Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. We will get started. If we could start with roll call.

Commissioner Berry? Here. Commissioner Garib?

Here.

Commissioner Yunus?

Here.

Commissioner Rivers? Here. Commissioner Hurd?

Here.

Chairman Martin?

Here.

Chairman, we have a quorum.

Thank you. I want to start off with introducing Cynthia Rivers. She is a new part of our team. Welcome to the circle, I guess. So if you have any questions, just let us know during it. We'll help you through it. So it's pretty easy. If anyone is going to be speaking today, you need to make sure you fill out a blue form and get it turned in to city staff. And you also need to get sworn in. Thank you. And for those of you who are not familiar with coming here, I'll give you a little rundown of how we handle things. Before we start this meeting, the ground rules are as is. 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 the City Council for a final decision will be stated at the conclusion of each case. Usually this means it's 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 recommendations to city council. The commission considers the testimony presented by city staff, the applicant or the representative, and the public when making its recommendation to 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 the 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 for 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 speak. During the hearing, the commissioners may ask the petitioner or the representative, city staff, or member of the public questions. The commissioners can motion to recommend approval or denial to the city council. Once the motion passes, the case is concluded. I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month's meeting.

So moved.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign? All right. First case is PZ184-2026.

Thank you. This is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Juan Jose Ortiz Espinoza to obtain special use in a Class CN neighborhood commercial district for auto repair for the property located at 1207 Southwestern Avenue, parcel identification number 1818283017 in Peoria, Illinois. This is council district one. This is the property in question. The property zone CN. was originally established as a storage use prior to the 2007 rezoning of all the Hardipuri area. So it went to a CN district. The request is that it be used as auto repair. That's a requirement for a special use within the CN district. We note that the existing site, it's an existing unstriped gravel lot. There's an entrance on Western Avenue, kind of at the catty corner to the alley there. You'll see that more in the inspection photos. We don't see any mechanical or utility units on the site. There are trees present, but it doesn't have really a fully built out landscape area. The only area that would require a buffer would be the rear property line. The adjacent zoning on the prior shows that it's residential towards the back there. There is an existing fence that's there. The site doesn't have any signs on the property. There are no parking lot or site lighting. The existing structure is well set back along the Western Avenue frontage. It meets the existing maximum height for one and a half stories. And there are already sidewalks on the property in front due to the Western Avenue reconstruction of the property. So it's a nice see-in zone area. There is adjacent residential kind of leftover lots, vacant lots along Western here and then towards the rear. The surrounding land uses are commercial towards the south, the intersection to the south here that is commercial, and then the rest of the areas are residential in nature. It's historically been commercially zoned. It was rezoned in 1980 to allow the expansion of an adjacent plumbing business at that time, and has stayed this commercial zoning since at that point in time. The designations have changed due to zoning rewrites over time. The, as far as the findings, the DRB reviewed the findings and noted that there would be no detriment to public health safety or general welfare. We note that there would be no injury to other property nor diminishment of property values for this request. There would be no impediment to orderly development. The, as far as providing adequate facilities, this property does not, the parking, landscaping and performance standards are non-compliant. There are performance standards for auto repair in the CN district. They are non-compliant and have to be rectified before approving the special use and we have conditions on the recommendation. The ingress and egress measures have been taken care of to handle traffic congestion. This is not a public use, so that is not applicable for the request. As far as the last finding that it conforms to all district regulations, it's similar to providing facilities that parking, landscaping, and performance standards are noncompliant and have to be rectified before approving the special use. We note that this is a opportunity to grow employers and jobs for the comprehensive plan, six critical success factors, and also the strategic goals of the city council. So the Development Review Board recommends approval of the Special Use Request with the following conditions. A new site plan shall be provided showing compliance with the paid parking requirements of the UDC Section 8.0 and parking setback requirements of UDC Section 4.3.4 , which is a 15-foot setback requirement before parking. A landscape plan shall be provided showing compliance with required front yard and parking lot perimeter landscaping pursuant to UDC Section 8.1. Number three, the front yard fence shall be reduced to a maximum allowed height of three feet and any chain link material shall be replaced with an allowed material. Number four, any refuse containers shall be screened pursuant to City Code Section 13-40. Code compliance screening will be required if any utility or mechanical structures are added to the site. A compliant photometric plan shall be required if there is additional lighting added to the site as well. And the site must comply with the vehicle repair performance standards per UDC Section 5.3.3 . One of those that's important is that the repair function is inside of a structure versus outside. And then I can show you the applicant's proposal. and you can see that there's parking but it's all the way in the front yard which should be set back there's a dumpster proposal but there's not a whole lot of detail for screening then there's also a fence on the backyard to handle the buffer requirement next to residential and then some photos of the existing site So with that, if there are any questions from the commission, I can answer those.

Any questions for city staff? Hearing none. Okay. Thank you. Is the petitioner here would like to come forward and speak? Not seeing anything. Any of the audience would like to speak for or against the case? Can't come up now. Okay, so next, Ms. Rivers, they will do findings and facts. Vice Chair Hurd will read kind of our interpretation of what we thought it is, and if you object or have any input on it, feel free to, after he asks the questions.

OK. Findings and facts for special use. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Will not. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. Will not. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for use as permitted in the district, will not. Adequate facilities, access roads, drainage, and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Current answer is no, due to the parking and landscaping. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets, yes. The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Peoria as amended. 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 on 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 discussion on those findings and facts? Hearing none, do I have a motion?

Motion to approve with the staff recommendations.

Second. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion passes. It will go to City Council on July 28th. Okay, July 28th. Give us just a little bit to wrap up our paperwork and we'll get started on the next case. Okay, case PZ219-2026.

This is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Abigail Cusort for Adams Outdoor Advertising on behalf of store master funding eight to amend an existing special use ordinance 13807 as amended in a class C2 large scale commercial district for a shopping center to allow the modification of an existing off-premises sign to add electronic messaging for the property located at 8103 North Knoxville Avenue, parcel identification numbers 1405476027 and 028. In Peoria, Illinois, this is Council District 5. So the property in question is the red highlighted areas on the zoning map in front of you. This is an existing shopping center approved in 1994. The special use for the shopping center was amended in 2002 to allow the construction of a drive-through coffee building. It was amended again in 2003 for that same structure. If anyone remembers, it's no longer on the property. The existing off-premises sign was moved to this property from the Avani site to the north in 2007. with waivers to the minimum 500 foot separation from residentially zoned property. As noted, the property directly across the street is residential in zoning. The property changed classification in 1990 due to an ordinance rewrite at that point in time. So the site, as far as the review, There's an existing parking lot. This lot has quite a few deficiencies with respect to our current regulations for surfacing, striping, disabled spaces. The yard requirement is not met along the front here. There is a two-lane aisle in this parking lot, so feasibly you could meet the requirements of the front yard for a 20-foot front yard along there. The landscaping does not meet the requirements. There's no need for buffer yards due to the surrounding zoning. The existing site, and I'll go to the photos. So the existing site has... Two freestanding signs for the on-premise shops that are there, and then additionally the off-premise sign that's closer to the auto dealership to the south there. These do not meet the current, you know, it meets the 50-foot setback requirement for an off-premises to an on-premise. The freestanding signs do not meet the current 250-foot separation, which was recently amended through the sign ordinance rewrite. for separation between the freestanding signs on the site, although there is an opportunity to meet that requirement. The outdoor lighting appears compliant. If they add anything new, they would need to show us how they're meeting the lighting requirements for that. The building height is compliant, and as far as sidewalks, there are no sidewalks on this frontage, but this is an IDOT. It's a state route, so they would have to go through IDOT to get that. There's no pedestrian infrastructure along Knoxville for this block at any rate. So that would be a discussion with IDOT. Again, in 2007, and I've included the ordinance that approved the move of the off-premise assigned to this property, staff is consistent with the recommendation it recommended denial for this request at that point in time planning and zoning Commission forward its own recommendation to City Council And ultimately City Council approved the request, but it did make conditions on the property The final condition is that the billboard in its location because of its proximity to residential Zoning is that it cannot be used as a digital billboard. It'll only be static images static. I'm sorry static Advertising on the billboard so with that with that in mind I Noting for the findings of the recommendation, as far as no detriment to public health, safety, or general welfare, the DRB notes that as no. This sign will still only be 123 feet away from residential zoning classifications. And the conditions of the site remain as they were in 2007 when the original prohibition was approved. finding for no injury to other property nor diminishment of property values. The DRB notes that it's not meeting that finding. Again, that those conditions remain the same as in 2007. As far as no impediment to orderly development, DRB notes that that finding has been met. For providing adequate facilities, DW notes that it is no, it's not meeting that standard. The parking, yards, landscaping, and freestanding sign separations are noncompliant and must be rectified before approving the special use if the Planning and Zoning Commission has that recommendation. Additionally, the off-premises sign is still only 123 feet away from the residential zoning classifications, and the conditions at the site remain as they were in 2007. Ingress and egress measures have been met on the site for that finding. The public use, it is not a public use. And as well as conforms to all district regulations, that is similar to the previous four adequate facilities for our recommendation. For our comprehensive plans critical success factors, for our recommendation, we note that that's in a reinvestment in neighborhoods. and for the City Council strategic plans goals, that is a quality of life recommendation for those goals. The Development Review Board recommends denial of the special use request. Again, in 2007, the site received waivers for the sign relocation from an existing non-conforming property to the current non-conforming site with the explicit condition that the electronic multiple message displays would not be allowed. The City Council adopted this prohibition to support the applicant's business needs while also safeguarding adjacent residential areas from additional impacts. This decision was consistent with the intent of the sign ordinance, which seeks to ensure that signs are compatible with their surroundings and appropriate for the businesses they serve. The impacts on neighboring residential properties persist today and would be intensified by the introduction of an electronic multiple message sign, which the city council has expressly prohibited. So I can go through any of the items in the memo or in the packet for you. And if there's any other questions of the commission, I can answer those now.

Any questions for city staff? Hearing none.

Hold on. Josh, are they taking out any of the existing signs?

The only request before you today is to add digital signage to the existing billboard if the commission deems that they want to recommend an approval of this request we would have you know all the conditions that are in the memo would have to be added to the site and we would request that those be added to the site to bring the property up to current standards to make sure that the facilities are there for the public but again staff's recommending denial as they did in 2007 and the city council had the forethought to add that prohibition as well at that point in time.

Anything else for city staff? Hearing none, is the petitioner here? Please come forward, state your name and address and tell us a little bit about the project, please.

My name is Josh Henson, 1711 Dobbins and Champaign, representing Adams Outdoor. First, thank you. In 2007, when the special use permit was granted digital billboards were in their absolute infancy. There was 600 roughly across the United States. There are tens upon tens of thousands at this point. There was very little known about digital billboards. Their technology was in their infancy. The state had no guidance or rules for duration, brightness, all the things that we adhere to today. It's a much more mature code. We have infinitely better technology that allows for the brightness of the billboards to basically understand the environment around them. And if it's dark outside, they're much, much less intense. If all things go haywire, they turn off. There's, you know, the technology is there and it's very mature at this point. There's, you know, a lot of zoning around that. This also gives, you know, businesses in the area more opportunities to tell their story and to increase their revenues, which in turn increases payroll and taxes and all those fun things. Our request also is that, you know, this is not the only digital that, is nearby. There's a digital screen just south of here that runs full motion video that is just as close, if not closer, to that golf course than we are. So you don't feel like the area itself is very commercial in nature. This fits. It's not inside of a neighborhood. This also gives the community an opportunity. And we do a lot. proud to be partners with a lot of not-for-profits in this community. We're proud to be partners with, you know, civic organizations. We've done, I think, a very good job as Adams Outdoor of, you know, understanding the needs of the city as it relates to signage on their property and being good partners in terms of playing ball and making sure that, you know, if there's a win-win for both of us, you know, that would be great as well. So that's all I have.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Quick question. Have you guys considered the cost or effectiveness if you were to try and make it compliant based on what staff, no, not staff, but in terms of the Development Review Board said before?

Hearing the compliance issues, it sounds like there's an on-premise sign that would be an issue in terms of moving that. That's certainly something that we could look to rectify. I'm sure there would be a cost involved there that we would have to pick up. Obviously, our lease with the site, that leaseholder would have to be in agreement with that. But generally, in principle, that's something we would do. The landscaping, all of those things is something that falls on us as the lessor. Thank you.

So as Commissioner Hurd threw the question out, there's no movement on your part at all to maybe come back and try to work with city and try to negotiate something? Or does it sound like this is where you're at and that's where we're going to be at?

No, I think we're open to options. I know that there's been a lot of talk about signs in this room for a little bit. So I mean, we certainly have a lot of them.

And just to clarify, it's just the side facing north? I believe it's both sides. It's both sides. Okay. And do these shut off at a certain time at night?

I don't believe in this market. There are, I'm in Champaign, you know, ours, we shut ours off from midnight to 6 a.m., but generally, you know, they're all night. Again, they run at a much lower intensity. I think it's like 6% to 8% of potential at night. And they have photocells on them that when it's darkest, they condense down their intensity. I would say in driving that area today, there's a lot of, you know, LED parking lot lights and gas station and things like that. It's, you know, I don't think from a light scenario we're going to be increasing much, if any, because it already has, you know, lights on it that shine on the sign at night.

Okay. Thank you. Did you? Yeah, I had a response to the notes. You know, we understand the technology issue with the new billboard technology but note that the applicants submittal for the range of viewability for the digital sign you know there still will be impacts on residential homes just to the north over next to off of Knoxville Avenue so we're still going to have an impact the council noted that this should be a denial back in 2007 I believe it should remain businesses in the area have a multitude of opportunities to provide advertising with TV, radio, general U.S. postal mail, and the internet. So there's ample times. And again, falling back to the intents of the sign ordinance is to reduce that impact on users of the public way and not have crowding effects of multiple signs, which it already has due to the nonconformities on the site. This is a much larger sign that's allowed in a C2 district this close to residentially zoned properties. So staff would recommend denial as we've done in the past for the site.

Chairman? How long are those arms? How large is it? How long? The length of the arms?

It's no larger than what it is today. Currently it's a 14 by 48, so it's 14 feet tall, 48 feet wide at that size. So we have them in a lot of different sizes.

Yeah, this is a 1,344 square feet, square foot sign.

Yeah, so it's 672 per side. And it's the standard. The 14 by 48 is the industry standard for what we would call a bulletin or a billboard that's what is mostly in Peoria and East Peoria.

I think the City Council was probably trying to protect those people that live in that area. So, you know, I guess my question is, would you live in that house that is right there?

I drove that site today. That's the one residential structure, you know, that... would be, I guess, a home potentially. And I don't, I can tell you from looking at it today, I don't know that it's, it looks like a business. You know, there's playground equipment, they have advertising on the outside of their fence there, and you know, there's four or five basketball hoops. It looks like they're selling playground equipment.

Josh. The current regulations for residential properties allow home occupations. So that's not a, it's not a business property at all.

It certainly is not a residence.

Any other questions? Okay, hearing none. Oh, one more, one more.

Is there a possibility to make the bee length shorter, smaller?

Yes. I mean...

So it doesn't, I guess, project as much?

Oh, are you saying the distance you can see it from? Yeah. Yes, they're completely adjustable at this point, but what I would say is, you know... The angle toward the road is also the angle toward that residence. To your point, would I live there? Probably not. It's a very busy four-lane-plus road. There's cars and light, and there's all manner of things going by there. And I think... we couldn't decrease it to where you couldn't see it from we wouldn't want to just decrease it to where you couldn't see it from the road that would sort of not prove its point but you know literally like when you drive past an idot sign or certain other signs right now as you get closer to it the it looks as though the message disappears and that's because of the the baffles and louvers that are on those those sites to again not emit light where we don't want to emit light

Is there an option, and Josh, with you too, for just the south-facing side? Is it not advantageous as the business to, once you're up there, you might as well do both?

Yes, there is advantages to that. I mean, I think we would certainly look at that if the south-face was an option to amend the special use for just the south-face. That would certainly be interesting.

I believe staff's going to stay consistent with their recommendation based from the 2007 recommendation for just a static sign being a recommendation of denial.

Hearing no other questions, thank you very much.

You too.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? 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? No. 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? No. 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. No adequate measures have been, or will be taken to provide ingress and egress. So designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Yes. The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Peoria as amended. No. If a public use or 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. That's what I got.

Any discussion on findings and facts? Hearing none, do we have a motion?

Move to accept the staff recommendation to deny.

Do we have a second?

Second. Second. Any discussion? Mr. Chairman, I have to support staff on this. The signed ordinance, as I've said before, has been a long work in progress trying to balance the desires of businesses to have legitimate signs and yet not have sign clutter. And I feel just personally, it's just my opinion, that Peoria has way too much sign clutter across the community. And if I could channel Pat Landis, I think she would concur with that. And I remember times when she would go out and personally grab a team from Planning and Zoning to try to reduce some of that sign clutter. So those are my reasons. Thank you.

Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signal by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes as a denial and it will go to July 28th. It'll go in front of City Council July 28th. Give us just a minute here to wrap up the paperwork and we'll get started on the next. Okay, if you're ready, case PZ221-2026.

Yes, this is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to City Council on the request of Jessica E. Perry for the Donald A. Flexer Irrevocable Trust to rezone property from a Class 01 arterial office district to a Class R6 multifamily residential district for the property located at 1428 West Northmore Road with a parcel identification number 1417326004 in Council District 3. So this petition is a rezoning ask to amend our zoning map for the parcel here currently in 01. That's an arterial office zoning district. Um, on the zoning map, you can see the surrounding zonings are, uh, residential. Um, so here to the east and surrounding to the south is our six, uh, multifamily residential district of the petitioners asking to match that zoning district there. Um, over on the opposite end, we have our three, it's a single family residential district. And then across North Moore road is our two, um, also a residential zoning district. The property right now has a single family dwelling on it, and that was constructed in 1963. And surrounding uses, Richwoods is to the north, Richwoods High School, in that R2 district adjacent and in the district that the request would match to as a nursing home. And then on the opposite, on the other side, in a residential district is a religious institution and private school. The property was annexed into the city and then in 1963 it had an R1 low density residential zoning district. The owner in 1991 at that time asked to rezone it to the current 01 district. At that time, I believe the intent was a potential change in ownership for something that would have fit under the 01 classification. However, the single-family residential use has remained since then, and the single-family dwelling right now is considered a legal non-conforming use. That means that if that home were to be destroyed, it could not be rebuilt as a single-family home in the zoning district. Also pertinent to the history, in 2003 there was a special use approved for this property to allow for the expansion of the nonconforming single-family residential use, and that allowed the owner to construct a detached garage. That was in 2003. So the ask is to rezone effectively to allow for the City Council Chambers, Existing use long term use to match to be conforming use in in its zoning designation. City Council Chambers, Okay, and then i'll go over. the LaSalle factors that the Development Review Board reviews for rezoning requests. The first factor is looking at the existing uses of and the zoning of nearby property. As I highlighted in the zoning map, you'll see that This request would match adjacent zoning in the R6 district to the west. And then it would be a compatible use to surrounding uses. The second factor is the extent to which the property values are diminished by the particular zoning restriction. And so in this case, the value of this property being developed as a single family home is harmed by the current zoning designation. So that would support a rezoning request. 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 we find that the existing non-conformity does not benefit the public whereas this proposed amendment would promote general general welfare aligning the existing use with an appropriate zoning district The fourth factor is the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. The hardship imposed here on the owner could not rebuild the existing dwelling. That hardship exceeds any gain to the public by maintaining the current zoning designation. And then factor five, the suitability of the property for the currently zoned purpose. We find that the length of time the property has not been redeveloped under the 01 zoning class is evidence that it's not reasonable for that zoning classification and so supports the rezoning request. And then the sixth factor is the length of time the property has been vacant as zoned. It's not currently vacant, so that one is not particularly applicable. And then the seventh factor is the public need for the proposed use. We would find that there is public need for housing when it matches its conforming, when it matches and conforms to its zoning district. Additionally, our future land use designation is supportive of this request. It calls for office and medium density residential in this area. So the Development Review Board would recommend approval to rezone to the R6 multifamily residential district.

Thank you. Any questions for city staff?

One quick question. This at one time belonged to the diocese. This was the rectory. This is now an actual private

Yes, I think it was like in early 70s it might have transferred to, and I think the current owner is in a trust now. I think it's been a longstanding since the diocese transferred it to them. Thanks.

Any other questions? Hearing none, is the petitioner here and like to come forward? Okay. Anyone here from the public like to speak for or against the case?

Hearing none, do we have findings and facts? We do for rezoning. So these responses will be negative or no negative. Thank you. Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question, no negative. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question, no negative. 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 proffered amendment no negative The investigation of other suitable ways of accomplishing the proposed purpose of the mandatory 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 the 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 the findings. Thank you. Any discussion?

Hearing none, do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Same sign. Hearing none, motion passes. Congratulations, it'll go to the 28th of July. Give us a minute just to get the paperwork done. Mark, are you gonna speak? What's that? Swear, man, yeah. I just wanna make sure he gets sworn in.

And Devin's coming back.

You can use this pen. No, I don't want his pen. Come on now.

Julie, what are you doing here?

oh yeah you're right i mean that's actually fun you could just walk between those like this true because then i could be here all right so i'll just keep this here i just thought of it right now um there is an amended copy of the memo does anyone need a paper copy you guys good commissioners good i'm good you guys good all right case pz223-2026 okay pz223-2026 is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of mark wagner of pls props llc on behalf of peoria new mall llc to amend existing special use ordinance number 13932 as amended in a Class C to large scale commercial district for the shopping center to allow the construction of four apartment buildings with 84 total units for the property located at the intersection of West American Prairie Drive in North Route 91, specifically parcel identification number 1311177002 and commonly known as the shops at Grand Prairie. This includes parcel identification numbers 1310201012 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 1302, 351, 003, 005, 006, 1311, 100, 001, 1311, 101, 002, 003, 1311, 126, 001, 004, 005, 009, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 1311, 177, 001, 002, 1311, 176, 001, 002, 003, 005, 007, 010, 011, 012, 013, 1311, 151, 002, 003, 005, 006, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, 017, 016, 019, 021, 024, 027, and 028. And this is all in council district four. Thanks. Uh, and as noted before, this memo was revised, uh, this morning, July 2nd at 1130 AM to include waivers that were requested by the applicant yesterday at approximately three 30 in the afternoon. So a general overview, um, I'm gonna go over it in general, and then I'll list the entire conditions that we don't reread them multiple times. So as you'll see here, West American Prairie and Route 91, generally the mall is down here, just so you can get your bearings. So the request is to construct four buildings with 84 dwelling units. There is a waiver request to increase the density from 15.02 to 16.5 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for an additional eight units as proposed. These units include two bed and three bed apartments. There are five proposed accessory garages, which are here on the perimeter. Those will hold a total of 72 spaces. And there's an additional 98 surface parking spaces on the lot, with seven being ADA accessible. Additionally, there is a sign to futurely be proposed and follow code that will be out here along Route 91. the eastern property line access to this development will be through the mall parking lot and off of the access road and landscaping on this specific site plan is conceptual with multiple conditions including trees along american prairie and route 91 for a front yard nine trees in the interior parking lot and various others that will need to be followed so that's just a general overview i'll go into A little bit of background. So this specific property is 5.09 acres of currently undeveloped land, and it's located within the 55-acre shops at Grand Prairie Special Use Shopping Center. This property is zoned C2 and surrounded by C2 large-scale commercial zoning to the north, south, east, and west. Some history, the special use for the shopping center was originally approved in 1995, and this subject property was added to the special use in a 1999 amendment. City Council Chambers, Since the original approval, the shopping Center there's been various amendments to offer expansions to the shopping Center. City Council Chambers, Change signage plans and other site plan revisions, however, the subject property has only been illustrated with some tenant buildings and labeled as shopping outlets, but only conceptual nature, and this is the first dedicated plan that we've received for it. Down to our DRB Board analysis, no detriment to public health, safety, or dental welfare. We find the standard is not met. There are also two waivers being requested, one to eliminate the multi-use path installation along frontage on Route 91, and one, a waiver requested to eliminate the sidewalk installation along West American Prairie Drive. We have further explanation on why we will not be granting or asking for denial of those waivers. But there is one additional waiver, which is the request to increase the density and staff finds that the change in the eight units is negligible to the overall impact of this property and surrounding properties. No injury to other property, nor diminishment to property values. We do not find the standards met, but believe that it can be met with the conditions as listed. We find that the standard for impediment to orderly development is being met. It is providing adequate facilities. The applicant has provided a traffic study that reflects minimal impact, including during peak hours. So we find the ingress and egress measures designed to minimize traffic congestion standard is being met. It is not a public use or service, so this is not applicable. And while we do not find that it conforms to all district regulations, including the waivers that are being requested, we do believe that with the conditions we are recommending that it can meet. So with that, I'm going to go over the recommendation and then we can go further into the site plan if we have any questions. So the Development Review Board recommends approval of the request to construct four apartment buildings with 84 total units with the following waiver and conditions. One, a waiver to increase the density from 15.02 dwelling units per acre to 16.50 dwelling units per acre. Two, add a minimum of six bike parking spaces pursuant to UDC Section 8.1.6.3 bike parking requirements. Three, to design the dumpster enclosure in accordance with Chapter 13. Four, to install 146 points from the tree classification for the front yard along West American Prairie Drive. Five, to install 422 points from the tree classification for the front yard along North Route 91. Six, to install 170 points or nine trees from the shade tree classification within curved islands or divider medians within the interior of the parking lot. And these parking lot islands shall be curved with concrete or a functionally equivalent material. Seven, that all mulch placed within or directly adjacent to a parking lot shall be shredded hardwood bark or cypress mulch pursuant to the Unified Development Code. Gravel mulch, river rock, or like rock is not permitted within or directly adjacent to parking lots. Eight, that all rooftop and ground mount mechanical equipment and utilities be screened pursuant to Chapter 13. 9. Submit and receive approval for the photometric plan compliant with Unified Development Code. 10. Provide documentation verifying legal access to the subject property. 11. Install a multi-use path in the right-of-way along North Route 91 per city and IDOT requirements. 12. Install a sidewalk along the West American Prairie frontage. 13, submit and receive approval for stormwater volume control prior to construction. And 14, submit and receive approval for Stamps building life safety and fire plans for review and approval prior to construction. The Development Review Board is also recommending denial of the following requested waivers. One, to eliminate the multi-use path installation along the property frontage on North Route 91. And two, the waiver requested to eliminate sidewalk installation along the property frontage on West American Prairie. The recommendation for denial is due to the neighborhood character and established infrastructure within the shopping center. The multi-use path along North Route 91 is identified in the City of Peoria Bike Plan of 2025 and has been established on properties to the north of the subject property. Sidewalks have also been established along the northern side of American Prairie as well as throughout the shopping center, and with this, staff has placed conditions to install the sidewalk and multi-use path. So just further, the sidewalk is to be installed here along West American Prairie. And then the multi-use path, which is different than a sidewalk, to be installed along the Route 91 frontage. And we do have Public Works here to explain a little further if you have questions about either or why we're asking for both of those. We also received development impact statement and traffic study from the applicant detailing minimal impact generally to this area, even during peak hours, as well as a general mock-up, which I'll ask the applicant, you know, if this is current with what it will actually look like color and design wise, and then just restating on the site plan to get to the 84 units There's a very similar project along Summershade, Stallworth, and Landon's that will very much so look like these apartments. They essentially look like two buildings put together. And so in order to fit this last one, it's still going to be the three stories. It's just going to be one of the buildings versus two put together. And so that's where we get our 84 number from. City Council Chambers, And in speaking with where the rest of the sidewalk is all on American prairie is where we're speaking to as well as throughout the shopping Center. City Council Chambers, And just north here at casey's and on the amaranth property and additionally on a colon and property there's already an established multi use path. City Council Chambers, Solid public works speak if they have anything further to say about either of those, otherwise, if you guys have questions for staff.

So what is the game plan for, I mean, I get, I get the paths, I get the sidewalks. I mean, I, I, I understand it. It's on, I see it's on the north side of American prairie drive.

Yeah.

So there's nothing that circles any of the entire mall except for where cold stone creamery is and that side.

Yeah.

So I get the American prairie side, but what happens on actual 91? I know we've had the conversation a lot of times about the road that goes to nowhere, the sidewalk that goes to nowhere, but.

So the Maltese path on Highway 91 would be a continuation of the Maltese path that's already present.

Hold on, I'll get you. Nope. How about now?

Is that better?

Yeah, just say it again just so it's in the...

The multi-use path would be a continuation of the path that's already present by the Casey's that's just on the other side of American Prairie. And we spoke to I dot about this. Just to make sure that they did not object to doing it and they did not object, they only asked that it be connected with a crosswalk up at the intersection and that it be connected to the mall parking lot on the south end so that it connected on both ends to something so it isn't going to end into the parking lot or that would it would end at the mall parking lot yeah.

for now on until more development would come we just don't want it to lead to them going to the road the idea is that if it goes to the parking lot they'll be in a safe area compared to being on the road and maybe i just don't understand the i'm just looking at google map or you know maps so you're saying that at some point of development in the parking lot of the mall

Because it would just end into here?

Oh, I can't. Eventually, it would follow the Route 91 right-of-way around the parking lot.

Yeah, the ultimate intention is for it to go all the way to war, but this parcel doesn't go that far, so it would just run into the mall parking lot until then.

But someone would have to redevelop the mall to get it to go to war?

Well, no. It would probably be on the city at some point to do that. Okay.

That was the only question I had. Any other questions for staff?

And then I just pulled up our bike plan also. So this is where we're speaking to the master plan, which shows the bike plan. So right here is Route 91. And so we're looking at approximately right here is where we would be adding some. And then just north of where you see that water is where the existing is right now. So it is in our bike plan, has been approved, recently updated in 2025. This is the plan that we're working towards. And then obviously sidewalks, complete streets, we're looking for sidewalks everywhere.

Okay. Any other questions? Hearing none. Petitioner, would you like to come forward and give us your name and address and tell us a little bit about the project? All right, testing.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Devin Burch. I'm with Austin Engineering Company Incorporated. Our office is at 311 Southwest Water Street in Peoria. We're here as the engineer of record for this project, at least civil engineers of record and land planners. And with me is Mark Wagner with the development team. And so...

Thank you very much for today. 7227 University Street in Peoria.

Thank you very much. So yeah, we are, I mean, I'm personally very excited about this project. As the engineer of record for it, you don't see this many units come together very often. So kudos to Mark as he continues to develop a multifamily residential, which I believe is needed in the community. And we think we've put together a really great plan. We've complied with all the landscaping requirements, obviously, and we want to do a great job of making this thing look great and fitting into the neighborhood. The density waiver, I won't touch on that much because staff's already recommending approval of that. So if you have questions to that as to why we're doing it, I can be happy to answer those. But when it comes to The two waivers, I guess I would apologize first to Julia for the last minute ad. I know it was Friday.

I think that we learned that these things were going to be brought up.

And we thought about it a lot over the weekend, and we didn't come to a final decision until late yesterday as to whether or not we were going to request these waivers for the sidewalk along American Prairie and the multi-use path along Route 91. But at the end of the day, we felt there were Several factors that we wanted at least to be talked about and considered on both of those waivers. And we'll just get into those now, if that's okay. Because I don't really think the staff, anything else the staff had to say, you know, warrants any further comment on. But happy to talk about anything if you guys have questions for us. As you look at the sidewalks out here, obviously, At some point in time when the shops at Grand Prairie was built, either someone was asleep or someone was politically motivated to not put sidewalks around anything out here. So, you know, kudos to them for doing that. Although I think that was short-sighted, I do think that these things would be helpful, but coming in at the 11th hour and filling in some green space and, you know, and looking to this developer and this team to install those things just doesn't seem quite right to us. We hope you agree with us. Putting these in without a plan for the rest of this just seems to add more of a problem than a benefit. That's just our opinion. You know, without a sidewalk at the bank or sidewalks further west on American Prairie, it just seems like you're promoting things to happen that shouldn't happen when it looks like there should be a walk there or a use there that doesn't really connect to anything. In the past, we have agreed to do some fees in lieu of at an agreed upon square footage price that maybe that could be a consideration, maybe. But just given the surroundings and the fact that if you look east of Route 91, there's nothing over there at those developments for sidewalk or connectivity. When would that ever happen? I can't imagine that the city would undertake something on their own there. It's going to be multiple years before anything's ever redeveloped over there that would require it. So while we can see that Casey's obliged, I don't know if they asked for a waiver and were denied. It'd be great to know if staff happens to know that. But I guess with all due respect, we don't have gas station money. So this money is pretty important to us. So we'd like your consideration for the waiver of it. And to kick this can down the road a little bit for when it makes more sense to a broader plan is together on behalf of the city to write this wrong, I guess, that the original developers were allowed to do. Just look at my notes here, make sure I haven't missed anything there. But yeah, I mean, I think... The only reason IDOT is requiring the upgrade for a crossing, there's nothing out here. One question we have is, OK, Casey's put in a multi-use path for only their property. Doesn't seem like it's ever going to connect to anything else for quite a while. They were not asked to do any crossings. I mean, are we only being asked to do a crossing across American Prairie? Or are we being asked to do crossings across 91? A little clarification there that we'd like to know about. I don't know that IDOT specifically said one or the other of those. But a crossing isn't just paint stripes either. It comes with signalized pedestrian buttons and all these other things that snowball into dollars and cents. And in a multifamily development, every percentage point that we can try to keep in our pocket with the rising Material costs and labor costs and everything else, these projects are not slam dunks. There's a lot of risk involved in them. And we just would like that consideration, seeing as how we're bringing a 20 billion plus development to this, you know, piece of land that's been vacant for 27 or 28 years with really no plan. Just as staff said, no plan has been put in front of you except for a big, broad 50,000 foot level concept plan. So yeah, I guess we'd like you to weigh all of those things together when you're considering our waivers. And hopefully, just from a clerical standpoint, obviously the waivers are kind of voted on separately, I'm guessing, as you go down through. I'd like to know that, I guess, if you're going to vote on the special use versus vote on each individual waiver. And do you have anything else to add, Mark?

PLS currently manages 2,500 doors of property. This is, I guess I'll say, my seventh property here in the city. Our buildings as of today are 100% full. We have a need for housing like I've never seen before. I'm currently finishing a nice project downtown, which is going to help kick that off as well. We want this to go from someone who worked in a situation where the mall of yesterday was everything, and you always had people there, I'm worried that the malls of today won't be here. And when we developed the site and thought to contact them, I think it adds something to the power out there to keep that place going and to to basically offer tenants coming in from out of town or currently in town a place where these 80 tenants now can walk the grounds go get coffee do all of that i know financially things don't matter sometimes but doing what staff has asked us to do to a A walkway that goes nowhere currently and may never go anywhere, and again I understand it i'm just asking that that the overall benefit of the project, I think, outweighs the unknown of that not being done for the future so that's, the only thing we just ask and hopefully that will make sense.

Yeah, and I think a fair thing to look at is when you look at a multi-use path, that's a benefit to a large community. And going into each little individual outlot and saying, well, you do this and you do that, I don't know, it just doesn't seem quite right to me. And it's better to be done as a larger plan. Now, if you guys were saying, hey, we're getting ready to construct this next year and We want this portion, you know, to be paid for. That's a different story, but it's not. So I guess that's where we kind of stand right now. We would really appreciate your consideration for the waivers.

Any, yes, questions?

Are you strictly against, in my understanding, you're strictly against sidewalks?

In this case, yeah. And in other cases, we've built sidewalks all the time because they make sense where they're connecting and connectivity. But in this case, yeah, we're asking for the waivers for the public sidewalk and the public use path.

You know, that's been one of the biggest hassles we've seen on this commission is sidewalks. The city, you know, prefers sidewalks so people can walk around. And from what I'm listening to you, you're saying

you know we would like to have this waiver and we'd like to waive it and we know sidewalks well i mean we have sidewalks interior but the sidewalk that we would build on the right-of-way wouldn't really serve a purpose without all the other sidewalks adjacent to us thank you any other questions now deb you did mention before that you would be open to a proposal for a fee in lieu of on the sidewalks if that were on the table potentially i mean i can let mark speak but we've you know that was just something that we kicked out that i know we've done in the past you know perhaps the american prairie drive one i i feel like that's that's probably something that we could do um but any money towards signalization and crosswalks that's benefiting four corners of a property and a lot of things out here. I don't think that that's fair to this one development to brunt the cost, depending on how many of those crossings we're talking about and everything. There's just some unknowns there that's hard to commit to. But yes, the sidewalk fronting American Prairie, maybe a fee in lieu there we could agree with. But the multi-use path, I don't know. It's just that's a harder one to agree to with Again, if you said you were doing something in a year, or five, or ten, and there was a plan in place that we could see, that we knew with confidence when things were going to happen, maybe we'd feel different about that.

Yeah, I think you're right. I think that portion over there would make sense, and to your point, Sidewalks are great, and I have them everywhere. In this particular case, that multi-use and sidewalk goes to nowhere. So my tenants or the city people who would be going out on that sidewalk don't have any use of that. It just goes for whatever that dimension is and stops.

I mean, I guess it would get them to Casey's, and then to walk all the way west on the north side of American Prairie, I don't know. It doesn't do any benefit to the east side of 91 with no walks over there at all. So I don't know, I just feel like it's promoting, without the larger thing coming in, it just feels like it's promoting some bad habits.

Yeah, because I certainly appreciate the dilemma because, you know, cost, of course. You know, you don't want people wasting their money on sidewalks that go to nowhere, which, again, Commissioner Yunus addressed that, too, on how that's always been a problem, having sidewalks that don't go to nowhere, even though we understand the overall concept, what the goal is, what the hope is for the future. For sure. future changes and things like that too. I say it because we've seen in the past, you know, Shops of Grand Prairie, how that took off, you know, back in 2003, I believe when it opened up and it's made some changes since then. It's not the same exactly now as it was those first five years or so that it was open. So I know this is a welcomed project for sure. Gets more foot traffic to the mall and more customers to Hy-Vee and all the businesses in that general area. I completely support the project 100%. One question I do have, it may seem unrelated, but I think it kind of relates though. So along 91 with that pathway that they want there, I mean, do the residents there, are they gonna have pets or anything like that? Are pets permitted typically on these properties? I know you.

They would have pets typically in a size of this dimension, we average probably eight to nine pets.

Okay. Now, when you look at this overall, site plan there, where would you think they would walk their pets if there were no paths out front along 91? Because I think it might benefit tenants there just to walk

I mean, other than interior-wise that you typically see people walking around the parking lot or just even into the yard areas and whatnot, you know, interior circulation. I mean, that stormwater quality area is, detention's already satisfied here through a regional basin, but the new water quality standards aren't. And so even though I show a big area there on the north end for where we would manage water quality, You're probably not even going to see what it is, so that's really going to be a pretty big lawn area there as well where they could exercise their pets.

There's probably other pet areas up there too.

We haven't talked about that yet if you want a dedicated pet area.

We typically do some small pet areas. They don't really get used as what we would think. They take short walks and dog out. That's about it.

lot of this price range of people haven't had a lot of pets it seems and so that's why i gave you the six per size of this which is pretty typical chair any other questions yes please so hey devin totally totally appreciate what you guys are doing it's it's awesome and but but one thing we need to keep in mind is you are changing the dynamics of operations there it's not When it's residential, people tend to walk a lot more than when you are in a mall and you're driving there. If we look at Orange Prairie Road on the other side, we can argue the same thing. There are sidewalks to nowhere there. But again, if we also want to say, why are we building it here? Why are we building it here? Then we can end up with no sidewalks. But more of a concern for me, maybe I can absorb the fact on 91, maybe no sidewalks, but on American Prairie, it's... seems to be a little bit more important, especially if people want to cross to the bank, want to cross to the gas station, get coffee or whatever. It just seems a little bit more reasonable. But besides that, I have another question which deals with traffic. Now, you are introducing 500 and some residents or whatever. I know you have a memo for the traffic, but you have no place to say what the impact of that traffic is going to be on the intersection with all the people coming into the intersection. Is there more level of service that's going to be up and down? And that's probably one of the reasons, you know, maybe we will, and I don't know, I don't want to speak for public works, but maybe one of the reasons the crosswalk is important too.

yeah um you know we did sub that out to a consultant so without preparing that and knowing exactly what the level of service change there was i can't really speak to that george when we shared it with the city and public works there wasn't a request for any other information so um but certainly there's going to be more traffic at the intersection of american and route 91 at different times and You know, I can concede that, you know, a crossing there, if there was going to be a sidewalk today. That you would need a crosswalk at a minimum from south to north on American Prairie. I don't think it benefits to the east at all because there are no sidewalks over there, and I don't think we want to promote somebody crossing there to get to the east side of Route 91. But so. You know, we would, again, I think if we're going to concede to something on American Prairie, it would be a fee in lieu is what we would prefer. And then when there's a sidewalk along the bank and there's a sidewalk along the south side of American Prairie all the way across the shop's property, then all of that makes sense. And again, just our opinion.

You know, once we, as this commission has sat here years, We could start to get ourselves back into trouble again. The next developer comes along and says, hey, I'd like to do this. So you got a can of worms. We've had it before. The city is saying sidewalks every year that I've sat on this commission. If we start setting precedent again, we're going to be right back with the next developer. And we've had this before. We've sort of stood our ground on this, backed up the city, and went with it. My point.

Anything else regarding the question for Casey's so one they did not need a special use amendment because gas stations are allowed in the C2 and they did not ask for waivers of any kind or they would have had to amend the special use. They put in the multi use path and sidewalk as required by the city and their building permit.

Any other questions for the petitioner? OK, hearing none, thank you guys.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Anybody in the audience like to speak for or against the case, come forward. Hearing none. Seeing none. Do we have findings and facts?

The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Yes. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of the 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 surrounding property for use permitted in the district. Yes. Adequate facilities, access roads, drainage, and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. We'll say yes for now, yeah. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets, yes. The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the City of Peoria as amended, yes. If a public use or a use providing public utility service, that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and or 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 and facts?

hearing none do we have a motion i'll make a motion to approve with uh staff recommendations second second any discussion again as i said before i said 100 support the development i understand the dilemma as well and when it goes before city council i think city council has the tools to either accept this as we just met or they can uh make some sort of reasonable compromise that makes sense because i'm sure every councilman wants this development to happen there and they don't want to get held up would assume i'm not speaking on their behalf but my hope is they don't want to hold up a project over a sidewalk that really doesn't serve much of a purpose as of yet but again part of us as a commission we're planning as well as zoning so we're thinking about the future and where this path could go so i think there's going to be a need for they'll determine if that needs immediate like right now today or maybe they'll consider if it could be something done sometime down the road but I don't want to create that solution as of yet when I'm sure they're more than prepared to do that themselves as a council.

Yeah, just echo what he says. I mean, we kind of find the guidelines of what the code is. And, you know, we appreciate everything you guys do. Community, keep reinvesting. I mean, I think Peoria needs it. I think it's going to continue to get better and grow. And that's what city council is for. I mean, no matter what we say, they can always override us. So sometimes I wonder why we're here. But any other discussion? All in favor signal by saying aye. aye aye any opposed hearing none motion passes it will go in front of city council on the 28th 28th thank you guys for coming in give us just a second to get the paperwork wrapped up

for two hours about what could be done.

You know what I mean?

They gave us traffic counts and it was less than 50 per hour.

So it wasn't, it was a small amount. Right. Rich has got to take off, so.

If we could do the elections of the officers now.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. I would like to nominate Brandon Martin for another 12 months as chairman.

Second. Object.

Oh, thanks.

Any discussion?

Well, he's not very good, but we'll go with him.

Are we voting?

All in favor by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. One nay, I guess.

I'm kidding.

I'd like to make a motion to appoint Mr. Berry as the vice chair.

Oh, God.

Do I have a second?

Hopefully there won't be a second. You had a second.

Any discussion? All in favor, signal by saying aye.

That'd be a long discussion. Aye.

Any opposed? Congratulations. Citizens' Opportunity to Address to Commission? Seeing none, do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second? Second. Second. All opposed.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Have a good Fourth of July, everybody.

you Thank you. Thank you.