City of Effingham Zoning Board of Appeals met August 28.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
Members Present: Dave Swingler
Rob Macklin
Libby Moeller
Kurt Buehnerkemper
Members Absent:
Gary Welton
Mark Thies
Mike Mumm
Others Present: Tracy A. Willenborg, City Attorney
Michelle Wilkins, Building Official
Greg Koester, City Subdivision Administrator
Dawn Schabbing, Effingham Daily News
Kim Gammon, Court Reporter
Stephen Martin
Tony Sandschaefer
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. Roll Call: The August 28, 2018, City Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was called to order at 6:00 p. m. by Chairman David Swingler, with a quorum being present.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2. Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 26, 2018: Board Member Macklin advised that Board Member Mumm’s last name was misspelled in two locations within the Minutes of the regular meeting of June 26, 2018. On motion by Kurt Buehnerkemper, seconded by Rob Macklin, the minutes for the June 26, 2018, meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as amended.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3. Public Hearing:
Location: 1801 W. Fayette Avenue, Effingham, Illinois
Requesting: Variance to allow two (2) existing Off-premises Development Complex Sign/Billboards
Petitioner: Effingham Event Center Corporation
The Petition for Variance was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, Effingham Event Center Corporation. Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow the continued use of two existing off-premises Development Complex Sign/Billboards, which exceeds the number of signs allowed per Article 24-7.C-(7), which are also on real estate which is not improved with a business permitted to have a Development Complex Sign per Article 24-7 C (8).
Stephen Martin appeared on behalf of Petitioner, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Martin testified that the two existing billboards, which are the subject of the Petition, were put on the property back when the Effingham Event Center building was constructed, in approximately 1998. Mr. Martin testified that the signs have generally been rented out since then. Mr. Martin advised that the two signs are located in an undevelopable corner of the Subject Property, and are also close to the City’s lift station. Mr. Martin testified that, in his opinion, the signs are a good fit for the area and provide a service to the community, by allowing advertising options for local businesses to attract vehicular traffic off of Fayette Avenue.
Based on questioning from City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, regarding the existing signs, Mr. Martin confirmed that the two signs were each 13 feet in height, and measured 160 square foot in area. In response to further questioning, Mr. Martin confirmed that the Petitioner is not seeking to increase the signage in any way, but to simply allow them to maintain the current signage. Mr. Martin further confirmed that, but for the variance, the Petitioner would not be able to maintain the two existing signs.
Based on questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper regarding the power pole currently located near the signage, Mr. Martin advised that there were no current plans to move the power pole, which is approximately 10 feet from the signs.
Based on questioning by Chairman Swingler regarding the lift station, Mr. Martin testified that the lift station does not just serve the Petitioner’s property, but rather is the City of Effingham’s lift station.
No one appeared in opposition to the Petition.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.
On motion by Libby Moeller, seconded by Kurt Buehnerkemper, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 4 to 0 vote, the variance as requested.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Public Hearing:
Location: 15421 E. State Hwy 33, Teutopolis, Illinois
Requesting: Variance to allow construction of an Off-premises Development Complex Sign/Billboard exceeding Maximum Area and Height
Petitioner: Sandschafer Electric Properties Inc.
The Petition for Variance was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, Sandschafer Electric Properties Inc. Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow the construction of an off-premises Development Complex Sign/Billboard, with an area over 300 feet, which is prohibited per Article 24-4.A, at a height of 32 feet, which exceeds the maximum height of 26 feet per Article 24-7.C. (3), with a square footage of 800 square feet, which exceeds the maximum area of 250 square feet per article 24-7.C.(4), on real estate which is not improved with a business permitted to have a Development Complex Sign per Article 24-7 C (8).
Tony Sandschafer appeared on behalf of Petitioner, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Sandschafer testified that the Petitioner is seeking to construct a billboard straight west of the existing commercial building located on the Subject Property. The proposed billboard would be located 50 feet from the adjacent highway, and approximately 150 feet from the existing commercial building. Per Mr. Sandschafer, while the acreage of the Subject Property totals approximately 6 acres, the portion of the Subject Property, which they propose to construct the billboard, is approximately 1 acre in size, and is currently farmed. Mr. Sandschafer testified that the Petitioner is not able to subdivide this portion of the Subject Property from the entire tract due to state prohibitions relative to access off the highway. More specifically, Mr. Sandschafer advised that the State does not allow access off the highway if the property is less than five acres, therefore, the Petitioner would be unable to subdivide this portion of the Subject Property from the whole tract, in order to develop the same with a different commercial use.
Mr. Sandschafer further testified that the proposed sign would be located approximately 610 feet from signs the Petitioner constructed last year on property located adjacent to the Subject Property. Mr. Sandschafer advised that the existing signage on the adjacent property is in high demand, and they have further demand for additional advertising space. He further testified that the proposed new signage, like the Petitioner’s existing signage, would be constructed out of steel. Mr. Sandschafer advised the Board that he was currently working with Tim Holste, the State sign manager, to apply and obtain the necessary state approval for the proposed signage.
In response to questions from Chairman Swingler regarding the type of signage being proposed, Mr. Sandschafer testified that they were not seeking to construct an electronic sign at this time, but rather the proposed signage would be a vinyl sign.
In response to questions from Board Member Buehnerkemper and City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, relative to specifics for the proposed signage, Mr. Sandschafer testified that the proposed signage would be two dual-sided signs on one pole, with a total square footage being 800 square feet.
No one appeared in opposition to the Petition.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.
Chairman Swingler requested that Greg Koester provide clarification of the variance being requested, and the total square footage requirements as contained within the sign regulations.
Chairman Swingler stated that he is not generally in favor of off-premise signs within the City of Effingham, and that the proposed signage has a lot of sign face.
Board Member Moeller suggested that she is a fan of signage, especially when it is done right.
Board Member Buehnerkemper concurred with Chairman Swingler, and advised that the proposed sign was large, and he further had concerns with the potential impact such a large sign would have on commercial businesses located near the Subject Property.
Board Member Welton concurred with Chairman Swingler’s sentiment regarding the large size of the proposed signage, and expressed concerns with allowing variances for additional off-premise signage within the City.
A motion was made by Board Member Macklin to deny the variance, but the motion died for a lack of a second.
A motion was made by Libby Moeller, and seconded by Dave Swingler, to approve the variance, but the approval, by a 1-3 vote, failed.
Board Member Macklin renewed his motion to deny the variance, which was seconded by Kurt Buenerkemper. The Zoning Board of Appeals thereafter denied, by a 3-1 vote, the variance as requested.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5. Public Comment: None
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
6. Adjourn: On motion by Libby Moeller, seconded by Kurt Buehnerkemper, the meeting was adjourned.
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/B5KH7U4729DA/$file/8.28.2018%20Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up