Peoria Standard

Peoria County Land Use and Infrastructure Committee met May 22.

Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:

Members Present: James Dillon - Chairperson, Thomas O'Neill, Brad Harding, BarryRobinson, Brian Elsasser, Rachael Parker, Paul Rosenbohm

Members Absent: Sharon Williams

Others Present: Larry Evans - State's Attorney's Office; Scott Sorrel, Shauna Musselman, Gretchen Pearsall - County Administration; Kathi Urban, Andrew Braun - Planning & Zoning; Mark Little - IT; Eric Dubrowski - Finance; Doug Gaa - County Sheriff; Andrew Rand -County Board Chairman; Phil Salzer - County Board Member;Marshall Bailey- zoning case petitioner; Jack Teplitz - attorney representing zoning case petitioner; Bill Connor - attorney representing Limestone Township Road Commissioner

Call to Order:

Mr. Dillon called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Approval of Minutes:

A motion to approve the Land Use Committee minutes from the April 24, 2017 meeting was made by Mr. Rosenbohm and seconded by Mr. Robinson. A vote was taken on the motion and carried. (6-0) (Mr. Elsasser not present for vote.)

Reports/ Other Minutes/Updates:

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

Unsafe Structures: No questions or comments.

Development Summary: No questions or comments.

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

Zoning Cases:

028-17-U, Petition of Drew & Kate Bailey:

Mr. Harding made a motion to approve the special use request and was seconded by Ms. Parker.

Ms. Urban summarized the case. A Special Use as required in Section 20.5.2.2.1.a.1 of theUnified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use when a proposed land split does not meet the 25 acre minimum lot size nor the 1 dwelling unit per 25 contiguous acresdensity requirement in the A-2 Agricultural District. The petitioner proposes to divide two approximately 5 acre lots from a 10.003 acre parcel. The Baileys intend to build a home on their portion of the split lot, which is currently owned by Mrs. Bailey's parents. The LESA score was197.3/300, which is a low rating for protection. The parcel is served by public water, but would require a septic system. The Health Department and the County Highway Department had no objections to the request. The request is consistent with the Peoria County Growth Strategy which supports low density residential living and cluster development in the A-1 and A-2 zoning districts. Staff has recommended approval with the restriction that the parcel may not be divided again. The Zoning Board of Appeals also approved the request unanimously.

A vote was taken and the Special Use was approved with restriction; (7-0). (Ms. Williams absent.)

029-17-U, Petition of Marshall Bailey:

Mr. Rosenbohm made a motion to support the zoning board's decision to deny to request and was seconded by Mr. O'Neill.

Ms. Urban summarized the three Special Use requests. A Special Use request as required inSection 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 DevelopmentOrdinance 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 1 commercial vehicle and 2 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 DevelopmentOrdinance 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 proposes to use existing trees and to plant new evergreen trees to screen off-street parking from the view of adjacent landowners. 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.

The parcel is located on S. Walters School Rd. in Limestone Township. Ms. Urban stated that adjacent parcels are used for agriculture; however, Rose Estates subdivision lies approximately70 feet to the south of the property. The request is consistent with the agricultural use in the area; however, it would be inconsistent with the nearby Rose Estates subdivision. Staff has recommended approval with restrictions that would help mitigate impacts to the nearby subdivision. Ms. Urban explained that these nine restrictions were included in the staff report.Ms. Urban stated that, according to the petitioner, an average of 2.5 trips were taken each month with the commercial vehicles. The nature of the petitioner's business is to perform clean up after a natural disaster. The Limestone Township Road Commissioner has commented that he has concerns about the request's impact on the roads. The County Highway Department had no comment. The request is consistent with the Peoria County Growth Strategy of continuing to strive for a strong, stable, and diverse economy. After hearing all the testimony for the case, theZoning Board of Appeals recommended denial, unanimously.

Mr. Dillon stated that anyone in attendance who wanted to speak for the case could do so;however, no new testimony could be given.

Mr. Connor stated that the road commissioner's main concern was the impact of the turning movements of the trucks entering and exiting the property. Mr. Connor added that part of the consideration for a Special Use request is to consider the external effects of the request, which the road commissioner believes will be significant on Walters School Road. Mr. Elsasser asked f Mr. Connor had met with Mr. Teplitz to discuss some sort of agreement between the two parties, and Mr. Connor stated that he had discussed the issue with Mr. Teplitz, but that they were unable to come to terms.

Mr. Teplitz stated that the nature of Mr. Bailey's business is disaster relief clean up, and that 90%of his business is conducted outside of the Peoria area. Mr. Teplitz added that these jobs can take anywhere from a couple weeks to a couple months to complete. Mr. Teplitz stated that the use of the property is minimal. Mr. Teplitz stated that over the last two months, Mr. Bailey has only taken approximately 2.5 trips from the property each month. Mr. Teplitz added that no customers or employees would be using the property, and that no business items would be stored on the property. Mr. Teplitz stated that the petitioner had no greater impact on the property than a permitted agriculture use. Mr. Teplitz stated that the landscaping plan submitted by the petitioner would screen the trucks from the neighboring properties. Mr. Teplitz added that two sides of the property could not be planted with trees because of a thick asphalt parking area located on/near the property line. Mr. Teplitz stated that the petitioner was proposing to construct a 7 foot fence in these areas to help screen the trucks. Mr. Teplitz stated that the only person who might be able to see around the screening was an adjacent owner, Mr. Matarelli, who currently had no use of his property. Mr. Dillon asked if Mr. Matarelli had stated that he had nouse for the property, and Ms. Urban stated that Mr. Matarelli had stated that he planned to eventually build a home on his property. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Matarelli would have the choice of locating the house where he could not see Mr. Bailey's trucks, and Mr. Dillon stated that this was speculative and that Mr. Matarelli could chose to locate the house where he liked as long as it met setback requirements.

Mr. Teplitz stated that he had submitted several photos of trucks being stored at different locations in Peoria County to prove that other parcels are used in the same way Mr. Bailey is proposing. Mr. Teplitz added that the trees, both existing and ones that would be planted, would screen the trucks from Rose Estates. Mr. Teplitz stated that approximately 12-13 residences inRose Estates would be able to see Mr. Bailey's property. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Hopwoodhad testified that he saw the trucks entering and exiting the property more frequently than 2.5times per month; however, Mr. Teplitz stated that this would have been difficult considering thatMr. Bailey was out of state for some of his jobs.

Mr. Teplitz restated that Mr. Bailey's request had no greater impact than a permitted agricultural use. Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey is using the property for agricultural purposes and could be permitted two trailers and one truck with no screening to be used for agricultural use. Mr. Teplitz stated that in regards to the Road Commissioner's concerns, Mr. Teplitz had submitted several photos of trucks using Walters School Road. Additionally, Mr. Teplitz stated that the unposted limit on the road is 80,000 pounds, which is much more than Mr. Bailey's trucks weigh.Mr. Teplitz stated that an affidavit was also submitted that the property had been used to store trucks by a previous owner. Mr. Teplitz stated that he had also submitted evidence that there is a property to the south of Rose Estates that has two horse trailers and a truck, which the neighborhood has no objection to.

Mr. Teplitz then stated that the issue as to whether the property was in zoning compliance was not up to the Zoning Board to decide, and should be determined by the Zoning Hearing Officer.Mr. Teplitz stated that Mr. Bailey testified that the existing trucks on the property are currently for personal or agricultural use. Mr. Teplitz stated that he hoped that the Land Use Committee would recommend approval of the request.

Ms. Parker asked if the request was initiated by a citizen complaint, and Mr. Teplitz responded that Mr. Bailey went to the Planning and Zoning Department while he was leasing the property to ask if he could have his trucks there. Ms. Parker stated that she felt the petitioner had tried to handle things the correct way, whereas he could have never come forward, used the property as he wanted, and possibly never have received any complaint. Mr. Harding stated that th restrictions seemed numerous. Ms. Urban stated that some of the restrictions were placed on the request to help mitigate neighbors' concerns whereas other restrictions were ordinance requirements. Mr. Harding stated that the Planning and Zoning Department had gone to great lengths to address concerns and had recommended approval, and yet the Zoning Board had denied it unanimously. Mr. Harding asked if this happens often and Ms. Urban replied that it happens occasionally. Mr. Harding stated that he was concerned by the wide disparity between the decision of the zoning board and the staff recommendation.

Mr. Rosenbohm clarified that the previous request from Mr. Bailey was for four trailers and two trucks and that the current request was for two trailers and one truck. Mr. Teplitz agreed that this was correct. Mr. Rosenbohm asked where the other two trailers and one truck were stored now that the request was for less vehicles, and Mr. Teplitz stated that they were being stored off site.Mr. Rosenbohm stated that he had seen recent pictures of the property and he had his doubts about whether all the vehicles currently on the property were being used for agriculture. Mr. Rosenbohm then asked if Mr. Bailey had a written easement to use the driveway, and Mr. Teplitz stated that he did. Mr. Teplitz stated that he had a letter from the attorney who drafted the easement. Mr. Dillon stated that because information regarding the easement was not discussed at the Zoning Board hearing, it could not be considered for the decision of the case.

Mr. Harding asked what would happen if the petitioner did not abide by the restrictions of theSpecial Use, and Ms. Urban responded that the department could either start a violation on the property and submit it to the hearing officer process or decide to rescind the Special Use. Mr.Dillon asked if there were current outstanding complaints on the property, and Ms. Urbanresponded that there were and that they were at the Hearing Officer level.

Mr. Elsasser asked if there was any way that the County Board could make the petitioner responsible for paying for road maintenance, and Mr. Dillon responded that this is what Mr.Connor and Mr. Teplitz had been discussing and could not agree upon. Mr. Teplitz stated that he did not agree on requiring Mr. Bailey to submit a letter of credit for road maintenance. Mr. Elsasser stated that he did not believe that 2.5 trips per month would cause much damage to the road.

Mr. Rand stated that he wondered if the committee could get any explanation as to why staff recommended approval and the Zoning Board recommended denial. Mr. Dillon stated that he felt that that might be speculative and that the hearing for this case spanned over two days in which a lot of testimony was given. Ms. Urban stated that staff's position is written prior to the hearing and can only take into account what has been presented before that time. Ms. Urban stated that the Zoning Board has the luxury of considering testimony presented, which amounted to four hours of testimony in this case. Mr. Rand asked how the Zoning Board voted on the previous case submitted by Mr. Bailey, and Ms. Urban responded that the Zoning Board had recommended denial and staff had also recommended denial. Mr. Rand stated that he found it curious that staff and the zoning board wound up with opposing views; however, he did feel that the Zoning Board had made very careful considerations in their findings and that weighed very heavily on him.

Mr. Harding asked what stage the current complaints on the property were in, and Ms. Urbanr esponded that they were at the Hearing Officer level. Mr. Harding asked if this was discussed at the Zoning Board hearing, and Ms. Urban responded that she thought that the violation was mentioned, but that it was not discussed at what stage the violation was in. Mr. Harding asked if these violations were being addressed by the petitioner, and Ms. Urban stated that the case had been continued by the Hearing Officer until after the County Board date in June. Mr. Elsasser asked how long the board could delay the case in order for the two parties to come to an agreement on the road maintenance plan, and also for the County Board to have extra time to consider the case. Mr. Dillon stated that he did not see how a delay would be beneficial considering that Mr. Teplitz and Mr. Connor could not come to an agreement yet. Mr. Dillon added that the Zoning Board had given ample time to both sides to present their case, and had unanimously denied the request. Mr. Dillon stated that he felt the Zoning Board had done a thorough job considering all facts presented, and that he would agree to deny the request as well.Mr. Elsasser stated that he was still unsure about his final vote.

Mr. Evans stated he thought the resolution was incorrect and would need to be reviewed by theState's Attorney's Office. The chairman suggested to hold a special meeting on June 8th at 5:30in order to call a vote for the case after the resolution had been reviewed. Ms. Parker made a motion to hold a special meeting on June 8th at 5:30 in order to vote on the case and was seconded by Mr. Robinson. The committee voted and the motion was approved; (7-0) (Ms.Williams absent.)

Resolutions:

Edwards Demolition/Asbestos Remediation:

Mr. O'Neill made a motion to approve the resolution and was seconded by Mr. Rosenbohm.

Mr. Braun stated that the four resolutions on the agenda were all related to the flood buyout tha the had been working on for the past several years. Mr. Braun stated that this resolution was forbids that were received for Demolition and Asbestos Remediation of up to 15 flood properties in the Town of Edwards. Five qualified bid were received, with the lowest bid being received fromHood Demolition & Excavation in Rushville, IL. Mr. Braun stated that the resolution states that it could be up to 15 properties because this is the maximum number of properties anticipated to be acquired in the Town of Edwards, although it could be less.

A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0) (Ms. Williams absent.)

Unincorporated Peoria County Demolition/Asbestos Remediation:

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

Mr. Braun explained that this bid was for the same services as the above resolution, but was for up to 19 flood prone properties in the area located along the Illinois River in UnincorporatedPeoria County. Again, five qualified bids were received with the lowest bid being from HoodDemolition & Excavation in Rushville, IL.

Mr. Robinson asked if the bid from Hood Demolition was substantially lower than the bids from local companies, and Mr. Braun responded that the bid tabulation sheet was located on page 72of the agenda packet. Mr. Braun pointed out that the next highest bid was approximately$24,000 more; however, Mr. Braun stated that the process is such that the lowest qualified bid is chosen. Mr. Braun added that if the board wanted to choose another contractor, the bid would have to be rebid. Mr. Robinson asked if Hood Demolition had performed any work for PeoriaCounty before, and Mr. Braun responded that they had not; however, they had submitted references from other governments in their bid package, which Mr. Braun could make available on request. Mr. Rosenbohm asked if the references were checked, and Mr. Braun responded thatJim Smith did check on the references. Mr. Braun pointed out that a letter from the InternationalUnion of Operating Engineers Local 965 regarding Hood Construction was on page 60. Ms.Parker stated that she would like to see a special effort to reach out to construction companies that completed the county program and minority owned companies. Mr. Braun stated that a list of qualified contractors that were solicited for the bids was located in the agenda packet as well.

A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0) (Ms. Williams absent.)

Unincorporated Peoria County Asbestos Testing:Mr. O'Neill made a motion to approve the resolution and was seconded by Mr. Rosenbohm.

Mr. Braun stated that this step would take place before the demolition and asbestos remediation process. Mr. Braun stated that this bid had to be rebid due to the fact that some of the bids received contained variable pricing, which the State of Illinois stated was not allowable.Midwest Environmental Consultant Services, Inc. out of Yorkville, IL was the lowest qualified bid for up to 19 flood prone properties in unincorporated Peoria County. Mr. Braun stated that this number was higher than the demolition resolution due to the fact that some of the property owners in the area had declined their buyout offers or removed themselves from the program.Mr. Braun added that all of the funding for these resolutions and services was coming from State and Federal sources. Mr. Braun added that the only cost to the county was staff time invested in the project. Mr. Dillon stated that this process had taken about three years up to this point. Mr.Harding stated that he would be interested to know how much staff time was spent on the project.

A vote was taken and the motion passed; (7-0) (Ms. Williams absent.)

Miscellaneous:

Mr. Harding stated that he had told people in the Edwards area that this process for the buyout would take several years to complete. Mr. Harding stated that even with a reduced staff, the Planning and Zoning Department had completed the project in a timely and efficient manner and thanked the department for their hard work.

Adjournment: Mr. Dillon adjourned the meeting at 4:11 p.m.

http://www.peoriacounty.org/download?path=%2Fcountyboard%2FCommittee_Agenda_and_Minutes%2F2017%2FJune%2F26+-+Land+Use%2FLand+Use+Committee+Agenda+6-26-17.pdf