Peoria County Zoning Board of Appeals met February 8.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
A meeting of the Peoria County Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday February 8, 2018, in Room 403 of the Peoria County Courthouse, 324 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Loren Bailliez at 9:00 a.m.
Present: Loren Bailliez, Jim Bateman, Greg Fletcher, Greg Happ, Leonard Unes
Absent: John Harms, Justin Brown, Andrew Keyt
Staff: Corbin Bogle - Planner I
Kerilyn Gallagher – Planner II
Kathi Urban – Director
Alex Kurth – Civil Assistant State’s Attorney
Ellen Hanks - ZBA Administrative Assistant
Mr. Bailliez took a moment to introduce the newest member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Leonard Unes. Mr. Bateman made a motion to approve the minutes from January 11, 2018 and was seconded by Ms. O’Brien. A vote was taken and the motion was approved; (5-0) (Mr. Fletcher absent for vote.)
Case No. 002-18-U at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois. Petition of Jason Bird, acting on behalf of James C. & Debra L. Bird (owners), a Special Use as required in Section 20.6.2.1.1.b of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use when a proposed land split does not meet the 40 acre minimum lot size in the A- 1 Agricultural Preservation Zoning District. The petitioner proposes to divide 21 acres from an existing 76.84 acre parcel in order to construct a single family dwelling.
Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on January 12, 2018 and the Weekly Post on January 18, 2018. Kerilyn Gallagher gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Agriculture Preservation and Environmental Corridor). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned A-1.
Mr. Fletcher arrived at 9:05 am.
Jason Bird of 20870 E. State Route 116, Farmington, was sworn in. Jennie Boswell, attorney representing Mr. Bird, of 129 North Walnut Street, Princeville, was also sworn in.
Ms. Boswell stated that Mr. Bird currently farms this 76 acre property with his family. Mr. Bird would like to purchase 20 of these acres to continue to farm it in hay and pasture space. Ms. Boswell stated that Mr. Bird would also like to eventually build a home on the non-tillable portion of the property in order to keep a homestead near the site in the future.
Mr. Bailliez asked when Mr. Bird planned to build a home on the property, and Mr. Bird responded that he hoped to do so in the next two years. Mr. Bailliez asked who currently farms the ground, and Mr. Bird responded that he and his father both farm it. Mr. Bird added that he currently has 10 head of cattle on the property.
Mr. Bailliez asked if there was anyone who would like to speak for or against the case, and there were not. No further questions or comments were made. Mr. Fletcher made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).
Case No. 003-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.
Petition of Don Hoerr & Sons Inc. (A Corporation - Mark A. Hoerr, President & Director, of 1231 N. Skyview Dr., East Peoria, IL; Brent J. Hoerr, Vice President & Director, of 1231 N. Skyview Dr., East Peoria, IL; Blake C. Hoerr , Director, of 710 S. Forest Park Dr., Eureka, IL; Phil H. Zobrist, Vice President, of 300 State Rte 117, Goodfield, IL; Brett D. Messner, Secretary & Treasurer, of 3926 Hicks Hollow Rd., Dunlap, IL), acting on behalf of Adam & Erin Colen (owners), a Variance request from 20-6.5.2.2.c.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a side setback of 15 feet for a principal structure in the “R-1” Low Density Residential Zoning District. The petitioner proposes to construct a garage addition at a distance of 6 feet from the side lot line, resulting in a variance request of 9 feet.
Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on January 12, 2018. Kerilyn Gallagher gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Agriculture & Environmental Corridor). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned R-1.
Mark Hoerr, President of Don Hoerr & Sons Inc., of 2241 W. Altorfer Dr., was sworn in. Mr. Hoerr stated that he had come before the board several months prior for the same property and had gained approval for the request, but that the owner had since changed their mind on what they wanted to do with the space. Mr. Hoerr stated that the previous request was for a free standing, one stall garage that was going to be 7.5 feet from the side property line. Mr. Hoerr explained that the owner had revised the plan to be a two stall garage addition to their house in order to create more space for a workshop, a laundry room, storage space, along with various other uses. The new request was for 6 feet from the side property line. Mr. Hoerr stated that they tried to position the addition as far away from the property line as possible while also trying to meet the owners’ needs. Mr. Hoerr stated that some of the design elements for the project might change over time, but that the addition would not be any closer to the property line than the proposed 6 feet.
Ms. O’Brien asked if the neighbor closest to that property line had any problems with the request, and Mr. Hoerr stated that he did not believe the neighbor had any objections. Mr. Hoerr also added that the neighbor was in attendance at the hearing and could speak to that if he wished. Mr. Fletcher asked if there was a fence in between the properties, and Mr. Hoerr stated that he was unsure. Mr. Hoerr did say that there was a partial tree line in between the properties. Mr. Fletcher asked if the design had moved forward, and Mr. Hoerr responded that it moved forward a few feet. Additionally, Mr. Hoerr stated that the property line tapers in toward the back on the side, which is causing the closeness to the property line on the back side of the addition.
Mr. Bailliez asked if any of the existing attached garage would be used as a garage after the addition was placed on the house, and Mr. Hoerr responded that the existing garage was three stalls, with the plan to continue using two stalls as garage space. Mr. Bailliez stated in the original request, the owners were adamant about having a place to watch the children in the pool. Mr. Bailliez asked if the addition would have a space for that use, and Mr. Hoerr responded that there was.
Mr. Bailliez asked if there was anyone who would like to speak for or against the case, and there were not. Ms. O’Brien stated that she thought there was a neighbor in attendance, and then asked if he did not wish to speak. He declined to comment.
No further questions or comments were made. Ms. O’Brien made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).
Mr. Fletcher stated that he had held some questions for the neighbor, but the neighbor had declined to speak. Mr. Bailliez asked if there was anything the board could help clarify for Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Fletcher asked if the closest neighbor had any living space facing the proposed addition. Mr. Happ stated that the video shown showed the closest neighbor’s house. Ms. Gallagher showed the video for review so that the board could see the neighbor’s house. Mr. Happ asked if the marking flags shown in the video were marking the property line, and Ms. Gallagher stated she believed that they were utility marking flags.
Mr. Bateman made a motion to approve the variance request and was seconded by Ms. O’Brien. Six affirmative votes; (6-0).
Findings Of Fact For Variances
Section 20-3.7.3
The findings of the ZBA or the Zoning Administrator shall be based on data submitted pertaining to each standard in this Subsection as it relates to the development. A variance shall be granted only if the applicant demonstrates:
1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
• Request from Section 20-6.5.2.2.c.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a side setback of 15 feet from a principal structure in the R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning District. The applicant proposes to construct a garage 6 feet from the side lot line to store pool equipment and to observe children in the pool. This is a change from his previous request of having a separate building that was 7.5 feet from the lot line.
2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
• The plan will be consistent with the architecture of the main house and should not change the character of the location.
3. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations were carried out;
• This is a small area and attaches to the house. It will not change the shape of the land.
4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;
• See #1, 2 and 3.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, or otherwise be inconsistent with any officially adopted County plan or these regulations;
• This request should not affect the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare or be injurious to other property.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;
• This request should not impair the lighting and air to adjacent property, increase the usage of public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and
• See #1 and 5.
8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.
• Needs to store pool equipment and supplies plus increase the safety of the children.
Mr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Bateman. Six affirmative votes; (6-0).
Case No. 004-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.
Petition of Jason Snyder, acting on his own behalf, a Variance request from Section 20- 5.13.3.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that for lots and parcels in residentially zoned districts, the total floor area of all accessory buildings, attached or detached, shall not exceed the footprint of the principal structure or 1,300 square feet, whichever is less, plus 750 square feet for a private garage. The petitioner proposes to construct a 1,680 square feet accessory structure in the “R-1” Low Density Residential Zoning District, which would result in a variance request of 180 square feet from the allowable square footage. Also, a Variance request from Section 20-6.5.2.1.d.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a setback of 40 feet from the right of way. The petitioner proposes to construct an accessory structure at a distance of 13 feet from the right of way, resulting in a variance request of 27 feet.
Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on January 12, 2018 and the Weekly Post on January 18, 2018. Kerilyn Gallagher gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Rural). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned R-1.
Jason Snyder of 5925 N. Kickapoo Edwards Rd., Edwards, was sworn in. Mr. Snyder stated that the residence for the request was located on Jubilee College Road, which he hoped to move into in the future.
Ms. O’Brien asked if the previous barn had been torn down, and Mr. Snyder responded that it had been removed. Mr. Bailliez asked why Mr. Snyder did not live in the house currently, and Mr. Snyder responded that he was doing some work on the house before he moved in. Mr. Bailliez asked if the road on the side was a maintenance road for Jubilee State Park, and Mr. Snyder responded that it was a usable road, but that the portion that went into the park was closed for approximately 6 months out of the year. Mr. Bailliez asked if there was much traffic that used the road during the year, and Mr. Snyder responded that the road did have traffic, but it was minimal. Mr. Snyder added that he grew up down the street, so he was very familiar with the area.
Mr. Happ pointed out that Mr. Snyder’s property was higher up from the road, so the building would not impede sight from the road or be very visible because of the trees lining the road. Mr. Fletcher asked if Mr. Snyder had to fill any of the area where he hoped to build the proposed building, and Mr. Snyder stated that he did do some filling and grading on the proposed site. Mr. Snyder added that the barn that was there previously was even closer to the right of way than the new one would be. Mr. Snyder added that the old barn was approximately 30’ x 45’ and was about 20 feet in height. Mr. Bailliez asked how large the new barn would be, and Mr. Snyder responded that he was hoping for it to be 30’ x 56’ with a 12 foot ceiling. Mr. Bailliez asked what would be stored in the building, and Mr. Snyder responded that he had a four wheeler, lawn maintenance equipment, and vehicles that he wanted to store. Mr. Happ asked if the building would be metal, and Mr. Snyder responded that it would have metal sides and a metal roof.
Mr. Bailliez asked if there was anyone who would like to speak for or against the case, and there were not. No further questions or comments were made. Mr. Fletcher made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0). Ms. O’Brien made a motion to approve the variance request and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. Six affirmative votes; (6- 0).
Findings Of Fact For Variances
Section 20-3.7.3
The findings of the ZBA or the Zoning Administrator shall be based on data submitted pertaining to each standard in this Subsection as it relates to the development. A variance shall be granted only if the applicant demonstrates:
1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
• This request from Section 20-5.13.3.4 that all accessory buildings cannot be more than square feet of house and garage square footage. The petitioner wishes to build a 1980 square foot accessory structure which is 180 square feet larger that his house and garage. Also, a variance from 20-6.5.2.1.d.1 to build 13 feet from the right of way instead of 40 feet. This is a tree line for the Jubilee State Park property.
2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
• The 180 square feet is the minimal amount of addition and the right of way has little usage. This will not alter the essential character of the location.
3. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations were carried out;
• The proposed location is the most flat area of the property to replace the old barn.
4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;
• See #1.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, or otherwise be inconsistent with any officially adopted County plan or these regulations;
• See #3.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;
• Replacing the old barn will not change the lighting, air in the public street, fire, endanger safety, or change property values within the neighborhood.
7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and
• See #3, 4, 5, and 6.
8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.
• The condition of this variance is minimal usage necessary to replace an old barn for a new barn to store what was in the old barn.
Ms. O’Brien made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. Six affirmative votes; (6-0).
Case No. 005-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.
Petition of Charles & Bonnie Depalma, acting on their own behalf, a Variance request from Section 20-5.13.3.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that for lots and parcels in residentially zoned districts, the total floor area of all accessory buildings, attached or detached, shall not exceed the footprint of the principal structure or 1,300 square feet, whichever is less, plus 750 square feet for a private garage. The petitioner proposes to construct a 2,560 square feet accessory structure in the “R-R” Rural Residential Zoning District, which would result in a variance request of 1206 square feet from the allowable square footage.
Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 6 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on January 12, 2018 and the Weekly Post on January 18, 2018. Kerilyn Gallagher gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Rural). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned R-R.
Bonnie DePalma of 14817 W. Fussner Rd., Brimfield, was sworn in. Ms. DePalma stated that she and her husband would like a shed large enough to house his various trucks, trailers, dirt bikes, and a future camper.
Ms. O’Brien asked if everything they wanted to store was currently being stored outside, and Ms. DePalma responded that some of it was being stored in the garden shed, but the majority was unfortunately being stored outside. Mr. Bailliez asked if the garden shed would remain on the property even if the proposed building was constructed, and Ms. DePalma responded that it would. Ms. O’Brien asked Ms. DePalma to clarify how big their property is, and Ms. DePalma responded that the lot with the house was almost 4 acres and they also have purchased the one acre lot in front of their home for a total of approximately 5 acres.
Mr. Bailliez asked Ms. DePalma if her husband ran a business out of the home, and Ms. DePalma responded that he does not. Ms. DePalma added that her husband works for the Operators Engineers. Ms. DePalma explained that most of the equipment on the property was used mainly for personal use. Mr. Bailliez remarked that there is a lot of room on the property and that you cannot see any neighboring houses from the DePalma’s property. Mr. Bailliez asked about the white rock currently on the property, and Ms. DePalma stated that this is where her husband currently parks the trucks and various machinery.
Mr. Bailliez asked if there was anyone who would like to speak for or against the case, and there were not. No further questions or comments were made. Mr. Fletcher made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0). Mr. Bateman made a motion to approve the variance request and was seconded by Ms. O’Brien. Six affirmative votes; (6- 0).
Findings Of Fact For Variances
Section 20-3.7.3
The findings of the ZBA or the Zoning Administrator shall be based on data submitted pertaining to each standard in this Subsection as it relates to the development. A variance shall be granted only if the applicant demonstrates:
1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
• This request from Section 20-5.13.3.4 that all accessory buildings cannot be more than the square feet of the house and garage square footage. The petitioner wishes to build a 2,560 square foot accessory structure, which is 1,206 square feet larger than his house and garage. He has large vintage equipment that will be stored within this proposed building.
2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
• This location is located behind other property in a lightly wooded area and is 3.75 acres. This location has surrounding structures in the neighborhood.
3. That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations were carried out;
• This is a flat area of approximately 5 acres combining the two lots to build a 40 x 64 building to store his vintage equipment and other yard equipment.
4. That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;
• See #1, 2, and 3.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, or otherwise be inconsistent with any officially adopted County plan or these regulations;
• This property is located behind other property and is 5 acres. It will not affect other property as to the health, safety, comfort, morals, welfare, or be injurious to other property.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;
• The request will not affect any of these values.
7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and
• See #1.
8. That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his or her land.
• This property is large enough to accommodate a 40 x 64 foot building and not affect the location.
Mr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Happ. Six affirmative votes; (6-0).
Case No. 006-18-Z at 10:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.
Petition of Kimberly Irwin, acting on behalf of Theodore Arndt (owner), a Rezoning request from "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial to "C-2" General Commercial. The petitioner proposes to rezone this parcel in order to operate a tavern.
Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on January 12, 2018. The Health Department had no objection to the request and staff is recommending approval of the request. Kerilyn Gallagher gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Unincorporated Center, Agriculture, River Freight, & Environmental Corridor). The site plan and video of the property were shown. The property is currently zoned C-1.
Theodore Arndt of 19900 W. Higgs, Trivoli, was sworn in. Kimberly Irwin of 1014 E. Parkside Lane, Peoria, was also sworn in. Ms. Irwin explained that she would like to reopen the location as a tavern in order to provide a place for people in the area to meet and get something to eat. Mr. Arndt gave a brief history of the property back to the 1800’s. Mr. Arndt stated that he bought the building in 2003, and that he and his wife ran a business at the location for approximately 4 years. Mr. Arndt added that Ms. Irwin worked for him when he ran that business and that she currently manages the Silver Dollar, which is owned by her family. Mr. Arndt stated that he and Ms. Irwin had spent a lot of time painting and cleaning the location in order to ready it for reopening when they discovered that they would need to apply for a rezoning and special use to operate the location as a tavern again.
Ms. O’Brien asked why the process for rezoning and special use were necessary since the location had been operated as a tavern up until April of 2017. Ms. Urban explained that the property was operating under a Non-Conforming Use because zoning had changed over the years. If a Non-Conforming Use is inactive for a period of six months, it becomes void, which is the case with this property. In order to operate as a tavern again, the owner is required to apply for a Rezoning and a Special Use.
Mr. Fletcher asked if the inside of the building was ready, and Mr. Arndt stated that it was close to being ready. It had been repainted and cleaned. If the Special Use and Rezoning were approved, they would then replace the floor. Mr. Arndt added that they hoped to have the kitchen cleaned up by May or June. Mr. Arndt explained that the previous tenant did not take care of the property and that his lease was not renewed.
Mr. Arndt stated that he and Ms. Irwin had approached some of the neighbors about their intentions and did not receive any objections. Mr. Arndt did state that some residents had their concerns about the litter and noise from the previous tenant, but he explained that this tenant had since been removed. Mr. Arndt added that a fence would be erected around the patio area.
Ms. O’Brien asked when they expected to reopen the tavern, if approved, and Mr. Arndt asked staff when the cases would be heard by the County Board. Ms. Urban responded that the cases would be heard on March 8th by the County Board. Mr. Arndt asked if they could move forward with their liquor commission requirements in the meantime, and Ms. Urban stated that this was beyond the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board. Ms. Urban referred Mr. Arndt to the County Clerk’s office. Mr. Arndt stated that they did the soil and septic analysis and that there were no problems with either. Mr. Bailliez asked if there would be any use of the second story of the building, and Ms. Irwin responded that it would be used for storage. Ms. Irwin stated that eventually she might use the space as an office for the tavern, but she did not want to rent it.
Mr. Bailliez asked where the proposed fence would go, and Mr. Arndt explained that it would be going around the beer garden. Ms. Irwin added that they wanted to add the fence for privacy and for safety reasons. Mr. Arndt stated that there would be no live music, and Ms. Irwin added that there would be a jukebox inside, but that was her only intention for music.
Jesse Curry of 10616 Dale Ave, Mossville, was sworn in. Mr. Curry added that he also owned a piece of property across from the tavern on State Street. Mr. Curry stated that he never had any problems when Mr. Arndt was running the tavern, but the last tenant was not a good neighbor. Mr. Curry stated that the previous tenant burned garbage, littered, was loud, and that the patrons of the tavern would frequently get into fights in the street. Mr. Curry stated that if the tavern were run like Mr. Arndt had run it, he would have no problem with it.
Donna Curry of 10616 Dale Ave., Mossville, was sworn in. Ms. Curry stated that her objection to the tavern was the traffic. Ms. Curry stated that the other concern that there is already another tavern close to this one and that there is no need to have two so close to each other. Ms. Curry stated that the previous tenant did not run the place well, so she did have concerns about that as well.
Mr. Fletcher asked if the other tavern had an outside area, and Ms. Curry stated she was unsure. Ms. Curry stated that she did not ever hear of any problems from this tavern by the ice cream shop. Ms. Curry stated that the previous tenant of Mr. Arndt’s tavern was loud and dirty. Ms. Curry stated that there is no problem with the current tavern down the street, so she does not understand why there needs to be a second tavern so close by. Mr. Bailliez stated that he understood the concerns with the previous tenant, but that this tavern would be run by someone else.
Mr. Unes asked if the other tavern had food service, and Ms. Curry responded that she was unsure. Mr. Bailliez asked how close Ms. Curry lived to the taverns, and Ms. Curry responded that she was about three blocks away. Ms. Gallagher pulled a map of Mossville up on screen and pointed out where Dale Ave. was in relationship to the tavern. Ms. Gallagher did a measurement and showed that Ms. Curry’s home was approximately 970 feet from the tavern, if traveling in a straight line. Ms. Gallagher also pointed out the location of the existing tavern as well as the proposed tavern.
Mr. Fletcher asked who owned the building behind the tavern, and Ms. Curry stated that she was unsure. Mr. Fletcher asked if it was the Medina Township building, and Ms. Curry stated that it used to be, but it was not any more.
Allen Curry of 10314 N. State St., Mossville, was sworn in. Mr. Curry stated that he has no objection to the building being taken care of since it is a historical building; however, he did have many issues with the previous tenant. Mr. Curry stated that the neighbors went to the liquor commission hearings to speak about their concerns with the previous tenant, but that they were approved to have the beer garden anyway. Mr. Curry stated that there was fighting, littering, and noise concerns with the previous tenant. Mr. Curry stated that he would not tolerate another situation like that in the future.
Mr. Bailliez asked if Mr. Curry had any problems with the new tenant from what he heard in their testimony, and Mr. Curry responded that if they were true to their word and respectful of neighbors, he hoped not to have a problem. Mr. Curry stated that the owner of the property, Mr. Arndt, was the owner regardless of the tenant, and that he should be partially responsible for correcting the actions of his tenants.
Ms. O’Brien asked Mr. Curry for clarification that Jesse Curry was his father, and he responded that this was correct. Ms. O’Brien then clarified that Jesse Curry was in favor of the request along with Mr. Curry, but that his mother was against the request, and Mr. Curry responded that this was correct. Mr. Curry did state that he did not want to see a repeat of the way the last place was operated. Ms. O’Brien asked if they all lived together, and Mr. Curry responded that his parents lived on Dale St. and that he lived on State St. in a property that his parents owned. Mr. Curry stated that he was confident that a responsible owner could operate the tavern with no problems.
Mr. Arndt stated that over the years, the tenants of the tavern have mostly been good, except for the most recent tenant. Mr. Arndt added that he guaranteed Ms. Irwin would be a responsible owner of the tavern. Mr. Arndt stated that he had a contract with Ms. Irwin for her to eventually purchase the property and that he was confident she would treat the opportunity as an investment. Mr. Arndt stated that he and Ms. Irwin had spent a lot of time cleaning up the area and building. Mr. Arndt stated that he never knew of the complaints from the previous tenant, but when he visited the property it was clear that it had not been taken care of. Mr. Arndt restated that the previous tenant’s lease was not renewed.
No further questions or comments were made. Ms. O’Brien made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).
Case No. 007-18-U at 10:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.
Petition of Kimberly Irwin, acting on behalf of Theodore Arndt (owner), a Special Use request from Section 20-5.8.2.1.n.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which allows for a Tavern, not exceeding a floor area of five thousand (5,000) square feet, if located close than five hundred (500) feet from any residential district, religious, or school in the “C-2” General Commercial Zoning District. The petitioner proposes to operate a tavern located immediately adjacent to a residential district.
Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on January 12, 2018. Staff has recommended approval with restriction.
Ms. O’Brien made a motion to incorporate the testimony from Case 006-18-Z into the testimony for this case and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).
Theodore Arndt of 19900 W. Higgs, Trivoli, was sworn in. Kimberly Irwin of 1014 E. Parkside Lane, Peoria, was also sworn in. Mr. Arndt stated that he and Ms. Irwin have spent a lot of time cleaning up the tavern and are committed to making it nice again. Mr. Arndt restated that there would be a fence surrounding the outside area and that the tavern would close at 1 a.m. Additionally, there would be no live music.
Ms. O’Brien asked how tall the fence would be, and Mr. Arndt stated that it would be 5 or 6 feet in height. Mr. Arndt stated that the building would be taken care of. Mr. Unes asked if the other tavern served food and Ms. Irwin stated that she thought the other tavern served frozen pizza, but that was about it. Mr. Arndt stated that he would like the chance to show the neighbors what the place could be like under good management. Mr. Fletcher asked what kind of food would be served, and Ms. Irwin responded that she intended to serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. Ms. Irwin added that food would consist of items such as tenderloins, burgers, etc. She added that she was only intending to serve dinner a few nights a week. Additionally, Ms. Irwin stated that she did not intend to serve dinner initially.
No further questions or comments were made. Mr. Fletcher made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Bateman. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).
Miscellaneous: No further questions or comments were made.
Mr. Fletcher made a motion to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. O’Brien. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).
Meeting adjourned 11:05 a.m.
http://www.peoriacounty.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_02082018-479
Alerts Sign-up