Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Call into order planning and zoning commission meeting on April 2nd, 2026 being held at Pure City Hall, room 400. It is now 1:00 p.m. Leah. Sure. Okay. Uh if we could get a roll call, please. Commissioner Herd here. Commissioner Barry here. Commissioner Kohler here. Commissioner Garib. Commissioner Wisah Hunt. Commissioner Ununice here. Chairman Martin here. Chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you. Leah, if you'd like to introduce.

Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to introduce to the commissioners Debbie Laroo who is here. She is our planning and zoning manager that started with us a week and a half ago. Yeah. So, um, she will most likely be, uh, reaching out and hoping to get to know you a little bit better through maybe some, you know, individual conversations and just, uh, you'll be working with her uh, from this point forward as I will be phasing out. Phasing out. Oh, geez. Well, welcome aboard. We'll talk after. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, welcome. We are the I think we're the liveliest group of zoning people, you know, out there. I must say we definitely have the best sense of humor. So,

some people are grumpy.

Thank you everyone for coming. Before we start the meeting, I'd like to go over a few ground rules. There's an agenda listing the cases that are up for the commission to consider today. The planning and zoning commission makes recommendations to city council. The date each case will be in front of city council as a final decision will be stated at the conclusion of each case. This is usually the fourth Tuesday of the month during the regularly scheduled city council meetings. The commission follows the city's municipal code, specifically the unified development code within when making recommendations to the city council. The commission considers the testimony presented by city staff, the applicant or their representative, and the public when making the recommendations to city council. Each case begins with a city planner presenting the recommendation of the city's development review board. After such, 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 of 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 member of the public speaks. 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 that wants to give testimony or speak to a case, you need to be sworn in. If you could stand up and you also need to fill out a blue form and get it turned in to city staff as well.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion. Entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month's meeting.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Signal by saying I. Any opposed? Okay. First case is PZ28-2026. This is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Abdel Hatm and Marwan Katum on behalf of Wayne 2 LLC to obtain a special use in a class C1 general commercial district for a class 2 tobacco or alternative nicotine product sale use for the property located at 7802 North University Street. Partial identification number 1408101 004. This is in council district 5 and I have distributed an updated memo for all of you uh in versus the one in the packet. We had a recent um uh class 2 license not renew. So some of the documentation in there is not current because of the non-renewal. So uh there were some references in here that they would have to obtain uh the cap increase as well. Um, hypothetically, if it goes all the way through, there won't need to be a cap increase because of the one license that did not renew for the total. And that total is 14 U licenses for the city of Pora. Okay. I also have applications if the applicant wants to review that as well for you. Julius passed those out. Thank you. Again, this is a request to obtain a special use uh for a class 2 tobacco alternative nicotine product sale use at 782 North University Street. Um class these class 2 uh uses are defined as a

retail use where 50% or more of the gross sales are tobacco or alternative nicotine products. So, the site in question I'll get to. This is the existing location noting the C1 zoning in the aerial photo. This is the uh existing property. It's former uh commercial building. Uh it was the former Vertigo Nights uh nightclub. It's again it's zone C1. It's surrounded by C1 in all directions except for kind of the north uh east which is class C2 large scale commercial. And then they got the petitioner's application here and then the site plan which was provided to the applicant for the use with respect to the uh again the the licenses again down to 14 maximum. This one can possibly fit into that uh as if city council approves it. Uh the applicant has not proposed any new signs with the application. Um we note the existing use uh requires compliance with ADA parking regulations uh ex as well as ADA uh signage as for that. Um if you look at the photos of the site, there are quite a few uh locations where the parking surface is deteriorated uh dilapidated and needs to be repaired, replaced. Uh so within these within our recommendation, we've included some conditions of approval for the site. Uh noting that the property does not meet the current 20 foot setback in the front yard. Uh

you can see that here. It's paved all the way to the front. Uh to establish this use, that 20 foot sideyard, 20 foot setback would need to be established. Uh there are no there's no landscaping on the site. Uh the existing conditions don't meet the front yard parking lot planter nor the perimeter landscaping requirements. Um the site plan that is provided notes that it's above the limit for whether you uh provide parking lot planners or just push that landscaping into the front yard. So we have conditions about that as well. The site from the photos has existing uh mechanical units on the rooftop that are unscreened as well as uh uh utility structures. We're recommending that those be screened. There there is not a single uh that I found on the site that has a any type of parking lot lighting. So, they'll need to provide that to provide that minimum ratio requirement. That's in the code. Now, there was also a condition regarding that. Uh historically the property has been commercially zoned. It was annexed in the city in 1986. Uh at that point in time it was C3 general commercial and then with the code changes in 1990 it was dropped down to C1 uh general commercial. So for the analysis for the findings for uh the no detriment to public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare, we believe that regulation has been met. Uh as far as injury to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, uh the DRB review has been met for that for no impediment to orderly development. The same for that review item. the request for providing adequate facilities. Again, the the site does not currently meet the requirements uh for

parking, setbacks, landscaping, mechanical screening and lighting, and those uh items would need to be rectified. The conditions are included in the recommendation. Ingress and egress uh for that standard has been met. Uh it is not a public use uh for the conforms to all districts. Again, parking setbacks, landscaping, mechanical screening, and lighting are non-compliant and need to be rectified before establishing the special use. For the comprehensive plan, successful, I'm sorry, critical success factors. This is for growing employers and jobs. and for the city council strategic plan goals as a quality of life for that recommendation. The development review board has no objection to the request for a class 2 tobacco alternative nicotine product sales use with the following conditions. The existing parking lot shall be altered to establish the required 20ft front yard setback and the remainder of shall be repaired, resurfaced, and restriped to be compliant with the unified development code section 8.1. Number two, a pedestrian accessible route is required from the public sidewalk to an accessible entrance pursuant to UDC section 8.1. Number three, a landscaping plan shall be submitted for compliance review with UDC section 8.2. Number four, co-compliant screening shall be required for any existing proposed utility, mechanical structures, or refuge containers. Number five, any signs shall comply with UDC section 8.3. Number six, a phototric plan shall be submitted for a compliance review with UDC section 8.5. And number seven, the applicant shall submit the appropriate permit applications with required supporting documentation to determine building, fire, and public works code compliance for any proposed scope of work. So with that, I can answer any questions from the commission.

Thank you. Any questions for the Mr. Chairman? Uh Josh, I'm still a little confused with this application. we are exceeding the ordinance limit or we are not. So, uh there there were 14 there's a cap of 14 licenses for the entire city of Poria. This last renewal process only 13 of the 14 renewed their license. One of them is not renewing. So, and hypothetically, if city council approves, this application would fit the 14th uh license allowance for that cap since they didn't renew.

Okay. So, this summary paragraph that says city council will have to increase from 14 to 15 licenses, that doesn't apply. That doesn't apply because again, this is uh today we received that. Okay. Thank you. So this is your change of heart because your original agenda that you sent out said denial. That's correct. And now reading this paper that's been up on the desk here is saying

you have no objections. What's the closest one to this? the uh the closest one is on University Street uh which is it's down the hillside on University. So this is the uh property in question here and then are almost becoming like this fast loan that used to be around the city. Uh that's true which a lot and again the city council made uh changes to those reg regulations for uh density of those uses as well. So that is approximately about 3,000 ft away. Uh which is down at the bottom of the Tanglewood shopping centers where there's one there. Yep. Okay.

And then there's also another one off of um Allen here close to the uh Walmart shopping center. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for city staff? Josh, can you remind me exactly what alternative nicotine products are? Like vaping. So any of the uh nicotine, I guess juice. Uh the applicant may have some more information about that. We just define it as anything that's not an actual cigarette. Okay. But not like CBD. Uh yeah, that's that's a different section of code. These are specific to nicotine delivery types of uh items.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. If the petitioner is here, would they like to come forward and give testimony? need to make sure that they're all sworn in if they're all going to speak. I believe only one stood for the swearing. Perfect. Yeah, you guys will both need to get sworn in. Whoever didn't get sworn in,

she'll go she'll go and read it to you right now. Yes. Thank you. If you guys could state your names and addresses and then tell us a little bit about the project, please. My name is Abdel Guadm and my address is 2402 West Mark's Place, Dunlap, Illinois 61525. Thank you. Yes, name is Marwan Kum 10519 North Pllino Illinois 6165. Thank you. Tell us a little bit about the project, please.

The project What we're trying to do is um we're trying to uh see if we can obtain a tobacco license uh and go to there. Um if there's another like if we didn't get qualified for a tobacco license, we was going to try to apply for a dealer license at that same location. Um this place has been vacant for like a while right now and we thought with uh like it would bring you know a lot of revenue to the city uh with our uh experience we have I have actually four smoke shops and they're all located I got some in Gailsburg uh Bloomington Normal and we had one here in Poria um on Sterling it's called Bazar Tobacco And so I thought in uh our next location it would be qualify. I mean this location right here would be real great for another tobacco shop. And when we put like uh money into our shops like we put uh we make it really really nice so customers you know would like uh we see what customers really like and we have great service. Um I don't know if anybody has like any questions for me.

Yeah. Are you do you understand the seven requests that the city's asking on the recommendations? You guys are okay with that? Yes, we are okay with that. Okay.

Um we are willing to uh update the whole building anyways like we're we're not going to keep it like that. We're trying to update the whole building. The whole parking lot is going to be all brand new parking lot and uh we are going to put some uh like they're required to put some trees and stuff like or landscaping in the front and that's uh but the 20 ft front back step back I don't know like how we can manage to do that like what do you Oh, okay. Sorry, we were I was waiting to see how far that was going to be.

And Josh, that's just asking them to move the parking lot back. Yeah, correct. This is the 20 foot.

So that's the existing, if you look at the the aerial photo, you can see that's the area. There's still be possibly, you know, room for a one-way aisle here. You know, maybe angle parking to get into this. there is an existing uh easement for access for this all the way through. I believe that's why you see all the deterioration that's there. It's because it's being used by probably some heavier trucks. So, they'll have to work with whatever their contractor, whether that's got to be a heavy duty pavement to account for that. Um but it's all it's really busted up back in here. But yeah, you know, noting special uses are, you know, everything is required when you come through for a special use. So we if we have the opportunity, we're going to ask for compliance with those requirements. And it doesn't appear as that's much of a removal. You can still have the drive lanes, you know, the the the approaches through the front yard. Um but yeah, in essence, we'll we'll garner a landscape area out of this site uh because of the special use change.

Okay. Does that make sense? Yes. So you guys want us to put like a landscaping in that that area in front? Correct. Yep. Okay. So, it's going to turn into like

this area because your your northern approach is all the way to the property line. The southern one, you know, this is where the old sign used to be. So, this would stay, you know, so you're looking at this kind of area for the required landscaping. Once you go above 50 spaces, parking spaces on a site, you'll also have to add parking lot landscaping. So, some of these areas that aren't, you know, I don't, again, I it's nothing is striped out here, but you'll have to establish depending on the total number of parking spaces that you provide. You know, there's a possibility that you'll have to establish parking lot uh planting islands to provide that as well. Thank you. Can Can I ask Josh a question?

Hold on one second. Okay. Any questions for the petitioner?

One brief question. Did you do you do you intend just solely to sell nicotine products at this uh building or will you have other uses as well? Yeah, we have like uh as far as like our shops, we carry um from accessories to um vapes to cigarettes to um cigars. Um so we carry a lot of different stuff. Um some of our shops uh tend to carry more like it's like a full vape shop. Full vape shop. That's what we usually carry. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?

So, as far as the city's recommendations, where do you stand on that? Are you willing to comply? Yes, I am willing to comply with every all everything. Josh, what's the time limit? So, when a special use is approved by city council, you have two years to establish that use on the property. Uh, so in this, they'll have two years from adoption by city council to establish the use. Any other questions? Can I ask Josh a question? Sure. Okay. So, Josh, was did you say you guys provided the site plan? So,

we did. Yeah, this was uh the previous site plan was uh was not going to be be able to provide the information. So, we used one that was in the file previously. Okay. uh provided that as a customer service type of item for the applicant. Um Okay. You know, so when they provide the 20 foot setback on the front, they'll have Well, there's a ton of room. They'll have enough room for parking, I believe. So, like I said, there may need to they may need to turn it into angled parking. Okay. On the front, you know, so it turns into a oneway um you know.

Okay. But again, you know, the site's pretty I don't know if this is the most uh efficient um striping pattern on the site. You know, certainly their contractors, I believe, would help them with uh maximizing the site for parking. Do do you do you usually require a site plan with a special use? We do. Yeah. Yeah. But not every applicant is as uh savvy with what you know what they're proposing. So, you know, we certainly try to help. Okay, those items if we can. Will there will there be a more accurate site plan when it goes to city council or this will be what's forwarded? Okay, but the conditions will supplement that. Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions? All right, thank you guys. You guys can be seated. All right, anyone in the audience would like to come speak for or against this case? You can come up now. Seeing none. Josh, do we have anything to be read in? Okay. Commissioner Herd, 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. Yes. 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. Yes. 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. Yes. Adequate facilities, access, roads, drainage, and/or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The current answer to that is no. As Josh stated in there, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress. So, design is to minimize traffic congestion in 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. Yes. 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 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. What was number one again? How'd you read it? The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welf welfare. I don't know how you can say every Dr. Spec set is saying that this is not a very good health issue.

I Mr. Chair, if I could really my interpretation is that we don't really consider that aspect of it. There's a lot of tobacco sales a variety of places. There's alcohol sales. There's dispensaries and things like that where that could be debated. But when it's legal, if my interpretation is correct, then we just view it as that versus what the doctors say. Just my question that was and I'm not giving you an answer. I was saying that's kind of how I interpret it. I don't know if staff or anyone else would say otherwise. I don't know. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You're welcome. Any other discussions on the findings and facts? We would only note that it's a recreational use type of item. So there are multiple recreational uses that are within the city of PIIA that may not facilitate the best health outcomes. Thank you. Summed it up a lot better than I did. Do we have a motion? I'll move to approve as presented by uh staff with the with the recommendations of the staff. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Yes. We have one nay. Commissioner Ununice. Motion passes. Congratulations. It'll go in front of the city council on April 28th. Okay. April 28th. Thank you guys for doing business in the city of Poria. And you don't have to wait around for the other ones if you don't want to. Just give us a minute to get our other stuff done.

Come here. Okay. Their voices are very I'm pretty sure she Okay. Case PZ49-2026.

Okay, this is PZ49-2026 and it's a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Gavin Hunt to reszone property from a class I2 railroad warehouse industrial district to a class R4 single family residential district for the property located at 1401 Northeast Adam Street. personal identification number 180341 019 and this is located in council district 3. All right. So, uh again just a summary is to simply uh resone the property from class I2 to class R4. This property is located midb block on the northeast Adam Street between Spring Street and Caroline Street. You'll see it highlighted in red. The parcel is approximately 0.15 acres, 36 ft wide, and currently developed with a single family dwelling and detached garage. The dwelling was constructed before zoning regulations in the city of Poria and is considered a legal non-conforming use. Surrounding zoning districts are class I1 along both sides of Northeast Adam Street and R4 along Northeast Jefferson Avenue, which is directly behind the subject property. And both ends of the block on Northeast Adams are in the CG, which is General Commercial District. And this property is between uh two contractors that are for residential repair and pest control on either side. And on the same side of the block are two other partals with single family residences that would be considered non-conforming. And then across the alley are residential uses. Uh so just looking at a history of it has always been in the industrial zoning classes uh and was developed as a single

family home way back before this uh came to be. The community development department examines each resoning application against the standards that resulted from the case of Lasal National Bank of Chicago versus Cook County and Puria's comprehensive plan. And so with standard uh Lasal factor number one, the existing uses of and zoning of nearby property. Uh the request is consistent with the uses and zoning district across the alley and the existing residential dwelling predates the city zoning ordinance. Standard two, the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning. Uh in this case, the existing residential use is harmed by the current zoning destination as a single family use cannot be reconstructed in the current zoning district and so other properties would not be harmed by this or have diminished values as this is the only property being harmed. Uh factor number three, the extent to which the destruction of property values of the complaining party benefits the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. This proposed amendment will promote general warfare by aligning an existing uh use with the other uses surrounding it for an appropriate zoning district. Number four, the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. In general, there's little gain to the public by retaining the existing I2 zoning designation instead of R4 zoning designation. Number five, suitability of the property for the zone purposes. Uh, the length of time the subject property has not been redeveloped under the existing I2 zoning classification is evidence that it is not reasonably suited for the existing zoning classification. Essentially meaning it hasn't been re uh reassigned an industrial use. it's been a residential use. Number six, the length of time the property has been

vacant as zoned compared to the development in the vicinity of the area is not applicable because it has been developed. And number seven, the public need for the proposed use. Uh this amendment would remove a non-conforming use. Uh the development review board recommends approval of the request to resone the property to a class R4 single family residential district. And again to reiterate, it's midb block. Uh either side has home has uh businesses, sorry, running out of uh buildings that look like residential homes. And that's really it for resoning. Are there any questions for staff?

Thank you. Any questions? All right. Hearing none. If is the petitioner here would like to come forward and give us your full name and address and then tell us a little bit of the project please. Yeah, my name is Gavin Hunts and the property is located at 1401 Northeast Adams Street, Pory, Illinois 61603 and uh essentially this case to me represents an effort to reform the administrative leg work that should have been done prior to the property transaction um that occurred in 2022. So, I'd just like to bring it into alignment in terms of the current non-conforming uh legal non-conforming use. So,

awesome. Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner?

Hearing none, you may be seated. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to give testimony for against this case, please come forward. Hearing seeing none. Oh, we do have an email. All right. Dear members of the zoning commission, I am writing to express my strong support for case PZ49-2026, the request to reszone the property located at 1401 Northeast Adam Street from a class I2 railroad warehouse industrial district to a class R4 single family residential district. This proposed reszoning is both appropriate and timely given the changing development patterns in Peoria. Industrial land use at this location is no longer necessary or strategic. The city has made significant investments in more suitable industrial corridors, including areas near Interstate 474 along Route 29 and at Pioneer Parkway Industrial Park. These locations are better equipped to support modern industrial activity with appropriate access and infrastructure. In contrast, the subject property sits in an area that is increasingly residential in character. With the with the expiration of the O'Brien steel tiff district and no apparent plans for industrial expansion across Adam Street, there is a clear opportunity to realign zoning with current and future land use realities. In fact, the this entire side of Adam Street is better suited to revert back to residential use. Approving this resoning would one support neighborhood revitalization, encouraging single family residential development with will strengthen the neighborhood and promote long-term stability and investment. Two, improve land use compatibility. Residential zoning is more consistent with the surrounding area and reduces the potential conflicts associated with industrial uses. Three, enhance quality of life. Transitioning away from industrial zoning helps minimize noise, heavy traffic, and other impacts,

creating a safer and more livable environment. And four, reflect smart planning decisions. This change align zoning with how the area is actually developing, making efficient and responsible use of land and infrastructure. This request is a common sense adjustment that reflects both current conditions and the city's broader development priorities. I respectfully urge the zoning commission to recommend approval of the resoning request to the city council. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tim Herald uh at 1525 Northeast Madison. Thank you. Do we have findings and facts?

We do. Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. There's no negative. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question. No negative. The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification. No negative. 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. No negative. The suitability of the property for the use or uses proposed by the proper amendment. No negative. The investigation of other suitable ways of accomplishing the proposed purpose of the amendatory petition. No negative. The health, safety, and general welfare of the city in the general and immediate area of the property subject to the amendment in particular. No negative. The enjoyment of property by neighbors for its intended use. No negative. That granting the amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of this development code. No negative. that granting the amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the adopted plans. No negative. Those are findings.

Thank you. Any discussions on findings and facts? Are we all agree? Okay. Do we have a motion? Move to approve as submitted. Second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor signal by saying I. I.

I. Any opposed? Okay. Congratulations. Motion passes. It'll go in front of city council on April 28th. Thank you again for uh bringing it up to current code zoning. Give us just a second to get the next one up. All right. Case PZ72-2026. This is a request to hold a public hearing and for a recommendation to city council on the request of Julie Jones on behalf of Courtney Jones to obtain a special use in a class R3 family residential district for a short-term rental for the property located at 2717 North Layman Road partial identification number 1431107016 in council district 1. Again, the request is for a short-term

rental in a single family dwelling with three bedrooms. uh the intended uses to rent the entire unit, you know, up to 30 days. Anything less than 30 days is considered a short-term rental by our code. The bedroom sizes are provided on the memo. Uh we note that additional units cannot be added to the dwelling unit. Uh and that the site will be required uh to meet the property maintenance, building, and fire public nuisance, noise, and alcohol beverage regulations for the site. Uh the applicant has requested up to six adult guests for the site. The current regulations only allow up to four for the site. They don't have they only have one bedroom that's uh larger than 120 square ft. So the maximum allowance for adults would be four for this site. For parking, the site uh identifies one legal off streetet parking space uh in front of the attached garage and then one in the in the ride ofway. Uh for the cap on the site, the properties in the Wcliff neighborhood association, the 1% cap allows up for up to four special use short-term rentals within the neighborhood association. If approved, this will be the first within that neighborhood association. Of course, they'll have to apply and uh meet the uh licensing requirements for the site. This property in question is zoned R3. It's surrounded R3 in all directions for the aerial photo of the site in question. Um the petitioner's application noting the parking uh situation. The subject property is 0.25 acres. It's developed with a single family dwelling and a two stall attached garage. It's in good standing with code enforcement. Um the property was not in the city until uh the 1960s. At that

time it was R1 and then in 1990 was reszone to R3. Uh the applicant's uh conditions of residency are provided in the packet for you and then some photos of the site in question for the development review board recommendation for the findings of uh no detriment to public health, safety or general welfare. Staff recommends yes. Uh we have we do have conditions to install fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors um and then to adopt with all life safety codes. As for injury to other property uh or diminishment of property values as the development reviewer recommends, yes, uh we don't believe there's any impediment to orderly development. As far as the adequate uh facilities, we don't believe that that does uh meet that requirement due to the bedroom sizes. So we're reducing it down to four. Ingress and egress measures are provided at the site uh as as well as it conforms to all the district regulations for the R3 zoning classification. 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. Interconnected smoke alarms shall be installed to that same code uh section. And additionally, carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed according to 2018 international fire code. We uh additional dwelling units cannot be added to the site. Uh occupancy of the short-term rental should not exceed uh four persons of the maximum allowed occupancy. No more than four adult guests may stay in the dwelling unit in any given time. Number

six, the owner shall obtain and maintain a 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. Number seven, an approved special use is valid for the applicant only as identified on a special use application submitted to the planning and zoning commission. An approved special use shall become null and void upon any change in 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. And then also uh as you can see for this last condition number eight, the tree directly in front of the structure appears to be deceased or dying. The applicant shall hire a tree specialist for the tree for a tree health report and remove it if the report shows the tree is no longer viable. Uh we did forward this these photos and uh uh the forestry staff at public works did stop by and noted that the tree is in essence dead. So more than likely that would be coming down for this condition. Any questions?

Any questions for is uh the tree is that a standard? It is not. The condition of the tree with the loss of bark on the middle uh stems here uh just brought it which is why we forward it to our forestry department uh to look at it again and provide it as a condition.

Thank you. Is the petitioner here? If you'd like to come forward and give us your name and address and tell us a little bit about the project, please. Hi, I'm Julie Danton Jones. This is my daughter, Courtney Jones. Courtney is actually the homeowner and I am the helper. The tree is dying and I have retained um Ted Turtle Tree Cutting Company and that tree will be gone next week provided we get some dry time for them to take it down. I would really like to have six occupancy instead of four. Uh the bedrooms have queen The master has a king. The other two bedrooms have queens with um side tables on each side. There's plenty of room to get in. There's plenty of room there for two people in each room.

And I should introduce Barit. He will be our manager for the property.

So the uh specifically in the code, each each bedroom requires 120 square f feet in order to house two individuals. So the bedroom sizes as submitted don't meet that requirement. So there would be no method for us to provide that without you know in essence not meeting life safety requirements. So it's going to be a prohibition to four people no matter the size of the beds or you know the end tables. It's it's based merely on square footage of the rooms. Um, and if I may, does that include closet space size as a part of the bedroom or is that excluding?

So, we are responding to the application that was submitted with that. Um, you know, certainly there's going to be a life safety review after this process. If it comes uh to that, you know, then we could look at that. But again, I don't believe closet space is included in that overall measurement. I got those measurements off of the um the sale of the house from when my daughter purchased it. So, I am going to reme-measure and make sure that those measurements are correct. Is that okay? Uh yeah, we're going off of the information as submitted. So, this will be

that's what I did, too. What is it called? the um well not just Zillow but the um are you asking about like the MLS sheet? MLS sheet. Thank you. Yeah, that's what I went off of. So yeah, I mean that's how it's being assessed as well. It's not being assessed as you know when it looks at other like uh structures for assessment purposes. It's looking at the room sizes. So that's what they're using as assessment purposes. So there's a you know if it's not exactly what it says the assessment may change as well. Okay. So understand

thank you. Thank you. Anything else you guys like to add to it? All the other conditions are you guys understand what the city's asking on the other stuff? Yes. Okay. If you guys first Airbnb Okay. Okay. You guys have any questions for the petitioner?

Josh on the Sorry. Um, does it have an ingress window in the bedroom? It should have agress windows in the bedrooms. Yeah, those that is more uh we we always do an an inspection, initial inspection. Uh if they have met they call and note that they've met the conditions, we'll go out there and do an inspection. Um, but yeah, you'll need to have aggress and fire rescue requirements for any bedroom. Uh, I don't believe any of the bedrooms are uh they're all on the first floor. So, there's no issue with a basement room as as far as I know from the application. In a situation that we approved for, yes, and something were to happen and the measurements were wrong, does it have to come back forward through us to get Yes, it would.

Give us just a second. Okay, thank you for that little round up. Um so if if you like if the if the commission likes they can make uh additions to that total number condition that it's contingent upon an inspection. Uh if the measurements are different than what's at the site if you know the if if I'm mistaken and uh closets are included or are not included in that measurement. um you're welcome to add that type of condition uh so that they wouldn't have to come back through a whole special use process and public hearing. You know, again, that's up to technically up to city council. It'd be a recommendation.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the petitioner? I guess just to clarify, if they had something signed by a licensed architect when they go to city council stating the room size is actually at least 120 square feet, would that be sufficient for them to move forward just with city council or it does have to come back to I think Yeah, I think you uh the commission has to make amendments to this condition of for people to say however you feel you know in your deliberation how you feel you should move forward with something being contingent on uh an inspection uh additional data you know additional submitts etc. Gotcha. Thank you. You guys can be seated. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody in the audience would like to speak for or against the case come forward.

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. Yes. 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. Yes. 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. Yes. Adequate facilities, access roads, drainage, and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Current answer is no. Uh and there's a condition to restrict occupancy to four individuals. 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 of Poria as amended. Yes. 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.

Thank you. Any discussions on findings or facts? We're all in agreeance hearing. None. Do we have a motion? Thinking about it here. Um, just so it doesn't have to come back to us, I would say I'll be willing to approve the petitioner's request for six occup six occupants as long as they bring evidence that each room is at least 120 square feet. Would that be sufficient enough? Do it that way. Uh so uh how about a recommendation of approval with four persons with an additional condition that additional occupancy be considered with measurements.

Sounds good to me. That covers it. Do we have a second? Second. I I would just want to make sure it's inclusive of the remaining uh conditions of approval as well. So not just not just specifically we're talking about only the occupancy. So the the motion is that with all staff recommendations but adding a number nine

and the additional condition that uh the maximum occupancy of four could be increased if additional documentation provided that it's met and it may be more Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the motion would be as Josh stated, it with the the word additional, it would include the conditions that are currently standing. So, the motion is to recommend approval with four persons with an additional condition that occupancy be considered over four um occupancy be considered with measurements. Can can we up to six, Commissioner Murd? Is that what you meant?

Yes. Can we more specifically define the measurement like official measurements or upon inspection or I just don't want somebody to come in and say here's the new measurements. Absolutely. It's your discretion. So that would be up to your discussion right now and what you think is appropriate to put on that condition. Commissioner Herd made the motion. We have the second from Commissioner Greb. Correct. Go ahead. discussion me. Yeah. Yeah. I I just

I just as we discussed earlier, I think it either needs to be um that the measurements submitted need to either be via or through an inspection or what was the other thing we said the um architect. What architect or an architect? Yeah. Just I think that would probably fall under when they say bring in documentation with measurements. Yeah, that was that was the wording that staff recommended and that that kind of covers what I was trying to get to. I was think uh approved with four individuals with condition to increase to six with documentation of measurements or up to six up to six. Up to six.

Any other discussion? Have we ever gotten into this before this stating conditions like this? I thought we did one time for We Mr. Chair, if I may have uh we did, but it was a different type of request. It was for um I believe an assisted living facility. I believe it was an assisted living facility about a year and a half ago. And I think either way, I think if if it's 120 square feet, it meets it. So if it does, then that's what we're trying to get at, right? I mean, if it's not, And it's not going to pass.

Just asking the question always. Rich, who who who uh who uh seconded the motion? I did. Any other discussion? All in favor say I. I.

I. Any opposed? Motion passes. It'll go to city council. Congratulations on April 28th. Thank you for doing business in the city as well. Give us just a minute to get wrapped up and started on the next one. All right. PZ74-2026. This is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Laura Roth to amend an existing special use ordinance number 14726 and a class CN neighborhood commercial district for an auto repair shop to add auto sales for the property located at 2723 Southwest Adam Street, partial identification number 1817311 008 in council district 1. This is an existing site that already has a special use uh for auto repair. The request is to add uh auto sales to

that as well. Um that previous special use was approved in uh 1999. Uh and there were additional conditions within that that uh we are restating in the conditions for this one as well. uh for your information with request with I'm sorry with respect to uh parking access and circulation. Uh the existing site includes an unstriped parking lot. Uh there's one entrance on Blaine Street. I'll get to the So there's one entrance here on the Blaine. Uh the previous special use requires four independently maneuverable parking spaces on the site as a condition. Uh we're just re noting that these spaces need to be striped. Uh and one of them needs to be in a disabled space. Uh this currently the site does not indicate uh where any vehicles for sale would be. So they'll need to provide that information to us. Um we didn't note any uh mechanical or utility items on the site. So if they add any of those, screening is going to be required. Uh with respect to landscaping, uh this this uh site has front yards along Adam Street and Blaine Street. Um parking lot perimeter landscaping would be required. Uh we're noting a waiver from those requirements. Uh in essence, those were approved through the previous special use process since landscaping requirements were part of that in 1999. Um the same goes with buffers and screening. properties is built out to the site. So, uh those types of waivers are approved again through the previous special use. Um with respect to signs, the existing site has one temporary banner uh at the rear garage entrance and one corrugated

plastic sign which is attached to the tree in the front yard. Uh, additionally, there are also two existing signs within the ride ofway and those would need to be removed per the condition on the the proposal. Again, any new sites would follow a separate permitting process for review. The uh site didn't show any type of exterior lighting. If any is added, they will need to submit the appropriate photoometric plan for review with uh lighting requirements. the site. As far as built buildings, uh the existing structures are built with a six foot setback along Adams and a zero foot setback along Blaine. Uh again, those structures don't comply with current build to requirements for the CN district, but again, we changed those requirements in 2007. So, it's an existing site with an existing special use. Um the existing height of the structures, it's a one and a half foot story and two story structures. those comply with the current CN requirements. Now, the sidewalks, there's an existing drive that's along Adam Street, uh that is no longer in use. Um, and then there also some uh you know, sidewalk issues on the on the site and there are conditions from the public works department within this request uh for approval. Again, the overall site's on CN uh neighborhood commercial district. It's surrounded by the I2 railroad warehouse industrial classification in all directions except towards the north and northwest which is R4 single family residential district. The surrounding land uses uh residential and vacant land which is towards the north and northwest directions and then industrial in all the other directions for the development review board analysis with respect to the first finding for detriment to public health safety or general welfare. The staff believes that finding is met uh with no injury to other property nor

diminishment of property values. Again, the DRB notes that it is met. We don't believe that that will be an impediment to orderly development. Now, with respect to adequate facilities, uh the site does not meet those uh requirements as stated before, but there are conditions that are added to the proposal to alleviate that. ingress and egress measures are designed to minimize traffic congestion that has been met. Uh it is not a public use so that is not applicable and with respect to conforming to all districts again the conditions should help with that site. The development review board recommends approval of the special use request again with a waiver from landscaping requirements and the following conditions. A new site plan shall be provided showing compliance with the four vehicle parking requirement and the location of any display vehicles for sale. Number two, uh the site must provide enough vehicle storage either on site or elsewhere such that the public rideway is not used for placing or storing vehicles to be repaired or picked up. That is a condition from the previous special use. Number three, co-compliant screening will be required if any utility or mechanical structures or refuge containers are added to the site. Number four, a compliant photoometric plan shall be submitted for review if additional lighting is installed. Number five, replace or repair deteriorated and nonADA compliant sidewalks, curb ramps, and curbs along the property frontage. Number six, the driveway on Adam Street no longer leads to a legal parking space and shall be removed. The curb shall be replaced to match the height of the adjacent curb. Number seven, the site must comply with the vehicle repair performance standards pursuant to uh unified development code section 5.3.3G which are attached to the memo for your needs. And number eight, remove the two signs placed in the ride ofway. And you can see that in the in the applicant's um

site plan, uh which is in essence the site plan from the previous submitt for special use. This is just a better copy of it. And then the photos. Um, you can see there, you know, parking should be on private property, not on the public walk. Uh, this is the sign that's on the site. Now, there is also a sign on the telephone pole in the rideway. That one would need to be removed. And then the existing signage on the site, the drive from Adam Street is here. So that depressed approach here would need to be removed, brought back to just current requirements for for curbing. And additionally, there appears to be some problems with the sidewalk along here for uh compliance issues. And then this is the other sign in the right of way. So with that, I can answer any questions from the commission. Thank you. Any questions?

I have a question. So, is the existing corrugated cardboard sign does it meet sign regulations? It's yes small it uh you know we've got um existing uh allowances for signs for for temporary signs. So that you know considered a temporary sign. Are there restrictions on time limit for temporary signs? Um the time frame.

No, there's no length of display. There used to be a length of display, but it's no longer a requirement for that. And that just allows if they uh in a like a sale sense, if they change the sale out to something different that allows them to long as they're meeting the performance standards of the requirements, then they're just permitted and that includes the banner, right? Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for city staff? Hearing none. Is the petitioner here like to come forward? Please state your name and address and tell us a little bit about the project, please.

My name is Laura Roth. I live at 1329 North Borland Avenue, Poria 61606. So, I bought this building and was thinking that we wanted to do a used auto auto sales there. Really, I don't even know how big it will be because our space is like limited, but I really am not planning on having more than two or three cars at a time and see where we go from there. So, that's it. Thank you. And do you understand what the city's asking for the recommendations? Yes, I called and had a very lengthy conversation with Josh to make sure I understood. Okay.

Excellent. Uh, questions for the petitioner hearing none. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody in the audience for or against this case like to come forward? Seeing none, anything to be read in? Okay. 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. Yes. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immedity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. Yes. 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. Yes. Adequate facilities, access, roads, drainage, and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Answer that is no. Due to the parking, landscaping and sidewalks, 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 Peori as amended. Yes. 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. Any discussions on finding and facts? Are we all in agreeance? Do we have a motion? Make a motion to approve as presented. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Signal by saying I I. Any oppose?

Hearing none. Congratulations. Passed. It'll go in front of city council April 28th. Thank you for investing in the community. Okay. Case PZ75-2026. All right. This is uh public hearing or request to hold a public hearing and board recommendation city council on the request of Betsy Hall of Bradley University to amend the existing official development plan for Bradley University. Ordinance number 13361 as amended in a class N1 institutional district to allow pickle ball and sand volleyball courts, bandstand, maintenance building, off- streetet

parking, signage, and site improvements for the property bound by Main Street. No, I skipped line. Main Street, Clarissa Court, Bradley Avenue, and the alley east of Cooper Street being within the campus boundary of Bradley University with a street address of 1501 West Bradley Avenue and primarily bounded by Main Street, the alley east of Cooper Street, Bradley Avenue, Fredonia Avenue, Durier Place, St. James Street, University Street, Borland Avenue, Windham Street, and Garfield Avenue. And this falls into Puria District 1 and two. So, uh, Bradley University is requesting to amend its official development plan for its property west of Clarissa Court and east of the alley by Cooper Street. And this amendment is to allow for pickle ball and sand volleyball courts, band stand, maintenance building, off- streetet parking, signage, and site improvements. And there are no changes proposed for other areas of the campus. So we'll put the this is the general site plan to refer to. Okay. So uh development items. So uses the applicant is proposing again uh pickle ball and sand volleyball court shell structure lawn seating and a maintenance building of 960 square foot. These uses will comply with Bradley's no noise policies which are specifically that amplification cannot be used until after 6 pm on Monday through Thursday and after 3 p.m. on Fridays and is to end by 10 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. And the DRB comment is that the ODP would be amended adding the listed uses to the campus and the location is adjacent to existing indoor

and outdoor recreational uses. The proposed structures, parking, courts will all meet or exceed the 25 foot front yard setback and the 25 foot perimeter yard setback. The band shell is 19 ft to the peak and the maintenance building is 24 foot tall and these buildings are less than the permitted maximum of 132 feet tall per the official development plan. All vehicle and pedestrian access is via closer court for these new proposed uses. And the only DRB comment is that we are asking for the replacement of the non ADA compliant curb cut along the street frontage at the intersection of Bradley Avenue and Clarissa Court and we're asking for it to match the curb opposite the side of Clarissa. Uh so that will be this general area. This is the curb cut that will need to be replaced to meet the same standards as this side over here. Uh so with this proposal, the amendment would be to remove the gravel parking lot and a new paved parking lot will be restricted use with 15 off- streetet parking spaces including one accessible parking space and bicycle parking. And then additional parking is accommodated by the main street parking deck and existing lots of off institute place. And our only comment is that the parking space dimensions and marking shall meet code requirements. The applicant proposal uh stated that all development will comply with city code in terms of storm water control and and so we just added a comment that storm water management and permitting will be required in accordance with the

city's erosion, sediment, and storm water control ordinance. There is proposed lighting uh in the official development plan and the light fixtures for pickleball courts will have house shields and turn off by 10 p.m. and lighting for the lawn includes string lights that are to be 15 ft tall. And the DRB comment will be a condition that the lighting plan with the phototric plan uh be required with the building permit. And the lighting plan shall show the location, height, and style of exterior lighting. And exterior lighting shall not exceed the half foot candles at the campus property line. The proposed front yard landscaping uh provided six trees, which is 95 points and exceeding the 71 required. The parking lot interior landscaping provided four shade trees, which is 80 points and exceeds the 15 required. The parking lot perimeter landscaping is being provided by a hedge and the traditional buffer yard along the alley east of Cooper Street will consist of a fence and plat material. The DRB comments that to meet the transitional buffer yard point requirements, the recommendation is that TBY shall have at least 265 points from shrubs. uh approximately 165 points are shown and to provide year- round screening recommen recommendation is at least 25% of the points for the TBY shall come from evergreen species. So this would require adding 58 points or 19 evergreen shrubs. A fence is in the proposal consistent with the fencing used uh for the campus border and will be installed along the alley. It'll be an aluminum picket style fence at 6 foot tall. And then the new enclosures for the pickle ball courts will be 8 foot tall chain link. This does require a waiver to per permit 8ft

tall chain link fencing for the purpose of the pickle ball courts as 8t is not allowed. And we are also updating the campus sign plan to include the following. They're relocating the primary directional sign type from the approved 2019 campus sign plan to the corner of Clarissa Court and Bradley Avenue. The sign height is 9 ft and 3 in. The sign area is 70 square foot. There will also be new wall signs for the maintenance building and new wall signs for the bandstand and Bradley branding will be on the pickle ball windcreens. The DRB comment is that sign permits shall be required for each of the signs. No sh no signs shall be installed on the westfacing building facades and on other building facads wall sign shall not exceed 20% of the facades and finally uh mechanical and utility screening will be provided as required and so the DRB comment is just a condition that rooftop and ground equipment be required uh screening from view of public streets or residential zoning districts. So with that property characteristics uh Bradley as a whole is about 85 acres currently developed obviously as Bradley University. The property is zoned N1 in institutional surrounded by R4 single family residential uh CN neighborhood commercial and WM West main form district to the north. R4 and R six residential district to the east and west and R4 and CN which is neighborhood commercial district to the south. Bradley University was established in 1897 and the earliest ODP was approved by the city of Peoria in 1982 with amendments for reszoning, changes to the institutional boundary and new construction. The 2007 amendment approved an update to the campus boundary including construction of

Clarissa Court which is uh the street included in this subject uh request and uh an adjacent athletic and indoor recreation use. The amendment in 2017 then approved construction of the convergence center and the most recent amendments have been in 2019 and 2025 both to update the local sign regulations. The uh development review board analysis uh goes as follows. No detriment to the public health, safety or general welfare. The standard has been met. No injury to other property nor diminishment to property values. The standard has been met. No impediment to orderly development standard has been met. And I will also add that with the diminishment of the property values. So long as the conditions related to lighting landscaping signs are met, there is no diminishment. Uh providing adequate facilities, yes, with conditions to uh related to the curb cuts being uh ADA accessible. The ingress and egress measures are designed to minimize traffic concess congestion which is being met. If a public use or service then a public benefit it is conforms to all district regulations. Yes, apart from the waiver which is for the height of the fencing and is specific to the requested use. Uh this comprehensive plan critical success factor is to grow neighborhoods and jobs and reinvest in neighborhoods and the city council strategic plan goal is business growth and prosperity. So with that the development review board recommends approval of the request to amend the Bradley University official development plan with the following conditions. One replace the nonADA compliant curb cut along the street frontage at the intersection of Bradley A and Clarissa Court. Two, exterior lighting may not exceed half foot

candles as measured at the campus property line and a phototric plan is required prior to the issuance of permits. Three, a transitional buffer yard shall have 530 points, half from shrub species and half from tree species. Also, 25% of the points shall be from the evergreen species. Four, a final landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the development review board prior to installation. Five, a sign permit will be required for each sign. sign shall not be installed on the west facing building facades and on other building facads. Wall sign shall not exceed 20% of the facade. And six, a waiver to permit 8ft tall chain link fence for the purpose of the pickle ball courts. So again, we're talking specifically Bradley Avenue, and off of Clarissa Court, you'll see uh a parking lot, the pickleball and sand volleyball courts, a new band shell, and maintenance building, I believe, to be right here. This will need to be updated uh to be reviewed and approved with the conditions that were made. Um but generally uh the landscaping plan and then uh a few elevations of the new band shell and the maintenance building. noting the signage that was uh conditioned in the report. And this is a sign that is remaining the same size and everything just being removed and replaced to a new position. Are there any questions for staff?

No questions. Was is the petitioner here like to come forward? Yes.

Please state your name and address and tell us a little bit about the project.

I'm Betsy Hall, vice president for finance administration at Bradley, 1501 Bradley Avenue, Poria 61625. Um, well, thank you for considering our case today. Um the request comes from a campus initiative um focusing on the premier student experience and we feel that the outdoor pickle ball courts and the volleyball courts and the music shelter really do enhance our students experience. Um we are um encouraging outdoor recreation, outdoor entertainment not only for our students on campus but for our extended our extended campus constituents and even our community. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner?

No, I have I have just have a comment that u I really as a as a Bradley alum, I I really commend you and the new administration for all you're doing for not only to enhance the student experience, but also to grow uh the community experience as well. So, I'll be more than happy to support this. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, you can have a seat. Anyone in the audience for or against the case would like to come and give testimony? Seeing none, do we have findings and facts? We do for the official development plan. So the commission reviewed the requested official development plan and after considering the standards sections 2.10.4 Four, city pure unified development code for official development plan found. The adoption of the official development plan and maintenance of uses permitted or designated in the plan will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Yes, the uses, landscaping, parking, screening, and signage designated in the plan will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the media vicinity and will not substantially diminish property values in the neighborhoods adjacent to the area designated in the plan. Yes. Adequate facilities, access roads, drains, andor other necessary facilities exist or will be provided? Yes. measures have been or will be taken to provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion of public streets. Yes.

The findings to approve. Thank you. Any any discussion on the findings and facts? First hearing. None. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion to adjourn. Congratulations. Thank you for continuing to improve the campus. Jeez Louise, I tell you this is the opportunity for citizens to address the commission. Seeing none, do I have a motion for adjournment? Before we adjourn,

oh, this could be a quick thing though to discuss with staff briefly. When it comes to short-term rentals, as I recall, as long as short-term rentals have been uh Excuse me. Bring it up later. Okay, never mind. Who wants to make a motion to motion to adjurnn? You'll be on your time. Second. I in favor. I have a good Easter. Thanks. You too. I demand. It's like babysitting around here, I tell you.

I think you should, you know, I'm pretty sure I'm younger than all of you guys.