City of Effingham Zoning Board of Appeals April 25.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Mumm
Kurt Buehnerkemper
Ken Wohltman
Mark Thies
Theresa Hillyer
Andy St. John
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carrie Crippen
OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy A. Willenborg, City Attorney
Luke Koester, City Engineer
Greg Koester, City Planner
Michael Tappendorf, Milano & Grunloh
Kim Gammon, Maninfior Court Reporting
Clayton Walden, Taylor Law Offices, P.C.
Mark Niemerg
Gregory L. Koester
Craig Wells
1. Quorum: The April 25, 2023 City Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Chairman Mike Mumm. A quorum was present.
2. Approval of March 28, 2023 Minutes: Board Member Ken Wohltman advised that the minutes should be amended, as follows:
a. The reference to “Vice-Chairman Mark Thies” in Item 1 should be amended to state “Chairman Mike Mumm”.
b. The phrase “property to the south is a wooded area” in the first paragraph on Page 3 of the Minutes should state “property to the north is a wooded area”.
c. The phrase “Petition for Variance-Solar Energy System Size” in the first paragraph of Item 4 (Page 4) of the Minutes should just state “Petition for Variance”.
On motion by Board Member Ken Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Theresa Hillyer, the minutes for the March 28, 2023 meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as amended.
3. Location: 510 W. Fayette Avenue, Effingham, Illinois
Requesting: Variance for Sign
Petitioner: Dieterich Bank
The Petition for Variance was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, Dieterich Bank. Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow the construction or replacement of a free standing sign setback fifteen (15) feet from the proposed street curb line on Fayette Avenue, which deviates from the required setback of twenty (20) feet, as provided in Article 24-7.A.(1)(a) of Appendix B the Municipal Code of Effingham.
Gregory L. Koester appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Dieterich Bank, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Koester testified that there is currently an existing sign on the Subject Property, but the Petitioner will have to remove the sign due to the widening of Fayette Avenue. The Petitioner is proposing to reconstruct a sign which will be four (4) feet narrower than the existing sign. Due to the location of the Petitioner’s parking infrastructure and a storm sewer, the area where the sign can be reconstructed is limited. In response to questioning by City Attorney Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that the foregoing issues constitute the hardships faced by Dieterich Bank and necessitate the need for the requested variance.
In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that Dieterich Bank retained Milano & Grunloh to complete a sight distance study due to the proximity of the proposed sign to Maple Street and the entrances to the parking lot for the Subject Property. The study was attached to the Petition for Variance and Mr. Koester requested that the study be made a part of the record. Mr. Koester testified that the study found that the location of the proposed sign does not negatively impact the sight distance.
In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that, in his opinion, the variance would not in any way be detrimental to the adjoining property or alter the character of the neighborhood.
In response to questioning Board Member Wohltman regarding the digital sign component to the sign, Mr. Koester confirmed that the digital sign was part of the existing sign and will be installed as part of the proposed new sign. Mr. Koester advised that they replaced the digital sign component about a year and a half ago, which was costly. The Petitioner would like to reuse the existing digital sign as part of the proposed replacement sign.
Craig Wells also appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Dieterich Bank to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Wells testified that the new expansion of Fayette Avenue requires the removal of the Petitioner’s existing sign. With the location of the underground drainage and the Petitioner’s parking infrastructure, the location of the proposed sign is really the only place the Petitioner has on the property to install the sign.
No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.
The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.
Board Member Thies stated that as long as the location of the sign does not negatively impact sight distance, then he does not have any concerns with the request and the Petitioner has sufficiently explained the hardships faced by the Petitioner. Board Member Buehnerkemper concurred with the statements made by Board Member Thies and also mentioned that the proposed replacement sign is also four (4) feet narrower than the existing sign.
On motion by Board Member Kurt Buehnerkemper, seconded by Board Member Andy St. John, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 6 to 0 vote, the variance as requested.
4. Location: 803 W. Evergreen Avenue, Effingham, Illinois
Requesting: Rear Yard Setback Variance in an R-2, Single-Family Residence District
Petitioners: James Schultz and Stephanie Christine Schultz
The Petition for Variance was filed by the owners of the Subject Property, James Schultz and Stephanie Christine Schultz. Petitioners are seeking a variance to allow the construction of a single-family residence on the Subject Property with a rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet, which is less than the minimum twenty-five (25) foot setback required in an R-2, Single-Family Residence District.
Mark Niemerg appeared on behalf of Petitioners, James Schultz and Stephanie Christine Schultz. Mr. Niemerg testified that the Petitioners are seeking for a reduction of the setback requirements from twenty-five (25) feet down to fifteen (15) feet. Mr. Niemerg testified that the Petitioners’ hardship is related to how busy traffic is on Evergreen Avenue. Mr. Niemerg testified that the location of the proposed structure and driveway could result in vehicles having to back up onto Evergreen Avenue. Mr. Niemerg testified that he understands that the property to the east of the Subject Property is also going to be redeveloped. Mr. Niemerg testified that the Petitioner is proposing to construct a new residence closer to the rear lot line to gain thirty-five (35) feet of setback on the front, to make it functional and safer for vehicles to get in and out of the property. Mr. Niemerg said the house on the lot behind the Subject Property is set at an angle so, in his opinion, the reduction of the setback on the Subject Property would not cause any harm to the lot behind the Subject Property. Mr. Niemerg testified that the location of the proposed residential structure would be in line with the front of the other new houses in the area and down the street. Additionally, Mr. Niemerg testified that allowing the house to be built further back would allow additional safety for getting out of the Subject Property and onto Evergreen Avenue. Mr. Niemerg testified that, in his opinion, it would not create any adverse effect.
In response to questioning by Board Member Thies, Mr. Niemerg confirmed that the Petitioners also own the house to the south of the Subject Property and do not have any objection to the requested variance.
City Attorney Willenborg advised the Board that the Petitioners attached a letter to the Petition advising that they, as owners of the lot to the South of the Subject Property, do not have an objection to the requested variance.
No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.
The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.
Chairman Mumm stated that due to the common ownership of the Subject Property and the lot to the south, he did not think there was an issue with the requested variance. Board Member Thies concurred.
Board Member Hillyer advised that she had additional questions regarding the alleged safety issues and requested an opportunity to reopen the public hearing to obtain additional information.
At the request of the Board, the public hearing was reopened.
Mark Niemerg reappeared at the request of the Board.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding the plan for access to the property, Mr. Niemerg advised that access will come off of Evergreen and will not come through the lot to the south of the Subject Property. Mr. Niemerg also testified that traffic is an issue because of the proximity of the stop sign to the Subject Property and the heavier traffic utilizing Evergreen Avenue from local development.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer asking if vehicles will back out of the driveway to access Evergreen Avenue, Mr. Niemerg confirmed that vehicles from the Subject Property, as well as from the new residential structure to be developed on the property to the east of the Subject property will have to back up onto Evergreen Avenue.
In response to questioning from City Attorney Willenborg regarding the configuration and layout of the proposed residential structure, Mr. Niemerg testified that the garage doors will face east. Mr. Niemerg testified that there isn’t really a front door, but the door that will be utilized to enter the residential structure will be on the east side of the property.
In response to questioning from City Attorney Willenborg whether vehicles from the property will back up to access Evergreen Avenue, Mr. Niemerg stated that unless they take up a large area on the east side to install a driveway to allow a turn-around, the vehicles from the Subject Property will be backing up onto Evergreen. Mr. Niemerg testified, however, that the additional front yard would give additional space for the vehicles to utilize in backing up onto Evergreen.
In response to questioning by Chairman Mumm whether the driveway will be angled enough to allow a three point turn to drive forward onto Evergreen Avenue, Mr. Niemerg stated that is what they are trying to accomplish, but they would like to not have to pave the whole lot.
Board Member Wohltman questioned statements in the Petition regarding concerns with the possibility of a future joint use pedestrian bike path and the addition of turn lanes or the widening of Evergreen Avenue and whether the widening of Evergreen is part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Niemerg testified that Milano & Grunloh assisted in the preparation of the Petition and he is unaware of the future plan.
In response to questioning by Board Member Wohltman regarding ownership of the Subject Property and the lot to the South, Mr. Niemerg confirmed that the Petitioners own both properties.
In response to questioning by Board Member Wohltman regarding whether the proposed residential home would be a supplemental type use home for the Petitioners, Mr. Niemerg testified that the residence will be used for living. In response to additional questioning by Board Member Wohltman regarding the location of the bedrooms in the home, Mr. Niemerg testified that the proposed structure is a story and a half and the bedrooms will be located upstairs.
In response to questioning by Board Member St. John regarding whether the proposed structure is a “spec home”, Mr. Niemerg testified that the proposed structure is not a spec home. The proposed structure will be permitted as a single-family residence and meets all square foot requirements.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding utilities, Mr. Niemerg testified that the proposed structure utilities will be independent of the property to the south.
Mr. Niemerg stated that due to the layout of Beckman, they cannot obtain access off of Beckman Avenue to serve the Subject Property.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding whether the mailbox will be off of Evergreen, Mr. Niemerg testified that it has to be because there is no other way to get to the property.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding whether the proposed structure and drive will impact utility easements, Mr. Niemerg testified that he did not believe there would be any impact to easements as the structure meets all other setback requirements.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding possible safety issues with the location of the fence to the west of the Subject Property and emergency access, Mr. Niemerg responded that the proposed structure meets the setback requirements on that side.
Mr. Niemerg testified that the proposed residential structure could be built to meet all setback requirements, but it would be better if there was more driveway room to accommodate backing out onto Evergreen Avenue. Mr. Niemerg further testified that placing the structure further back would allow the structure to be more in-line with how other newer homes along Evergreen Avenue have been placed.
In response to questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper regarding whether vehicles will back up onto Evergreen from the Subject Property, Mr. Niemerg said that it will occur unless they pave the whole lot. They do not want it to look like a parking lot, they want it to look like a residential house.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding whether the driveway will be rocked, Mr. Niemerg testified that the driveway will be paved.
City Attorney Willenborg advised the Board that the current regulations prohibit the use of rock for driveways.
In response to questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper regarding the greenspace area between Evergreen Avenue and the proposed house, Mr. Niemerg, with the assistance of Michael Tappendorf advised that the square foot area of the lot is 11,520 square feet. Mr. Niemerg testified that the house would take about ½ the square footage, but the drive will also take up area.
Board Member St. John questioned why the house cannot be placed to the north and a turn around be installed to allow easier access onto Evergreen. Mr. Niemerg said that the Petitioners prefer that the area in which they will be functioning not be twenty-five (25) feet from Evergreen.
In response to questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper regarding whether they would be allowed to install a dual entrance or circular drive, Mr. Niemerg understands that only one entrance is allowed under City regulations, and they would have to get a variance for a dual entrance or circular drive.
City Planner, Greg Koester, appeared to testify at the request of the Board.
In response to questioning by Board Member Thies regarding the City’s position and the safety concerns, Mr. Koester testified there are other driveways to the east of Maple Street that back up onto Evergreen Avenue. In his opinion, any time a vehicle can avoid or reduce backing out onto a busy street, like Evergreen Avenue, is safer for residents and motoring public.
In response to questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper regarding whether the Petitioner would be allowed to install a dual entrance, Mr. Koester testified that dual entrances are allowed if the lot has two hundred (200) feet of frontage, which this property does not, but there have been variances granted that allow dual entrances in other places for lots that are less than two hundred (200) feet. Mr. Koester stated that he does not know, without laying it out, whether a dual entrance is feasible with the Petitioners building plan. Mr. Koester added that it would also require a variance.
At the request of Board Member Hillyer, Mark Niemerg again reappeared to testify.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer whether the proposed structure would be considered oversized for the lot, Mr. Niemerg responded that the proposed structure is not any bigger than any other residence in the aera. The proposed structure is comparable to other homes in the area. Mr. Niemerg added that the house the Petitioner owns to the south is larger than the proposed structure on the Subject Property.
Board Member Wohltman questioned the positioning of the proposed structure with the doors facing to the east, rather than to the north.
The hearing was closed again and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.
Board Member Buehnerkemper stated that there are still concerns with vehicular traffic still backing up off the Subject Property onto Evergreen, which would not address the safety hardship identified by the Petitioners. This safety issue would not be eliminated if the variance were to be granted.
Board Member Hillyer expressed concerns with the layout and the garage and entrance facing to the east.
Chairman Mumm questioned whether the proposed driveway could be utilized for a three-point turn, which would allow vehicles to drive out onto Evergreen without backing up.
Several Board Members expressed a desire to see a picture of the proposed layout of the north wall of the proposed building.
Board Member St. John stated that the house should just be flipped around to face north, meet all setback requirements, and place a turn-around drive to allow vehicles to drive out onto Evergreen. Board Member St. John did not see any hardship. If a variance to the setback is granted and the house on the lot behind the Subject Property sells, then the proposed house will be 10 feet closer for no reason.
Board Members Hillyer and Buehnerkemper agreed that while the Petitioners own both the Subject Property and the lot to the south, this may not be forever.
Board Member St. John stated that Petitioners are just building a shed for their existing house.
Board Member Thies stated that if the variance would alleviate backing onto Evergreen, he would be agreeable. However, if the reduction in setback does not alleviate backing up onto Evergreen, this negates the hardship alleged by Petitioners.
Board Member Thies inquired whether a turn-around drive or changing the configuration of the house would address the safety concerns.
Board Member Buehnerkemper stated that a double-entry drive would address the safety concerns and he would rather consider a request for a variance for a double-entry drive than the request for a setback variance. The double-entry drive would alleviate the backing up onto Evergreen.
Board Member St. John again stated that if the house were turned to face north, they could install a driveway to run east to west to allow them to back out and go out straight onto Evergreen. Board Member Hillyer agreed.
Chairman Mumm would like to see the drive configured to allow a “T” out to turn on the drive to go straight onto Evergreen. If this is not the case, and vehicles will still be backing onto Evergreen, he does not think this will alleviate the safety hardship.
On motion by Board Member Theresa Hillyer, seconded by Board Member Andy St. John, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied, by a 6 to 0 vote, the variance as requested.
5. Discussion and Approval: Change Meeting Times:
Chairman Mumm inquired whether the Board wanted to change the meeting times. Some alternatives are to keep the meeting time at 6:00 P.M. or change the meeting time to start at either 5:00 P.M. or 5:30 P.M. A discussion was held by the Board, and the Board decided to wait to see whether the Plan Commission changes its meeting time before making a final decision.
6. Discussion Only: City Planner Greg Koester expressed concerns about being requested by the Board to provide opinions on variance requests. The City Staff should not be providing opinions on a particular aspect of a variance request. City Attorney Willenborg concurred. If the Board has more fact specific questions, or questions on applicable regulations, these types of questions would be more appropriate. The City’s interest is to require strict compliance of its regulations, so it might not be appropriate to request that City officials to opine on a particular variance request. City Attorney Willenborg stated, however, that the Board is not restricted from calling Greg, or any other City representative present at the meeting, to ask questions. City Attorney Willenborg also stated that they do not want to curtail the Board from asking questions.
A discussion occurred among the Board on what should be included in a petition, and what documentation should be included as part of a petition and/or presented to the Board. City Attorney Willenborg advised that the regulations set forth the requirements for a petition. If a petition meets the requirements of the regulations, the City is required to set the matter for hearing before the Board.
7. Public Comment: None
8. On motion by Board Member Ken Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Teresa Hillyer, the meeting was adjourned.
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/CRXQ7Q67F14A/$file/04-25-2023%20ZBOA%20Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up