Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes. Okay. Calling to order the planning and zoning commission uh on March 5th, 2026. Okay. Uh being held at Pory City Hall, room 400. It is now 10:01 p.m. Can we get a roll call,

Commissioner Wisah? Commissioner Barry, Commissioner Fer, Commissioner G, Commissioner Herd, Commissioner Ununice, Chairman Martin here. Chairman, we have a quorum.

Thank you. Before we get started with this meeting, I'd like to go over a few ground rules. Uh there is an agenda listing the cases that are up for the commission to consider today. The planning and zoning commission may make recommendations to the city council. The date each case will be in front of city council for a final decision will be stated at the conclusion of each case. That 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. This commission considers the testimony presented by city staff, the applicant or the representative and the public when making its recommendation to the city council. Each case begins with a city planner presenting the recommendation of the city's development review board. After each case is presented by city staff, the petitioner or the 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 this case. This is the opport 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 a member of the public questions. The commissioners can motion to recommend approval or denial to the city council. Once a motion passes, the case is concluded. If anyone is in the audience today, they need to stand up and be sworn in and make sure that you get a blue card filled out and get it to city staff as well, please.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month's meeting. Commissioner Barry moved it. Mr. Gre second it. Any discussion?

All in favor say I. I any opposed? Okay, we'll begin with the first case. PZ36-2026. All right. This is case number PZ 36-2026. It's a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the city council on the request of Homer Henry of Church of the Living God Ministries Incorporated Poria to amend an existing special use or number 14,54 in a class R4 single family residential district for a church to change the boundary of the special use to remove the property located at 209 West Richmond Avenue and to add the property located at 1709 North Lind Street. This is for the properties located at 1703,705 and 1709 North Lind Street with partial identification numbers 1804127041, 1804127040 and 1804127039 and 209 West Richmond Avenue with the parcel identification number 1804127022. Uh so in your packets I'll highlight some of the information provided. Um the request this afternoon is regarding four parcels here at the corner of Richmond um running east west and then Lind Street north south. Uh Knoxville Avenue is just off the page there with uh those properties in pink fronting Knoxville

Avenue. Um the four parcels are in the same R4 zoning single family residential district. That's the same as surrounding by that orange color. And then um the property um has a an existing special use for church facilities um including a a freestanding sign. And uh the the ask this afternoon is to amend the boundaries of that special use. So that requires um uh commission and city council approval to change a boundary within a special use. There are no other changes to the use of the church um except uh to add and subtract the the the property. So uh the properties developed the main church buildings right on the corner and then um on the interior lots is their parking uh surface parking lot and then they also own a single family dwelling which they have uh used for different ministry purposes in the past uh but no longer um are intending to continue use of that house and so they would like to to sell it to a private owner for single family use consistent with the R4 zoning. Uh so this parcel they're asking to remove from their boundary in blue in the corner there um in a Butudson alley and then um to um add to their boundary uh this parcel in green um which has their parking lot has served as their surface parking lot for some time is just was not part of their special use um that was approved in in uh the mid 80s I believe. Uh this property is directly adjacent to single family homes as you go up uh Lynn Street um from there. Um but that is their request. Uh there isn't uh their uh proposed changes uh to the use again.

Uh so in their packet they provided some photos to help um identify their current development items on their property. Um here is the existing home which they wish to remove from their boundary so that they can sell to a um sell to for private ownership. Um as part of this request they will also um be asking to amend or or really um uh convey some of this side lot between um the house here and the church building. um they have a garage and so they're they're going through a surveying process to convey some of this sidelot line to the church's properties. It would effectively reduce the width of this parcel um uh in order to allow for a a sideyard between the garage and the house that um is intended to be owned separately. Um the church is a is proposing to put in a solid fence um along the common lot line that would meet the city's requirements for a buffer between non-residential and residential use. So that's something that staff would um the the code would support and ask for. Um and so we're in agreement with that. Um, as we go through the memo, there is one item that, um, staff is recommending as a condition, and we are asking for an additional solid fence to buffer the northern parking lot from the neighboring residential use immediately to the north. Um, and so the code um could ask for a fence along the entire common lot line there. Um we're asking specifically for the buffer along the parking area. Um the applicant is asking

to wave that requirement. Um the other item on the list uh that um results in some conditions is regarding landscaping. With any special use, we do look at the landscaping. Um the applicant not asking to add anything. Um there are shrubs and trees um kind of in the front yard of Richmond. Um but there are some landscaping requirements that are that would not be met by the existing conditions. Um at this time staff's recommendation is a condition that we temporarily is essentially wave that requirement until the use gets expanded. So if they came back for some other approval in the future, then that landscaping would kind of be um discussed at that point. All right. And so then I'll pull up our um findings here for special use. Um the development review board finds that these standards can be met. Um we do have some recommendations um in order to support orderly development and no diminishment to other properties and their property values. Um we have conditions regarding parking lot striping a dumpster enclosure and the new fence um the two new fences and um this request is consistent with our comprehensive plan critical success factor to invest in neighborhoods and our city council strategic plan related to quality of life. And so our recommendation is to approve uh we do have conditions and uh and support one waiver. So uh our conditions are to um we'll work with the applicant to get a dimensioned parking plan before

they stripe it um to conform with dimensions of parking spaces and drive aisles and that all parking spaces including the accessible parking space shall meet minimum dimensions and parking requirements. Uh condition three is for a for the dumpster to be screened from view of all adjacent property and public rightways and that enclosure would need to be 6 to 7 ft tall and made of complimentary materials with a gate for access. Um, condition four is to install a solid 4 to six foot tall fence along the shared common lot line with 209 West West Richmond Avenue and then to install a solid 4 to six foot tall fence along the north edge of the parking lot and then we support a waiver to allow the existing landscaping until the use is expanded. So that's my um review of this request. I can answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for city staff? Hearing none, uh, is the petitioner in the audience like to come forward and tell us a little bit about the project? Please state your name and address as well. Yep. Up to the microphone right up there.

My name is Homer Henry. pastor the Church of the Living God there on 1703 North Lane Street. Um we're kind we're we feel that we are the pillar of this neighborhood here that we work well with the uh uh homeowners and the community around. We're not selling this house because we really want to. It's out of necessity. Uh we've had love with it. Um, we've had the police there multiple times. People have been breaking in and uh drug use. Uh, we find squatters more than three or four times over the last four years. And up on top of that, uh, we put security doors. We put money in there. Excuse me. and uh we look to even uh demolish it. U reason of that is we had a pipe freeze and insurance denied our claim. So we were just like stuck between hard place. Um so in having our roof uh repaired, we ran into a gentleman said, "I love this house. I'd like to possibly buy it." So that's where we are today. We're like, we can't afford demo at this time. Uh we're a small congregation. And so we're selling it just enough to get a fence to go around and that's where we are. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the petitioner? Okay. Hearing none. Thank you. Does anyone in the audience like to

speak for against the case? Can come down now. Okay. Oh. Uh, sorry. I do have a letter that I need to read. You have a letter to read in? Yes. All right.

Uh, so this is received from Steve uh Bucknham. He says, "I am a homeowner at 1711 North Lynn Street. My property shares a property line with the Church of the Living God. I apologize that I will be out of town on March 5th and therefore unable to attend the public hearing. Please accept this email as my statement of support for the church's proposed amendment. I purchased this property in April 2022. In the nearly four years I have owned and resided at this property. I have never had a negative experience with my neighbor, the church. Mr. Homer Henry and I have each other's phone numbers and communicate as needed. In 2023, when I had major surgery, Homer and a member of his congregation helped keep my yard mowed and trimmed while I was incapacitated. I've never had an issue with the church's parking, and the lights and sounds from the vehicles are a non-issue for me. I have been told that there has been talk of the church being required to install a fence or hedges between our properties as part of this proposed amendment. I am writing to say that a fence is not something that I desire or require at this time. I know just how costly a fence installation can be and I know that the financial burden on the church would be insurmountable. This amendment is being requested by Mr. Henry, in order to be able to sell the vacant home that is within view of my property, a home that has been vacant since before I purchased my property and has been an eyesore in its current state. I fully support Mr. Henry's efforts to sell the home to a buyer who will renovate it. That home's upkeep has been a significant financial burden on the church, and the cost of demolition has also been found to be too burdensome to the church. It is said that good fences make good neighbors, but I already have good

neighbors, Mr. Homer Henry and his congregation. So, no fence is needed. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That the only one? That's the only one? Yes. All right. This portion of the case is closed. Do we have findings and facts?

Yes, sir. Uh findings and facts. The commission reviewed the requested special use and after considering the standards for a special use found 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. It's not detrimental. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of the of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. It is not with the recommendations of the staff. 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. It will not again with the staff recommendations. Adequate facilities, access roads, drainage and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. They are adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in public streets. They are the proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Peoria as amended again with the approval of uh the waiver recommendation from the staff. a public use or or a use providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit. It's not applicable. The special use shall in all other respects confirm 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. Not applicable. This these are the findings of facts.

Thank you. Any discussion on that? All in agreeance. Okay. Do we have a motion? I move to approve the uh development moving forward, but I would like to not I'd like to remove item five to install the solid wood fence on the north edge of parking lot. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I think that's a good idea. Okay, hearing nothing else. All in favor say I. I.

Any oppose? Hearing none. Motion passes. Congratulations. It'll go to city council on March 24th. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks for your continued investment in the community. Give us a minute just to get started on the next case. Do want anyone that's

I thought we had to clean them out.

Okay. Case PZ37-2026.

Yes, this is case number PZ37-20226. is request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Karen Troxell of Greenwater and Power for HGI LLC to obtain a special use in a class CG General Commercial District for a surface parking lot for the property located at 332 Northeast Jefferson Avenue and 211 Spalding Avenue. the partial identification numbers 1809-2320001 and 18092320002 and 18092320005. Uh so this is a request for special use in our CG district. They're asking for a surface parking lot. That specific use uh requires special use review for that development. The property we are discussing um is uh currently undeveloped. Um it is at the intersection of Northeast Jefferson and Spalding Avenue and then just above uh Interstate 74 corridor. Um surrounding zoning across Balding Avenue is the Salvation Army property in a CG general commercial zoning and it is also adjacent to property owned by the Salvation Army um in the P1 and CG zoning districts. Across Jefferson Avenue is a parking a surface parking lot that is part of um ID do's uh right ofway and ownership and jurisdiction and uh caddy corner across the street is additional CG general commercial um office uses. Uh so this property um has been undeveloped since about 2003 when the building that was on the front edge of Jefferson was uh demolished.

And um yeah, I'll break up the site plan now. Um so this proposal for the surface parking lot includes um specifically um EV chargers for electric vehicles and they're proposing to have 16. So the purpose of the parking lot would be for um uh those with um needs to charge their electric vehicles. Um and so the site plan shows um their placement for the chargers, the parking spaces as well as um utility equipment as that um all relates to different development items of the uh development code. Um so here we have their site plan. Um the access to the site would be only from Spalding Avenue. It would be um in and then left out only um as the oneway is on Spalding's one way. Um there'll be 16 spaces and they include accommodations for one accessible space. Um and they are also calling out um additional development items. I'll go over there. Um parking would just need would we would review the spacing and maneuverability to meet um the city's code. Um, our public works department's also noting that storm water management will be needed for this request. Those aren't specifically shown in the code. So, we just have that noted as a condition. The um setbacks for this use in our CG district um there is a parking setback of 15 ft. Um the applicant here is um is asking for a waiver of that and in their packet you would have um uh seen they included a diagram that shows um really compares the setbacks. Uh so

they're asking for this purple shows a 15 foot setback versus a five- foot setback um to kind of illustrate what the required code um would be and how that would constrain the site with the three frontages. Um there's also an ID dot easement that they um identified for us where uh ID do really would not allow for um u much excavation uh with the retaining wall um that's adjacent to this property. So that's an additional space that constrains um the sighting for the site. So for uh those reasons um they're asking for a waiver to reduce their setbacks along um their frontages and uh staff does not object to those waiverss for all those uh reasons um for this site and this particular use. The applicant has also in their packet um you can see they're proposing landscaping in the form of meeting our parking lot perimeter requirements in the form of a hedge line. Um but they are asking for a waiver to not include any additional landscaping which would normally um the code would require front yard landscaping along frontages um the form of trees and then interior parking lot landscaping in the form of a shade tree. Um with the again constraints of the site uh they're identifying that as their need for a waiver. Um and additionally with it being ID do right ofway any trees in the right ofway would be subject to I do review um uh which we uh don't have uh any um uh trees in in that right away right now. Um, so for those reasons, staff is going to also um uh not object to those waiverss.

In their packet, they've also um have uh shown compliance with our lighting code. Um they're proposing new exterior lighting for the use specifically um for the sur to eliminate the the surface parking lot. So no additional comments uh needed there for a compliant site plan on lighting. And then um specifically uh we've discussed with them about how they're going to screen their equipment. So, in the corner um there there's some ground equipment for this specific use. And then on the uh uh southerntherly end of the property, there's additional um equipment uh located there. Their plan is to have a fence um that would surround both those areas uh to screen it. And that also uh meets their need to prevent people from being able to tamper with the equipment. Um our recommendation um for this request would have some um conditions regarding the materials for that fence. We would ask for um it be made of composite, plastic or wood, brick, reinforced concrete or similar masonry material. And then the height needs to be at least as high as the equipment is screening. So um not not really looking for a vinyl type or chain link fence would would not be okay. All right. Um and then the last item on the development review um is their signage and they don't have any you know specific um or you know there's no need they're not proposing a need for any um identification type of signs. The only signs would be um directional signs um

for entering and exiting um and then age that's standard on the equipment. Um that's not really meant to attract anybody offsite. It's just for um use on site. In their packet, they've provided kind of uh some samples of what that equipment is going to look like. Um and again, that would be placed on the edge of the perimeter. you'll see in cycling. So, I'll go over our standards here. Uh so the development review board considers standards for a special use and we find that these can all be met. Um when it comes to the standard for no impediment to orderly development and provides adequate facilities, we do have some conditions to find that those are supported. Um and then when it comes to ingress egress measures, um our condition is noting that I do needs to uh be part of the review when it comes to permitting on that. And um and then when it when for the standard related to conforming with all district requirements, um we're noting that we are in support of two waiverss regarding the setbacks and landscaping. And this request will be um found to be consistent with our comprehensive plan um success factor to grow employers and jobs and our city council strategic plan goal related to grow business. Uh so with that we do recommend approval for a special use for a surface parking lot um per the site plan and our conditions um which I've mentioned many of them um but for the

ground mounted mechanical equipment and utilities they need to be screened from view um of the public right ofways and our condition is that it would be using composite plastic or wood or brick reinforced concrete or similar material to screen Um uh additional condition is the Jefferson Avenue and Spalding are under the jurisdiction of the state. So all the work needs to um uh receive approval by the Illinois Department of Transportation. Uh condition three, the parking lot paving or resurfacing shall be completed by a contractor whose licensed and bonded with the city of Puria. All striping of lots must comply with the current city code regarding dimensions, spacing, markings, and maneuvering. and 89 and any nonADA compliant sidewalks and curves along the property frontage shall be replaced or repaired. Condition five, storm water management and permitting will be required in accordance with the city code. Number six, all the equipment and charging components will need to comply with the national electric code, international building code and international fire code as adopted by the city. And seven and eight are waiverss. Um, we are supporting a waiver to reduce the parking setback behind I74 that would be to zero feet to Northeast Jefferson Avenue to 7 feet and Spalding Avenue to 5T. And then a waiver to eliminate the interior parking lot landscaping and front yard landscaping um along the three front edges. So, that's a request to or that's um my overview of this request to uh have a surface parking lot.

Thank you. Any questions for the staff hearing? None. Oh, you do. Thank you. Not a question, but more of a comment. So spotting is one way and people crossing out of the parking lot with the provisions for all the trees. There might be an issue of sight distance going out. Is there somebody from public works that looked at this before?

Yeah. Um public works definitely reviewed this site plan. Um, and this site plan is also an amended version of their original proposal that went to for IDOT. And this is what they've brought back after some of those revisions. Um, and we didn't have any comments from from public works that there would be a concern regarding sight lines.

And this you said this was reviewed by IDOT already. This particular um at least as of what I most recently know um has not been fully vetted by ID do but it is a revision from their initial comment. So they have they modified from this yeah from a from an earlier proposal. This is a modified version. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none. Thank you. Is the petitioner here like to come forward and tell us about the project? Please state your name and address as well.

Yes. Thank you so much for uh your consideration today. My name is Karen Troxel. I represent Greenwater and Power. Um our corporate address is 16517 Arment Street, Danise, California. Uh thank you for that overview. Yes. Uh we are proposing to uh develop this this lot um on Northeast Jefferson for electronic vehicle charging uh currently undeveloped and I'd be happy to answer any questions about that. And I before um I didn't have these renderings ready to go into the electronic uh submission. I don't know if I'm allowed to show those since they didn't, but I do have some idea of what uh

it would look like based on the site plan that was submitted. Excellent. Thank you.

Sometimes visuals help. As mentioned, this slot is currently just grass. Um, so you know, we would preserve the grass around the edges as shown and add the shrubs.

Excellent. Any questions for the petitioner? Hearing none. Thank you. Thank you for giving the uh drawings. Sure. Anyone in the audience like to speak for against this case? Hearing none. Do we have any to read in? Nope. And to read in this portion of the case is closed. Do we have findings and facts?

Yes, sir. The commission reviewed the requested special use and after considering the standards for a special use found the establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. It will not be detrimental. 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. It is not injurious. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for use is permitted in the district. It will not with the recommended conditions from staff. Uh adequate facilities, access source, drainage and or necessary facilities will have been or will be provided. They will they will be with staff recommendations. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress. so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in public streets. They are again with the staff recommendations and I do approval. The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Poria as amended. They are not if public use or use providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit. That's not applicable. special use shall in all other respects confirmed 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. Again with staff recommendations for waiverss for setback and landscaping. These are the findings of facts.

Thank you. Any discussion? Everyone agreeance with finding the facts. Okay. Do we have a motion? I move to approve this special use subject to the recommendation of the DRB. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. Any discussion? My only concern is I think the same as as George's about the sighteline going in and out with the bushes. So that's something that's not too tall, you know, going in out. I'm going to support the motion. The drawings looked like they were pretty dwarf short. Yeah.

Trees. So, any other discussion? All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Congratulations. Mot motion passes. It'll go in front of city council on 324. Thanks for investing in the community. We're going to take about a two-minute break. So, if you need to use the restroom or stretch, Holy cow. I haven't.

Yes, correct. I need to Yeah, you don't have to redo the headers footers. All right. Case PZ41-2026. Hold on. Got to hit the button. Please let the record reflect that I'm going to recuse myself from this case. um having financial issu uh financial um interest.

Thank you. In in portions of what this case could uh turn out to be. Thank you very much.

Okay. This is a request to hold a public hearing and for a recommendation to city council on the request of the city pury to amend appendix A the unified development code relating to signs. The proposed text amendments uh replaces the existing sign regulations for the unified development code uh which is section 8.3 within that appendix A. Uh it also and then there's another ordinance in there that also alters the non-conforming section related to off- premises signs uh which is the unified development code section 9.4. Uh the city of Poria contracted with James Folo, Klein Thorp and Jenkins for a review of the existing sign code and its content neutrality. Uh this review was based on the US Supreme Court ruling in Reed versus Town of Gilbert and I have attached a case description for you in the packet. uh this is a product of that uh content neutrality review. Additionally, the non-conforming off from assign modifications allow existing non-conforming billboards to be replaced at the same location without adhering to the existing regulations for separation, thoroughfare location, and minimum frontage length. Uh in the application or I'm sorry, in the uh memo, we note some of the proposals that are in the two codes. They're broken into two separate tables. Uh some of the proposals, uh signs in a rideway, there used to be a reference to signs in a rideway in the past that we were removed. Um but now we are putting it back in, but it's just a reference to the public works section that deals with signs in a rideway. So, it's more of a readability issue. Uh we've prohibited a couple of other sign types, uh traffic hazards and rope lights. Note that uh those two will be prohibited within the city of Poria. The content neutrality requirements uh existing temporary signage regulations

are not content neutral right now. An example of that are construction signs are allowed at one per construction project but political signs are unlimited in the number of signs. Uh the proposal is to combine the existing temporary categories into two different sets. uh one for commercial signs and one for non-commercial signs. Um this is a reduction in regulation language and it proposes for compliance with the content neutrality requirements from that Supreme Court decision. Um on premise signs existing signs are required to be are allowed to be 25 ft tall and there have a separation requirement of 150 ft. We're proposing that that be reduced to 15 feet in height and a separation of 250 ft. Uh that is a reduction in the allowable signage for freestanding signs. For residential district special uses, we currently allow one sign. We're proposing to allow two per special use. There are uh in the off- premises sign section of 8.3 the current sign regulations we're noting uh that there was a request in there to provide documentation from all sign owners uh so that we could calculate the number of total billboards within the city of Poria. This language has brought that down to 83 uh for that process that we've since that has been completed. So that has been documented within the code in this new ordinance. Uh for canopy signs, we've we currently allow regulations for coverage of 25% of the canopy surface area. We don't h have a mention of above or below canopy signs. So like the pencil canopies that you see on some facads today, you know,

now they're providing signs above that pencil canopy or below. We're providing regulations within the code for those today with this regulation. And then as always with the overall sign code, you know, we're making a changes to references to make sure they're correct. Uh clarity uh provide section references um for this public use of the document. Now, with the non-conforming off- premises sign regulations, which which is the the second ordinance in your packet, uh the proposals for that deal with separation. Uh this is spacing required from other on- premises signs, other off- premises signs and residential zoning districts. The proposal is to allow existing non-conforming separations from other onremise and off- premises uh signs. However, a special use is required for non-conforming separations from residential zoning districts. So, the impact with this sign can be replaced without meeting separation requirements from other signs. But when it comes to the the zoning separation requirement, they've got to obtain a special use for that process. For our street types, this goes along with our thoroughare plan. We allow off- premise signs on principal arterials only. The proposal is to allow uh these types of signs on lower classifications such as minor arterials. Uh if a further lower classification is uh requested, that has to go through a special use process. For the size and height, the current process is uh the maximum height of 300 square feet in size and 30 feet tall. Uh and then also there's another allowance for a se up to 700 square feet in size uh and 40 feet tall. There's no changes to those proposed uh allowances.

The monopole construction that's the same as it is today in this proposal for landscaping. Uh we're not changing the landscaping requirements. Uh they still need uh 0.25 points per one square foot of sign area. The minimum length of frontage for a lot. So right now you need a minimum of 100 ft of lot frontage to have an on off- premise assign altogether. Uh that will be uh that this allows less than that. Uh you know a sign may be replaced without that minimum 100 foot lot frontage. And then for the zoning classifications there's no changes to the prohibition of uh off- premises signs in in residential districts. So with that, the uh development review board recommends approval of these requested text amendments. Are there any questions I can answer for? Do you guys have any questions for

I do. All so all of these proposed changes are based on the Supreme Court ruling the uh the the content neutrality. So the replacement of the uh entire sign section is based on the content neutrality review. Uh the off-remise sign is a is an additional uh uh ordinance that's been placed in this since it's all related to signs. Um and that is an an extra part that wasn't part of the content neutrality issue.

Okay. Josh, so I was a little bit confused because uh it in a couple of places it reflects street signs and uh temporary I think called call them temporary directional signs. So those signs if they fall, I guess there are there are federal requirements for street signs and directional signs as it relates to streets and roadways and whatever. Does this change affect those signs or am I a little bit confused with this? These signs are only on private property. So any any sign or or you know traffic directional items

not on public if it's on public property that's so solely within the public works department's uh regulation section of the city code. So they're going to handle those parts. Uh we just have the additional prohibition on on a sign. It can't look like a traffic hazard that you know or you know implies that it's some type of traffic sign when in fact it's a commercial sign. So that's that that's what the prohibition is about for for that particular uh line in the in the table. Okay. I feel better a little bit.

Anyone else? Okay. Guess there's no petitioner. So if the city Yeah, the city's the petitioner and hopefully the the report has provided enough information, but you're certainly welcome to open it to the to the public for any public comment. Okay. Uh anyone in the audience like to give uh testimony for against this case? Come on down and state your name and address, please.

Hello, my name is Cody Gablehousen. I live at 243 East Ottabon Hills Drive in Metamora. Um this is the first I had heard of the uh specific ordinance modification. So I suppose in hearing them that I you know of course speaking in in support. Um but I had prepared something that I think maybe gets into a little bit of the why uh I I think the off- premis regulations are really important. Um so I'll share it anyway because I took the time to write it. So uh my father and I are the co-founders and co-owners of Civic Digital Displays which were central Illinois's only locally owned digital billboard company. Uh, of course, uh, Poria modified the billboard ordinance in 2019, which significantly reduced the opportunity for new billboard locations. Uh, however, grab grandfathered in the existing sites. Uh, at that time, those locations were 93% owned by Adams Outdoor, 4% by Lamar, and 3% by Pioneer Signs, which are not sold for public advertising. Uh, this ordinance put a significant responsibility on these companies to be good corporate citizens. uh when now many leases have come due over the last few years and the billboard company has all the power in the exchange in and can gain the negotiation process in their favor on the guise of take this below market reduced offer or we know you'll get nothing at all because nobody else can build in our location. The current ordinance puts the power in the billboard companies rather than PIIA property owners. Over the last two years, we've been in contact with many landlords in Puria who have been confronted with just this and have even learned that the city of Puria has been impacted this on properties that they own and lease to a billboard company. Property owners have come to us and to other companies from outside the market that we've been in contact with to see if we would make them a fair offer to replace the existing billboard on their property and provide a consistent fair revenue stream. Unfortunately, each time we've had to tell them no new structure can be built there. So, they're forced to either take the offer or get nothing at all. Many landlords count on

billboard rent revenue. Their material amount frequently helps to offset real estate taxes, insurance, and property maintenance costs. However, the benefits of modifying such a sign code that existing structures on an otherwise non-conforming property could be replaced by a different company go beyond just the property owner. Businesses seeking to advertise on the sign benefit by competition and advertising rates rather than a single company controlling rates of 96% of the billboards available for sale to the public in Puria. Competition enhances fair exchanges in the marketplace. The public benefits as competition enhances overall sign quality rather than derelct obsolete structures cluting cluttering the city with rusty I-beams. When a new modern structure with architectural enhancements is built, this forces improvement to competitive derelic structures, increasing the overall visual appeal of the cityscape. Advertisers simply prefer to have their business associated with a quality attractive advertising medium when the opportunity is available. Therefore, modernizing structures can be a catalyst for significant improvement across all sites. Finally, we advocate for I guess one further modification um which which was not referenced um at least I I don't think I hear it, but many cities charge an annual inspection fee for billboards. This ensures that not only the structures are safe and landscaping codes are being met, but also forces consideration from companies keeping billboard structures up that have not had a paying advertiser on them in years. We advocate for a $500 per year per sign fee. Thank you for your consideration on this quiet but very visible matter.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience for against us like to give testimony? Seeing none, this portion of the case is closed. George, we don't have anything tax, right? Yep. Do we have a motion? Move to approve as submitted. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Any discussion.

Okay. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes. We'll go in front of city council on 324. 24. Correct. Okay.

Give us just a second to get ready for the next case. Okay. Case PZ45-2026. This is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of the county of Poria to reszone property from a class R3 single family residential district to a class I2 railroad warehouse industrial district for the property located in North Galina Road partial identification number 1415200017 in Puria Illinois and the applicants requesting to reszone the property to I2 district. Uh this provides proper zoning for the Illinois uh regional site readiness program uh which requires that the site is more than 50 acres and that is on industrial or agro agricultural prior to application. This readiness program uh aims to better prepare sites for industrial development across the state and it's a uh state of Illinois program uh which is funded through the rebuild Illinois capital program.

So the subject property is 53.22 acres of agricultural land adjacent to North Galina Road. The surrounding zoning is class I2 uh and class R3 districts towards the north uh class I2 towards the east. Additionally, there are class R3 and 01 arterial office districts toward the south and then also class R3 towards the west. The surrounding land use uh is vacant to the northwest and west. Industrial towards the northeast and east and residential and office to the south and southwest. The village of Pury Heights is also also located towards the south here. This property uh wasn't in the city uh until 1963 when it had an R1 uh low density residential and I2 heavy industrial split classification at that point in time. In 1990, it went to entirely R3 with the uh adoption of a new zoning regulation at that point in time. The aerial photo for your viewing with uh all resonings, the DRB examines each application against the appropriate standards found in the code of the city puria and or in case law and they follow the LAL factors for approval. with the Lal factor one existing uses of and zoning of nearby property. The development review board recommends yes that the property is directly adjacent to I2 zoning uh currently and I'll go back to the zoning map for you. The south factor number two the extent of which property values are diminished by a particular zoning. Uh yes the future proposed uses will be brought into compliance with any new development of the site. Uh there there's no impact on number three. Uh number four, relative gain to

the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. Yes, the request complements adjacent zoning with the industrial classifications. Law factor number five, suitability of the property for the zone purpose. Yes, the properties are flat suitable for any compliant development within that district. Saw factor number six is nonapplicable. And well factor number seven, public need for the proposed use. Yes, the site can establish compliant development within this new classification. The comprehensive plan designation is low density residential. The development reviewer recommends approval of the resoning request. And then we do have the application if you need any questions on that as well.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none. petitioner here like to come forward and please make sure both of you state your name and addresses. Patrick Urick, uh, city manager, 419 Fulton Street. Scott Sell, Pure County Administrator, 324 Main Street.

Thank you, uh, chairman and members of the committee. Uh this is uh property that the county has purchased from Illinois American Water Company. Several years ago, we created a tiff district around most of the industrial property in this area and included this land uh with the intent of building a business park on this property. One of the the issues that the city of Poria has is a lack of industrially zoned property that that we can grow for new business and new opportunities. and this is certainly one uh that provides that opportunity. So, several years ago, the county um worked uh with us to acquire the property from Illinois American Water Company and then uh I think it was purchased for a little over $840,000 or roughly around there. Um, we were successful in this past uh year of getting a $600,000 congressional uh grant from Congressman Le Hood, which will reimburse the county for their portion of the the purchase. Uh, and then we'll split the difference with them so that it will be jointly owned by the city and county. Um, as the application stated, uh, thanks to PA from public works, um, we applied, uh, are are applying for the Illinois site readiness program to hopefully secure some state funding to do some of the infrastructure work to get the site ready to go to become a business park. U, so in it's inside a tiff district. It's uh our hope is that is that you'll support the the resoning request and then we'll take this on to the city council on March 10th and then we can get started on uh working the plans towards a business plan. I think the only thing that I would add is that uh when the county was in Washington DC a couple weeks ago, we spoke to Congressman Lehood about the next round of congressional uh grant funding and we are also uh putting in an

application with the congressman uh for funds to help uh pay for the development of the subdivision buildout. So, uh platting the uh road work, this inf ility infrastructure uh those types of costs so that uh we can then start to market uh the lots as they would be platted eventually uh to private development. Excellent. Thank you. Any questions for the petitioners? I do I I don't get to uh ask both of you questions at the same time and see you right there. So, no, I don't have any questions. I was just picking on you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience for or against this case? Come down. Okay. Hearing none. Do we have findings and facts?

Yes. The reasonzoning findings are facts. The commission reviewed the requested resoning and after considering the standards for a reasonzoning and found there would be no negative impact on existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question. Again, no negative impacts. The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing zoning classifications. no negative impacts. The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the property in question, including changes to land use or prior amendments to the zoning district regulations, thereby altering conditions for use and development of property. Again, no negative impact. The suitability of the property for the use or uses proposed by the pre-offered amendment. Again, no negative impact. the investigation of other suitable ways of accomplishing the proposed purpose of the amendary petition. No negative impacts. The health, safety, and general welfare of the city in the general and immediate vicinity of the property subject to the amendment in particular. Again, no negative impacts. The enjoyment of property by neighbors for its intended use. no negative impact that granting the amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of this development code. Yes, the granting that granting the amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the adopted plan. Again, no negative impacts. These are the findings of facts.

Thank you very much. Any discussion on that? Are we all in agreeance? Do we have a motion? So move to approved. Approved. We have a second. Any discussion? I just want to say that it's wonderful to see this intergovernmental collaboration on this project. Absolutely. Anything else? All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Goes to council on 310. Okay. Fast track. Okay. know somebody. All right, give us just a second to finish up the paperwork. I guess now we'll take the citizens opportunity to address the commission. Seeing none, do I have a motion to adjurnn?

So move. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. Have a good week.