PAXTON — The Paxton City Council unanimously approved increasing the number of available Class B and Class C liquor licenses in the city on Tuesday, Dec. 10, to accommodate the proposed redevelopment of the site of a shuttered car wash on the city’s southwest side by Interstate 57.
The availability of the additional liquor licenses — one more in each of the two classifications — was requested by Paxton Commercial Investment Group LLC, which plans to buy the former Paxton Auto Laundry & Lube Center property at 580 S. Cherry St. and build a gas station there with a “quick-serve” restaurant. The Class C liquor license, if awarded to the gas station once built, would allow it to have video gambling terminals and sell and serve alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, while the Class B license would allow for the sale of packaged liquor for offsite consumption.
The number of liquor licenses available in the city, by classification, now totals seven for Class B, nine for Class C, two for Class D, three for Class E, and one each for Classes CA, G and CD1/CD2.
From left, Aldermen Kristen Larson, Rob Pacey, Matt Greenburg, Justin Withers, Joe Reinhart, Deane Geiken and Eric Evans discuss business during the Paxton City Council’s monthly meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 10, at City Hall, 145 S. Market St.
Aldermen approved raising by one the number of available Class B and Class C licenses after hearing from Paxton Commercial Investment Group representative H.P. Patel of Champaign. Patel said that he and the group of investors needed “confirmation” that liquor licenses would be available before they would decide to make the investment of buying the car wash property, demolishing the existing building and constructing a new one.
While aldermen eventually agreed to add the additional licenses — voting unanimously to do so with Aldermen Kristen Larson abstaining and Rob Pacey voting present — there were some reservations expressed. Larson, for example, said she was concerned about alcohol being consumed at the gas station by customers who would then get on Interstate 57, driving intoxicated. Pacey said he was concerned about allowing more video gambling terminals in town, saying the issue “deserves further study.”
Pacey also expressed concerns about a lack of detailed plans for the redevelopment project. Before adding liquor licenses to accommodate the project, Pacey said he would prefer to first see plans regarding the gas station’s dimensions, lot coverage, setbacks, lighting, signage and fencing, for example. Pacey said it was his understanding that such details would be forthcoming after the council voted 4-3 last July, with Mayor Bill Ingold casting the deciding vote in the absence of two aldermen, to approve the rezoning of two grass lots immediately to the north of the car wash property — from residential to commercial zoning classification — to accommodate the project.
“I’d like to see diagrams and plans that you would submit to the planning commission,” Pacey told Patel. “I’d like to table it.”
Local property owner John Grove voiced a similar view.
“I would want to know how big it’s going to be, etc.,” Grove told aldermen. “There’s no diagram, no drawing. … It seems to me there’s a lot of questions here.”
Earlier in the meeting, Patel and Ingold noted that plans for the project have changed since July. The mayor said he met Friday with Paxton Commercial Investment Group representatives to discuss the alternative plan, which Patel briefly outlined to the council.
According to Patel, the new plan is to build a gas station only on the car wash lot — rather than building one on both that property and across the southernmost of the two lots immediately to the north of it. Due to space limitations, Patel noted that the gas station’s convenience store, which would include a quick-serve restaurant, would be smaller than the 7,000-square-foot building originally proposed, and the gas station would no longer include charging stations for electric vehicles as originally proposed.
The other two lots to the north — at 552 and 560 S. Cherry St. — would still be purchased and redeveloped by Paxton Commercial Investment Group, but for a different purpose, Patel said. All three lots involved are currently owned by Steve Elson.
“We have thought about several things (for utilizing those two other lots),” Patel said. “We haven’t come up with anything concrete, but we’re definitely going to utilize them for commercial (purposes), for sure.”
Patel said there were “a couple of obstacles” preventing the original plan from proceeding. Among them was the presence of utilities under the alleyway between the car wash lot and the two other lots, which would have required their relocation or modification.
“Quite frankly, what happened is when we looked at the utilities that are buried in that alley, (it was determined that it would be) very, very cost-prohibitive to go out there and try to move those things and put a liner in that eight-inch (sewer) main out there,” Ingold said. “I think, at this time, it’s not something that we, nor the group, wants to take on and do. So, they’ve scaled down the plans a little bit.”
One thing that has not changed, though, Patel said, is the developers’ willingness to work with the city and neighbors to make the project acceptable to all.
“Our concern with the neighbors has not changed,” Patel said, noting the development would abide by all ordinance regulations. “That portion of it hasn’t changed at all. … We want to work with the city. We don’t want to work against it. Plus, the neighbors, they will also be our neighbors, so we want to work with them. We want to be a part of the neighborhood. We want to invite them to our business.”
Despite the concerns expressed by Pacey and Larson, Alderman Mike Wilson said those issues were not relevant to the topic immediately before the council — whether to increase the number of liquor licenses available.
“We’re not debating who’s getting the liquor license. We’re not debating any sort of building that’s going to be opening at that site. We’re way ahead of ourselves, I think,” Wilson said. “This is a very introductory step that we have to have to say, ‘Hey, we are willing to work with a potential entity.’ I don’t want us to get too far ahead of ourselves. I guess the question here is, ‘Are we open to another liquor license in town or not?’ This isn’t designed to get into details on a potential gas station.”
“Well said,” Ingold replied.
Alderman Eric Evans then motioned to approve the proposal to increase the number of licenses.
“This doesn’t guarantee anybody’s going to get them,” Ingold noted after the unanimous vote.