Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello. What's going on, big boy? Start. Okay, we will call to order the planning and zoning uh commission meeting on October 2nd, 2025 being held at Pure City Hall, room 400. It is now 102. Can we get a roll call?

Vice Chairman Eric Herd here. Teresa Commissioner Terresa Kohler. Commissioner Ed Barry here. Commissioner George Gibb here. Commissioner Mike Whisahan here. Commissioner Rich Ununis here. Chairman Brandon Martin here. Chairman, we have a quorum.

Thank you. Before we start the meeting, I'd like to go over some ground rules just for those of you who are not familiar with the process or haven't been here before. Uh we have an agenda listing the cases that are up for the commission to consider today. The planning and zoning commission will make recommendations to the city council. The date each case will be prov presented in front of city council for final decision will be state at the conclusion of each case. That way you know which one and what time you go in front of uh city council. Uh the date is usually the fourth Tuesday of the month during the regular scheduled city council meeting. The commission follows the city's municipal code, specifically the unified development code within when making its recommendations to city council. This commission considers the testimony presented by city staff, the applicant or the representative, and the public when making its recommendation to the city council. Each case will begin 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 or the representative presents the case, any member of the public can comment in favor or or against the case. This is the only portion of the hearing when the public can comment. The petitioner or the representative will get an opportunity to speak again after the members of the public speak. Please address the commission when making public comments. During the hearing, the commissioners may ask the petitioner or the representative, city staff, or members 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.

Saying that, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from last month's meeting. So moved. Second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. First case is PZ3. Oh, sorry. Got to swear everyone in. If you plan on giving a testimony or speaking today, uh please uh stand and be sworn in.

Thank you. And if you haven't filled out a blue form, please make sure you get that filled out and turned in by the end. First case is PZ351-2025. Case number PZ351-2025 request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Tyler Smith of Hyroster Vulkar and Allen PC on behalf of 3G Financial Group LLC to obtain a special use in a class CN neighborhood commercial district to expand a non-conforming storage use for the properties located at 916, 918, 920, and 922 West Lincoln Avenue. The partial identification numbers are 1817226004, 1817226005, 1817 226006, and 1817 226007. this in council district one. Okay. So, uh the uh application here is

to expand outdoor storage of fleet vehicles and materials uh that are being used by gets fire equipment company. Uh gets fire operates um from nearby properties. here. Um this uh map here is highlighting the four parcels that are proposed for the expansion of the outdoor storage area. Currently the storage area is on uh this site here on Lincoln Avenue. Um the expansion is directly adjacent. Um the expansion area and the existing outdoor storage areas in a CN neighborhood or commercial neighborhood district. Outdoor storage of fleet vehicles and materials is not allowed in the CN district. So, we have a non-conforming use currently. The request here this afternoon is a special use in order to allow the expansion uh into the CN district um as a special use to expand in nonconformity. Uh so gets uh facilities operates their main buildings at this uh site here or along Adam Street side of the block. Um they also have this parking area here. Um they also have a uh location on the north side of Lincoln Avenue um out of this building here. So uh you know well established in this area for their use. Um, again, this is currently uh a fenced area that has their fleet vehicles and materials. Uh, this is an alley. So, it's this is a public alley that goes through here. So, this is our zoning map. Uh, so again, the purple hatch is that CN district. So, this half of the block is all in the same CN neighborhood commercial district. Um, we're dealing with an expansion of a non-conformity in

that CN district. uh gets main buildings along Adams are in an industrial I2 uh zoning district and north on Lincoln um we have CN um as well as the um the outer edge of the warehouse district starts on the other side of Lincoln and part of the block on Adam Street. Uh so the most recent use of this property was a car auto sales uh use um a use uh that that uh is no longer there. um the zoning history of the property. Um it it had uh industrial light industrial designations um under earlier zoning ordinances and has gradually uh been uh downzoned into uh commercial and then currently neighborhood commercial uh zoning. Uh the applicant submitted an updated site plan that I'll be presenting here. There's a little bit more details than what was in what was submitted at time of being able to distribute the packet. Um but uh in in the packet that you have, they do include um their uh some photos of the site that we'll still see here. This a little bit older photo. Um here's a more current photo of where they would like to expand. Their existing facility uh is over there on the left here. And we are um photos taken from Lincoln Avenue. Uh the buildings are proposed to stay. Uh we do see some existing lighting. Um the buildings meet uh height and setback requirements. Um staff uh is asking for a phototric plan just to make sure the

lighting complies with um city code and that is is an added condition. Uh we reviewed for mechanical uh screenings. Um those would be required if if if there is any unscreened. There's no proposal to change any signage and uh the curb cuts that you see here um they are proposing to no longer need vehicle access onto Lincoln Avenue from these areas. Um and so those would um public works would would ask that those are built back with a curb. um as well as sidewalk along Lincoln uh be updated to ADA compliance per our complete streets policy. Uh this is a general idea of what we're talking about. So uh this is the existing outdoor storage area non-conforming use. They would like to expand into this area Lincoln Avenue on the top. Uh this whole frontage is where uh the complete streets policy would apply that that sidewalk be brought to uh ADA compliance curb cuts for the driveway and approach uh be built back uh to to curbs and sidewalks. Lincoln Avenue is a state uh jurisdiction road. So permitting um uh construction review would would be would go through uh ID dot. Uh this application shows a vacation of an alley that used to exist on the south side of their expansion area kind of here. That's no longer there. So it's an internal circulation. Uh they're proposing further access through here through a gate of of a fenced area. So, I'll bring up their site plan

uh in the packet that you got. They provide this uh narrative that they can go through as well that highlights um the aspects of their requests and and uh reasons for the different components of it. Okay. So, uh this is the site plan showing the expansion area for the outdoor storage fleet vehicles and materials materials and kind of the pink highlight area. Um and they're proposing uh fence uh as a as a security fence um 8t height chain link material um similar to what's there now. Uh in the green line is a fence that they would uh propose to keep um and then add fencing for the uh the new expansion area. And as I mentioned, a gate through the middle here um to circulate and then this fence line would would would remain. Um staff's review is because this is outdoor storage um the standards for limited outdoor storage which again is not allowed in the CN district but as a special use expansion um it can be considered. staff is asking for a solid um you know opaque fence as a a screen of the outdoor storage. Um that would be a a normal requirement for outdoor storage in zoning districts where this type of use is allowed. U we ask for uh screening. We are okay with the 8oot height. Um that's not a normal height of fence in a commercial district. Normally it's six feet, but because it's for that screening, um we are okay with the eight foot height. Um

but our recommendation is to have the solid fence along the entire front edge of Lincoln Avenue uh through the side as this storage area is visible from the public street on Jefferson. Um and then um also a solid fence along this side uh because it is adjacent to a an existing residential use. I didn't show that on the map before, but this is a house here um not owned by the applicant. And so uh the our recommendation comes with a solid fence on these three sides. Okay. And then our recommendation, you know, consistent with our streets policy, complete streets policy is uh the sidewalk along the frontage here, both sides uh existing and the new expansion area be brought up to ADA compliance and the curbs be rebuilt. Uh so our review of this um application uh we find that with our with our screening our our site improvement conditions that the standards can be met to support this request. Uh no detriment to public health, safety or general welfare. No injury to other property or property values uh with with the screening um the solid screening. No impediment to early development. uh provides the adequate facilities with conditions regarding the sidewalks and the driveways. Uh driver pushes being rebuilt. Uh ingress egress measures are are not really impacted. Uh it's an internal circulation only. Um and it would conform to districts requirements with uh a few of the waiverss in in our recommendation. Uh the we could support this based on a comprehensive plan critical success factors to grow employers and jobs and the city strategic goal for business growth and prosperity.

Let's see here. They have submitted another photo. Um this was in your packet in a in a smaller photo I think. Uh but I just want to go through everything here. You can see the the fence now uh over their fleet area and then uh the unfenced area next door where it would be expanded. So just pulling this up so you can see our our conditions. Um, for our recommendation, we do recommend approval to expand the non-conforming storage use with a waiver for the maximum fence height being 8 ft. Um, and we have the following conditions. Um, condition one, if you're following me through the memo, no longer applies as I went over the updated uh plan. So, moving on to condition two in the memo you received. Uh that condition is that the existing chain link fence would be removed and replaced with an 8-ft tall fence with 100% opaque screening. So that's for the perimeter fence on three sides. Any mechanical and utility structures which are visible from the rightway must comply with the current screening requirements. The next condition, any outdoor storage would comply with the UDC section 8.4.4B.2 as attached in your memo. um and per the site plan. Those are the elements I went over regarding the buffering with the solid screen um as well as placement of their outdoor storage. And then the last condition is a oh the last condition in your memo is a phototric plan shall be submitted for compliance review with a maximum 1/2 foot candle light level or

all property lines. So we need to review that. Um and then adding to uh the conditions that are in your written memo are pertaining to the rightway improvements. And so that is that um the to replace or repair the deteriorate deteriorated and nonADA compliant sidewalks and curbs along Lincoln Avenue frontage. A combination curb and sidewalk shall have a sidewalk that is a minimum six feet wide um from back of curb to edge of sidewalk per city ordinance. And the condition to uh for the removal of the use of a drive approach shall require the curb cut to be returned to normal height matching the curb on both ends. Uh so that is our recommendation to approve with those conditions.

Thank you. Any questions for city staff? Seeing none. Is the petitioner here? If you come on up and state your name and address. Jason Gats. Thank you. Business address is 1615 Southwest Adam Street. Excellent. Anything you want to tell us about the uh application?

Yeah, so we we're requesting um just for chain link to be added to the new site, new property that we have. on the three sides to match the existing chain length fence was our original request. Changing anything to that area in green outline and basic vehicle storage. Um there was a picture of the other storage materials being in bins. It would be stuff strewn all around. You can see we've already improved the visual appeal of the parking lot. There was an old picture and then you can was covered in weeds and trees almost growing and cutting into the sidewalk that we repaired and removed. So we've already made a significant improvement in visual appeal of the lot chain length. Okay, quick question. So, you're fine with all the other staff recommendations other than the fence requirement that the city is asking,

but

I didn't know about the concrete repair until I just got here. Um, so yeah, my question is if it's not six feet now and you we have to build out six feet just in our property, what about the neighboring property where it's not six feet and then somebody's walking and trips because it's only four feet. It's got to connect to the existing outside of our property. Any other questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, um, you can be seated. Anyone in the audience like to speak for or against this? Seeing none, this portion of the case is closed. 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. 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 would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for us is permitted in the district. Will not adequate facilities, access, roads, drainage and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in public streets. Yes, the proposed special use is not contrary

to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Pory as amended is not if a public use or use providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit. It's 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 commissions. Answer that is to is no based on the DRB saying staff has no objections uh that was noted and those are the findings and facts. Thank you. Any discussions on the findings and facts? Do we have a motion?

So moved as staff comments. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion? Um Carolyn, are you going to answer his question then offline in regards to the sidewalk with that? That might be most appropriate. We could connect him with our public works contact who would be able to speak through the design details but it would be the requirement would be 6 feet and 4 foot is on the next property then 4 foot's on the next property.

Okay. So somebody will contact and make sure that his questions address. Yes. So they could fully understand what the condition is uh ahead of the council meeting. Um, sure. Any other discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Passes and it will go to city council on October 28th. October 28th. Thank you. Give us just a minute to finish our paperwork to get started on the next case.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

Steve, you want to get sworn in? Good. Is it not moving? I was like, I'm watching it move. It's like okay, next case is PZ 376-205. Okay. PZ 376-2025 is a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Devon and Heidi Parker to reszone property from a class C2 large-scale commercial district to a class R3 single family residential district for the property located at 66 North Big Hollow Road. partial identification number 1313 328001 and this is located in council district 4. The petitioner is requesting to reszone the subject property to a class uh R3 single family residential district and as seen on the screen uh it is this

larger parcel in red here. The parcel is approximately 2.3 acres of land and developed with a single family home and detached two garage. It is currently zoned class C2 large scale commercial and surrounded by the yellow R3 single family residential and then the brown uh R six multif family residential uh and then C2 large scale commercial. So the other red parcel and C1 uh general commercial across Big Hollow Road. This property was built with a single family dwelling in 1960 prior to annexation into the city and has remained a single family dwelling through the present day. The previous ownership did run a home occupation out of the dwelling and the current C2 zoning does not allow for the single family use. So most likely uh when it was brought into the city, the zoning, the business, all of that led to the C2 zoning. Um but with new ownership they are wanting to reszone to R3 to have a conforming single family home. Uh so R3 would meet all standards uh including lot size setbacks all those items um that are with the building envelope standards of the district. So for reasonzoning we look at the LAL factors number one existing uses of and zoning of the nearby property. So this property request matches the adjacent zoning and uses. Some of the existing uses of nearby property include a church which is across big hollow road and animal hospital which is the C2 property just south of this. Um and then single family and town houses which are located to the north and the east. Lel factor number two the extent to which property

values are diminished by the particular zoning. the standard is met uh as a single family dwelling uh will become a legal conforming use versus a non-conforming use in the C2 zoning district. Number three, extent to which the destruction of property values of the complaining party benefits the health, safety or general welfare of the public. This is not applicable to this case. Number four, the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual property owner. Uh this standard is met as the request matches the adjacent zoning and uses and allows for the existing single family dwelling to become a legal conforming use in the new R3 proposed district. Number five, suitability of the property for zone purposes. Again, it's met this is becoming a legal conforming use versus a non-conforming use. Number six, the length of time the property has been vacant as zoned compared to the development in the vicinity of the property. Uh this land is not vacant. It has been developed as a single family dwelling since 1960. Um and so it was considered non-conforming in the existing C2 district. Number seven, public need for the proposed use is not applicable. and the comprehensive plan future land use designation is commercial with low density residential to the north. The development review board recommends approval to reszone the property from class C2 large scale commercial district to class R3 single family residential district. So again it's this larger uh red colored property and it's developed with a single family home and then a detached garage over here. These are the R3 single family homes that we're referring to are similar uses uh when talking about future designation. And then these are uh town homes here here off of a private

road. Are there any questions for staff? Any questions? Seeing none, is a petitioner here? Please come forward and state your name and address. Hi, my name is Devin Parker. Uh, my address is 6006 North Big Hollow Road, Poria, Illinois. Thank you. Can you just tell us a little bit of the project and just what your application is about?

Uh, yeah. My wife and I bought the property uh solely to use it as single family residential. It's a gorgeous home. The previous owner ran a custom bridal veil shop out of the basement, which can very easily just work as extra rooms in the home, which the main residence, the kitchen, dining room, bathroom, bedroom, all of that is on the main floor. Excellent. Any questions for the petitioner? Okay, seeing none, thank you for coming.

Thank you. Anyone in the uh audience like to speak for or against the case?

Okay, seeing none, do we have findings and facts? All right, these are the findings of fact for reszoning. 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. 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 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 the findings.

Thank you. Any discussion on those? Can I entertain entertain a motion? So move. Can you for as a staff's recommendation? Staff's recommendation and a second. Okay. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right, motion passes. Congratulations. It'll go in front of the city council on October 28th. Thank you. Give us a little time to prep for the next one.

Okay, we'll begin case PZ 386-2025 uh PZ 38 862025 a request to hold a public hearing and for forward a recommendation of city council on the request of acifain to obtain a special use in a class R3 single family residential district for a short-term rental for the property located at 3806 West Thistle Lane partial identification number 0825 3802 two. Uh the applicant's requesting for a short-term uh rental uh uh in an existing single family dwelling with five bedrooms. Uh the owner does not reside at this property and would like to rent the house for stays less than 30 consecutive days. Um such use is considered a non-owner occupied short-term rental and requires a special use approval. Uh the current property is also being used for uh longer term rentals. Um uh as stated the the the resident would be used for short-term rental use and has five bedrooms. Um it would be allowed up to six guests uh for the short-term rental use using five of the bedrooms. Uh three parking spaces are provided uh within the garage with Three additional parking spaces being provided in the driveway. However, they're not independently maneuverable.

As we can see here on the site plan submitted by the applicants, uh the property is not within a neighborhood association. Uh the 1% cap allows for three special use uh short-term rentals uh within a 0.5 mile radius of the subject property. Um if approved, this would be the first special use uh short-term rental within the area. Uh the property also exceeds the minimum 1,500 ft separation requirement and is compliance. Um, and this request would also require the applicant to obtain a yearly short-term rental license uh and remit the room rental use and privilege tax to the city of Poria. Uh, the subject property sits on a 0 29 acres and again is developed with a single family dwelling with an attached garage constructed in 2013 uh with vehicle access from West Thistle Drive. Uh, currently the property is within good standing with code enforcements. Uh this property is zoned class R3 and is surrounded by R3 zoning in in all directions. Um this property was uh annexed into the city uh in uh 1990. Um this uh for the development review board analysis um this request does meet all the standards. Um there is a condition to install fire extinguishers, smoke alarms and carbon monoxide uh detectors. Uh with a comprehensive plan, critical success factors would be reinvesting in neighborhoods and the city council strategic plan goals would be for quality of life. Uh the development review board recommends approval of the request for short-term rental use subject to the following conditions. Uh, fire extinguishers fire extinguisher shall be installed according to the 2018 international fire code chapter 9 section 9006.

Interconnected smoke alarm shall be installed according to the 2018 international fire code chapter 9 section 907. Carbon monoxide detector shall be installed according to the 2018 international fire code chapter 9 section 915. Additional dwelling units cannot be added to the single family dwelling unit. uh occupancy of the short-term rental shall not exceed six guests. Uh the owner shall obtain and maintain a valid short-term rental license from the city of Poria and the owner shall pay room rental use or privilege tax to the city of Puria. An approved special use is valid for the applicant only as identified on the special use application submitted to the planned zoning commission. and approved special use shall become null and void upon any change in ownership for the property which results in the removal of all prior applicants. Such change in ownership of the property will require new special use application and approval. Uh prior to reading the staff's uh recommendation um handed out two documents to the commissioners. Uh the first is a single sheet and an email sent from a resident um uh making their case not in support for this um request. And then the the later is a petition from the neighborhood uh with signatures from neighbors uh not expressing support for the request.

Thank you. Any questions for city staff? Question to the staff. Yes. You're saying maximum of six people, right? Correct. So, this big of a house, who's going to who's going to govern that? Who's going to police that? Um the the applicant would be uh uh according to the uh petition and the application would be the the property manager for that property.

I can tell you it doesn't happen. you say the petitioner needs it or the city it doesn't happen. I've got one on the street on our street that it' be similar to what you're granting here where I've called the city times on it and I'm saying wait a minute I think I'm speaking to him. Okay. I think you're going to interject. Okay. What I'm saying is where is the policing coming to protect this neighborhood? Because this right now, this house is has several people in and out of it right now. Okay. So, who's going to who's going to protect this neighborhood? So it would be through uh normal uh complaint means. So uh if there was uh an issue with with this property, if this request were to be approved, um any complaints would have to be issued to the police department. Um and then as community development uh we have uh tools to to measure that the listing is advertised uh to compliance per the special use.

You can put 10 people in this house on any why don't we all have a conversation. Um Mr. Chair, go ahead. You're on.

Sure. Um, in addition to what Nolan said, which he explained really well, if it's an urgent issue, you can always call the police department and ask that an officer come urgently, there have been parties and there have been short-term rentals, which we've addressed that night, and afterwards have revoked their license if there was an issue because it is on the property owner to make sure that there's no parties or any other um violations of their special use. And if they do violate it, then city staff would go in front of the administrative hearing officer to revoke their license. However, then why don't I show you how many times that I've called on this particular issue with no results. Okay?

And you can also submit a period of cares complaint. So, if there's a property in your neighborhood that you want to discuss after this meeting, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, Commissioner. I've been I've been there many times with city. I've been downstairs many times on this and this could be the case in this neighborhood right now. That's all I've got to say. Okay. I will speak to you after the meeting and we'll address your the property that you're concerned about. Any other questions for city staff?

I got I got a question. In his um statement of experience, he states, "Since 2023, I've successfully managed four short-term rentals within the city of Pory, Illinois. Through this experience, I've gained a strong understanding of the responsibilities. My question of the four other short-term rentals that he has, has there been any complaints or anything that um would show any red flags in regards to any of the other properties that he's had to move this one forward? Um not to my knowledge uh that there was any active complaints or any active um uh violations to the other properties that this petitioner may have. say not to my knowledge and didn't really check it out. No. Okay.

Nolan in that as well. That request wasn't it's not the normal procedure to check other properties. Um it's something that staff might do. So in his defense, if that's something that the commission would like staff to do, then we can do that going forward. I would just say this, it states clearly in here that he has four other properties. He's bringing a fifth forward to us.

As part as part of the way that I do business and the way that I look, I would go to check to see if there's any other issues with any of the other properties that he that he currently has. If he has zero problems, I'd just say address it and say he's had zero problems with anything else. That's just more information for us to be able to do our job. Absolutely. So that information is presented to city council. Um and I would have to discuss with Leah if um that information could be presented to the commission prior to going.

But if we we act as a commission and as far as I'm concerned and the commissions that I've been on in the past, we are a sounding board for the city council. So we are to do all the leg work with them and our yes it's a non-binding decision what we send to them and they can do what they want but we've already take taken all the guesswork out of it for them because we've heard the case for. So any any and all pertinent information regarding any cases that come forward even something like that in my estimation makes the city council's job easier because it's already presented to us. Otherwise, why are we even in existence?

Your point is noted. Thank you, Commissioner. But, Commissioner, if if we do that for this person in particular, we have to do it for everything that comes through. That's what I Yes, that's okay. So, we we don't want to isolate one person, but we've had we've had we've had many applicants before. That's not my I'm just saying if

I agree. I think his point is moving forward, could we incorporate that into our process uh you know for these types of cases. So that's something that will be possibly considered later on. Any other questions for city staff? Seeing none, uh is a petitioner in the audience like to come forward? Please state your name and address and tell us a little bit about the project.

Thanks.

Thank you. Yes. Hello. Okay. Any questions for him?

Current Currently, this property is served as a long-term rental. Is that okay?

Have you had any issues with the people? Okay, thank you. And you've had it as a long-term rental before this?

Okay. and you're confident that you'll be able to keep an eye on it just as much as the other ones. And So, is your intent to keep this as a long-term or just giving you the option when your tenant moves out to to be able to do a short-term minute. for a short-term rental, but then would you be looking for another long-term rental situation in that property?

Right. I got you. Okay. Any other questions for the petitioner? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Anyone in the audience for or against this case come forward? Seeing none, do we have to read this any of these into or no? The letter the at least this letter.

They can just be submit. They don't have to be read. They can just be submitted as evidence. Right. We normally have um read them into the record.

Uh first letter is from Mr. uh Sam Paliparthy. Uh as a resident of the Summer Ridge subdivision, I respectfully oppose the requested submitted the request submitted by Mr. OSA Fusain for a special use designation to operate the property at 3806 West Thistle Lane, Pure, Illinois as a short-term rental. A group of residents from our community has already submitted a petition requesting that this proposal be denied. Unfortunately, I missed the opportunity to sign the petition, which is why I'm submitting this email to express my concerns. I believe that allowing this property to operate as a short-term rental can negatively impact the safety, stability, and character of our neighborhood. I urge the commission to take these concerns seriously and deny the request. Uh the second letter uh dear members of the planning and zoning commission we the undersigned residents of the summer ridge subdivision are writing to formally oppose the request by Mr. Osafane to obtain a special use designation for the property located at 8 3806 west of this lane in order to operate a short-term rental. This property is currently being utilized as a rental and our neighborhood has faced ongoing challenges with the current tenants and property management. These issues have been a direct impact on our safety, quality of life, and overall stability of our community. Our concerns include unsupervised and reckless activity involving children and vehicles. Young young children residing at or visiting the property have regularly wandered onto neighboring private property without supervision, and we have observed gas-powered ATVs being operated recklessly around the property and into the street. These activities present clear safety risks to both the children involved and others in the neighborhood. Threats to safety. Many families with young children live in the subdivision and the introduction of transient short-term renters will only increase risks to those children's well-being. Lack of property upkeep and responsiveness. The current landlord has de demonstrated little regard for addressing neighbors concerns or maintaining the property to the

standards of our community. Negative impact on housing stability and affordability. Turning homes into short-term rentals reduces the ability of state for of stable long-term housing options at a time when property taxes are already rising. Further limiting affordable housing in our area places additional financial and social strain on families who wish to live and invest in the community. Loss of long-term community investment. Our subdivision thrives on residents who want to plant roots, raise families, and build lasting relationships with neighbors. Short-term rentals disrupt this foundation. Replacing long-term stability with a revolving door temporary occupants who have no stake in the neighborhood success or well-being. Approving a special use permit for short-term rental operations at this address would not only amplify existing issues, but also set a precedent that undermines the stability and safety of residential neighborhoods like ours. We respectfully urge the commission to deny this request in order to preserve the safety, character, and live livability of the Summer Ridge subdivision. Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, the the neighbors of Summer Ridge subdivision Dunlap, Illinois. And there's uh uh three pages of uh signatures with that letter. Thank you. Do we have findings and facts? We do. 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 permitted in the district. Will not. Adequate facilities, access, roads, drainage, and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide

ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Yes. The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the of the official comprehensive plan of the city of Peoria as amended is not. If a public use or use providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit 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 findings.

Thank you. Any discussions on the findings and facts? Hearing none. Do we have a motion? Most to approve as submitted. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? I. Motion passes 5 to one. This will go in front of city council on 10:28. Uh, correct.

On October 28th. Thanks for coming. Give us just a minute to uh prepare for the next case. Excuse me.

Okay, on to the next case. PZ3882025.

Right. This is PZ 388205 and it's a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Steve Kerr of Morancer Engineering on behalf of Mandlay Partners LLC to amend an existing special use ordinance number 1631 as amended for a residential cluster development in a class R3 single family residential district to reduce the previously amended rear yard setback from 19 ft to 15 ft for So the property is identified as 2526, 2602, 2606, 2610, and 2614 West Lauren Lane. This is partial identification numbers 14, 1817, 048, 049, 050, 051, and 052. And this is located in council district 4. And before I start, just to get your bearings, uh this is just off of Allen Road, uh north of the intersection at Northmore, and it is uh this residential cluster development, specifically the five red highlighted uh properties. So, these subject properties are part of the larger uh Villas at Mandandalaywood subdivision and are proposed to be built with single family dwellings. The petitioner is requesting to amend the existing special use with a waiver to reduce the rear yard setback from 19 feet to 15 feet in order to build the uh similar size homes with decks that are currently built and being built throughout the neighborhood. A special use amendment uh was granted in 2009 to reduce the perimeter setback from 25 ft, which is the typical R3 yard setback to 19 ft to allow for the construction of decks onto the buildings located along this southern uh property line. However, according to the petitioner, the 19 uh

amended setback does not allow the space required for the proposed single family dwellings and instead is needed to be at 15 ft. Uh so through the development review uh items. So the use is to amend the existing special use which is to construct single family dwellings on five lots along Lauren Lane. This is part of the larger uh approved residential cluster development uh that has been allowed 43 units within the subdivision with no waiverss and the DRB uh is not opposed to uh it remaining at 43 units as uh previously amended. The applicant is requesting um a waiver to the rear setback from the amended 19 ft to 15 ft uh to allow for enough area for the single family dwellings with decks to be built. You'll see in the applicant proposal that the front yard setback is set at 20 and the sideyard setback is set at zero. and those were both granted in a 2010 amendment to reduce those setbacks in order to place those homes on the lots. Uh according to Poria County GIS, the slope at the back of lots 31 and 32 uh appear to be over 60% and therefore public works has made the following condition on this special use. Um as well as building which is to submit additional documentation by an Illinois licensed engineer for the topography and construction of the new dwellings. there's some concern with the construction. Um, and so long as we get uh certified engineering documents, we are happy to have them move forward as planned if approved. The access to Mandandalay Woods is uh compromised of private streets that come

uh accessed from Allen Road. So, like I said, uh Allen Road, this is uh David's Ridge, I believe, and then down here it turns into Lauren Lane, which um esses around into the uh lower development. There's also uh emergency access that is gated from Mandalay Drive over here. And our only comment is that Lauren Lane is a private road per the uh previously amended special use in 2007 for the private street agreement and access to lots on Lauren Lo Lauren Lane shall be remaining from Allen Road by means of a roadway easement as recorded within the subdivision. So a little more background on this. Uh so the five subject properties specifically are just less than one acre of the larger residential cluster development that contains about 14 acres of land. All the properties are zoned R3 as you can see here with the yellow color with adjacent property zoned O2 exclusive office office park to the south and class R3 to the west, north and east. This is uh much mostly a residential development. So as stated um there are some previous amendments. The initial granting of the residential cluster development for 48 dwelling units was in November of 2006. The special use was then amended in 2007 uh for the requirement of sidewalk connection to Allen Road, a hammerhead turnaround at the end of Mandandalay Drive, and a bioell storm water detention. It was then amended again in 2009 and that was to reduce the perimeter setbacks from 25 ft to 19 which I had mentioned previously which allowed the construction of decks and buildings along the southern property line. And

then in 2010 it was amended again for the reduction for the number of dwelling units in the cluster development from the original 48 to 43. Uh and it created properties addressed um along Mandalay Drive with waiverss to reduce the front yard setback to 20 feet from 25, the sideyard setback from 5 to zero and the rear yard setback from 25 to 19. Um and also to reduce the minimum lot size in that area. This property uh was not in the city until uh 19 after 1990. So with that um the development review board analysis, no judgment to public health, safety or welfare welfare. Um we believe the standard is met. They are still planned to be developed as single family homes and the land abuing the rear yard of the properties is the heavily wooded uh O2 zoning. um that is undeveloped as of today. Uh the standard for no injury to other property nor a diminishment to property values is being met. Again, this is developed as according to schedule with single family homes has been approved as the residential cluster development since 2006. There is no impediment to orderly development. It does provide adequate facilities. It uh the ingress and egress measures are designed to minimize traffic congestion. It conforms to all district regulations uh except for the waiver that's being asked and the condition being set. And so development review board recommendation uh due to the topography and existing natural visitation of the area immediately to the south. The development review board does not object to the request to amend the special use for residential cluster development for the five properties of 2526,

2606, 2606, 2610, and 2614 Lauren Lane West Lauren Lane with the following waiver and condition. One, waiver to reduce the reward setback from 19 feet to 15 feet specifically for those five properties. and two, a condition to submit additional documentation by an Illinois licensed engineer regarding the topography and construction of the new dwellings. So again, uh very much so R3 in all directions. The development is approximately within these boundaries here and the O2 on developed area just to the south. Uh many of the lots more north are filled with homes. And then here you'll see um probably not so clearly um there are the five properties down here and this setback is what they're asking for is to be at 15. So along that wooded area. Are there any questions for staff?

Any questions? Hearing none. Petitioner here like to come speak? State your name and address.

Thank you. Any questions? So, you're basically asking for the setback because of the topography of the land.

You're basically asking for the setback because of the topography of the land. The the same size house that any other questions hearing none. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience for or against this would like to come forward? Seeing none, do we have findings and facts? The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Will not. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the im 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 andorly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Will not. Adequate facilities, access, roads, drainage, andor necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and eress 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. Answer that is no, but the waiver has been requested. If a public use or use 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? Hearing none. Do we have a motion? Some move as per the city as per the waiver with the condition for the documentation reducing it to 15 ft. How about number two? Pardon me. Number two. The condition for the

documentation by a stamped Illinois licensed engineer. All right. Yeah. number two. So number one and number two. Do I have a second? Second. Commissioner Barry. All in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes. Thank you for coming. Give us a minute to get this done. Okay. Case PZ 389-2025. Uh request to hold a public hearing forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Steve Kerr of Morer Engineering on behalf of Scott Adriion of Dunlap Community Unit School District number 323 to obtain a special use in a class R3 single family residential district for a public elementary school for the for the property located at 100021 North Pacific Street. partial

identification numbers 0931 1 04 and 0931 120005 Pure Illinois. Um the proposed school would be uh two stories um 80,020 square ft in size serving grades kindergarten through fifth grade. The proposed school will use existing access from North Pacific Street and West Third Street. The proposal includes plans for an outdoor playground and basketball court, landscape courtyard, and nature discovery garden. Uh traffic generation numbers were provided by the petitioner. Uh the proposal designates an area in the southwest corner of the property for future solar uh panel sites. Uh so uh the mentions uh future solar panel sites uh playground equipment and basketball uh courtyard uh and then uh nature discovery center. Uh this is the uh existing school location uh using existing access uh going behind uh providing parking and this is the proposed layout of the new school on the site. Dunlap Community Unit School District is considering the following options for the existing school building on site if the proposal were to be approved. uh leaving the existing school building as proposed and utilize the space for support services to the school district. Um demolish the existing building in its entirety and then demolishing the existing school building but leaving the existing gymnasium on site. Uh the

existing school as proposed would uh leave uh this these structures and then demolishing demolishing the structure uh to the rear. Um, this use uh requires special use approval. Um, and it shall adhere to all International Fire Code 2018 requirements for items such as fire department access roads, fire hydrants, locations, etc. Um, for signs, no uh proposed change to the existing uh sign on the existing school. Uh, but for any uh signage to go on the new school, sign permit is required for any new signage. uh would be using the existing access as mentioned. Uh but removal uh a request to remove the existing parking spaces in the public right away and be be returned to normal street section and a sidewalk to be installed across the front edge of the property if the uh existing school were to be demolished. um the existing parking spaces and the rightway as uh described here. Uh 99 parking spaces will be provided in addition to four handicap accessible spaces. Uh DRB commented to include two additional handicap accessible parking spaces to be added to the southern parking lot. um five B bike parking spaces are required. However, due to the use as a school, uh staff would recommend um uh including more bike parking spaces uh to keep up with industry standards. Um signs uh to be marking accessible parking spaces to be posted. Um and with that including a notice of the $350 fine. Um and then also a multi-use path to be installed to connect the new

school uh to the existing multi-use path located to the south of the property. Uh the proposal uh is in compliance with setbacks uh building height and then it uh meets all the landscaping uh points for this type of request. um building plans or or the plans submitted did not include details to uh dumpsters or mechanical utility screening. So, there's conditions to uh screen those um uh per code per per code requirements. Um as well as uh exterior lighting. Um those plans have not been developed. So, a condition to to make those plans compliant with the code. Okay. Uh the subject property is uh developed with a public elementary school on a 14.25 acre lot. Surrounding zoning classes are class R3 single family residential district to the south. The properties to the north and the west are not within the city of Poria boundaries and are zoned class commercial 2 with Poria County. The properties to the east are also not within the city of Poria boundaries and are zone class residential one with pure county. Adjacent uses in the immediate vicinity are Bishop Rose construction, uh, Dan Wayel Builders, Midstate, Terreso and Tile, Taurus Health, Brush Auto, and Sheridan Nursery to the north, and single family residential to the east and south. Uh, this property was annexed into the city in 2006 with the annexation agreement between the city of Poria and Dunlap Community Unit School District. Um, and was zoned class R3 at that time. uh development review board examines or

the development review board analysis for uh no detriment to public health safety, morals or comfort or general welfare. The standard is met but there's a condition for the special use to adhere to all fired code requirements. No injury to the uses or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted nor diminished to property values. Standard is met. Um the proposed use would not be injurious to the surrounding residential uses. Uh there's no impediment to orderly developments and the it does provide adequate facilities. Uh ingress egress measures designed to minimize traffic congestion. standard is met, but the there's a condition to remove the existing parking spaces from the public rideway to be returned to normal streets and a sidewalk to be installed across the front edge of the property if the existing school were to be demolished. If a public uh use service then provides a public benefit standards met with a school you school use, additional bike parking spaces in keeping with industry standards should be added. A multi-use path should be installed connect to connect the new school to the existing multi-use path located to the south. Conforms to all district regulations. Uh standards not met. Uh the condition to uh screen all dumpster and mechanical utility units. Condition to add two hand additional handicap accessible parking spaces to the southern parking lots and at least five park bike parking spaces along with additional bike parking spaces due to the use as a school. Uh, no plans submitted for exterior lighting condition to future exterior lighting to comply with zoning requirements and to not exceed 0.5 foot candles as measured at the property line. And then no plans submitted for signage and future plans for signage will require a separate permitting process. Comprehensive plan critical success factors uh would be reinvesting in neighborhoods and city council strategic plan goals would be

quality of life. Uh the development review board recommends approval of the request to obtain a special use for the public elementary school with the following conditions. Uh the site shall adhere to all international fire code 2018 requirements for items such as fire department access roads, fire hydrant locations, etc. at two handicap accessible parking spaces to the southern parking lot at at least five bike parking spaces. is noting that bike parking spaces may be appropriate to due to the school use. Adding a multi-use path to connect the new school to the existing multi-use path located to the south. Removal of the existing building will require the parking in the rightway to be returned to normal street section and sidewalk to be installed across the frontage. Dumpsters must be screened on all signs with a minimum height of six feet and a maximum height of 7 feet in compliance with city code chapter 13 section 13-40. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical units must be fully screened from view of any public rightway or residential zoning district in compliance with city code chapter 5 section 601.2. [Music] A separate sign permit is required for any new signage. Exterior lighting must not exceed 0.5 foot candles as measured at the property line and comply with all zoning regulations outlined in UDC section 8.5. And with that, uh, staff will be receiving questions. Any questions for staff hearing? None. Petitioner here like to come and speak. Please state your name and address. We made the application. Uh nothing is

significantly changed, but uh some of the conditions of the the trail hooking to the trail to the south has already been added. And of course, we're going to have bike racks, more than five of them. But uh basically, this is the new Wilderweight School for Dunlop School District. Uh it was annexed in 2006 and was going to require special use that was never applied for for the original school. So, uh, the only the only, uh, item five about the the road being returned right now, they park the Wilderweight School's parking comes right off of the town. Well, it's actually a city road, but it's a township maintained and a township road in front of uh, the school. So, the parking goes straight into there's no sidewalks. There's no the parking lot is in the rightway. So, we have no objection if the school comes down to taking the parking out. But it if it just says return to a normal street section, if we could just change normal to adjacent, so we're matching the streets on the side. Uh that in other words, I don't know what normal means, whether they want us to put a city cross-section for half the road for x number of feet. So, if we could just have that adjusted to adjacent, we'd appreciate that. just clarify that.

Questions? Any questions? I do. Uh Steve, I know I noticed you you just added the uh trip generation numbers. Is it required to have a uh Can you repeat that? Can you hear me? No, I can't. I'm deaf. I'm deaf to begin with. So I know. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay. You have trip generation numbers. Is it required to have a traffic study because you have one entrance and it might cause some congestion there?

So, so we're working with the city and the township to open up the road to the Can you bring up a map that shows the uh right now there's a gate on the township roads called Pacific. Uh yeah. So that road right there, but that road there, there's a gate at the end of that road where the township uh I don't know if the township or the city put the gate in, but that's Pacific to the north. And uh we're working with the city and the township to improve Pacific so that uh we can get access down to the light on Allen Road. So, no, nobody has asked us to do a traffic stop. Any other questions? Hearing none. Thank you. Anybody in the audience for or against this case? Seeing none, do we have findings and facts? The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Yes, I was going to say yes and said it will not. Uh, the special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the media vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it's 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 use permitted in the district. Yes. Adequate facilities, access roads, drainage and or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and eress so designed as to minimize traffic 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. 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. Yes. 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. Answer that is no because screen dumpsters and mechanical utility. C requested the screen the screening of dumpsters and mechanical utility units. Those are the findings. Thank you. Any discussion?

Yeah, I have just a question on on one of the points that shows that talks about the congestion uh causing congestion. You said measures have been taken. I think what Steve is saying measures will be taken. and they haven't been taken yet if they open that because my response to that on that would adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress egress just to make sure it will be taken. Yeah. So yeah noted that as yes any other discussion on findings and facts. Do I have a motion? So move to approve with the staff recommendations.

Second. Second. Any discussion with your motion? I know uh the petitioner was talking about the uh item number five under staff recommendations changing that word uh on that rideway be returned to a normal street section and sidewalk to be the existing school would require the parking in the right way to be returned to the normal street section. Restriking return to an adjacent. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. Jason.

Any other discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Congratulations. Passes six to zero. Give us a minute to get ready for the next one. Steve, are you staying for the next one?

Okay. Case PZ397-2025. Yes. Case PZ397-2025. It's a request to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the request of Steve Kerr of Morur Engineering on behalf of the Poria Friendship House to amend an existing special use ordinance number 17,993 with waiverss for a neighborhood center in a class R six multif family residential district and a class R8 multif family residential district to add property to the boundary of the special use being 404 Wayne Street and 817 Northeast Jefferson Avenue and to amend the site plan to add an 8-ft tall fence and to add a pavilion for the property located at 800, 814, and 8:16 Northeast Madison Avenue, 801, 803, 809, 8:15, 817 Northeast Jefferson Avenue, 404 and 406 Wayne Street, and 724 Northeast Madison. Avenue. The parcel identification numbers are 1803354001. Um uh also 18 03354002 1803354003 1803354009 1803 35410 180335411 1803 35412 1833 35413 1833 35414 4 180335415 and 1803353006 and 1803 353007.

Okay. So uh this uh request is an amendment to their special use. Uh most recently Friendship House obtained an amendment in 2022 to establish them as a special use neighborhood center. Um before then they had several use with approvals under prior zoning ordinances that called um their use uh use with approval uh for a neighborhood center. The um the uses that are operating out of neighborhood or friendship house here are not changing for this neighborhood center. Um but what the request is that requires more amendment uh through uh this commission and city council is to add to the boundary. So this uh site map is showing uh we're on the the block of Madison Avenue, Wayne Street, Jefferson Avenue, and Morgan Street. Um the uh existing special use covers 10 parcels. 10 parcels. Um uh Puri Friendship House has acquired two more neighboring parcels on the adjacent uh area. So that's highlighted in blue. So, we're adding uh property here on Jefferson, uh property here on Wayne Street to the boundary. Uh it's it's uh adjacent to their existing boundary. They're currently uh not developed. There's no houses on them. Uh those have those have since been removed. Um and then uh the plan is just to incorporate them on this south half of the block, I guess, of the Jefferson half of the block. Um, this area of their campus is used as outdoor recreation. There's play play equipment, basketball, uh, court, uh, volleyball, um, uh, play area. Um, there's also an existing fence, uh, 6t tall chain link that's, um, kind of a across the the the properties that

they've owned longer. Um and uh so no no no immediate plan right now to change the use of of this property. Um that's that's not part of the request. Um but what they are identifying is a uh a plan to add a pavilion um as an accessory structure. Uh and then what does require a waiver and and formal review here in addition to the boundary expansion is uh they're proposing a fence uh that exceeds the standards um in the code for fencing. So I'll go over that. Uh this is their site plan. Again, the main building here on Madison. Uh they have off- streetet parking across Wayne Street. uh the 2022 amendment that uh established their special use. Um part of it was to allow for this parking lot expansion here on the side and they have these two homes that use services um out of out of those buildings. The subject of today is really on the south half of the alley. So you'll see some of our comments are are are you know really targeted onto uh conditions here. Um but uh kind of in the darker uh little circle um indication is showing they're they're asking for a perimeter 8 foot tall uh black chain link fence uh that's uh um really wouldn't they're not asking for any sort of setback of that fence from their property line. Um, and then on the interior here, the same the same fence that goes around an existing garden that they grow. Um, and it's fenced currently. Um, as well as this area has an existing 6ft tall fence. Um, so the waiver here is for the height of the fence. Um, and then for

the materials, chain link. Um, the city's code doesn't permit chain link in front yards. Uh, this fence would be along Jefferson Avenue and Wayne. Um and so uh the waiverss for height and material uh the uh setbacks and height of the pavilion are all going to comply with with the code. Uh no waiverss or special conditions regarding the pavilion portion of their uh ask. It's going to be roughly 600 uh square feet uh structure and it there's an existing concrete pad there um to identify the location. um no changes to lighting. Uh the um the memo I have for you uh kind of adopts some of the conditions regarding landscaping from the p previous special use. Um essentially saying on this south half we're not really asking for more landscaping. The previous amendment and this one um you know until it gets developed maybe there's something that happens there with the landscaping plan. Um and then the um the buffers and screening um staff recognized that they're adding this lot here to the boundary. Um this lot will be again there's no house. It's a older aerial here. No house here. It is adjacent to a lot um that's undeveloped under the ownership by the church. Um that's that operates from here. Um and then there is a house um here and then a commercial building. Um the they're essentially asking to keep conditions here along you know in terms of no additional new landscaping. Um staff recognizes that that we can support that. um are conditions written that you know if if the church lot that they own now right here 8:19 I believe if that

does get developed then we would approach the um uh the the friendship house to maybe put a buffer in at that point but right now uh kind of a a temporary waiver of that um and then uh the other conditions from the previous special use kind of really hold over. Um there were some other allotted um stepouts of uh buffering along here as well. Uh I will note uh the prior special use and then the special use also our public works department is identifying the sidewalks need to be updated. Um uh the uh the applicant here is asking for some additional time to accomplish that. So I've written that in as a three-year condition, a condition to accomplish that within three years. Um, so that that's noted there. Um, and then, uh, regarding the fence, uh, you you'll see in our in our memo and and condition, um, in keeping with other fences, um, and the city's code, staff, uh, staff is going to recommend that this fence maximum height is six feet. Um uh and we're accepting of the chain link material in the front yard. Um that's consistent with our other recommendations on other cases. Um keeping with orderly development. Um this the fence code maximum height for a fence in commercial um or residential areas when they're in rear and sideyards is six feet in height. Uh so we're kind of keeping that um that maximum as part of our recommendation. Uh so we reviewed our standards and uh we do think that the standards are met um for the expansion of the boundary,

the accessory uh pavilion structure and the fence as where they propose but um our recommendation is for a lower height than what they're requesting. Uh so the standards um no detriment to public health or safety uh no injury to other or property values um no impediment to orderly development uh with our conditions provides adequate facilities. Yes, ingress egress not really impacted. I forgot to mention there there will be a gate in the in the perimeter fence kind of like a mansized gate and then a bigger gate for for their you know um for needs maintenance um construction. Um and then the requests aside from the our waiverss is just the material and then this buffer yard and the fence height. It is supported by the comprehensive plan success factor to reinvest in neighborhoods and the city council strategic plan for community safety and quality of life. So we do recommend approval. Our recommendation is with a fence height not to exceed six feet but otherwise uh recommending approval. The condition is that all parts of the fence including the foundations need to be on private property not in the public right of way. uh replace all the nonADA compliant sidewalks along property front edgages within three years of approval of the special use amendment. Uh and then for the property on the south side of the alley between Wayne and Morgan Street, the existing landscaping conditions are accepted until the lots are developed at which time development shall include a landscaping plan. Waiver to allow 6ft tall and chain lake material fence for the outdoor recreational area as they show on their site plan in in terms of location. And then a waiver to eliminate the transitional buffer yard along the

new boundary of the outdoor recreational area which is the length of parcel 1803 35400 or excuse me the length of parcel 18 03354015. Um and then um that waiver until such time that the adjacent property at 8:19 Northeast Jefferson is developed. Um I do have a public comment to read in. Just wanted to note that now so I don't forget about it. But that can come in during the public comment period would be fine with me.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay, hearing none. Would the petitioner like to come forward? State your name and address. Steve Kerr, 5703 North Woodlong Court. And Marcel Summerville is here also if uh if he needs to speak. Uh yeah, this is just uh some donors uh came forward and offered to uh replace the fence that's out there and fence the areas that are are not fenced. Now, they've acquired a couple of pieces of property to square the property up and they initially wanted 8T because they have security issues down there. Uh they're willing to live with the six feet. Uh, it's going to be a black vinyl vinyl coated chain link fence, so it should look a whole lot better. Uh, and of course, the condition I'm going to ask you to wave is a sidewalk condition. Uh, I mean, this is a fence project that the sidewalk sidewalk replacement will put this project. It would take all the money that's being donated for this project probably to get a half the side. We haven't checked it or anything. I've just looked at it visually. Uh the sidewalk along Jefferson would probably all have to be replaced. uh and a lot of the sidewalk on the street to the north would also have to be replaced uh in in the you know so it's you know it seems ownorous to have to replace all the sidewalk just to replace your fence but that's where we're at with the special use u so you want to say you need to be

State your name and address, please. Oh. Oh, you haven't been sworn in. Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

Marcela Somerville, 5735 West Roseme Drive, Pure, Illinois. Um obviously uh I would prefer to have the 8T but I understand the challenges that may uh have but as I stated to the gentleman that wrote his letter to to us um the 8T uh provides a level of security and safety. Um, we've had some individuals that were unwarranted uh come over the fence and stay inside the fence. And then we've also experienced some theft within the fence fence yard currently. And I just think that it just, you know, adds a level of deterrent from people coming over. Um, but not going to fight that. But, um, as far as the project, uh, like he stated, it's just fence off the other uh grounds that we've been able to acquire and uh just make our our grounds a little bit more safer and beautify our neighborhood.

Thank you. Any questions? So the 8oot fence um that you're requesting. You would you want that on just on the rear or on three sides? I I prefer it on all what is it four sides? Front yard. Yes, sir. All four sides. All right, that was my only question. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, hear and none. Thank you guys. Anyone in the audience for or against this case may come forward.

I was going to have uh Julia read a letter in and um Marcelus did allude to responding to that letter. Um, if you want, we can read your response or you could come back and respond, but we'll just read the letter for now and we'll decide from there. Okay. Okay. Dear commissioners, I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed 8ft tall wire fence along the sidewalk on Jefferson Street and Wayne Street at Friendship House located at 800 Northeast Madison Avenue. This type of fence, 8 ft tall, wire, and directly adjacent to the sidewalk, which is essentially the front yard, is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. It would significant significantly detract from the character of the area and further the institutional appearance of the building, which already resembles a prison due to its lack of windows. An 8-oot barrier of this kind would only reinforce that image, creating an unwelcoming and fortress-like presence in the community. While I understand the need for safety and security, I believe a more balanced solution is possible. I would support a 6ft tall wire fence if it were set back at least 20 ft from the sidewalk. This would allow for landscaping or other treatments to soften the visual impact and better integrate the structure into the surrounding neighborhood while also keeping children another 20 ft from the highway. Thank you for considering the concerns of nearby residents. I hope the commission will work with Friendship House to find a solution that meets safety needs without compromising the residential integrity of the neighborhood. And that was submitted by Tim Herald at 1525 Northeast Madison. And in response, Marcelis wrote, "Tim, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us regarding the fence project at Friendship House. I truly appreciate your concern for how changes impact the neighborhood. We agree with you that safety is important not only for the children we serve, but also for the protection of the equipment and improvements we're planning to invest in. Unfortunately, we've experienced challenges in the past, including stolen basketball equipment

and instances of individuals sleeping in unsafe conditions on the property. These situations reinforce the need for us to consider stronger protective measures. While I understand your point about appearance, we believe the 8oot fence will provide the level of security needed to discourage theft and unauthorized access. Our intention is not to create a fortress, but to ensure we can keep making positive investments in the area. We'd much rather move forward with a secured, welcoming space than risking leaving the property vulnerable to crime or decline as it once was. That said, we remain open to constructive dialogue and want to make sure Friendship House continues to be a place that the community is proud of. Thank you again for your input and caring about the neighborhood's future.

Thank you. Nothing else. Okay. Finding the 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. Will not. The special use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. Will not. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district will not. Adequate facilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Yes. Adequate measures have been have been or will be taken to provide ingress and eress 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. Not if a public use or use providing public utility service that such use or service shall meet a demonstrable public need and provide a public benefit not applicable. The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located except as such regulations made in each instance be modified pursuant to the recommen recommendations of the planning and zoning commission. Answer that to no but with waiverss requested the findings. Thank you. Any discussions on the findings and facts? Hearing none. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve with all the staff recommendations. Do I have a second?

Uh, including the sidewalks. We can discuss. Do I have a second? just asking

any discussion.

I will say that I I hear what they're talking about when it comes to sidewalks and things like that. I hate when this comes up. I mean, it's just a fence and this thing, but the rules and and and the things that this body for the most part have incorporated uh into our standards and things like that, too. I guess we have to be consistent with that. So, I'm only saying the sidewalks I think three years hopefully is long enough. Uh so, it's not an immediate thing that has to be done, but hopefully three three years gives them enough runway to eventually make the uh sidewalk improvements that are needed. And maybe hopefully other neighbors will do the hopefully too. So, I don't want to do anything to circumvent that. Defense and the security, that's another important thing, too. But within the middle of the neighborhood, uh I think six feet might be a reasonable enough compromise. Hopefully, other security measures could take place, but I don't want to have 8 foot fence all the way around just for the reasons that were already uh submitted by staff also. And to confirm with staff that they will continue to get that three-year extension time frame to get that sidewalks.

Yes, the conditions written to allow that specific condition three years to complete. Any other discussion? All in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? All right. Passes six to zero. Congratulations. That'll be October 28th as well. Okay. Okay. Do we have any new business that we need to discuss? Anyone from the audience like to speak? Steve, you want to come up again for the fourth time?

All right. He's done. Seeing none. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move. Second. Second. All in favor? Yes, sir. Any opposed? See you next month.