Peoria Standard

Peoria County Land Use and Infrastructure Committee met February 27.

Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:

Members Present: James Dillon - Chairperson, Brian Elsasser, Rachael Parker, Brad Harding, Barry Robinson, Sharon Williams, Paul Rosenbohm

Members Absent: Thomas O'Neill

Others Present: Larry Evans - State's Attorney's Office; Scott Sorrel, Mark Rothert, Shauna Musselman, Angela Loftus - County Administration; Matt Wahl, Kathi Urban, Kerilyn Gallagher - Planning & Zoning; Eric Dubrowski, Randy Brunner, Jim Smith - Finance; Phil Salzer - County Board Member; Jack Teplitz - attorney representing case petitioner; Bill Connor -attorney representing the Limestone Road Commissioner

Call to Order:

Mr. Dillon called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

Approval of Minutes:

A motion to approve the Land Use Committee minutes from the January 23, 2017 meeting was made by Ms. Parker and seconded by Mr. Robinson. A vote was taken on the motion and carried. (6-0) (Mr. Elsasser absent for vote.)

Reports/ Other Minutes/Updates: 

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Minutes: No questions or comments. 

Unsafe Structures: No questions or comments. 

Mr. Dillon made a motion to receive and file the reports.

Zoning Cases:

006-17-U, Petition of Seneca Foods Corporation: Ms. Williams made a motion to approve the special use request and was seconded by Ms. Parker. Mr. Rosenbohm stated that because he had a business relationship with Seneca Foods, he would abstain from voting on this case. 

Ms. Urban summarized the case. A Special Use request as required in Section 20-5.1.3.2.a of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use for an Agriculturally Related Business. The proposal would bring an existing business into compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The property is located at the intersection of Anderson Road and Oertley Road. Ms. Urban explained that this business has located here for many years, but has a new owner as of 2014. The new owner approached the Planning and Zoning Department in order to get a building permit for a new building and was informed at that time that a Special Use would be required in order to bring the parcel into compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance. Ms. Urban stated that staff has recommended approval and the Zoning Board has recommended approval as well.

Mr. Elsasser stated that the company was a huge asset to Central Illinois. A vote was taken and the Special Use was approved; (6-0). (Mr. Rosenbohm abstained and Mr. O'Neill was absent.)

007-17-Z, Petition of Wayne Page, Successor Trustee of the Evelyn M. Page Revocable Living Trust:

Mr. Rosenbohm made a motion to approve the Rezoning request and was seconded by Mr. Elsasser. Ms. Urban summarized the request. A Rezoning request from "A-1" Agricultural Preservation to "C-2" General Commercial. The petitioner proposes to rezone .135 acres in order to combine it with the adjacent "C-2" zoned parcel. The parcel is located in Trivoli Township on Farmington Road. Ms. Urban stated that this small sliver of land leads back to a larger agricultural piece, but that this sliver is unable to be used as an access point because it is too narrow and IDOT will not grant access at this spot. Because of this access issue, the property adjacent to the east plans to purchase this sliver of land and combine it with their parcel. The adjacent property owner then plans to have an easement located on the combined parcel in order to access the farm land to the north. IDOT believes that this will solve the access problem and had no objection to the request. The request is consistent with the Peoria County Growth Strategy, and The Trivoli Township Planning Commission recommends approval. Staff and the Zoning Board have also recommended approval. Ms. Urban added that this zoning case was also connected to a road frontage waiver that would be discussed later on the agenda, and that staff had also recommended approval of the waiver.

A vote was taken and the Special Use was approved; (7-0). (Mr. O'Neill absent.)

005-17-U, Petition of Marshall Bailey:

Mr. Dillon explained that an "aye" vote on this case would mean that the voter was in agreement with the Zoning Board's recommendation of denial. Ms. Williams made motion to deny the special use request and was seconded by Mr. Rosenbohm.

Ms. Urban summarized the case. A Special Use request as required in Section 20-5.2.2.1.b of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use for a Major Home Occupation in the "A-2" Agriculture Zoning District, when the lot is less than 5 acres in size and/or is located within a platted subdivision. The petitioner would like to operate a trucking business, from this 3.1 acre parcel, for hauling debris and other items connected with environmental disasters and major clearance projects. Also, a Special Use request as required in Section 20-7.3.5.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance to vary from the requirement that the home occupation may involve the use or indoor storage of heavy equipment, and that the equipment may only be stored in the dedicated accessory structure. Only 1 vehicle and only 2 trailers or pieces of equipment may be permitted. The petitioner is proposing to allow 2 commercial vehicles and 4 trailers. He proposes to store these vehicles outside. Also, a Special Use request as required in Section 20-7.3.5.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to vary from the requirement that Landscaping shall be required to screen off-street parking areas, loading zones, outdoor storage areas and outdoor work areas from the view of adjacent landowners, according to the provisions set forth in Section 7.6 ("Landscaping and Bufferyards"). The petitioner will not meet the landscaping points requirements on the north and east property lines, and will not meet the tree/shrub ratio on the north, east, south and west property lines. Ms. Urban stated that staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals both recommended denial.

Ms. Urban stated that the committee had asked for the case to be continued to this month in order for the committee to have time to review the documents from the zoning board hearing, which Planning and Zoning staff sent to the committee in weeks prior. Ms. Urban stated that the committee had also requested the State's Attorney's Office to review a possible restriction that could be placed on the case during that time. Mr. Dillon clarified that Ms. Parker had asked if the board could put a restriction on the case to review the Special Use if the adjacent parcel was developed with a house. 

Mr. Dillon reminded those present for the case that they could speak, but that they could not make additional comments that were not discussed in the Zoning Board hearing. Mr. Rosenbohm asked for clarification on the landscaping because he felt that the property was already suitably screened. Ms. Urban explained that a Special Use for a Major Home Occupation required a certain number of points in landscape screening. Ms. Urban stated that staff would agree that the proposed landscape plan substantially mitigated the impact on surrounding properties, even though it did not meet the point requirements. 

Mr. Teplitz, attorney representing the petitioner, stated that evidence was presented during the hearing that showed this property had been used for a trucking business by a previous owner. Mr. Teplitz stated that he and his client are not proposing a new use for the property. Mr. Teplitz added that no business would be conducted on the property, and that the trucks would just be stored on the property for use in other locations. Mr. Teplitz added that 90% of Mr. Bailey's work is outside of the Peoria area and deals with disaster relief and clean up. Mr. Teplitz stated that he felt the proposed landscaping plan was adequate for screening. Mr. Teplitz added that Mr. Bailey's proposed use would not have a larger impact than if the property were used for agricultural purposes, which are permitted without special approval or screening. 

Mr. Teplitz stated that he had a problem with the Zoning Board hearing process, and that he was unable to cross examine witnesses or staff because the procedures would not allow him to do so. Mr. Teplitz also stated that he was unable to question staff. Mr. Teplitz then stated that he also had a problem with the fact that agricultural uses were not subject to the same restrictions Mr. Bailey is subject to for his Major Home Occupation. Ms. Urban stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has set Rules of Procedure which state that the hearing will be conducted as such: the petitioner states his case, consents can then be made, objections can then be made, and then the petitioner has an opportunity to respond to concerns made by the objectors. Ms. Urban restated that this process is contained within the Zoning Board's Rules of Procedure and that this process was followed during Mr. Bailey's hearing. Ms. Urban stated that as far as questioning staff was concerned, Mr. Teplitz did ask her during the hearing what her opinion of a Norway Spruce was, and that the State's Attorney did advise at that time that Ms. Urban's opinion did not negate the need for the Special Use request and that it was not an appropriate question for staff. Mr. Teplitz restated that he did not agree with the Rules of Procedure for the Zoning Board. 

Bill Connor, attorney representing the Limestone Township Road Commissioner, stated that the road commissioner's concern was the impact the request would have on the condition of the road. Mr. Connor stated that although the petitioner is currently making minimal trips, there is nothing that would prevent him from making unlimited trips every day if the Special Use were approved. Mr. Rosenbohm stated that the petitioner claims the trucks will be empty when entering and exiting the property, and that this would have a smaller impact on the road regardless of the number of trips. Mr. Connor responded that through his years of experience with roadway depositions and conversation with engineers, he can attest to the fact that the frequency of use has more impact than the weight. Ms. Urban confirmed that the engineer for the township did share this information during his testimony to the Zoning Board. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Connor what made him think that the amount of trips would change if the Special Use was granted, and Mr. Connor stated that he had no specific information that would lead him to believe it would change, but that it could change at any time with no consequence. Mr. Connor added that the nature of Mr. Bailey's business could change over time and that it could require more frequent vehicle trips.

 Mr. Dillon asked what would be allowed on the property without the Special Use, and Ms. Urban stated that to have trucks on the property, the petitioner would have to apply for a Special Use for a Major Home Occupation. Ms. Urban stated that a Major Home Occupation would allow for one truck and two trailers, but that Mr. Bailey was proposing to have four trailers and two trucks. Ms. Williams stated that she thought the previous owner using the property had more of an impact on the roadway than Mr. Bailey might. Mr. Dillon stated that the main concern from the road commissioner was that there would be no limit to the amount of trips the trucks could take if the Special Use was approved. Mr. Teplitz explained that although Mr. Bailey would obviously like to have four trailers and two trucks, he would be agreeable to having one truck and two trailers if that would appease the parties involved.

Mr. Evans explained that the board would have to vote upon the recommendation sent forth from the Zoning Board and then make new findings if they were to overturn the Zoning Board's recommendation to deny the request. Mr. Rosenbohm asked Mr. Teplitz if Mr. Bailey would be agreeable to one truck and two trailers, and Mr. Teplitz stated that it would not be the perfect scenario, but that he believed his client would be agreeable. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey is already parking some of his vehicles off site in properly zoned areas. Mr. Dillon asked how Mr. Connor felt about the proposal, and Mr. Connor stated that fewer trucks would be an improvement; however he could not say for sure how the road commissioner would feel. Mr. Connor added that he felt that the road commissioner would still have concerns.

Mr. Teplitz stated that he and Mr. Connor had been in many discussions over the course of several months about the issue of road wear and tear. Mr. Dillon asked Ms. Urban if staff would have been more likely to recommend approval if the number of trucks and trailers were reduced, and Ms. Urban responded that the request would still not meet the County Land Use Plan Guide; however, it would have had less impact. Ms. Urban stated that the department would have looked at the request more positively if the initial request were for less trailers and trucks. Mr. Dillon asked if the County could place a restriction on the request that the petitioner and the road commissioner must come to an agreement regarding road damages. Mr. Teplitz stated that both parties were unable to reach an agreement despite both parties' best efforts. Mr. Dillon stated that he felt the owner would want to take care of the driveway because it could possibly damage the trucks if he let it fall into disrepair.

Mr. Dillon then explained that members would vote no if they wished to deny the recommendation of denial from the Zoning Board. Then, if the committee wished to approve the request with one truck and two trailers, they would have to make a substitute motion to that effect and produce findings of fact to support the request. The committee voted on the recommendation to deny the Special Use request, and the motion failed unanimously; (0-7) (Mr. O'Neill absent.)

Ms. Williams made a substitute motion to approve the Special Use request for a Major Home Occupation to include only one truck and two trailers, the outside storage of the aforementioned vehicles, and the landscaping plan as presented. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. A vote was taken on the motion and was approved unanimously. (7-0) (Mr. O'Neill absent.)

Ms. Urban presented each standard of approval for a Special Use, and the committee discussed their findings for each of these standards. The committee discussed that the use would be consistent with an agricultural use that would allow for one truck and two trailers. Additionally, the committee discussed that the use would be screened from adjacent properties according to the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Elsasser stated that he still wanted the two parties involved to come to some sort of agreement regarding the usage of the road, and that, if possible, to accomplish this before the meeting of the full board on March 9th. Ms. Urban stated that this could be included in the findings.

Mr. Elsasser made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Ms. Williams. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0) (Mr. O'Neill absent.)

Subdivision Waivers: 

Case W01-17, Petition of Wayne page, successor trustee of the Evelyn M. Page Revocable Living Trust: 

A motion to approve the subdivision waiver request was made by Mr. Rosenbohm and seconded by Mr. Elsasser.

Ms. Urban explained that this waiver accompanied the previous zoning case 007-17-Z. Ms. Urban explained that the rezoning would create a landlocked parcel, but that the parcel to the south would then include an easement to access the landlocked parcel to the north. Ms. Urban stated that staff was recommending approval. 

A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0) (Mr. O'Neill absent.)

Case W02-17, Petition of Darrin & Angela Symonds: 

A motion to approve the subdivision waiver request was made by Mr. Rosenbohm and seconded by Mr. Elsasser. 

Ms. Urban explained that the petitioners are asking for a water waiver for a minor subdivision. The ordinance requires public water supply for all minor subdivisions. Ms. Urban explained that the petitioners had received a Special Use in 2003 to split the parcels; however, they never split the properties and are now seeking to do so. Ms. Urban added that the test well pumped 10 gallons of water per minute, which exceeded the requirement of 3 gallons per minute. The nearest public water supply is half a mile to the west. Staff has recommended approval. 

A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0) (Mr. O'Neill absent.)

Resolutions: 

ppropriation of funds into the Planning and Zoning Department of the General Fund: Ms. Parker made a motion to approve the resolution and was seconded by Mr. Rosenbohm. 

Ms. Urban explained that staff had an invitation to bid on the demolition of an unsafe structure located at 8921 W. Farmington Rd., Hanna City. Three bids were received and the most responsive responsible low bid was $70,850.00. Ms. Urban stated that the General Fund had a balance of $105,835 at the end of FY 2016. Ms. Urban stated that this resolution was asking for funds to be appropriated from the General Fund to the Planning and Zoning Department in order to fund this demolition. Mr. Sorrel added that the demolition was court ordered. 

Mr. Rosenbohm asked if a lien would be placed against the property, and Ms. Urban stated that there would be.

A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0) (Mr. O'Neill absent.) 

Demolition of Unsafe Structure: 

Mr. Elsasser made a motion to approve the resolution and was seconded by Mr. Rosenbohm. 

Ms. Urban explained that this resolution was concerning the bid for the before mentioned demolition on Farmington Road. Ms. Urban added that the most responsive responsible low bid was from River City Demolition in the amount of $70.850.00

A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0) (Mr. O'Neill absent.) 

Miscellaneous: 

No further questions or comments were made. 

Adjournment: 

Mr. Dillon adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.

http://www.peoriacounty.org/download?path=%2Fcountyboard%2FCommittee_Agenda_and_Minutes%2F2017%2FApril%2F24+-+Land+Use%2FLand+Use+Committee+Agenda+4-24-17.pdf