Peoria County Zoning Board of Appeals met April 12.

By Lhalie Castillo

May 16, 2018

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

A meeting of the Peoria County Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday April 12, 2018, in Room 403 of the Peoria County Courthouse, 324 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Loren Bailliez at 9:00 a.m.

Present: Loren Bailliez, Greg Fletcher, Greg Happ, Leonard Unes, John Harms, Andrew Keyt

Absent: Justin Brown, Jim Bateman, Linda O’Brien

Staff: Corbin Bogle – Planner II

Kathi Urban – Director

Alex Kurth – Civil Assistant State’s Attorney

Ellen Hanks - ZBA Administrative Assistant

Case No. 019-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Nick & Kelly Verardo, 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 1,170 square feet accessory structure in the “R-R” Rural Residential Zoning District, which would result in a variance request of 1,168 square feet from the allowable square footage.

Mr. Fletcher arrived at 9:02 a.m.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 0 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on March 16, 2018 and the Glasford Gazette on March 22, 2018. Corbin Bogle gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Agriculture Preservation). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned R-R.

Nick & Kelly Verardo of 11212 W. Maple Ridge Rd., Glasford, IL, were sworn in. Mr. Verardo stated that they were planning to take their existing garage and turn it into living space and then add on a new garage to the south of the house. Mr. Verardo added that they planned to put their living room in the current garage space and take the current living space and convert it into an open plan kitchen and dining area. Mr. Verardo stated that they were expecting their fourth child soon and needed more space in their home to accommodate the growing family. Mr. Verardo then pointed out the location of the proposed garage on the aerial map.

Mr. Bailliez asked where the access to the new garage would come from, and Mr. Verardo responded that the garage would be accessed from a driveway that was currently used to access their shed. Mr. Bailliez asked who currently owned the driveway, and Mr. Verardo responded that he believed they had an easement to the shed, but he would need to clarify that. Mr. Fletcher asked who owned the property directly next to theirs and Mr. Verardo responded that his father, Mike Verardo, owned it. Mr. Harms asked who owned the driveway that the Verardos currently use to access their shed, and Mr. Verardo responded that he believed Bob Gibson owned it, but that since the driveway also crossed over his dad’s property he was unsure. Mr. Verardo added that when they bought the property 6 years ago, they purchased it as is, but he was unsure about the easement. Ms. Urban pointed out that GIS showed the owner of the driveway coming from Maple Ridge Rd. was Robert Gibson. Ms. Urban added that whether or not there was an easement for use by the surrounding property owners would be up to the Verardos to research and confirm.

Mr. Bailliez disclosed that he knew the Verardos, but that it would not affect his decision on the case.

Mr. Bailliez asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the case, and there was no comment.

Mr. Harms made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0). Mr. Harms asked if a restriction was necessary in order to address any potential issues with the easement, and Ms. Urban responded that the owner would need to work that out privately with his neighbor. Ms. Urban added that the Planning and Zoning Department would have no authority to enforce an issue of that kind. Ms. Urban also pointed out that the variance was for the size of the building only.

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;

• Section 20-5.13.3.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires a variance when construction is greater than 1400 square feet. The petitioner wishes to expand their living space by 1170 square feet by converting the garage to living space and adding an attached garage.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• The area is a rural area with lots of large lots.

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 lot is 1.745 acres of flat land and large enough to accept the addition.

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;

• No change

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;

• See #3.

7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

• See #1, 2, and 3.

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.

• Being in a rural area with large lots should not restrict the petitioner of his request.

Mr. Keyt made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0). Mr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the request and was seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).

Case No. 020-18-V at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Robert & Linda Jarrett, acting on their own behalf, a Variance request from Section 20-6.3.2.1.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 in the “A-2” Agriculture Zoning District at a distance of 33 feet from the right of way, resulting in a variance request of 37 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 March 21, 2018 and the Glasford Gazette on March 22, 2018. Corbin Bogle gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Agriculture Preservation & Environmental Corridor). The site plan and two videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned A-2.

Robert Jarrett of 8006 S. Shryock Rd., Glasford, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Jarrett explained that he wanted to construct an 18’ x 36’ pole building in order to store his camper.

Mr. Harms pointed out that there seemed to be quite a bit of room on the property and wondered why Mr. Jarrett could not put the building somewhere else on the property to meet the setback requirements.

Mr. Jarrett responded that the location of the well and nearby trees limited his location on the north side of the house. Additionally, the backyard sloped toward the back. Mr. Jarrett stated that on the south side of the house there was not a lot of room to accommodate the size of the building and meet setbacks. Mr. Bailliez asked if the roadway ended on Mr. Jarrett’s property, and he responded that this was correct. Mr. Jarrett added that the surrounding properties in the area were owned by his wife and her siblings, so the neighbors had no objection. Mr. Fletcher asked if there were any residences past Mr. Jarrett’s house, and Mr. Jarrett responded that there was a private lane that led down to an old farm house, but there were no other houses past that.

Mr. Bailliez disclosed that he knew the Jarretts, but that it would not affect his decision on the case. Mr. Bailliez stated that the roadway is very narrow by the Jarrett’s house. Mr. Harms asked if this was a setback from the property line or the right of way, and Mr. Bogle explained that the right of way ended on Mr. Jarrett’s property and that the setback request was from the line where the right of way ends. Mr. Bogle further explained that all other setback requirements would be met. Mr. Fletcher asked how wide the road right of way was, and Mr. Bogle measured it at approximately 50 feet wide. Mr. Bogle also measured the surface of the road at approximately 20 feet wide. Mr. Fletcher stated that he did not imagine the township would be expanding or continuing the roadway at any point in the near future.

Mr. Bailliez asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the case, and there was no comment.

Mr. Fletcher made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Keyt. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).

Findings Of Fact For Variances

Section 20-3.7.3

1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

• Section 20-6.3.2.1.d.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires 40 feet from the right of way. The petitioner is requesting a 37 foot variance from the right of way to build a building. This property is at the end of the road and the surrounding property is owned by family.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• See #1.

• The yard slopes off towards the east wooded area and it would take a lot of fill and cost to get the 40 feet needed to comply with the ordinance. The septic and well locations prevent placing the building in other locations.

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 and 3.

• No change.

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.

• See #3.

Mr. Keyt made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0). Mr. Fletcher made a motion to approve the request and was seconded by Mr. Unes. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).

Case No. 021-18-Z at 9:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Michael P. Cochran, acting on behalf of the Bonnie R. Gudat Trust, Bonnie R. Gudat, Trustee (owner), a Rezoning request from "A-1" Agricultural Preservation to "I-1" Light Industrial. The petitioner proposes to rezone the property in order to allow the construction of an addition and storage yard expansion to the rear of the existing facility.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 1 objection on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on March 16, 2018. The Hallock Road Commissioner had noted concerns regarding drainage and runoff. Staff has recommended approval. Corbin Bogle gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Unincorporated Center). The site plan and six videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned I-1.

Michael Cochran from Austin Engineering of 311 SW Water St., Peoria, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Cochran stated that Austin Engineering was approached by their client, Fibrebond Corporation, who was looking to acquire additional ground from the property to the north, which was owned by the Gudat family. Mr. Cochran added that this additional ground would be used for a proposed addition to the existing business. This addition includes a new access area, retention pond, storage area, and testing zone. Because the two properties are zoned differently, the additional piece to be purchased from the Gudats would need to be rezoned to I-1 before it could be combined with the existing property. Mr. Cochran added that the new access area proposed would also reroute the truck traffic to a more suitable entry and exit point that would not have the trucks going through town. Mr. Cochran added that the proposed addition would be fenced in according to the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance.

Mr. Cochran stated that in regards to storm water drainage concerns that were raised before the hearing, an erosion control and stormwater permit would be obtained from the Department of Planning and Zoning as part of the permit process. Mr. Cochran added that as part of that permit process, they would have to follow all requirements outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance to address erosion and storm water issues on the property. Mr. Cochran stated that they would not be asking for any variances on the addition and that all structures would be built to code.

Mr. Unes asked what Fibrebond does, and Mr. Cochran responded that they make generators. Mr. Cochran added that the company had been located in Edelstein since the mid 1980’s and used to be known as International Supply Company until Fibrebond acquired it 3 or 4 years prior. Mr. Unes pointed out that Ms. Gudat had recently died and wondered if that affected the case. Ms. Urban responded that because the ownership was part of a trust, the documentation submitted was still sufficient. Mr. Kurth concurred.

Mr. Fletcher asked if all runoff would be directed to the retention pond, and Mr. Cochran responded that that was the intention. Mr. Cochran stated that the finer details for the runoff had not been worked out, but that Austin Engineering would be working with the Department of Planning and Zoning to make sure that they met all the requirements. Mr. Happ asked if the erosion plan would be engineered, and Mr. Cochran responded that it would be. Mr. Cochran also pointed out that the site plan would be slightly adjusted to the west so that the access area for the trucks would not be directly in front of the homeowner to the south.

Mr. Happ asked if the addition would create any more noise or disturbance to the neighbors, and Mr. Cochran stated that he did not believe so. Mr. Cochran added that he thought it might help decrease noise to the neighbors based on the fact that the testing area was being moved to the back of the building. Additionally, he added that the new access area for trucks would also help traffic flow in town. Mr. Bailliez asked if Fibrebond owned any other properties in the area, and Mr. Cochran responded that they did own some properties across the street in the Town of Edelstein. Mr. Bailliez asked if Fibrebond would be purchasing this additional land from the Gudats, and Mr. Cochran responded that this was correct. Mr. Cochran added that the portion to be purchased was approximately 6.3 acres in size.

Martin Obery of 20724 N Sixth St., Edelstein, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Obery pointed out his property on the aerial map. Mr. Obery stated that he was glad Fibrebond was making improvements to their facility, but he did have some concerns. Mr. Obery asked why so much space was needed for the access area on the west side of the property and added that he was suspicious this area would eventually be used for something other than truck access. Mr. Obery did add that he was glad that they would be moving the testing area to the back of the building to help with the noise.

Mr. Keyt asked what Mr. Obery’s specific objection was, and Mr. Obery stated that he wondered what the access area on the west side of the property would really be used for. He added that he did not understand why it needed to be rezoned in order for the trucks to use it. Ms. Urban explained that the portion of the property needed to be rezoned in order for Fibrebond to acquire the additional property and expand their business. Mr. Obery asked what the driveway would be made of, and Mr. Cochran responded that it would be concrete. Mr. Cochran added that the driveway would need to be wide so that trucks could make the turn into the facility, especially since North Street is so narrow. Mr. Cochran stated that the reason they decided to decrease the amount of space on that side of the property was so that trucks would not have to drive in front of Mr. Obery’s house when entering and exiting the facility. Mr. Obery said that there would be a lot of water coming off of the concrete, and Mr. Fletcher pointed out that the runoff would be directed to the retention pond. Mr. Cochran stated that the finer details of the storm water drainage plan had not been discussed at this point, but all requirements in the ordinance would be followed for the plan. Mr. Cochran added that they were waiting to see if the rezoning would be approved before moving forward with more details on the project, including an erosion control and storm water plan. Ms. Urban confirmed that stormwater and erosion control plans would have to be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. These plans would be prepared by an engineer and then reviewed by one as well. Ms. Urban stated that the plans would have to prove that the release rate of water off of the property would be no greater than the current rate. Ms. Urban stated that the petitioner would also have to submit financial security as part of the erosion control plan, which would be held until the project was completed.

Mr. Obery asked if the concrete area would ever be used for a purpose other than a driveway because it seemed like a large area just for trucks to drive on. Mr. Bailliez stated that the petitioner explained that the area needed to be large in order for trucks to make wide turns.

Patrick Caraway, Chief Financial Officer of Fibrebond Corporation, of 9345 Stonebriar Circle, Shreveport, LA, was sworn in. Mr. Caraway stated that when they entered into negotiations with the Gudat family the main goal for the Gudats was to not make a negative impact on the Town of Edelstein. Mr. Caraway stated that he felt the proposed plan would not only benefit Fibrebond, but would be beneficial to the residents nearby. Mr. Caraway added that the testing area would be moved to the rear, which he hoped would help mitigate the noise. Additionally, Mr. Caraway stated that the larger driveway would help reroute traffic so that trucks would not have to drive through town so frequently, and the new storage area would create a space for the equipment currently being stored outside.

Mr. Harms asked if Mr. Caraway could address Mr. Obery’s concerns about the wide driveway, and Mr. Caraway responded that the intention currently was to use this area for a driveway only. Mr. Caraway added that he could not envision any scenarios in which testing would be needed on the west side of the building. Mr. Harms asked what powers the generators during testing, and Mr. Caraway responded that he would defer to an employee at the facility to answer that question.

Brett Dean of 1407 River Birch Dr., Chillicothe, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Dean stated that he was the Director at Fibrebond. Mr. Dean responded that natural gas was used for powering testing for the generators. Mr. Harms asked if it would be cost prohibitive to run natural gas to the west side of the building for testing, and Mr. Dean stated that this was a valid point.

Susan Obery of 20724 N Sixth St., Edelstein, IL, was sworn in. Ms. Obery stated that she loved the plan for expansion; however, she added that she and her husband were cautious because the previous owner did testing without mufflers and it was very loud. Ms. Obery stated that she wanted to ensure mufflers would be used for testing.

Mr. Dean responded that he had worked for the prior owner and safety was not a concern for that particular owner. Mr. Dean stated that the previous owner decided not to use mufflers. Mr. Dean stated that under Fibrebond’s ownership, safety is the number one priority. Not only does using the muffler help with the noise for the residents, but it also helps to keep employees safe. Mr. Keyt asked how loud testing is when using a muffler, and Mr. Dean responded that it is generally somewhere between 75-85 decibels. Mr. Dean added that without the muffler, it was closer to 125 decibels. Mr. Dean was confident that moving testing to the back of the building would help decrease the noise for the Oberys.

Mr. Bailliez asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the case, and there was no comment. Mr. Unes made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).

The board took a break at 10:11 a.m. and reconvened at 10:21 a.m.

Case No. 022-18-V at 10:00 a.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Leah Allison, acting on behalf of The Lake Camelot Roundtable Association Inc. (owner), six Variance requests as follows: 1.) A Variance request from Section 20-7.7.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires each principal use on a parcel shall be provided with the number of off-street parking spaces indicated for that use in Table 7-3. The petitioner proposes a total of 60 parking spaces, resulting in a variance request of 55 parking spaces. 2.) Also, A Variance request from Section 20-7.6.5.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that the number of point that must be achieved through landscaping for all front yard be based on the over length of the lot frontage as measured along the front property line divided by 2. The petitioner proposes to decrease the point requirement along the front property line. 3). Also, a Variance request from Section 20-7.6.5.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that 1/2 the points for Front Yard Landscaping must be achieved by utilizing plants from the tree classification and 1/2 of the points must be from the shrub classification. The petitioner proposes to vary from the tree/shrub ratio. 4). Also, A Variance request from Section 20-7.6.7.5.a of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that the number of points that must be achieved through landscaping in a Transitional Buffer Yard (TBY) shall be based on the overall length of the TBY, as measured along the TBY property line. The petitioner proposes to decrease the point requirement along 5 TBY property lines. 5.) Also, a Variance request from Section 20-7.6.7.5.b of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that 1/2 of the points for TBY landscaping must be achieved by utilizing plants from the tree classification and 1/2 of the points must be from the shrub classification. The petitioner proposes to vary from the tree/shrub ratio along 5 TBY property lines. 6.) Also, a Variance request from Section 20-7.6.7.5.c of the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires that 1/2 of the total points for TBY landscaping must also be evergreen plantings. The petitioner proposes no evergreen plantings along 5 TBY property lines.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 1 objection on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on March 16, 2018 and The Limestone Independent News March 21, 2018. Limestone Township Planning Commission recommended approval of the landscaping requests and recommended denial of the parking request. The Limestone Road Commissioner and the Logan-Trivoli Fire District both had noted concerns. Corbin Bogle gave a brief presentation of the countywide map, aerial view of the property, surrounding zoning, and future land use plan designation (Rural & Environmental Corridor). The site plan and seven videos of the property were shown. The property is zoned C-2.

Mr. Unes asked if Mr. Bogle could show the parking areas in the video again, and one of the videos was replayed. Mr. Bogle clarified that there were currently 67 parking spaces and the request would be eliminating 7 of those space, for a total of 60 parking spaces.

Mr. Keyt stated that his firm represents Limestone Township, and although he did not feel that it would affect his decision, he would defer to the State’s Attorney for advice.

Leah Allison of 4324 S. Banbury Cove, Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Ms. Allison stated that she was a resident of Lake Camelot. Ms. Allison stated that the pool is the focal point of the neighborhood and a reason why many residents choose to live in the neighborhood. Ms. Allison stated that the 45-year-old pool was deteriorating and failed to open last year because the infrastructure was not sufficient enough to get clean water in the pool. The area currently has 67 parking spaces and serves the pool, a clubhouse, tennis courts, and a playground. Ms. Allison stated that many of the nearby residents choose to walk and bike to the pool in the summer, and so generally, parking availability is not a problem. During the process of fixing the pool, the Lake Camelot board was informed by Peoria County Planning & Zoning that any repair or replacement over 50% of the assessed value would require full compliance with parking and landscaping requirements. Due to the very low assessed value of the pool facility, the 50% threshold is quickly met through either repair or complete replacement.

Ms. Allison stated that the neighborhood is unique and that the granting of the variance would not alter the character of the locality because the landscaping and parking are existing and have not been altered in years. Ms. Allison stated that because the buildings were already in place, the landscaping had been designed to fit around the buildings. Additionally, the topography of the lot would prevent landscaping in certain areas that had steep slopes. Ms. Allison stated that in regards to impacting the safety, morals, and welfare of the community, all of the landscaping and parking had been in place for years and would not be changing. Additionally, Ms. Allison stated that in regards to property values, if the variance were not approved, it could potentially affect the pool project and thusly decrease property values due to the lack of a pool in the neighborhood. Ms. Allison stated that the request was the minimum adjustment necessary at the time of application; however, since the application was submitted, the Lake Camelot board had met with the Limestone Township Road Commissioner, the Limestone Township Planning Commission, and the Logan-Trivoli Fire Chief to discuss parking concerns. Ms. Allison stated that the board wanted to work with local officials to resolve any issues with the project. Ms. Allison stated that the board agreed with restricting parking to one side of the street and provide signage to that effect. Additionally, Ms. Allison stated that, if necessary, they would provide an overflow parking area north of the tennis courts, which would provide another 25 parking spaces. Another 5 parking spaces could be provided in the maintenance shed area as well. Ms. Allison stated that she consulted with parking professionals to help layout a plan, and due to existing constraints there was no way they could provide the required 115 parking spaces. The maximum number of parking spaces that could be provided was 90. Ms. Allison stated that they were considering using an alternative pavement material that would allow grass to grow in this green space, but also be suitable for parking cars on. Ms. Allison stated that there were 10 events throughout the year that created parking overflow issues – including, but not limited to: an Easter Egg Hunt, a Fourth of July celebration, and four home swim meets. Ms. Allison stated that most of these events are ones that the community gathers together to celebrate and that most of these events are not tied specifically to pool use.

Ms. Allison stated that, in regards to the landscaping, there was some landscaping that did currently exist. Ms. Allison added that landscaping planted along the lakeside would block the lake view. Additionally, some of the required landscaping would have to be placed in an area with an existing playground, which would hinder the enjoyment of that area. Ms. Allison restated that there are topography issues on some sides of the property as well, which would make planting difficult. The current landscaping request proposed to leave the landscaping as is. Ms. Allison then produced and distributed a petition with 282 neighbor signatures supporting the request.

Mr. Unes asked if parking was currently an issue during the 10 events that Ms. Allison had mentioned previously, and Ms. Allison responded that this was correct. Ms. Allison added that there had never been any issues with safety in the past; however, the Lake Camelot board was in support of limiting parking to one side of the street at the suggestion of the Fire Chief. Ms. Allison then handed out a revised site plan that included 90 parking spots.

Mr. Harms asked why the original request included a reduction of the number of parking spaces, and Ms. Allison responded that the design for the new pool would include an expanded area to the west which would remove the area for 6 existing parking spaces. Ms. Allison added that the new design for the pool had a larger footprint because it would be ADA and code compliant. Mr. Harms asked if this area was counted toward the revised 90 parking spaces, and Ms. Allison responded that the 90 parking spaces would come from the reduced number of 60 spaces in the current lot, another 25 in the green space north of the tennis courts, and 5 more in the maintenance shed area. Mr. Harms asked why the green space in the middle could not be converted into parking spaces as well, and Ms. Allison responded that they had been told that the underground water lies ran through this area. The area was considered, but they were advised that it should be left as is.

Mr. Happ asked if there would be parking enforcement to make sure that people were only parking on one side of the street during busy times, and Ms. Allison responded that Lake Camelot did not have personnel to enforce that issue. Mr. Bailliez asked Ms. Allison what position she holds in the neighborhood, and Ms. Allison responded that she used to be the Treasurer of the Round Table Association, but is now the acting President. Mr. Bailliez asked if Ms. Allison had any response to the Road Commissioner’s comments that parking should not be allowed on either side of the street, and Ms. Allison stated that for the majority of the year, the current number of parking spaces is adequate and that 90 parking spaces is more than adequate for the daily use of the pool and surrounding facilities. Ms. Allison stated that the Road Commissioner does an excellent job maintaining the roads; however, there is already an issue with parking on the road during certain events. Ms. Allison added that they had met with the Road Commissioner and although they were understanding of his concerns, they did not feel that there was any feasible solution to the concerns he raised. Ms. Allison further stated that by offering 90 parking spaces she felt that it would help alleviate some of the concern. Mr. Bailliez stated that although he understood the concern of having to dig up a parking lot to make repairs to drainage systems, he did not understand why the green space in the middle could not be used for more parking spaces. Ms. Allison stated that even if this area was utilized, she doubted the required 115 spaces would be achieved, so they were advised by the professionals to leave the area undisturbed. Mr. Harms asked if the neighbor adjacent to the proposed overflow parking area was in agreement for that area being an overflow parking area, and Ms. Allison responded that the area is already used for overflow parking and so the situation would not change much from the current situation; however, landscape screening would be offered as a buffer if the adjacent landowner would like that. Mr. Happ asked if parking on the street took place on a typical summer day when the pool might be busy, and Ms. Allison responded that parking on the street typically only took place during special events.

Mr. Harms stated that he had no problem with the landscaping portion of the request, and Mr. Happ agreed. Mr. Fletcher asked if the footprint of the pool area would be changing, and Ms. Allison responded that it would be increasing slightly, but the pool itself would remain in the same location. Mr. Fletcher asked if an engineering firm was helping with the plans for the pool, and Ms. Allison stated that they were working with an architect. Mr. Fletcher asked if there were any areas to the south that would be suitable for parking, and Ms. Allison stated that there were topography issues in that area. Mr. Fletcher asked how much the tennis courts were used, and Ms. Allison responded that she felt they were well used.

Mindy Leach of 7815 W. Thorngate Dr., Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Ms. Leach stated that she was objecting to the request and had signatures of objection to submit. Ms. Leach stated that approving the parking variance would increase the need for on street parking. Ms. Leach pointed out that reducing the number of parking spaces from 67 to 60 parking spaces was a 10% reduction. Ms. Leach also stated that the proposed size of the pool area and bathhouse had increased by 329%, with the proposed pool increasing in volume by 16%. Ms. Leach stated that the pool design could be edited to accommodate the existing 67 parking spaces. Ms. Leach stated that the current 67 parking spaces are not sufficient for the use of the area. Ms. Leach added that vehicles are already parking on the roadways on both sides, which affects emergency response time for the fire station located in the neighborhood. Additionally, Ms. Leach stated that the on-street parking reduces safety and visibility for pedestrians and drivers. Ms. Leach stated that she checked on the assessed value of the structure to determine how close the cost of the improvements came to the 50% threshold and discovered that the assessed value was $10. Ms. Leach stated that she felt the site should be assessed appropriately in order to determine the real assessed value. Ms. Leach stated that the community in Lake Camelot was not consulted about the addition of the parking area to the north of the tennis courts or by the maintenance shed, and so she was not prepared to comment on that change.

Mr. Harms stated that he felt increasing the parking from 67 to 90 parking spaces would at least improve the parking situation, although it may not be perfect. Mr. Harms asked if the residents of Lake Camelot would have a voice in approving the plans for the pool area by voting, and Ms. Leach responded that she hoped the Lake Camelot board would allow the residents to vote on the proposed project, but she was unsure that it would happen. Ms. Leach added that the neighborhood had not been given the opportunity to vote on the issue of the pool. Ms. Leach added that she was concerned that if the board approved the parking request it would be for the 60 parking spaces with no guarantee for the suggested 90 spaces. Mr. Harms stated that he would not approve the request without guarantee that the 90 spaces would be required. Ms. Urban clarified that if the request were to change for an amount of parking spaces closer to the number of required parking spaces, republication and resubmission of the application would not be necessary and the Zoning Board could vote on the case with the change. Mr. Happ asked if 90 parking spaces would satisfy Ms. Leach’s concerns about the number of parking spaces, and Ms. Leach responded that although 90 would be better than 60, it still would not be sufficient to solve the on-street parking problem.

Ms. Leach stated that her main concern with the landscaping variance was that the lack of additionally required landscaping would contribute to erosion issues and lack of buffering for adjacent residents. Ms. Leach stated that the lake community was already facing erosion issues on the hillsides and had applied for a grant to assist with this issue. Ms. Leach stated that the objectors would request that landscaping be required in its entirety. Mr. Harms asked Ms. Urban what the purpose of the landscaping requirement was, and Ms. Urban stated that the ordinance listed five goals of landscaping as follows: minimize conversion of green space into urban space, contribute to air purification and decrease storm water runoff, preserve unique identity of the environment, preserve existing trees, and to reduce erosion.

Mr. Unes asked if there was a possibility for the Round Table Association and the community to meet and reach an agreement if the case were deferred to a later date, and Ms. Leach stated that she hoped so. Ms. Leach then submitted the objections and her comments for the record.

Chris Carrier of 4416 S. Misty Isle Pt., Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Carrier stated that the problem all stemmed from the fact that the community was not consulted about whether or not they wanted to repair or replace the pool. Mr. Carrier stated that the Lake Camelot board decided to take it upon themselves to make that decision without consultation. Mr. Carrier stated that the current parking situation creates a problem during larger events because it is very difficult for traffic to get through. Mr. Carrier added that the edges of the roadways are already eroding and parking on the street would contribute to the problem.

Mr. Harms asked if the current conditions would improve if the board were to deny the request, and Mr. Carrier stated that it would not. Mr. Harms asked if the situation would improve if the Zoning Board voted to approve the request of 90 parking spaces, and Mr. Carrier responded that it would not. Mr. Carrier stated that the space to the north of the tennis courts is already being utilized for overflow parking, so it would not change anything. Mr. Harms stated that he was struggling to find a solution since the problem already existed and had for a long time. Mr. Carrier stated that on hot summer days when the pool is being used and there is a wedding or special event at the same time, the current parking lot is insufficient. Mr. Harms asked if Mr. Carrier’s main concern was that the community was not consulted about the pool project, and Mr. Carrier responded that this was correct. Mr. Carrier stated that he believed the parking lot should be left as is so that 7 parking spaces were not removed.

Bill Garrison of 19520 W. Gronewold Rd., Trivoli, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Garrison explained that he was a previous resident of the Lake Camelot neighborhood and currently has a tenant living in the house he still owns at Lake Camelot. Mr. Garrison stated that he had received a letter last year regarding the replacement of the pool, and so began reading through the neighborhood covenants to understand the process. Mr. Garrison stated that he learned that the pool was shut down by the Illinois Department of Public Health due to failing infrastructure. Mr. Garrison stated that he also learned that the board can make decisions without a vote in an emergency situation, which the board determined this situation to be; however, any upgrades or additional amenities added to the structure would have to go through a membership vote, which Mr. Garrison stated did not occur. Mr. Garrison stated that this is where the conflict began and that was when he hired his own attorney. Mr. Garrison stated that this separate issue would continue to be fought by Lake Camelot residents whether the variance was granted or not.

Lynette Smith of 9513 W. Lake Camelot Dr., Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Ms. Smith stated that she lived approximately 1 mile from the clubhouse and pool area. Ms. Smith added that she was married at the clubhouse in 2006 and there was not adequate parking at that time. Ms. Smith stated that the additional parking area being proposed by the tennis courts was already used for overflow parking and adding it to the plan would not change the current situation. Ms. Smith added that the pool would probably become more popular once it was replaced, which would only create more parking issues.

Mr. Harms asked if 6 less parking spots would make a significant difference in the parking situation since people were already parking a mile away from the clubhouse at busy times, and Ms. Smith stated that it would not necessarily, but she was concerned about everyday use and weekends.

Jeff Dunn of 9910 W. Buckhaven Ct., Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Dunn stated that, barring a few years, he had lived in the Lake Camelot neighborhood since 1986. Mr. Dunn stated that the opposition had nothing to do with the variance requests, but rather the pool replacement and how the situation was handled by the Lake Camelot Board. Mr. Dunn then explained the covenants of the Lake Camelot neighborhood and defined what constitutes an emergency. Mr. Dunn stated that there were several meetings to discuss the pool when the problem arose and the attendance was minimal. Mr. Dunn stated that the opposition came when the special assessment was applied and money was involved. Mr. Dunn added that the only times when parking is an issue is during the 9 special events during the year when there is a lot of car traffic. Mr. Dunn also noted that there are two ways to enter and exit the neighborhood, which are equidistant from the fire station.

Mr. Dunn stated that he believed it could be possible to meet the 115 parking space requirement, but that would probably mean taking out the playground or tennis courts, which would only add cost and lower the value of the area to the residents. Mr. Dunn stated that he had looked at a Google aerial image to determine any other potential parking locations and noted that the picture showed 18 cars in the parking lot on an afternoon in June. Mr. Dunn stated that even if the requirement was met, those 9 days when parking is currently an issue would still be an issue. Mr. Dunn added that as far as landscaping was concerned, more landscaping would block the view of the lake and hinder the enjoyment of the area.

Mr. Dunn concluded that the variance would not alter the essential character of the area, because the area would not be changing dramatically regardless of the number of parking spots and amount of landscaping. Mr. Dunn also concluded that the topography of the lot created a hardship for meeting the requirements and that the request would not change any health or safety issues because there was no major change to the existing situation. Mr. Dunn also stated that the supply of light and air would not be diminished. Additionally, Mr. Dunn stated that the congestion in the streets would not be impacted by the variance because the parking problems are existing. Mr. Dunn stated that he did not believe the original request of having 60 parking spots was the minimum adjustment necessary; however, he did believe that Ms. Allison had addressed this by proposing 90 parking spaces instead. Mr. Dunn added that if other green spaces were converted into parking, it would add additional cost to the neighborhood to fund the project and decrease the enjoyment of the area.

Mr. Dunn stated that as far as landscaping was concerned, the landscaping has been the same for years and was adequate for the purpose it serves. Mr. Dunn stated that when pieces of landscaping die, they are always replaced quickly. Mr. Dunn stated that he hoped the board would approve the request based on the fact that he felt the findings had been met.

Mr. Harms asked if the Round Table Association owned any other lots in the neighborhood, and Mr. Dunn responded that he was not aware of any vacant lots owned by the association. Mr. Dunn stated that he had only been on the board for approximately 3 weeks. Mr. Harms asked if moving the maintenance shed to make room for more parking spaces was an option, and Mr. Dunn stated that he was unsure that there would be space for the shed in another location. Mr. Harms stated that he did not agree with the way the issue of a pool repair had been handled by the neighborhood board. Mr. Dunn responded that there was a lot research and discussion to lead the board to the current solution and situation. Mr. Dunn added that the community would be asked to vote on issues regarding the pool on Sunday, April 15.

Evelyn Ryza of 4912 S. Sir Lionel Cove, Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Ms. Ryza stated that she is a member of the activity club and volunteers for many of the special events mentioned. Ms. Ryza pointed out that many of these activities only last for a few hours at most, and that for some of these events people come and go during the duration. Ms. Ryza stated that eliminating these special activities would be a great loss for the community. Ms. Ryza stated that she hoped the community could come together and be whole again.

Barry Irwin of 4728 Sir Lancelot Ct., Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Irwin stated that he had owned property in Lake Camelot since 1969, before the pool was even built. Mr. Irwin added that his children were on the swim team when they were younger and he had never experienced issues with parking, except on the 4th of July.

Shaun Howard of 9515 W. Buckingham Ct., Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Howard stated that he was also newly appointed to the Lake Camelot board in March. Mr. Howard stated that he had walked through the parking lot with the Township Road Commissioner and the township engineer. Mr. Howard stated that the township engineer was the one who had proposed the alternative paving surface for the area near the tennis courts. Mr. Howard then handed out some information on this alternative paving system. Mr. Howard reiterated that the on-street parking is only a problem a handful of times during the year.

John Hecker of 4029 S. Dunbar Pt., Mapleton, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Hecker stated that he had been the Executive Director of several park districts in Illinois, with the most recent being in Des Plaines. Mr. Hecker stated that he was in charge of numerous aquatic facilities during his time working with these park districts and noted that parking was always a challenge since the swimming season is so short in Illinois. Mr. Hecker stated that in several of these communities they ended up leasing the parking lots during the off season. Mr. Hecker stated that the issues with the pool would be put to a vote on Sunday.

Mr. Harms asked what the vote would entail, and Mr. Hecker responded that it would be whether or not people rejected or accepted the special assessment of $3200 for the pool and then also gave residents the option to choose upgrade options for the pool with prices for each item. Mr. Harms asked if the pool would be built as proposed if the community rejected it, and Mr. Hecker responded that he was unsure because he was not currently on the board. Mr. Hecker stated that he thought that if the community rejected the idea, other options would be explored.

Mr. Unes asked why this issue was not deferred to a later date after the community had voted on it, especially since it was clear that the pool would not be opening this summer. Ms. Allison clarified that a vote would be taking place on Sunday, April 15th, and that the community would be asked whether they accepted or rejected the basic pool plan and the bathhouse, and then would be able to choose upgrade options, if they desired. Ms. Allison added that if the basic pool plan were rejected, the board would then have to discuss other options because they were bound by the bylaws to provide a pool to the residents. Ms. Allison stated that they could always decide to repair the existing pool, but she felt this was a fiscally irresponsible option for the residents. Ms. Allison pointed out that whether or not they were replacing or repairing the pool, the variance for parking and landscaping would be required due to the low assessment of the facility. Additionally, she stated that 282 members had signed a petition consenting to the variance. Ms. Allison then pointed out that she felt the current landscaping met the 5 goals of landscaping that Ms. Urban listed earlier.

Mr. Harms stated that after listening to all the testimony, he discovered that there was one thing that everyone agreed on and that was that the parking situation would not change no matter what the outcome was. Mr. Harms stated that even if the 115 parking spaces were achieved, parking would still be an issue during special events. Mr. Harms encouraged the community to get together and discuss their issues and come to a solution. Additionally, Mr. Harms stated that he felt the request met the standards of approval for the variance and that he would be supporting the request.

Mr. Unes asked for an answer to his previous question about why this request could not wait until a final decision had been made by the community in regards to the pool, and Ms. Allison stated that the Lake Camelot Board was made aware of the landscaping and parking requirements earlier in the year and wanted to try and resolve this issue while other issues were being sorted out. Ms. Allison stated that many people are angry that there is no pool for a second year and so they wanted to keep making progress on the project. Ms. Allison pointed out that the pool would be repaired or replaced either way, so the variance would be necessary no matter what. Mr. Unes stated that he felt his question was not answered, but requested to move on.

Mr. Fletcher made a motion to close and deliberate and was seconded by Mr. Harms. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0). Mr. Bailliez explained that there would be two sets of findings for this case – one for parking and one for landscaping. Mr. Keyt stated that he would abstain from voting on the case as a personal preference due to the fact that the law firm he works for represents Limestone Township.

Findings Of Fact For Variances

Section 20-3.7.3

These findings were presented for the parking request.

1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

• The proposed new pool and bathhouse is to be located in the same location as the current facility. Section 20-7.7.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance concerns parking spaces, and the petition is requesting to reduce the number of parking spaces from 115 to 90 spaces.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• The character of the location will change with less parking.

• The lake boundary, the steep sloping hillsides, and the existing buildings leaves a small area for building the pool.

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 #3.

• The on-street parking could be a safety problem and could deteriorate the quality of the road, according to the Road Commissioner.

• See #5.

7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

• Parking on the street could be a safety issue along with road condition problems.

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 required 115 parking spaces will prevent Lake Camelot from replacing their pool facility. Adding 25 spaces from the green space will make the total number of parking spaces 90.

Mr. Harms made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (4-1) Mr. Unes voted no. Mr. Keyt abstained. Mr. Harms made a motion to approve the amended request to include 90 parking spaces and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed; (4-1) Mr. Unes voted no. Mr. Keyt abstained.

Findings Of Fact For Variances

Section 20-3.7.3

These findings were presented for the landscaping requests.

1. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

• The difference in the points required as compared to points requested are: Front yard: from 326 points to 119 points; Transitional Bufferyard: from 310 points to 0 points; South property line: from 335 points to 60 points; West property line: from 126 points to 45 points; Northwest property line: from 80 points to 0 points; North property line: from 154 points to 69 points.

2. That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

• The existing landscaping will leave the area visible to surroundings, such as the lake.

• See #2.

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 and #2.

• No change. The property will be left as is.

• No change.

7. That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

• See #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.

• No change.

Mr. Harms made a motion to approve the findings of fact and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (5-0) Mr. Keyt abstained. Mr. Happ made a motion to approve the request and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (5-0) Mr. Keyt abstained.

Case No. 023-18-U at 12:30 p.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Southwood Solar, LLC (A limited liability company, Geoff Fallon – agent, of 3250 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 355, Santa Monica, CA 90405), acting on behalf of Inoka Farms, LLC (owner), a Special Use request from Section 20-5.2.2.2.h of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use in the “A-2” Agriculture Zoning District for a Solar Energy Generation Facility, provided that the conditions in Section 7.17 (“Ground Mounted Solar Energy Equipment”), of these regulations are met.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 23 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on March 16, 2018 and The Weekly Post on March 22, 2018.

Matt Kauffman of 100 Main St., Tiskilwa, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Kauffman requested to continue the case to the May 9, 2018 hearing. Ms. Urban recommended a time of 1:00 p.m. Mr. Keyt made a motion to continue the case to May 9, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion was approved; (6-0)

Case No. 024-18-U at 12:30 p.m. Hearing to be held in room 403, of the Peoria County Courthouse, Peoria, Illinois.

Petition of Northwood Solar, LLC (A limited liability company, Geoff Fallon – agent, of 3250 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 355, Santa Monica, CA 90405), acting on behalf of Inoka Farms, LLC (owner), a Special Use request from Section 20-5.2.2.2.h of the Unified Development Ordinance. This section allows for a special use in the “A-2” Agriculture Zoning District for a Solar Energy Generation Facility, provided that the conditions in Section 7.17 (“Ground Mounted Solar Energy Equipment”), of these regulations are met.

Ms. Urban opened the case. There are 0 consents and 23 objections on file. The case was published in the Peoria Journal Star on March 16, 2018 and The Weekly Post on March 22, 2018.

Matt Kauffman of 100 Main St., Tiskilwa, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Kauffman requested to also continue this case to the May 9, 2018 hearing. Ms. Urban recommended a time of 1:00 p.m. as well. Mr. Keyt made a motion to continue the case to May 9, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion was approved; (6-0)

Miscellaneous:

No other questions or comments were made.

Mr. Keyt made a motion to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Fletcher. A vote was taken and the motion passed; (6-0).

Meeting adjourned 12:53 p.m.

http://www.peoriacounty.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04122018-502

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

Peoria County

!RECEIVE ALERTS

The next time we write about any of these orgs, we’ll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Sign-up

DONATE

Help support the Metric Media Foundation's mission to restore community based news.