Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, he just texted. Hold on. He's just a couple minutes. Oh, there he is. I know. I know. Huh? I just now saw it. Yeah. Sorry. that cool or do you want to do?

Okay. Okay, we are calling to order the planning and zoning commission meeting on February 5th, 2026 being held at Pure City Hall, room 400. It is now 1:00 p.m. Can we get a roll call? Commissioner Herd, Commissioner Barry, Commissioner Kohler, Commissioner Gibb, Commissioner Wisahan, Commissioner Ununice, Chairman Martin here. Chairman, we have a quorum.

Thank you. Before we start the meeting, I'd like to go over a few ground rules for some of you who've not been here before. There is an agenda listing that cases that are up for commission to consider today. The planning zoning commission makes recommendations to the city council. The date each case will be in front of the city council for a final decision will be stated at the conclusion of each case. This date is usually the fourth Tuesday of the month during the regular scheduled city council meeting. The commission follows the city's municipal code, specifically the unified development code within when making its recommendation to city council. The commission considers the testimony presented by city staff, the applicant or their representative, and the public when making recommendations to city council. Each case begins with a city planner presenting the recommendations of the city's development review board. After each case is presented by city staff, the petitioner or their representative will get an opportunity to present their case to the commission. After the petitioner or the representative presents the case, any member of the public can comment in favor or against the case. This is the portion of the hearing when the public can comment. The petitioner or the representative will get an opportunity to speak again after any members of the public speak. During the hearing, the commissioners may ask the petitioner or the representative, city staff, or members of the public questions. The commissioners mo can motion to recommend approval or denial to the city council. Once a motion passes, the case is concluded. If anyone in the audience wants to speak today, they need to stand up and be sworn in. And they also need to fill out a blue card and turn it into city staff.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month's meeting. Any discussion? All in favor say I.

Any opposed? All right. First case is PZ5-2026. This is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council. the request of Todd Herman on behalf of Authentic Oak LLC to obtain a special use in a class R2 single family residential district for a short-term rental for the property located at 615 West Timothy Drive partial identification number 1409303 008 Pure Illinois Council District 5. Um this property came in in 2023 for a special uh excuse me special use for a short-term rental. the new owner is uh requesting the same scenario for this. Uh again, when ownership changes, the special use is no longer valid. So that's why this applicant is coming through uh for this property. This property did change hands on January 28th, 2026. Uh for the use, there are two bedrooms, both 15 by 15. Uh the DRB comment notes that they can't add additional uh dwelling units to the property. Um for occupancy they're proposing up to four adult guests um which is compliant with code the same as the previous recommend uh request. Um we still have the same conditions for fire extinguishers, smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors for the property for the parking on the site. The applicants provided the site plan is noted uh and it notes that uh one legal off street parking space. Uh the it's in the attached garage. The paved driver could accommodate more vehicles, but they wouldn't be independently maneuverable. So, we'll have to use that for the parking. There is on street parking available on the property.

for this site. Uh it is not in a defined neighborhood association. Uh the 1% cap allows up to eight special use short-term rentals within the half mile radius. Uh again, this is still the first one in that half mile radius. There aren't any others. And then of course, the applicant's going to have to uh get the appropriate licensing for the property as required for the site. You can see it's uh existing R2 zoning. It's surrounded in R2 zoning in all directions. Um the aerial photo is there as well for you. And then this is the photos supplied by the applicant for the property. So for this request, the development review board recommends approval of the request for a short-term rental with the following conditions. Fire extinguishers shall be installed according to the 2018 international fire code. Uh interconnected smoke alarms shall be installed as well. Same fire code recommendation. Uh carbon oxide detector shall be installed according to that same fire code requirement. Uh additional dwelling units shall cannot be added to the site. The occupancy of the short-term rental shall not exceed the standards set forth in the building and fire code of four total persons. Uh, of the maximum occupancy allowed, no more than four adult guests may stay in the dwelling at any given time. Number six, the owner shall obtain a m and maintain a valid short-term rental license from the city of Poria and the owner shall pay room rental use or privilege tax to the city of Poria. And then finally, unapproved special use is available for the applicant only as identified on the special use application submitted to the planning and zoning commission. An approved special use shall become null and void upon any change of ownership of the property, which results in the removal of all prior applicants. Such change in ownership of the property will require a

new special use application and approval, which is why we're here today. So, if there are any questions from the commission, I can take those now.

Thank you. Any questions for city staff? Okay. Hearing none. Is the petitioner here would like to come forward and speak. Okay. Sounds good. Anyone in the audience like to give testimony for against this case? Please come up. Seeing none, do we have findings and facts?

We do. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort of general welfare. Will not. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. will not the establishment of the special use will not impede the normally and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for the uses permitted in the district will not adequate facilities access roads drainage and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Yes, the proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of PU as amended is not. If a public use or a use providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit not applicable, the special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located except as such regulations may in each instance be modified pursuant to the recommendations of the planning and zoning commission. Yes, those are the findings. Thank you. Do we have any discussions on the findings and facts? Hearing none. Do we have a motion?

Some move. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion? Uh, Mr. Chairman. Yes.

Josh, quick question. I'm just curious. Do we on our uh community development's long list off to the side, do you folks track short-term rentals since it's been uh a part of Poria to see whether it's going well, going badly, complaints. I mean, I assume you'd have no information about occupancy rates, uh, etc. because it has been contentious over the years. I'm just curious if it's something that you're tracking new trends elsewhere in the country, anything or no, you've got too many other things going on that

we're just operating uh, you know, the requirements as as stated administratively. Um, you know, certainly there are certain districts that permit uh short-term rentals without this legislative process. So, there are other ones that are out there that are just going through the licensing procedures. Um, and then these ones are the legislative ones that that you see um for specific special uses as you know as far as trends or anything like that. We don't provide any or review any of that those things uh on an additional level. So, and it's been quiet in terms of issues or complaints, etc.

I mean, we Yeah, we certainly we receive complaints and they have the nuisance process that takes care of, you know, if those items come into play for getting rid of uh nuisance short-term rentals. So, we certainly, you know, process those and and uh go through that process for it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Congratulations. This will go in front of the city council on the 24th, correct?

Of February. So, thank you and thanks for doing business in the city as well. Give us just a minute to do some paperwork and we'll get started on the next case. Okay. Next case is PZ6-2026.

Right. PZ6- uh 20226 is to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Steven Hodell of Zendever Signs and Graphics Inc. on behalf of the United Presbyterian Church to amend an existing special use ordinance number 15188 as amended in a class R5 residential cluster development district to allow for the installation of a second freestanding sign with a height of 5T and area of 32 foot for the property located at 2400 West Northmore Road. partial identification number 141842046 and this is in council district 2. Uh so currently this property is developed with the church and then early learning uh center. That's a a smaller uh portion. And the petitioner is requesting to amend their existing specialies to replace an existing 24 square foot uh freestanding sign with a new 32 foot freestanding sign located at the entrance to the property on Northmore Road. So located up here at this entrance. The church also has a 40 foot digital sign that's located near the corner over here. You can see it up at Allen and Northmore. And that was previously approved through an amended special use uh some time back. There are no changes uh to this 40 foot sign just for this uh replacement of the smaller uh pre-anding sign here at the entrance. So uh these types of special uses which are residential zoning district special uses are allowed one wall or freestanding sign with a maximum sign area of 20 square foot and 5t in height. So back in 2005 the special use was amended to add the uh 40 foot digital sign that's at the corner. And on the

site plan, there was a note that there was a second freestanding sign at the entrance of Northmore, but there were no details provided for what the size or height of that was uh at the time. And so uh therefore zoning regulations of 20 square foot in size and 5 ft in height would apply to this sign document. And the documentation provided with this request indicated the sign was built to 24 square foot and 5 foot in height. So, we really just went off of uh trying to patch what we have historically and fill in the gaps. Again, 20 square foot size and five foot height has historically been what's allowed. Um, and we don't have further information on what this was originally intended to be. It was just on a site plan. So, we're trying again to just fill in the holes. Uh, generally though, there's no changes to the parking lot. Uh a couple items uh the DRB commented was that uh as our most developments, bike parking was not required at the time of development, but it's recommended with future development or to add it now. And then we are also placing a condition to replace all faded handicap accessible signage and all those signs shall have the $350 fee or fine posted. Uh no change to the mechanical and utility screening, landscaping or buffers. And from an inspection, they're all in compliance. For the sign, again, the applicant is proposing a 32 foot freestanding sign with a 5-ft height to replace the existing freestanding sign that's located near the driveway. This would require a waiver to increase the size of the sign from 20 foot to 32 foot and also a waiver to increase the number of allowed signs for residential district special use from one to two signs. Uh as you'll see then the DRB does not support the request for 32 square foot sign. Uh but we would not object to a

sign with a maximum area of 20 square foot which is within our regulations. Um and also maintaining a 150 foot separation from the digital freestanding sign which we approximated based on the site plan to be the 150 foot separation comes from uh how we treat commercial properties. So if you have at least the 150 foot lineal separation along the front edge, you're allowed a second sign on commercial properties. And then no changes to the lighting. Uh obviously we recommend uh as times change or lights are being replaced that we are still meeting all requirements within that parking lot. um the setbacks and height of the sign are being maintained um within regulation and then there's no changes to the existing access from should say Northmore so that was my bad not Allen Road. So this property though is uh a little over 10 acres. It's located in the class R5 residential cluster development district. Adjacent zoning is R3 um to the north and east and south and then there is O2 exclusive office uh park district to the west. All the properties so northeast and south are developed with single family homes and the property to the east is developed with a medical office and again this property is currently developed uh with a church school. Uh it was originally intended to have a daycare uh memorial gardens which are located at the northern part of the property and then a 24 square foot freestanding sign which is what's being replaced and a 40ft digital freestanding sign which is remaining. Some history on the property. This uh property was granted a special use for a school originally in the class R5

district in 1995. Then in 2001, uh, additional property was reszoned and added to this area, uh, to grant a special use for church, school, daycare, and memorial gardens. And this ordinance specifically approved one freestanding sign located at the corner of Allen and Northmore, not to exceed 20 square foot and 5 foot height. And then a few years later in 2005, there was another amendment for a building and parking lot addition, this ordinance also approved an expansion to the freestanding sign at the corner. So that's where we got the 40 foot sign. And again, the second freestanding sign was noted at the entrance without any design details. Um, so what based on some goo Google map research, we've seen that it's remained about the same. Um but we never actually had the specific details of it on our site plans. Uh the city has been in the property um and zoned uh R2 medium uh density residential then to R1 low density then to RC which was residential cluster which simulates today's uh R5 residential cluster development. For our analysis, um we did not find that there was a detriment to public health safety or general welfare. Uh there has been a freestanding sign that's existed near the entrance for many years um dating back quite a while with an approximate sign area of 24 square foot. So if replaced with a sign that um does not exceed 20 square foot, which is what we're recommending, it may not be detrimental. um it's really remaining the same. Uh we also found that there's no injury to their property nor diminish properties. Again, the surrounding single family homes were all developed prior to the granting of the original special use in 2001 which allowed the uh

expansion of the property into a church, school, daycare, memorial gardens, then again to the freestanding sign. Um so the existing sign has been in place for many years and replacement of it would not change uh what's there today. Uh there's no impediment to orderly development. It provides adequate facilities. There's no change to the ingress and egress and other than the condition to replace all feta handicap accessible signs um and the waiverss to allow for a second sign and a larger sign. It conforms to all the other district regulations. So, the development review board recommends denial of the request to increase uh the size of the freestanding sign located at the entrance to 32 square foot. This recommendation is because the property already had signage exceeding the regulations of 20 square foot in size. And our sign regulations are intended to reduce visual sign clutter, avoid distractions for drivers, protect the public safety, and preserve community character. Uh and really trying to provide less of those nonconformities in the city. So, alternatively, the development review board would not object to a freestanding sign with a maximum sign area of 20 square foot, a height of 5 foot, and maintaining that distance of 150 ft from the existing digital sign. This recommendation stems from the existing sign having been in place for numerous years, and the property having two frontages, uh, Northmore and Allen Road. So again, that went back to um when we were allowed to have at least 150 foot uh lineal frontage between the two signs and also a typical uh commercial property would also be allowed one on each frontage given that they could meet those uh separation requirements. That's where we were really stemming our recommendation off of. Non-residential properties are allowed more than one sign again. Um so we're really just trying to look at it from that uh angle. And while the intent of the code is to

reduce sign congestion and eliminate non-conforming signs, allowing a 20 square foot freestanding sign, which is compliant with residential district special use sign regulations, is less intrusive than the proposed 32. Uh, and then regardless of the way that you vote today, we would ask for a recommendation of a condition to replace all feta handicap signage with a $300 uh postage fine. Again, all residential in the yellow and office building is developed down here and the church property is in orange. So, this is the new sign. height of 5 feet, 32 square foot sign to a place in the exact same spot that this one was standing in. This will be completely removed. I do not have details as to whether they plan to keep landscaping, redo it, remove it, but that would be a perfect question for them. And then this is the sign that uh you may have seen when you go on Alenode or Northmore. It's a big digital sign which was approved and it meets the area and height that it was approved to be. And then uh like I said based on measurements we believe this is at least 150. They would have to ensure that before installation if approved. Are there any questions?

Any questions for city staff? Thank you. I will. So can you just explain to me? So I know that 20 20 foot is is by code. Mhm. So if they go by 30 some, how is that become detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare? Is it just because we're not complying with the code or is there something else that

So we're already so allowing a second sign is already greater than what code allows. They're allowed one wall or one freestanding sign. So by even saying that we would not object to a 20 square foot sign that's that's greater than what's allowed. Um, so our justification at the end of the day was to allow a sign or not object to a sign that at least meets today's code, which is 20 square foot and 5 foot height, rather than allowing them to go even larger than that. Quick question.

Have you sat down with I'm sure you have because they presented this, but looking at the looking at the sign without butchering it up for them, have they you talk to them about maybe reducing it and what has been the reaction before I ask them the question.

Uh so the way this was presented to us um originally we were going to go with a straight denial of all and not even give the option of a 20 square foot. That came a little later on. So I can't say that we had a conversation with them to ask if they'd want to reduce it. Regardless, it would have they would have obviously still had to come here and ask for permission to do that. Uh so that's why we gave a second recommendation within our memo.

So I have to bring up some old cases. I mean where we've gone past the rule of your 20 square feet all these the big sign behind on all these out on the highway is are those specifications different than a church sign or something like that? So which ones I guess so there's different commercial properties are allowed a different amount size tallness height of signs versus this is a special use residential district. So it's zoned in or in a residential district any like classic house or other residential use is not allowed a sign at all on their property. So special use has specific res regulations that are much smaller than what a typical commercial property is allowed. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. Thank you. There's a petitioner here. I'd like to come forward. Please state your name and address and tell us a little bit about the project, please.

Hi, my name is April Crotz. I am the administrative manager at United Presbyterian Church on behalf of um the property at 2400 West Northmore Road, Poria, Illinois. Um, I'm here today because we'd like to petition um on behalf of the church and UPC Discovery Child Care Center to approve this proposal. We're not significantly changing the footprint of the existing sign. And there's many reasons why it's important to keep the existing size um and and let uh community members be aware and prospective families be aware that we're there. Um, as we are all um, as we all know, the need for affordable and accessible quality child care is urgent um, in in our community and we offer highquality accessible affordable child care and UPC Discovery is one of the leading child care centers in Peoria due to some specific accreditations. Um the proposed sign is important because the there is no other indicator that the preschool operates at that property except for the sign that we're referring to today. So in addition to community awareness in emergency situations which we have frequently both by caregivers who are coming to pick up their children from the property or emergency situations where for example we are a point of congregation in a mass shooter event. Um it's important that the the property is identifiable for both the church and the preschool. Um UPC Discovery is an important ministry of UPC that serves um the community. We uh take child care assistance, CCAP. So that's a program that pays for child care for lower income workers. Um we serve a wide range of Peoria's residents, including many public servants, firefighters, police officers,

city workers. Uh we provide community service through food drives that benefit that benefit local food pantries, diaper collections, toy drives. our work with Southside Community Center and our support of St. Jude. Um we also uh regularly serve the students at Northmore Schools. Um students, parents, and teachers regularly visit and utilize the property both inside and out to enhance their curriculum. We partner with Bradley and IC and their teacher training programs because we are the only nationally accredited um facility in Peoria. um as the only national association for education of young children accredited child care center in the poria area um which is one of the highest marks of quality for early childhood education. It signifies that our program meets a rigorous researchbased standard for safety curriculum and staff qualifications. Programming is based on a continuous evidence-based improvement. We also received the Accelerate Gold um Illinois administered uh verification through the Illinois Department of Human Services and the Illinois State Board of Education. I'd just like to mention very briefly that the static message of the freestanding sign is very different than the electronic sign. As the operator of the electronic sign, I can tell you we're very limited. Um we messages have to be 10 seconds long and so there are messages that scroll through. So, we can't really identify the activities that are available to the community at the church and use the electro electronic sign to say the preschool is also here. If we would, it would be only for maybe 10 seconds out of a 60-second roll. Um, I would also like to mention that we have already ordered the handicap replacement signs uh with the updated info for the $350 fines, and we were grateful that that was brought to our attention. Uh I would also like to relay that it was not communicated um or we

did not have the opportunity to discuss a reduced size sign. Um the concern for us is based on the location of the entrance um and the two major intersections of roadway. A smaller sign would reduce the information on the sign to make it difficult um to identify and read. uh the landscaping would be kept unless um it was indicated to us that the landscaping needed to be removed to approve the sign. Um and alternatively, I would like to also mention it's my understanding that in order to meet code, we could place a temporary sign in this in this area. A temporary sign would meet code, but it wouldn't look nearly as nice for the community. I mean, we could take the same information and make it a temporary structure. We would meet code. You know, our goal is to continue to invest in the community and the property. Um the pictures don't really do it justice. The existing sign um is much darker and brown and faded, and we really started to address this because we were getting complaints about the look of the existing sign. Um and that's why we had hoped to upgrade the sign and make the information more clear while being aware that, you know, how we look does impact uh the property value around us. Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our hopes with you. Um because the existing sign sign has been there for many years without any issue or complaint. Um and because our proposal doesn't significantly change the footprint of the existing sign or have a negative impact on the community and our view, we hope that you will approve the proposal and help us make our child care center uh more visible to the community around us. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Would you city would you put the new Would you put their new sign back up on the board, please? Have you ever before this gets turned down and I don't know how it'll go among the commission members. I'm just asking this question. Have you ever thought about reducing that top line across that 96? It appears you've got quite a you might have two or three or four inches of of white space on the top of that. Have you ever thought and you got the same thing on on both verticals. Have you ever thought about reducing both of those lines to get within compliance?

Uh, it's a valid point. Um, and typically in printing, the white space is very important in order to make the other printed materials stand out and be visible um and easier to comprehend. Again, what I would say is if we had gotten communication back with that recommendation, we we may have considered that and replied to it. But what what the notification we got was it was denied and come come to the meeting

because as well known as you are on that corner and you've been there for many years. You're well known. If you can start taking a look at the the vertical lines and the horizontal across the top, it appears you got some room to maybe negotiate this thing before. As I say, I'm only one person in this commission, but it's just a it's just a point. I'm not trying to redesign.

I appreciate it. And Steve could maybe speak more to that. When we went out and looked at um what was recommended um the 20 square feet from what we could determine it was going to reduce the sign size by about a third which was going to we would then have to either remove information in order to keep the rest of the font large enough to be readable. Um we we'd have to make significant changes to the sign. Would you consider a deferral to work this out before it comes before this this commission?

I I would leave that up to Steve. I mean because I he can answer maybe more specifically um based on his design qualifications if he thinks we can maintain the material and visibility. Um I but I'm not opposed to it. But I I would be curious to see what Steve has to say. Again, I apologize. We didn't have the opportunity to have this conversation prior. Any other questions for

No, same comment. I just want to echo my commissioner's comments. I think there there are and I understand totally understand the need for visibility, but I think the city has shown a little bit u you know stretching their hands by allowing the sign the second sign to go in. U I think the design and I'm not a sign designer by no means, but I think that the design itself could probably lend itself reducing maybe shrinking some parameters out of the sign and still comply with the that's why I would probably suggest a deferral instead of uh having it rejected.

Well, quick question. So, is is the main issue um for clarification is are customers having a difficult time finding you?

Correct. And so, um, if you are familiar with the property, as you approach it, it can be difficult, um, to tell, uh, what is there, um, specifically that there is a child care center in place. And even once you come into the property, it can be difficult to locate it, which is why marking the entrance has been helpful, um, because there are several uh, access points due to the memorial garden and and several other areas. But we continue to have difficulty from parents and people who attend the preschool delivery drivers. Um they just have trouble locating where to turn onto the property and and where we are. And as I mentioned before, there's no other outdoor indications that UPC Discovery is present except for this sign.

Yeah. When she's when she's done, you can come up. Sure. You'll be able to. So, another question, and it'll go to one or both of you also, too. Have you ever considered putting a UPC Discovery sign on the building, particularly on the North Face, like on the North More Road side of it, having the sign on the building? And what were the That's a great question. Um, if you're familiar with the building, it's large glass windows and so we wouldn't have the ability to do that and have visibility to the road um because it's it's large glass windows. So, we just don't have the wall space. I think it's a really valid question. Um, which is why outdoor signage is really our our option.

Commissioner Herd, that would also require their special use to be amended to ask for a second sign. So, the signage counts for one wall sign or freestanding. So, just for your information, it would still come into this process as well. Commissioner Barry, did you have everything? Thank you very much. Thank you for your questions. I appreciate your time. Absolutely. Please state your name and address.

Hello. Uh my name is Stephen Hodel. Um I reside at 3817 West Gromo Court in Dunlap. I'm the owner of Zendavore Signs and Graphics. And um yeah, I just kind of want to reiterate some of the points that uh April had given. Um, one of the things, um, Mr. Herd, that you had asked about was the building sign, and some of it is just the way it is down down that hill. Uh it's just there isn't there isn't good um space on the on the building to do that which really kind of enforces the need for better signage that's there at the at the entrance point. Yeah. Coming off of Allen Road, there's there's that digital sign on the corner and it's got good visibility. The bigger concern is people coming from the east, coming from, you know, Richwood's High School area coming that way. The only I mean other than this sign that's at the entrance point, you know, the large sign is is too far. You know, they would they would miss the drive. And this is this is a little more challenging case, too, because there's there's kind of two primary entities here. There's the church and the um and the daycare center. So you're trying to you know pinpoint you know two uh entities at that at that entry point. Um so again kind of uh I mean uh you had Mr. Mr. I believe you had brought up the idea about bringing some of the some of the graphics and yes we could make some modifications to the graphics but the fact is 20 square feet is is barely is about you know a 40% overall size reduction.

Um you know even if we could come to something in between 20 and 32 you know to give us a little more breathing room would would be helpful. I will say as for the for the code and churches, I mean, I drove by First United Methodist Church. They have a ginormous sign facing one way and they have lettering on other sides. So, there's exceptions all over the place. Uh, you know, having one freestanding or building sign per church, especially a facility as large as this, is really restrictive. Um, well, when I asked you the question, you said yes, you might be able to make some modifications. If we decide that we have to go with if if again, I'm only one member. If we decide we have to go with the city's recommendation on denial, then it actually goes to council and then you got another debate to go. Are you willing to back off, take a 30-day deferment, work it out with the city? If you're willing, it sounds like you're willing to do some negotiations.

Am I right or wrong? Yes, I I did ask about the 32 square foot and was just told yes, go ahead and apply for it. And then I didn't know it was denied until I got living with a 24 foot square foot sign and they found you evidently because the church has been there as long as I can remember. Right. Yeah.

So you you're you're trying to negotiate to maybe 30, but you've been sitting with a 24 that they you're talking about being able to find you. Evidently, they've been finding you. So I'm saying before I were to sit here and vote. Are you look would you be willing? It's your call. But if these other members decide, hey, Ununice, you're crazy. You know, that's a decision. And they've accused me of that a few times. But I'm just saying if we deny it or if this commission denies it, there you are. So a denial would leave us with a 20 square foot sign or you saying none at all?

I would say denial really is going to be left up to city council really at that particular point. They have to be up to the council then to decide. Okay, we'll go against we'll go against zoning and we'll go against city staff. It's the council's call, not us. I got you. You guys have a lot Poria has a lot more hoops for church signs than our surrounding communities. This is this is not normal. All of our surrounding communities have minimum 30 to 40 square foot range for everything. So what do you what do you I mean when you say defer this I mean what does that what does that mean exactly?

And we've done this before for a few cases. I'm saying if you did defer for 30 days, you come back to city staff and try to work out by reducing this down to get within staff's recommendations. That's I understand that. I'm a little frustrated that I got no communication from the city to do that. Well, then I'd say let the let the staff let the commission vote on it and go from there. I mean, It's to your advantage to you can't put it in the ground anyway right now because the ground is froze. Okay?

You'd have to go in there with augers and you got a mess. So, you're not going to do it tomorrow for sure. I I don't think you would. So, you got a time lapse first. You got to build this thing and that's unless it's built already. No. You got a time lapse of whether 30 days trying to come back and negotiate it out with staff. So Steve, your options right now as it lays out. So you're asking for a 32. If they deny, it would be completely denied and go to council that way. If you wanted to, we would not object to a 20. So you could say right now that you would reduce it to 20

and they would uh um and they would uh vote on that. If you wanted to defer and come back with a 24, which is not an option in here right now, we're looking at 32 or 20. You could come back with that. We'd have to go through the whole application. They could make a condition for it to be 24 right now. If you wanted to vote on that, you could make it a condition that you only want it to be 24 because that's what it is right now. Yes. Well, then it doesn't then it doesn't need to come back to us.

Right. So if you make a condition that you want to recommend approval for a 24 square foot, it can go to council. They can still say that you guys are allowed to do 32 or they can go with their recommendation or they can go with our recommendation. Okay. So it's up to you how you want to proceed. Still not totally clear on. So So you

right. Okay. So, our our recommendation, so if you came back with the 24, the only recommendation that would change is potentially theirs if you wanted to defer and rethink this. Our recommendation would still be denial of anything other than a 20 20 square foot sign. So, if you're wanting to maybe work with them on getting a condition to allow for 24 square foot, if you're satisfied with that today and and they're that's what they want, you could do that. Mr. Chairman, I

Right. Excuse me. We So, we could pass a motion allowing the existing square footage to remain new sign and that's 24 square feet and then like we all have said, it's up to the city council ultimately, but we can say we're okay with 24 square feet. And if council is okay with that, then you folks don't need to come back to us. Yeah. for another defer delay. Correct. Right. That's not the best answer, but we'll we'll go with that. Okay. Any other questions for the petitioners? We haven't we still have to go through those motions of

of findings of facts and vote. But yes, that would if that works then that any any other questions for the petitioner? So I guess just to make it clear, are you guys wanting to move forward with the potential that they're going to put a condition for 24 square foot,

right?

Speak in the Okay. Sorry. I'm still not totally clear. Are you Yeah. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Would you like to defer? Feel like you're in the hot seat, don't it? Yeah, we're not going to defer at this time. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate all the additional discussions for being here. Absolutely. Thank you for coming in front of us. All right. Any other questions for the petitioners? Hearing none. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the case?

Hearing none. Do we have findings and facts?

The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Will not. Special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. Will not. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Will not. Adequate facilities, access rules, drainage and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Yes. The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Peoria as amended. No. If a public use or a use providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit not applicable, the special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district of which it is located except as such regulations may in each instance be modified pursuant to the recommendation recommendations of the planning and zoning commission. Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any discussion on findings and facts? Hearing none. Do we have a motion, Mr. Chairman? Yes. Uh move to approve uh the design and construction of a new sign to replace the existing sign to equal the existing sign square footage uh which is 24 and that can be accomplished without uh with administrative approval and no further action by this body. Second that motion. Do we also want to include language about the uh handicap signage also with that as well?

Right. That other piece of the Thank you. Uh that other piece of the original recommendation to uh update the handicap signs uh is part of that. So, to be clear, a new sign at the existing square footage that is there now with new handicap signs that say $350 for the fine. Call the question. You got a motion. Second. Any discussion?

Ununice called a second. Yes. Okay. All in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion passes. It will go in front of city council on the 24th of February. Uh you'll have the option to still try to make your case with city council if you know reach out to your council person. And thank you guys for doing stuff in the city. Yes. Give us just a minute to get started on the next case. First go back in three months. All right. Case PZ7-2026. uh case number PZ7-2026 uh to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the

request of Larry Michael of Simple Blessings Senior Living for commercial business group LLC to obtain a special use in a class R4 single family residential district for elderly housing for the property located at 1511 North Bigalow Street. The partial identification number is 180417636. Uh so the request here um with the property being in a single family residential zoning district as is the surrounding is to um really continue the use of the home uh for elderly housing. Um so it's kind of a group occupancy um or a group living um where they're u more than three individuals. Um uh but the the residents um would be uh seniors age 55 plus or qualifying veterans um in a non-medical residential independent living setting. Um there would not again there would not be medical or nursing services. Um there would be uh a resident manager can provide some of the cooking activities, social activities, um uh coordinating um uh you know events or transportation um groceries things like that uh would be facilitated through the the the living st uh style. And so that fit best fits as elderly housing um which is a subset of assisted living in the unified development code. Um here on the property uh what we uh what we have here is you know a larger home uh here on Bigalow. Many of the homes are are are pretty large. Um we have a main house. There's a breezeway that connects back to a carriage house that also has um

living living area. Um and so the home um uh would have basically two dwelling or two two family units, one in the main house, one in in the carriage house. Um and so with the two dwelling units, elderly housing is uh the most appropriate fit. Um in the unified development code, that's uh a special use. It's consistent with the history of this property. Um in 1984 it was granted a special exception by the owner just previous to the current owner uh for um housing of the ambulatory elderly. Um again it was non-medical type of um housing residential uh situation. Um that approval, the special exception 1984, uh was granted for that owner only uh via the ordinance uh adopted by city council. And um as the property has changed hands in 2023, um the that special use or special exception uh uh is no longer applicable. Um so Mr. Michael is asking for, you know, kind of reinstating that special use. Uh the the request is to have up to 15 residents. That would include the the live-in um manager. Um there are a total of 13 bedrooms. Um nine bedrooms in the main house, four bedrooms in the carriage house. Um staff's condition is there's two smaller rooms that are under 120 ft. Those uh for compliance with um with different um living safety codes. Um the smaller our condition is the smaller bedrooms um less than 120 would be for single occupancy. That shouldn't affect uh their proposed uh number of residents.

Um and again it would be just two uh the two dwelling units uh um in each portion of the of the building. There would be a life safety inspection that would be required and is a condition um outlined in in staff's recommendation. um for for this proposal for the elderly housing to use it. Um he's not proposing any changes, physical changes, structural changes to the house, addition of bedrooms or anything like that. Um it's using the the existing living areas. Um with there being no medical services provided, um Mr. Michaels identified no state license is necessary or is needed. Um it doesn't qualify for that. Uh on here in the site plan, um the site again with its history of the use has several off- streetet parking spaces including a space with um some outdated accessible uh parking markings uh which are our recommendation is to update that. Um and then on the parking um I think all except the handicap parking spaces are on a gravel surface. So, we're we are asking for that to be updated uh to a hard um you know uh dustless surface. Uh concrete or asphalt would be uh appropriate as the driveway is. Um so the site on Bigalow um it's right it's at the end of the street um above uh Interstate 74 and one of the larger lots on the property. Uh certainly also one of the larger homes on the street. Um and then it it has access to the alley. Um also access to Bigalow. Um per the applicant, many of the residents would probably not have cars, have their own vehicles. Um usually it's family

coming to um uh pick them up or take them or visit them. Um but there is uh six parking spaces. Um that's two more than the previous uh you know use in 1984 was um uh had committed to. Um and then um no changes to you know the the yard or additional structures are requested. Um there's a couple uh storage sheds um you know recreational uh lawn uh structures. Uh parking on the street is also available if if that becomes a need. Uh in the packet uh they do have a a wall sign um which is um uh part of their request uh no objections to the size or replacement of this wall sign. Uh in the packet had different floor plans. So, that's where we um identified the two bedrooms being um that are smaller um but the other bedrooms um being part of the review. Um we have photos of the front of the home. Again, there is more about how the property is used. Uh no uh physical changes really being made. Uh, so the carriage house is kind of back there through this connecting breezeway. Here you can see the parking that I um I pointed out. Uh, this concrete parking space is probably has some old ADA markings. Um, so updating that is our condition. And then this is a gravel

service that we would uh ask uh as a condition to be updated. Here you can see the carriage house again is two stories, four bedrooms. All right, I'll summarize our findings. Pull that up. Uh so we reviewed the standards for special use on this request. Um and we find that they are met. Um there's no detriment to public health, safety or general welfare. Uh we would have um uh a life safety inspection would be required and uh the occupancy um would be you know capped at the requested 15. And for the room recommendations, uh, no injury to other property nor diminishment to property values um find that uh would would not uh would be met um with the update to parking um surfaces and markings. No impediment development. That's true. Provides adequate facilities again with those parking improvements. Um, Ingress egress is is um is met um conforms to our district regulations and it is consistent with our critical success factors to reinvest in neighborhoods and the city council strategic plan goals related to quality of life um as it provides um uh a specific type of housing options. So recommendation is to approve and we do have some conditions um uh listed for you uh for uh that's included in our recommendation. Um so we would approve with providing always at least that six off- streetet parking

spaces and then the off- streetet parking must be on hard all weather surface not gravel. Um number two the accessible parking space shall be marked with required striping and signs. Uh condition three, the occupancy is limited to a total of 15 residents including the living staff. Um number four, the bedrooms less than 120 square feet in area shall be for single occupancy. Conditions five, six, and seven are um for compliance with our fire safety code as related to um uh life safety inspection. Um making sure there's fire extinguishers for our fire code. And there is a hard um you know wired fire alarm system. Um it meets annual maintenance. So that's a condition to continue to meet that. And then if there's additional smoke alarms, they're installed according to our fire code. And then condition eight is to install carbon monoxide detectors per our fire code. And uh condition nine, our uh fire department um uh pointed out that all fireplaces shall be inspected by our fireplace inspection company. So that would be a condition um as well. So that's our summary. Again, we're recommending approval for the use of this home in the R4 district as elderly housing. Thank you. Any questions for city staff? Hearing none. There's a petitioner here. I'd like to come forward and tell us a little bit about the project. State your name and address. My first name is Larry, last name is Michael. Um, I live at 1710 Faget Avenue in Washington, Illinois. And, uh, guess first thank the staff, Chair Martin and commission. Uh, back in, uh,

November of 2023, we approached the owner of this property and, um, we thought it would be a good fit for what we do. and we offer senior living in the kind of lower to middle market. Um, so I believe it's currently zoned as um an ambulatory elderly. So we decided to kind of keep it in that same space. I believe the new code for the zoning in Puria is assisted living and the our model which is kind of more of a independent assisted lifestyle is where we decided to kind of shift things down. Same type of elderly person would live there except there's non-medical right now. And um we're just requesting the approval to kind of continue uh the need of um what we serve as kind of that lower middle market for senior living. And we don't propose any major changes. Um, in fact, I think we if anything we've really done to the property is it was in dire need of some TLC. It's it's a really nice home. We've done some floors, some paint, and um some some things like that. Um, we do have a great partnership with the VA out of Danville under their CRCP program. So, we've met all of their requirements for life safety, some of the normal things that you would need for uh what we call community living like this. And it currently again it we should be able to serve uh the the 15 residents that we could hold.

We're also in compliance with uh the request to make sure the parking lot is going to be fully paved and markings are correct and updated.

Yeah, outside of that I think um I welcome any questions from the council and city about Mr. Yeah. Is any of this section eight? No. So, this is all private funding by the Yeah, it's all it's all private pay. So, Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for the petitioner? Okay. Hearing none. Thank you, Larry.

Anybody in the audience for or against this case? Seeing none, do we have findings and facts? The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort of general welfare will not. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. Will not. The establishment of special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district will not. Adequate facilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so design as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Yes. The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Peori as amended. Is not if a public use or use public providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit not applicable. The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located except as such regulations made each instance be modified pursuant to the recommendations of the planning and zoning commission. Yes. Thank you. Any discussion on the findings and facts hearing? None. Do we have a motion? I'll make the motion to approve with staff recommendations. Do we have a second? We'll

second. We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Okay. Congratulations. It passed. It'll go in front of city council on the 24th. Thank you for doing business in the city. Give us just a minute to uh get prepared for the next case. You're right. Case PZ8-2026.

Yes. Case number PZ8-2026 to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Will Kenny for Puria Civic Center Authority to amend an existing special use or number 16,932 as amended in the class B1 downtown commercial district for Puria Civic Center facilities to add 4ft tall fencing in the front yards of the property located at 2011 Southwest Jefferson Avenue for a property commonly known as the Civic Center and located at 2011 Southwest Jefferson Avenue, 702 and 720 Fulton Street and 109125129 and 135 Southwest Monroe Street. And the personal identification numbers are 1809-251009 18091330313 1809201 1809202 002 1809202003 1809202004 and 1809202005. Um so this uh application is showing is um is a request by the civic center. Um they have a special use and so that involves all their properties, hence the multiple um addresses and parcel numbers. But the request here is really about the for fencing along the the main parcel 09 here. Um no other changes to their special use. Their special use covers all their facilities including their surface parking lots. um uh and also fencing previously installed um and used um that is similar to their requests today. So today um it requires an an amendment before this commission because the fence height is going to be

they're asking for 4 foot tall. It's in their front yards. The city's code stipulates a fence in the front yard cannot be taller than three feet. Uh so that's a waiver from the height. um with that waiver, they need to come before the commission to allow that additional uh foot in the fence height. Um so the fencing here, uh this is their main parcel again with the their main buildings here. Um and the request is going to include the fencing that's um already installed on their corner surface lot here at Comf and Jefferson. And then there's new fencing proposed along Jefferson Avenue. So this is the near the intersection with Liberty Street. Um here um this shows it a little bit better with some context. Um but uh the then what you would see new if this is approved would be a new fence line here along Jefferson Avenue here. This is again with Liberty Street uh crossing. Uh the intent of the fence uh again it's 4 foot aluminum style. uh the samples in the packet. Um for this fencing uh they want to encourage pedestrians to use the crosswalks at the intersections Liberty andor with Fulton um instead of crossing midblock and um you know the intent to uh improve safety. Um so that's the placement. uh staff's conditions are um that um there there may be a portion here uh that might be in the right ofway and for that for any of that part um there would be a permit issued a revocable rightway permit um for the record on that and then um if they do need to have some gates that was not um specified at this time if there do if there will be gates here this is a drop off area um the gate

width and just the general placement of the fence needs to make sure that there's still an accessible uh it meets accessible um routes uh requirement in terms of how wide that is and um and make sure that there's enough routes or the the width of the route is compliant with ADA standards. Um yeah, so they're they're asking to uh wave uh the the height requirement to allow an increase from three feet to four feet. Um, and the fence style is similar to other fencing you see around the block, right? Um, just outside these walls here around here. Similar fencing um, as well as as other parts of their property. Um, and so I'll bring up our findings. Um, as you'll see in the memo, uh, we Uh we think this height placement and or fence placement and height is is still going to meet our standards with uh no detriment to public health, safety or general welfare. Uh no injury to other property or diminishment to property values. No impediment to orderly development. Um provide adequate facilities. Um the condition regarding the fence or the gate openings. Ingress egress measures uh would be fine. And um there's the public benefit for this um conforms to all district regulations with our waiver um per their requests. And then it's consistent with our um comprehensive plan critical success factor to grow employers and jobs and our city council strategic plan for downtown development and community safety. So our uh we recommend approval. Um it would have um

conditions that there may be a need for a revocable rightaway permit based on placement. Um fence openings need to comply with ADA design standards and then the waiver so that the height can increase to four feet. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Any questions for staff hearing? None. Is the petitioner here like to come forward? Please state your name and address and a little bit about the project.

Hello. Uh Will Kenny. I'm at the Poria Civic Center, uh 2011 Southwest Jefferson. Um thank you for reviewing our case. Um I think you know with staff and our authority board really feel this project's important to improve the safety for the hundreds and thousands of patrons that come to our building. um with a large parking deck directly across the street. We've witnessed um a lot of people will exit the deck cross mid street. Um we've seen cars have to slam on their brakes. A couple years ago, we had a patron that was actually um struck with a vehicle. We put up some temporary barricades and we really saw an improvement um where people were going more towards the corner. So, we're really just trying to improve the safety for everybody that attends our building, whether they're coming from the deck or they're leaving our building. and walking to the crosswalks. Um I think the fence um will start near the uh intersection of Liberty right uh after the ADA crosswalk and then it'll extend 160 ft towards um the corner of Fulton and Jefferson. Um we feel the four feet is necessary just to prevent people from just climbing over a three-foot uh fence. We see it's uh trying to restrict people from crossing there is very difficult even with the temporary barriers. um we we see people um take them apart and they don't like to walk around. So, we're really just trying to get the public to um you know, help with the safety and cross at the corners and not at the um directly across from the parking deck.

Thank you. Thank you. Any happy to answer any questions on it. Any questions for the petitioner? Hearing none. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone in the audience for or against this case? Hearing none. Seeing none, do we have findings and facts? We do. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare will not. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. Will not. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitting the district will not. Adequate facilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so design is to minimize traffic congestion the public streets. Yes, the proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Peoria as amended is not. If a public use or use providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit. Yes. The special use shall in all the respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located except as such regulations may in each instance be modified pursuant to the recommend recommendations of the planning and zoning commission. Yes. Thank you. Any discussions on findings and facts? Hearing none. Do we have a motion?

Move to approve as submitted. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. I. Any oppose? Motion passes. Congratulations. It'll go uh in front of the city council on the 24th. Thank you for doing a incredible job at the civic center. You guys have Keep it up. So,

side note, does the city know how soon that's going to be two-way traffic there on Jefferson? When is that supposed to be? Never mind. I was just curious. I'll ask later in the sidewalk. Okay. At this time, citizens opportunity to address the commission. Don't see anyone hear anyone, but I would like to uh George would like to give a little shout out to uh Yeah. Uh Rich got a uh distinguished award from the better build build better

lifetime achieve lifetime achievement. So well done over there. Yeahved deserved. Thank you. As I told the chair, they probably wanted to make sure my mentality was still good before they put me in the box. Nothing else. I'd make a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Have a good day.