they store their trailers. Mr. Shah stated that most of the customers are in the shipping industry and leave the trailer at their delivery sites. Chairman Geinosky noted that the lot to the west has fifteen empty trailers. Mr. Shah confirmed his tenant did not move the trailers. Chairman Geinosky asked for clarification on the Village equipment his tenant is claiming to have worked on. Mr. Shah stated that his tenant told him he has done oil changes for police officers' cars. Chairman Geinosky asked staff who does the maintenance on Village vehicles. The Assistant Village Manager and the Deputy Director of Community Services both stated Village vehicle maintenance is done in-house at the Fleet Garage. Commissioner Glass stated that the petitioner's credibility has been lost. Ms. Seger stated that Mr. Shah is providing the best information he can. I Commissioner Sokolowski stated that the tenant should have been present for this meeting and at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 2, he saw two mechanics cleaning up at this property. At 8:05 p.m. Chairman Geinosky opened the public hearing to the audience. Mr. Frank Sommer has been the business owner at 950 Lee Street for over 25 years. He stated that on Sundays his business is blocked by 935 Lee Street's trucks and it is nearly impossible to get to his building. Commissioner Glass asked if vehicles are being repaired at 935 Lee Street and he replied, "yes all the time."He stated that he honks his horn and has to park in the back of his building if the truck drivers are not in the tractor. George Sommer, the son of Frank Sommer, also stated that many of the trailers are left overnight. He believes the property next door rents spots to store trailers overnight. Ms. Seger stated that the trailers are not customers of Mr.'Shah's property. Commissioner Meyers noted that the pictures provided within the petition application included photos with trailers in them. Mr. Shah stated that those trailers might have just been making a delivery. Charlotte Burke of 911 Lee Street stated that she is frustrated with the truck drivers on Lee Street that park, get out of their trucks, and walk away. She is not sure where they go. She confirmed that the weekends are the worst and they are often parked for more than thirty minutes. She also stated she didn't know what building the drivers were going into, because it is hard to communicate with drivers that do not speak English. Commissioner Glass stated that the business owners should call the Police when this is occurring. He noted the issue at hand is the Special Use petition. Mr. Shah is requesting a large variation. Parking should be behind the building, which is not in addition to the other issues that leave the Plan Commission in doubt. He asked Village representatives if staff had made clear to the petitioner the errors in this application. The Deputy Director of Community Development said he made it clear that parking is their greatest issue. The Assistant Village Manager also stated that she expressed to the petitioner the high standards expected in a petition of this nature. Commissioner Hauser.did not feel that Mr. Shah should be solely responsible for the tenant's Special Use application. RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Glass moved to deny the petition for Special Use at 935 Lee Street based on errors in the site plan that do not meet basic Village requirements. Commissioner Meyers seconded the motion. Upon voting, (Ayers, Geinosky, Glass, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Thompson, Sokolowski, AYES) the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Glass directed Mr. Shah's counsel to get in touch with the tenant and notify him of the rejection of the Special Use. I I y 7 Item 3: Adjournment Commissioner Geinosky motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Meyers seconded. the motion. Upon voting, (Ayers, Geinosky, Glass, Hauser, Henrici, Meyers, Paliganoff, Thompson, Sokolowski, AYES) the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beth Jacobsen Assistant Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Deputy Village Manager, Director of Public Works, Director of•Engineering/Community Development, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Inspectional Services Supervisor, Village Attorney . I