City of Effingham Plan Commission met April 10.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
1. Quorum and Approval of February 13, 2018 Minutes: The April 10, 2018, City Plan Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was present. On motion by Commissioner Moeller, seconded by Commissioner Vogel, the minutes for the February 13, 2018 meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.
2. Preliminary and Final Plat for Golden Fields Subdivision, First Addition, Effingham, Illinois:
Greg Koester, City Senior Civil Engineering Technician and Subdivision Administrator, presented the Preliminary and Final Plat for Golden Fields Subdivision, First Addition, and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat as presented, subject to the following:
1. Signature on the Preliminary Plat of the Engineer and Owner/Developer for the statement regarding drainage of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Koester further recommended approval of the Final Plat as presented, subject to the following:
1. Submission of the Certificate of Platting, mylar of the Final Plat, filing fee and recording fee;
2. Approval of the rezoning and PRD Site Plan Amendment;
3. Include a drainage easement statement in the Certificate of Platting that the Storm Sewer and Drainage Statements for Golden Fields Subdivision shall also apply to Golden Fields Subdivision, First Addition;
4. The Golden Fields Subdivision bonding for the completion or completion and acceptance of the water main, sanitary sewer, street, and drainage improvements will also be held for Golden Fields Subdivision, First Addition; and,
5. Revision of the storm sewer on the street plans to accommodate sump pump drain lines.
On motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Storm, the Preliminary and Final Plat for Golden Fields Subdivision, First Addition, was approved by a 9 to 0 vote, subject to compliance with the above-referenced items regarding the Preliminary and Final Plat.
3. Public Hearing on Petition to Rezone from Class R-1, Single-Family Residence District to Class R-2, Single-Family Residence District, 302 S. Granada Drive, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioner, JMVH Properties, LLC, by Heather M.D. Mumma:
Ms. Heather Mumma appeared on behalf of the Petitioner to testify in support of the Petition. The Petition requests the rezoning of the property at the corner of Granada Drive and Fayette Avenue from R-1, Single-Family Residence District, to R-2, Single-Residence District, to allow the placement of a 1300 to 1500 square foot modular home with attached garage on that property. Ms. Mumma brought with her renderings depicting examples of three different style of homes that she would either offer to retail customers that would want to place a modular home on the lot, or in the alternative, that she might build as a spec house on the lot. These renderings were made a part of the record. Ms. Mumma testified that she did not want the proposed modular home to be misrepresented as a trailer or manufactured home because a modular home is not titled or built on a steel base, but rather, the modular home would be built to state code, as well as building codes specific to the zip code in which it is built.
In response to questions from the Commissioners regarding the proposed home, Ms. Mumma advised that the reason to build a modular home versus a stick built home on the Subject Property is because her business sells modular homes, and she wants the public to know that modular homes are very nice and get away from the negative stigma associated with modular homes. Modular homes provide for more affordable housing options, which she believes is needed in the area. In response to further questions, she advised that she is the owner of two businesses, JMVH Properties, LLC, which is her real estate holding company, and B&B Homes on Route 45, which sells modular homes.
In response to questioning from Commissioner Staser whether she intends to rent the proposed modular home after it is constructed, Ms. Mumma testified that she has no intention to rent the home. She further testified that she has a couple of interested parties who may be interested in purchasing the home and land package together, and if the sale of the home and land package did not transpire, Ms. Mumma would put a spec modular home on the Subject Property and thereafter market the same for sale.
In response to questions from Commissioner Staser asking if this would be Ms. Mumma's first venture in spec homes, Ms. Mumma responded that it was not, that she had put up a spec house near Lake Sara, and it sold before she finished with the construction.
In response to additional questions from the Commissioners regarding the proposed home, Ms. Mumma advised that the modular home would be delivered to the property in two sections, with each section having dimensions of 14 to 15 foot wide, and 44 to 52 feet long, which did not include the proposed garage. Per Ms. Mumma, the garage would be site built. Furthermore, Ms. Mumma testified that the modular home would most likely be built on a 3 to 4 foot crawl space, however, if she had an interested buyer before the modular home was constructed, they could decide to place the modular home on a basement. In response to more questions regarding the proposed home, Ms. Mumma testified that the home would be built utilizing studded 2x4 boards, placed 16 inches apart, in the interior, 2x6 boards placed 16 inches apart, in the exterior, and 2x10 floor joists placed 16 inches apart.
In response to questions from Commissioner Meinhart regarding the differences between the proposed modular home to the existing homes in La Pasada Estates, Ms. Mumma testified that she did not know the values of the homes in La Pasada Estates. Ms. Mumma further mentioned that the Subject Property lies outside of La Pasada Estates and is not part of the same subdivision. In response to a question from Commissioner Meinhart regarding whether Ms. Mumma could incorporate features in the modular home to make it more comparable to homes in La Pasada Estates, Ms. Mumma responded that while a prospective purchaser could incorporate brick façade, the addition of other options is not something people can generally afford.
In response to further questions from Chairman Hayes regarding the differences between the proposed modular home to the existing homes in La Pasada Estates, Ms. Mumma testified that she was not familiar with the sizes of the existing homes in La Pasada Estates, but that she believed they varied and were anywhere between 1,400 to 7,000 square feet in size.
In response to a question from Commissioner Thies whether there were any other examples of modular homes located within the City, Ms. Mumma advised that there were a couple modular homes located near the landfill.
In response to a question from Commissioner Thies regarding how long the Subject Property had been listed for sale before the Petitioner purchased the same, Ms. Mumma responded that she believed it had been listed for sale for many years.
Gary Norris appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Norris advised the Commission they he owns the adjacent lot and residential home adjacent to the Subject Property. Mr. Norris generally testified that, in his opinion, a modular home is comparable to a manufactured home and trailer, and all the other homes in La Pasada Estates are stick built. Mr. Norris testified that the proposed development of the Subject Property would negatively impact the properties in La Pasada Estates. Mr. Norris further testified that the La Pasada Estates Subdivision had already been negatively impacted by the construction of Outer Belt West and the nearby truck stop.
In response to a question from Ms. Mumma regarding why Mr. Norris had not purchased the Subject Property, Mr. Norris responded that he has property all over Effingham, and the Subject Property was always considered a dead lot. Mr. Norris further testified that he previously purchased a portion of property previously considered part of the Subject Property in order to prevent the development of the Subject Property.
In response to a question from Ms. Mumma regarding why Mr. Norris felt the properties would be negatively impacted when appraisals she had determined the value of the Subject Property with a modular home would be around $150,000 to $175,000, Mr. Norris testified that he had no doubt the placement of a modular home on the Subject Property would drop the value of the properties of the whole subdivision. Mr. Norris further testified that he grew up in a trailer, and he isn't against trailers, but, in his opinion, there are other properties more appropriate for the development of modular homes. Mr. Norris testified that he has properties in Heartville and Dieterich that have modular homes around his properties, and those areas are more appropriate for the development of modular homes. Furthermore, Mr. Norris believed that if the City allowed a modular home to be placed on the Subject Property, it would create a precedent and allow modular homes to be placed in areas such as Park Hills. Additionally, Mr. Norris testified that if the City allowed the rezoning, the first thing he would do is go and ask for his property taxes to be cut in half, because of the negative impact the modular home would have on his property values.
In response to a question by Ms. Mumma relative to why Mr. Norris kept calling the proposed modular home a "trailer," Mr. Norris responded that he referred to it as a trailer because he considers a modular home a trailer.
In response to a question by Paul Gutman regarding whether a modular home on the Subject Property would create a higher property value than an empty lot, Mr. Norris responded that he did not know. In response to another question by Paul Gutman regarding whether Mr. Norris has ever visited Ms. Mumma's place of business and went through one of the modular homes, Mr. Norris advised he did not see a need to go through one of the modular homes because he is in the construction business and he knows what type of home Ms. Mumma is offering.
In response to a question from Commissioner Staser whether La Pasada Estate Subdivision had any restrictive covenants on the property, Mr. Norris advised that he was not aware of any restrictive covenants.
In response to questions from Chairman Hayes regarding the size and value of the homes to the west of Mr. Norris' house, Mr. Norris responded that there are several that are bigger than Mr. Norris' house, that the first three homes on the left were smaller in size, but that he was unaware of the exact size. Mr. Norris further advised that the home directly across the street from the Subject Property had a pool and a basement, and he would guess it was 2,500 square feet in size.
Ms. Heather Mumma reappeared and offered rebuttal testimony. Ms. Mumma testified that the Subject Property is not part of the La Pasada Estates Subdivision, the same subdivision where Mr. Willenborg and Mr. Norris live. Furthermore, in addressing any concern with the proposed square footage of the modular home, Ms. Mumma advised that due to the size of the Subject Property, a larger home than what she is proposing would not fit.
City Engineer, Jeremy Heuerman appeared and testified that the Subject Property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District and is currently vacant. Mr. Heuerman further testified that the property to the north of the Subject Property is zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, and is utilized as an agricultural field, with property further north being developed with Fayette Avenue and Joe's Truck Lube, the property to the south of the Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residence District, and developed with single-family homes, the property to the west of the Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District, and is a vacant lot, and the property directly east of the Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District, and developed with a buffering wall, with property further east being zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, and a vacant lot. In response to further questioning by Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Heuerman testified that the Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for low density residential development. Mr. Heuerman further testified that the Petition and proposed development is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
In response to questions from the public regarding the differences between the Subject Property and the other lots in La Pasada Estates, Mr. Heuerman testified that the only difference is the proximity and location near the interstate, and that the Subject Property was a corner lot, which might prevent someone from wanting to build on the Subject Property.
In response to questions from Commissioner Mienhart regarding the ability to place a modular home on the Subject Property, Mr. Heuerman testified that in order to the place a modular home on the Subject Property, the property would need to be rezoned to R-2, Single-Family Residence District, which is the only zoning district where a modular home is considered an allowable use. In response to additional questions from Commissioner Mienhart regarding areas zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District, within the City, Mr. Heuerman responded that there are many other areas zoned R-2 within the City, and that he believes there are other modular homes within the City, but that he is unaware of the specific locations.
In response to questions from Greg Sapp, as well as questions from the Commissioners, regarding differences between the R-1 and R-2 zoning classifications, Mr. Heuerman testified that the only type of real guidelines on the homes to be built within an R-1 zoning classification are the minimum square footage, setback requirements, and that the home must be stick-built, and that the guidelines within an R2 zoning classifications establishes minimum square footage, setbacks, that the home must be built on a foundation, but does also allow the placement of a relocatable home as an allowable use. Mr. Heuerman confirmed that modular homes are considered relocatable homes under the City's zoning regulations. In response to additional questions, Mr. Heuerman advised that a trailer or manufactured home, cannot be placed on property zoned R-2.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session.
Chairman Hayes advised the Commission that he received a phone call from someone who owned property in La Pasada Estates, who advised that they had no problem with the proposed development of a modular home on the Subject Property.
Commissioner Storm advised that he felt the development of the Subject Property with a modular home would be a good use for the lot and serve as a buffer between Fayette and Outer Belt West and the adjacent subdivision.
Commissioner Moeller concurred that she also believed the proposed development would be a good use for the lot.
Commissioner Vogel advised that she could see both sides, and can sympathize with the owners of properties within La Pasada Estates, but that she did not foresee anyone putting a $400,000 home on the Subject Property.
Commissioner Thies concurred that the size of the Subject Property was not comparable to the lots within La Pasada Estates, and a developer was not going to be able to put a 4,000 square foot home on the Subject Proeprty. Furthermore, Commissioner Thies advised that he did not find modular homes to be comparable to a mobile home, and feels like the proposed home would be of good quality, and advised that he feels the City is in need for all different types of housing.
Commissioner Meinhart advised that he had concerns with the size and quality of the proposed modular home compared to other homes in La Pasada Estates.
Commissioner Staser advised that while he would like to see more housing in the area, he believes that the original intent of La Pasada Estates being a subdivision of nicer homes is important.
After due consideration and the evidence presented, the Commissioners made the following findings and recommendations:
1. The Subject Property: The Subject Property is unimproved.
2. Existing Use Of The Property In The Area: The property to the north of the Subject Property is utilized as an open field, with property further north being developed with Fayette Avenue and Joe's Truck Lube. The property to the south of the Subject Property is developed with single-family homes. The property to the west of the Subject Property is a vacant lot. The property directly east of the Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District, with property further east being a vacant lot.
3. Present Zoning In The Area: The Subject Property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District. The property to the north is zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, the property to the south of the Subject properties to the south and west of the Subject Property are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District, the property directly east of the Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District, with property further east being zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District.
4. Trend Of Development In The Area: The development in the area has been more commercial,
5. Conformance With The Comprehensive Plan: The Petition is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, on motion by Commissioner Moeller and seconded by Commissioner Storm, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council grant the Petition to Rezone as presented to the Commission
4. Public Hearing on Petition to Rezone from Class B-5, Highway Commercial District to Class B-2, General Commercial District, northwest intersection of Outer Belt West and North Keller Drive, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioner, Hecht Property Limited Partnership #1:
Dylan Tarr appeared on behalf of the Petitioner to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Tarr advised the Commission that he is working with Heartland Dental on a potential project on the Subject Property. More specifically, they are proposing to rezone the Subject Property from B-5, Highway Commercial District, to B-2, General Commercial District, to develop the Subject Property with a dental clinic. Mr. Tarr further testified that Heartland Dental currently has a clinic located within its main corporate offices in Effingham, but that the clinic is outgrowing the space available within the corporate offices. Therefore, Mr. Tarr testified they would like to build the proposed dental clinic on the Subject Property, and transition the current clinic into the new location. Additionally, Mr. Tarr testified that the proposed building would be approximately 4,000 to 5,000 square feet in size.
No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.
City Engineer and Planner, Jeremy Heuerman appeared and testified that the Subject Property is currently zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District and is currently vacant. Mr. Heuerman further testified that the property to the north of the Subject Property is zoned B-2, General Commercial District and developed with Keller Drive and Ameren corporate offices, the property to the south of the Subject Property is zoned B5, Highway Commercial District, and developed with Outer Belt West and a vacant lot, the property to the west of the Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District and developed with single-family residential homes, and the property to the east of the Subject Property is zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, and developed with the intersection of Outer Belt West and Keller Drive and a Ford dealership. In response to further questioning by Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Heuerman testified that the Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for commercial development. Mr. Heuerman further testified that the Petition and proposed development is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
In response to a question from the public requesting the address of the Subject Property, Mr. Heuerman testified that a street address had not yet been assigned.
In response to questioning from Commissioner Storm inquiring about the difference between the B-5 and B-2 zoning classifications, Mr. Heuerman advised that the B-2, General Commercial District zoning classicization allows the development of offices and clinics, which are not an allowable use within a B-5, Highway Commercial District.
In response to questioning from Commissioner Staser requesting information on the anticipated square footage of the proposed clinic, Mr. Heuerman advised that the information regarding square footage, or other specifics of the proposed building, had not yet been discussed, but that the developer of the clinic would have to comply with the site plan requirements of the City. In response to a question from Commissioner Staser regarding the proposed location of ingress/egress from the Subject Property, Mr. Heuerman advised that it would most likely come from Outer Belt West, because he did not believe it was likely that IDOT would allow access off of Keller Drive. In response to a question from Commissioner Staser regarding any buffering between the adjacent residential property and the proposed clinic, Mr. Heuerman testified that there is a wooded area between the properties, however, buffering would be discussed as part of the site plan.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session.
The Commissioners concurred that they felt the proposed development of the dental clinic would be a great use of the Subject Property, and serve as a buffer between the existing residential and higher density commercial uses in the area.
After due consideration and the evidence presented, the Commissioners made the following findings and recommendations:
1. The Subject Property: The Subject Property is unimproved.
2. Existing Use Of The Property In The Area: The property to the north of the Subject Property is developed with Keller Drive and Ameren corporate offices. The property to the south of the Subject Property is developed with Outer Belt West and a vacant lot. The property to the west of the Subject Property is developed with single-family residential homes. The property to the east of the Subject Property is developed with the intersection Outer Belt West and Keller Drive and a Ford dealership.
3. Present Zoning In The Area: The Subject Property is currently zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District. The property to the north of the Subject property is zoned B-2, General Commercial District, the properties to the south and east of the Subject Property are zoned B-5, Highway Commercial District, and the property to the west of the Subject Property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence District.
4. Trend Of Development In The Area: The development in the area has been commercial.
5. Conformance With The Comprehensive Plan: The Petition is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, on motion by Commissioner Moeller and seconded by Commissioner Staser, by a 8 to 0 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council grant the Petition to Rezone as presented to the Commission.
5. Public Hearing on Petition to Rezone to Amend the Existing PRD, Public Hearinac. Planned Residential District, Golden Fields Subdivision, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioner, Golden Fields Development, LLC and D&A Farm Inc. a/k/a D and A Farms Inc.
Mr. Thomas Grunloh appeared, on behalf of Petitioners, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Grunloh testified that they, being the developers of the Subject Property, would like to change the lot sizes of certain lots contained within Golden Fields Subdivision. Per Mr. Grunloh, the original design of the subdivision was set up to put duplexes on certain lots, however, the developer is of the opinion that a better use for those lots would be single-family homes. Mr. Grunloh testified that the singlefamily homes would also serve as a better buffer between the existing single-family homes in the area around the Subject Property, and the apartments to be built on another area within the Subject Property. Furthermore, Mr. Grunloh advised that when attempting to market the proposed duplexes, they received negativity toward zero lot line homes. Therefore, they are requesting to alter and amend the proposed use on a portion of the Subject Property from two-family duplex dwellings to single-family residences.
In response to questioning from City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Grunloh further confirmed that the Petitioner was seeking to amend the site plan previously approved as part of the PRD zoning classification to alter and amend the proposed use of Lots 1 through 5 of Block 1 of Golden Fields Subdivision from two-family duplex dwellings to single-family residences, and was also seeking a reduction of the rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 22 feet, as well a reduction of the front yard setback from the required 25 feet to 23 feet.
In response to questions from Keith Stewart requesting clarification for the proposed change, Mr. Grunloh testified that the original site plan depicted five lots to be developed with duplexes, however, the developer would now like to amend the site plan to make eleven lots out of the same area, and develop the same with single-family homes. Furthermore, per Mr. Grunloh, the Petitioners feel it would be a better fit to develop single-family homes in that area.
In response to questions from Keith Stewart regarding whether the subdivision would still be completed in three phases, Mr. Grunloh confirmed that the long range plan was still to develop the entire subdivision in three phases.
In response to a question from Keith Stewart whether Golden Fields Subdivision was previously referred to as DJMDT Subdivision, Mr. Grunloh responded in the affirmative.
In response to questions from Commissioner Thies regarding the need for the setback reduction being requested, Mr. Grunloh testified that the reduction would give Tot owners more flexibility on the type and size of single-family home to construct on the lot because the lots are a little shallow.
In response to questions from Chairman Hayes and Commissioner Thies regarding what size of home could be constructed on the proposed lots, Mr. Grunloh responded that a 1,800 square foot house could be constructed on each lot. Furthermore, Mr. Grunloh testified that the building area on each lot was 36 x 72, and each lot measured 65 x 110.
Jeremy Heuerman, City Engineer, appeared and testified. In response to questions by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Heuerman testified that the area of the Subject Property, which is at issue with the proposed amendment, is currently zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District, with a PRD, Planned Residence District overlay, and is currently vacant. Furthermore, the properties directly east and south of the subject area are zoned Class R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District with a PRD, Planned Residence District overlay, with properties further east and south being zoned NU, NonUrban District, and used as agricultural fields. Mr. Heuerman further testified that the properties west of the subject area are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District, and developed with single-family homes. Mr. Heuerman also testified that the property directly north of the subject area is zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District, with a PRD, Planned Residence District overlay, and is currently vacant, with the properties further north being zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District, and being developed with single-family homes.
In response to additional questioning, Mr. Heuerman advised the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property to be developed as a planned unit district for commercial uses. Mr. Heuerman further testified that the justifications to deviate from the Comprehensive Plan, which existed when the subject Property was originally granted and rezoned with the PRD, Planned Residence District overlay, were still present and continued to justify a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan.
In response to additional questioning from the City Attorney, Mr. Heuerman clarified that the Petitioner was requesting to alter and amend the proposed use on a portion of the PRD property, being Lots 1 through 5 of Block 1 of Golden Fields Subdivision, from two-family duplex dwellings to single-family residences. Furthermore, in order to develop the proposed single-family residential structures on Lots 1 through 5, the Petitioner request to subdivide or replat Lots 1 through 5 into 11 lots, and amend the site plan accordingly. Additionally, in order to accommodate the desirous floor plans for the single-family residential structures, the Petitioner request to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 22 feet, as well as reduce the front yard setback from the required 25 feet to 23 feet.
No one appeared to oppose the Petition.
Commissioner Storm expressed that he believed the request to be acceptable and the request to change the use from duplex to single-family would be more in line with the desires of the neighboring properties, as was previously addressed at the prior public hearing.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session. After due consideration and the evidence presented, the Commissioners made the following findings and recommendations:
1. Subject Property: The Subject Property is presently vacant, but currently construction of utility service and the roadway are underway.
2. Existing Use Of The Property In The Area: The properties east and south of the subject area are used as agricultural fields, the properties west of the subject area are developed with single-family homes, the property directly north of the subject area is currently vacant, with properties further north being developed with single-family homes.
3. Present Zoning In The Area: The area of the Subject Property, which is at issue with the proposed amendment, is currently zoned R-2, SingleFamily Residence District, with a PRD, Planned Residence District overlay. The properties directly east and south of the subject area are zoned Class R3D, Multiple Dwelling District, with a PRD, Planned Residence District overlay, with properties further east and south being zoned NU, Non-Urban District. The properties west of the subject area are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District, and developed with single-family homes. The property directly north of the subject area is zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District, with a PRD, Planned Residence District overlay, with the properties further north being zoned R-1, Single-Family Residence District.
4. Trend Of Development In The Area: The trend in the area has been both residential and commercial in character.
5. Conformance With The Zoning Regulations And Comprehensive Plan: Although the Site Plan and Petition are not necessarily in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, several factors are present which justify a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan, as previously discussed during the prior public hearing regarding the Subject Property. These factors include, but are not limited to, the fact that the proposed development of the Subject Property is actually a lower density type of development than a planned unit district for commercial uses. Furthermore, the area requires a type of transitional zoning, as is being proposed by the Petitioner, to serve as a buffer between the surrounding residential and commercial uses.
Therefore, on motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Vogel, and by a 8 to 0 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council grant the Petition to Rezone, to amend the existing PRD, Planned Residential District zoning designation, as presented to the Commission.
6. Public Hearing on Text Amendment to Amend Paragraph (5) of Article 26 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham, Commercial recreational, amusement, or campground development in a B-2, General Commercial District:
City Engineer, Jeremy Heuerman, appeared to testify in support of the proposed Text Amendment. Mr. Heuerman testified that the Text Amendment amends paragraph 5 of Article 26 of the Zoning regulations. Per Mr. Heuerman, the current language contained within paragraph 5 of Article 26 is vague, and simply provides "Commercial, recreational or amusement development for temporary or seasonal periods." Mr. Heuerman testified that the City has recently been approached by people in the community inquiring about the ability to develop something along the lines of what is allowable under the language contained in the paragraph 5 of Article 26 of the Zoning regulations. The City, however, wants to ensure orderly development of these types of businesses and further wants to tighten some of the requirements imposed on the same. Therefore, the City is proposing to do so with the proposed Text Amendment. More specifically, Mr. Heuerman testified, the proposed Text Amendment would allow a commercial recreational, amusement, or campground development, only within a B-2, General Commercial District. Additionally, the Text Amendment provides that, before permitting a commercial recreational, amusement or campground development, the City Council shall satisfy itself that the commercial recreational, amusement or campground development will not be injurious to the use of other property in the immediate vicinity, that property values will not be substantially impaired, and that the commercial recreational, amusement or campground development will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties. Mr. Heuerman thereafter provided a synopsis of the additional requirements a commercial recreational, amusement or campground development would have to meet before being granted a special use permit. Mr. Heuerman clarified, by testifying, that the additional requirements are just the base requirements and the Plan Commission and/or City Council could impose additional conditions to the special use permit. In synopsis, the base requirements, are as follows:
(a) The developer would be required to submit a site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article 27 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham, Illinois, as part of the petition for a special use permit;
(b) On any day when transient guests will spend the night on the property, an on-site manager or employee shall be required to spend the night on the property, which is in line with what is required of hotels and bed and breakfast establishments within the City;
(c) Public restrooms and showers must be provided onsite, which shall comply with all applicable code requirements of the City of Effingham, Illinois;
(d) A storm shelter must be provided on-site and constructed to the current building codes of the City of Effingham;
(e) Any events, if either live music or entertainment by a disc jockey is being offered by the business or displayed by transient guests, shall end by 10:00 p.m.;
(f) Any commercial recreational, amusement, or campground development must be located a minimum of 100 feet from any residential district;
(g) All open burning and fires shall be regulated by the International Fire Code, as adopted by the City;
(h) A permit from the Illinois Department of Public Health under the Campground Licensing and Recreational Area Act is required and must be submitted to the Building Official before a building permit is issued; and,
(i) An automatic revocation of this Special Use Permit will occur if the Illinois Department of Public Health Permit issued under the Campground Licensing and Recreational Area Act is revoked.
In response to questions from Keith Stewart regarding the reason for the proposed Text Amendment, Mr. Heuerman confirmed that the current language within paragraph 5 of Article 26 of the Zoning regulations is just one sentence, and is very vague, and the City would like to propose to tighten up certain restrictions on these types of establishments.
In response to a question from Keith Stewart regarding whether any existing establishments within the City would be "grandfathered", Mr. Heuerman testified that the City does not grandfather" anything within zoning, but rather any existing establishments would be considered allowable non-conforming uses, as provided for within the zoning regulations. In the event these existing establishments, however, would ever make certain improvements or change, they would at that time have to come into compliance with the restrictions contained within the zoning regulations at the time said improvements and/or change were made.
In response to questioning from Commissioner Storm relative to any additional reasons why the City is looking to revise paragraph 5 of Article 26 of the Zoning regulations, as proposed by the Text Amendment, Mr. Heuerman testified that the City had been approached by a developer relative to a similar type of use and the City wanted to get ahead of any possible issues and amend the special use so that the developer would know ahead of time what requirements would need to be met.
In response to questioning from Commissioner Storm regarding whether the existing campground would be affected by the Text Amendment, Mr. Heuerman responded that Camp Lakewood would not currently be directly affected, it would only be affected in the event the owners of Camp Lakewood would seek to alter, improve, or change the existing campground, that they would then have to come into compliance with the additional requirements contained within the proposed language of the Text Amendment.
In response to questions from Commissioner Thies regarding whether certain special events or large concerts would be impacted by the Text Amendment, Mr. Heuerman, as well as City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, confirmed that a commercial recreational, amusement, or campground development would not be allowed to operate within the City unless, and until, they obtained a special use permit under Paragraph 5 of Article 26 of the zoning regulations.
In response to questions from Commissioner Staser requesting the basis for deciding on a 100 foot distance between a commercial recreational, amusement, or campground development and residential properties, Mr. Heuerman testified that the City wanted to ensure a good buffer between these uses and residential areas. Mr. Heuerman further testified that the 100 foot requirement can be extended, and additional conditions imposed, if the Plan Commission or City Council deemed necessary, as part of a special use permit authorizing a commercial recreational, amusement, or campground development. In response to questions from City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, regarding the distance requirement, Mr. Heuerman confirmed that the 100 foot buffer is consistent with other regulations contained within the City's zoning regulations.
No one appeared in opposition to the proposed Text Amendment.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session.
After due consideration and the evidence presented, on motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Staser, by a 8 to 0 vote, the Commission recommended that the City Council affirm and enact the Text Amendment as presented.
7. Public Hearing on Text Amendment to Amend Article 27 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham, Drainage Studies:
City Engineer, Jeremy Heuerman, appeared to testify in support of the proposed Text Amendment. Mr. Heuerman testified that he has been wanting to address the drainage study matter for quite a while, due to issues the City runs into when a developer wants to make certain improvements to their property and these improvements can impact drainage within and outside the property, but said improvements do not require the developer to comply with the site plan requirements as contained within the zoning regulations, As an example, Mr. Heuerman testified that a company recently purchased the Stevens Industries building and are proposing to construct a large parking lot with over an acre of concrete in an area that used to be utilized as agricultural fields. Per Mr. Heuerman, the proposed parking lot would have a substantial impact on drainage, however, technically, under the existing zoning regulations, the developer would not be required to provide drainage studies and/or include additional detention requirements, as a condition of making the parking lot improvements to their property. The City, therefore, is seeking to address these issues with the proposed Text Amendment. Mr. Heuerman provided, in detail, an explanation of the proposed requirements contained within the Text Amendment. Mr. Heuerman testified, under the Text Amendment, in the event a full site plan is not required pursuant to Section 27 of the zoning regulations, however, a significant change to the landscape from pervious to impervious material would occur as a result of the proposed development of an industrial, commercial, or multi-family dwelling a drainage study shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved, and thereafter any detention requirements as a result of the drainage study must be incorporated into the site requirements before a building permit is issued. Mr. Heuerman further testified, that pursuant to the Text Amendment, a "Significant Change", is defined as a change of 5,000 square feet or more, or when deemed necessary by the City Engineer, or his/her designee, in his or her sole discretion. Additionally, Mr. Heuerman testified there were nine (9) minimum requirements, which were currently common as far City standards and practices, associated with a drainage study, as contained within the Text Amendment. These minimum requirements include:
(a)Drainage studies are for industrial, commercial or multi-family dwellings only;
(b)Plan sheet, drawn to scale, showing existing and proposed conditions;
(c)A calculation showing existing and proposed flows by utilizing the rational method or other similar approved methods;
(d)Calculations will be made for a 10-year and 100-year storm event;
(e)Drainage calculations must show the entire parcel and take into account any recent pavement that has been constructed without detention within the last 10 years. Per Mr. Heuerman, the City is including this 10 year look-back language to ensure issues do not result from extended redevelopment of a property;
(f)Detention or Retention will be required if the difference between the existing flows and the proposed flows are greater than 1.0 cubic feet per second (CFS) or if more than 500 cubic yards of storage is required;
(g)If detention is deemed a requirement, further documentation and calculations on the volume of storage required to detain a 100-year storm with elevations is required;
(h)Drainage study must be signed by a registered professional engineer;
(i)Drainage studies will be reviewed and filed for record by the City Engineer;
(j)Statement within the drainage study acknowledged and signed by the owner that the drainage retention/detention facilities, if required, will be constructed according to the drainage study and will be maintained in good working order. Per Mr. Heuerman, the City wants to ensure, through this executed statement, that a developer understands, in writing, what requirements they must fulfill.
Mr. Heuerman advised the Commission that, in the instances where a development does not require a site plan, the City's current practices require developers to submit drainage studies as part of a development or redevelopment of property, however, the City wants to make sure they "have some teeth" in case the practice is challenged. Furthermore, the City feels a drainage study is necessary if a significant change" is made to not only protect a developer's property from drainage issues, but so as to ensure not to hurt neighboring properties.
In response to questions from Keith Stewart regarding the City's current requirements relative to drainage studies, Mr. Heuerman clarified that the current regulations do not legally bind developers to submit drainage studies when they are making certain improvements which do not require a site plan. In response to additional questions from Keith Stewart, Mr. Heuerman testified that the biggest issue the City has currently with improvements that do not require site plans, but impact drainage, is when a property owner buys a lot next to a building and improves the lot with a parking lot. Per Mr. Heuerman, this additional concrete significantly impacts drainage. Per Mr. Heuerman, developers within the City, are currently providing drainage studies, outside of site plan regulations, by a verbal arrangement consistent with the practices and standards of the City.
In response to a question from Commissioner Storm requesting that Mr. Heuerman provide an example when the City Engineer might, in his or her discretion, deem it necessary for a drainage study when an improvement under 5,000 square feet is made, Mr. Heuerman responded that the City gets a lot of developers that seek to come into the City and construct a 4,995 square foot building in order to not have to comply with the City site plan requirements.
In response to questions from Commissioner Macklin regarding whether a developer would be required to obtain a building permit for a parking lot expansion, Mr. Heuerman testified that the developer would not be required to obtain a building permit for a parking lot, however, the building permit language was included within the proposed Text Amendment to put a developer on notice that a building permit would not be issued before compliance with the drainage study requirements.
In response to questions from Commissioner Staser regarding what research and/or information Mr. Heuerman looked at in coming up with the proposed language included within the proposed Text Amendment, Mr. Heuerman testified that he considered not only the City's current practices, but also the best industry practices associated with drainage issues, as well as what standards are being imposed by other communities comparable to Effingham, including Champaign, Mattoon, and Mt. Vernon.
No one appeared in opposition to the Petition and/or proposed Text Amendment.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session.
After due consideration and the evidence presented, on motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Vogel, by a 8 to 0 vote, the Commission recommended that the City Council affirm and enact the Text Amendment as presented.
8. Public Comment: None.
9. On motion by Commissioner Moeller, seconded by Commissioner Macklin, the meeting was adjourned.
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/AYDGSV4542C7/$file/4.10.18%20Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up