City of Effingham Plan Commission met May 9.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Hayes
Dave Storm
Mark Thies
Cindy Vogel
Theresa Hillyer
Ken Wohltman
Michael McHugh
Kevin Gouchenouer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Spruell
OTHERS PRESENT: Clayton Walden, Assistant City Attorney
Gregory Koester, City Planner
Michael Tappendorf, Milano & Grunloh
Kim Gammon, Maninfior Court Reporting
1. Quorum: The May 9, 2023, City Plan Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. A quorum was present.
2. Introduction of Commissioner Kevin Gouchenouer: Chairman Hayes introduced Mr. Gouchenouer and welcomed him to the Plan Commission.
3. Appointment of Chairman and Vice Chairman: On motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Wohltman, Commissioner Hayes was appointed as Chairman by unanimous vote, for a one-year term and until his successor is appointed and qualified. On motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Wohltman, Commissioner Storm was appointed as Vice Chairman by unanimous vote, for a one-year term and until his successor is appointed and qualified.
4. Approval of April 11, 2023 Minutes: On motion by Commissioner Hillyer, seconded by Commissioner Storm, the minutes for the April 11, 2023 meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.
5. Site Plan for Cherry Street Apartments, 711 S. Cherry Street, Effingham, Illinois:
Gregory Koester, City Planner, presented the Site Plan for Cherry Street Apartments, and recommended approval of the Site Plan, as presented, subject to the following:
1. Approval of Vacation of Portion of Cherry Street and Portion of an Alley to west of site by City Council;
2. Signature of Owner and Engineer’s signature and seal on the Site Plan;
3. Approval of Storm Water Detention by City Engineer; and,
4. Compliance with any additional comments or requirements of City Engineer.
On motion by Commissioner McHugh, seconded by Commissioner Vogel, the Site Plan for Cherry Street Apartments was approved by an 8 to 0 vote, as presented, subject to compliance with the above-referenced items regarding the Site Plan.
6. Public hearing on Petition to Vacate Portion of Cherry Street and Portion of an Alley, filed by Petitioners, K&A Land Development, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Ameren Illinois, Taylor Nathan, and David A. Katt, Jr. and Trisha L. Katt:
Gregory Koester, City Planner, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Koester testified that K&A Land Development, LLC owns a parcel of property lying between the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley sought to be vacated. Petitioner, K&A Land Development, is proposing to make improvements on that property, including parking improvements, which would be adjacent to the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley. Mr. Koester advised the Commissioners that the Subject Alley is not currently improved, but K&A Land Development, LLC would like to make improvements to the property which would include parking lot improvements on and adjacent to both the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley and improve the Subject Alley for access to the proposed parking adjacent to the Subject Alley
Mr. Koester further advised, that while the Subject Alley is not utilized for access by Petitioners, Taylor Nathan, and David A. Katt, Jr. and Trisha L. Katt, who own the properties on the west side of the Subject Alley, Petitioner, K&A Land Development, LLC and Petitioners, Taylor Nathan, and David A. Katt, Jr. and Trisha L. Katt, have agreed to enter into an Ingress/Egress Easement Agreement or similar agreement for the joint use and maintenance to the improvements sought to be made over the Subject Alley, if vacated. Mr. Koester advised that this agreement has not yet been formalized.
Mr. Koester further advised, that while the Subject Portion of Cherry Street is not utilized for access by Petitioner, Ameren Illinois, who owns the property on the east side of the Subject Portion of Cherry Street, Petitioners, K&A Land Development, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company and Ameren Illinois, have already entered into an Ingress/Egress and Maintenance Easement Agreement for the joint use and maintenance to the improvements over the Subject Portion of Cherry Street, if vacated.
Additionally, Mr. Koester testified that since the Petitioner, K&A Land Development is proposing to make improvements over the Subject Alley and Subject Portion of Cherry Street, the vacation of the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley would be beneficial to the City, because the City would no longer be required to improve and/or maintain that portion of the Subject Alley and the Subject Portion of Cherry Street. The Petitioner, K&A Land Development would be responsible for all improvements and/or maintenance of those improvements.
Mr. Koester testified that no person would be deprived of access to public streets, access to property, or utilities, as a result of the proposed vacation of either the Subject Alley or the Subject Portion of Cherry Street given the agreements either already entered or to be entered amongst the Petitioners.
Additionally, Mr. Koester testified there are utilities within the Subject Alley and the Subject Portion of Cherry Street, and the City would request an easement be reserved for utilities within both the Subject Alley and the Subject Portion of Cherry Street, if they are to be vacated.
Mr. Koester testified that because of the way the properties around the Subject Alley and Subject Portion of Cherry Street were all platted, as part of Robe’s Subdivision, and both the alley and Cherry Street being dedicated as part of said subdivision, each adjacent property owner would get ½ the alley or the street, as it connects to their respective properties.
Mr. Koester advised that City Staff would ask that if the Plan Commission recommends the Subject Alley and Subject Portion of Cherry Street to be vacated, that the vacation be subject to reservation of an utility easement for the utilities, and further be subject to parties all provide Ingress/Egress Agreements to the City before the City will record any ordinance to vacate.
In response to questioning from Assistant City Attorney, Clayton Walden, Mr. Koester confirmed that no person would be deprived of access to public streets, access to property, or utilities, as a result of the proposed vacation. The Petitioners will be responsible for maintaining the vacated alley and street, if vacated.
In response to additional questioning from Assistant City Attorney Walden, Mr. Koester confirmed the public would be served by the vacation of the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley. Mr. Koester further confirmed that, if vacated, the City would be relieved of maintaining the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and Subject Alley.
In response to questioning from Assistant City Attorney Walden, Mr. Koester stated that, if the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and Subject Alley are vacated, the Petitioners would be the owners of that portion of the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and Subject Alley lying adjacent to their properties.
In response to questioning from the public regarding whether the alley would be widened for additional traffic, Mr. Koester identified the improvements to the alley being proposed by Petitioner, K&A Land Development. The portion of the alley being requested to be vacated is currently unimproved and the Petitioner, K&A Land Development, is proposing to improvements to the allow, which would alley access to the Petitioners’ properties that are adjacent to that portion of the alley.
In response to questioning by the public regarding the number of proposed residents to the apartments being proposed to be constructed by K&A Land Development, Mr. Koester advised that those types of questions could be answered by the representative of Petitioner, K&A Land Development.
Kevin Koester appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, K&A Land Development, LLC. Mr. Koester testified that the Petitioner, K&A Land Development, is seeking the vacation of a portion of Cherry Street and the unimproved portion of the alleyway to the west of Cherry Street. Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Alley, while unimproved, can provide access to the Petitioners. Mr. Koester stated that, if vacated, the alley will still be a dead end alley, and maintained as a dead end.
Mr. Koester advised that the reason for vacating the Subject Alley and Subject Portion of Cherry Street is because the City does not want traffic/parking to back out onto streets and alleys. Mr. Koester testified that while his existing apartments, north of the Subject Alley, back up onto the alleyway, those are “grandfathered”. Mr. Koester advised that the City is seeking to prevent any further backing up onto streets and alleys.
Mr. Koester testified that, if the Subject Alley and Subject Portion of Cherry Street are vacated, he will be responsible for the upgrades to those vacated areas and will be responsible for maintaining the areas.
Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Alley currently sits in water, at times, and is also covered with trees and other vegetation. Mr. Koester testified that the drainage to the area is not very good. Mr. Koester testified that most of the properties in the area drain toward Cherry Street. The City has already cut a new culvert into Cherry Street to attempt to alleviate some drainage issues on Cherry Street. Mr. Koester testified that he has been working with Milano & Grunloh Engineers to devise a site plan to take care of retention of water, and also allow drainage to take some water away from Cherry Street. Mr. Koester also advised that they will utilize retention pond areas, being rocked areas, to also assist in addressing drainage issues. Mr. Koester stated that the desire to correct drainage issues is an additional reason why the City would like to vacate the Subject Alley and Subject Portion of Cherry Street.
Mr. Koester testified that his goal is to clean up the area to make it nicer. Mr. Koester advised that there is an old house on his property located between the Subject Alley and Subject Portion of Cherry Street. He intends to demolish the house and redevelop his property with something better (an apartment complex).
Ms. Ensign, a member of the public, addressed concerns with flooding and drainage problems in the area. Mr. Koester responded that he understands the concerns and he hopes the improvements they make, including the installation of culverts, will address those issues. Mr. Koester advised that these improvements cannot necessarily address already existing drainage issues, but he hopes to make issues better.
In response to questioning by Assistant City Attorney Walden, Mr. Koester testified that he believes the public would be served by the vacation of the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley requested to be vacated, that the City would be relieved from the burden of maintaining the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley, that the Petitioners will become the respective owners of the real estate underlying those portions of Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley upon vacation, and no person will be deprived of access to public streets or access to property as a result of the proposed vacation.
In response to additional questioning by Assistant City Attorney Walden, Mr. Koester confirmed that he understands that an easement will be reserved in the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley. Mr. Koester further confirmed that he agrees with the City’s recommendation that the proposed vacation also be subject to the Petitioners entering into an executed Ingress/Egress Easement Agreement.
In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the direction of storm water drainage from K&A Land Development’s property, Mr. Koester confirmed that the water drains to the south and that he is proposing to install infrastructure which would improve existing drainage on the property. In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding whether the development to the area will negatively impact drainage to properties to the north, Mr. Koester stated that he does not see how they could negatively impact drainage.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Hillyer regarding whether the improvements will negatively impact access by fire protection, Mr. Koester advised that all improvements will be built to code and will not impact access.
No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.
The public hearing was then closed, and the Commission considered the Petition in open session.
The Commission finds that (1) the public would be served by the vacation of the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley requested to be vacated, (2) that the City would be relieved from the burden of maintaining the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley if the proposed vacation was granted, (3) that the Petitioners own the land adjoining that portion of the subject street, and that the Petitioners will become the respective owners of the real estate underlying those portions of Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley upon vacation, and (4) no person will be deprived of access to public streets or access to property as a result of the proposed vacation.
Therefore, on motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Wohltman, and approved by an 8 to 0 vote, the Plan Commission recommends that the City Council grant the Petition to Vacate a Portion of Cherry Street and Portion of an Alley, subject to the following:
a. Reservation of a public utility easement in, on, under, through and across the Subject Portion of Cherry Street and the Subject Alley; and,
b. Petitioners, K&A Land Development, LLC, Ameren Illinois, Taylor Nathan, and David A. Katt, Jr. and Trisha L. Katt entering into and providing fully-executed copies of Ingress/Egress Easement Agreement or similar agreement for the joint use and maintenance to the improvements sought to be made over the Subject Alley and the Subject Portion of Cherry Street.
7. Public Hearing on Petition for Special Use Permit (9) to allow a government building in a Class R-3C, Multiple-Dwelling District, 104 Blohm Avenue, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioner, Effingham County Health Department:
Beth Wise appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Effingham County Health Department, to testify in support of the Petition. The Petitioner acquired the Subject Property with the intent to relocate the Effingham County Connections program from a leased office location to the Subject Property. Ms. Wise testified that the Effingham County Connections program will currently be the only program to utilize the building on a regular basis. Ms. Wise testified that the use of the building will mainly be for office use, and they anticipate traffic from the public to be very limited. There will only be occasional in-office family visits when family visits cannot occur at the home. Ms. Wise stated that group events and play group events at the Subject Property will only occur once a month. Ms. Wise testified that the existing parking infrastructure is sufficient for the programs, as public interactions rarely take place as part of the Effingham County Connections program.
Ms. Wise testified that the Petitioner is exploring additional grant opportunities and partnerships, which only create minimal traffic. Ms. Wise further testified that additional space is available on the Subject Property should parking infrastructure need to be expanded.
In response to questioning by Assistant City Attorney, Clayton Walden, Ms. Wise testified that she did not believe that the proposed special use and development of the property would be detrimental to and otherwise endanger the general welfare of the surrounding area.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the previous use of the building located on the Subject Property, Ms. Wise testified that the facility was utilized as a residential home for dementia patients.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Hillyer, Ms. Wise confirmed that the Petitioner did purchase the lot and the building.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Hillyer regarding the Effingham County Connection program, Ms. Wise testified that the program serves families, which is a 0-3 home visit program funded by the Illinois Board of Education. They mostly do visits to homes, but on occasions when the home is not available to do a visit, the program does have an in-office room to conduct the visits. These in-office visits are infrequent.
In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes requesting the location that the Effingham County Connection program currently operates, Ms. Wise advised that they currently utilize leased space in the Lincolnland building.
No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.
City Planner, Gregory Koester, appeared and testified. In response to questioning by Assistant City Attorney Clayton Walden, Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Property is zoned R-3C, Multiple-Dwelling District, and is developed with a vacant memory care residential facility. In response to additional questioning, Mr. Koester testified that the properties to the north of the Subject Property are zoned R-3C, Multiple-Dwelling District, and developed with multi-family dwellings, the property to the west of the Subject Property are zoned R-3C, Multiple-Dwelling District, and developed with two (2) memory care facilities, the properties to the south of the Subject Property are zoned R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, and developed with the Slate Creek apartment complex, and properties to the east of the Subject Property are zoned R-3B, Two-Family Duplex Dwelling District and developed with single-family attached dwellings and duplexes.
In response to questioning, Mr. Koester testified that the Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for medium-high density residential uses, and he is of the opinion that the requested special use is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. In response to additional questions, Mr. Koester testified that the present zoning is sufficient for development of a government building operation if a Special Use Permit is granted and further testified that he did not believe that the proposed special use and development of the property would be detrimental to and otherwise endanger the general welfare of the surrounding area. Mr. Koester advised that with multi-family residential around the Subject Property, he believes the proposed use is a good fit for the area.
Commissioner Thies inquired whether the special use, if approved, would transfer to future sales of the property. Mr. Koester advised a special use is for a government building, but could also allow private emergency services. Mr. Koester advised that the Plan Commission can recommend conditions on a special use permit, including restricting the special use permit to only the Effingham County Health Department.
The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Commissioners in open session.
The Commissioners agreed that the proposed development of the Subject Property would be appropriate for the area and complied with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners further agreed to placing a restriction on the special use so that it is non-transferable.
Assistant City Attorney Walden clarified that the restriction would be that the special use permit would be personal to the Effingham County Health Department and not run with the land.
After due consideration and the evidence presented, the Commissioners made the following findings and recommendations:
1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: The property is developed with a vacant residential memory care facility.
2. EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA: The properties to the north of the Subject Property are developed with multi-family dwellings, the properties to the west of the Subject Property are developed with two (2) memory care facilities, the properties to the south of the Subject Property are developed with the Slate Creek apartment complex, and properties to the east of the Subject Property are developed with single-family attached dwellings and a duplex.
3. PRESENT ZONING IN THE AREA: The Subject Property is zoned R-3C, Multiple-Dwelling District. The properties to the north and west of the Subject Property are zoned R-3C, Multiple-Dwelling District, the properties to the south of the Subject Property are zoned R-3D, Multiple-Dwelling District, and properties to the east of the Subject Property are zoned R-3B, Two-Family Duplex Dwelling District.
4. SUITABILITY OF PRESENT ZONING: The present zoning is sufficient for development of a government building if a Special Use Permit is granted.
5. EFFECT ON GENERAL WELFARE: The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the Special Use will not be detrimental to and otherwise endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, development and general welfare of the surrounding area.
6. EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY: If the proposed Special Use is granted, the Commission finds that there will not be injury to the use and enjoyment of the surrounding property.
7. CONFORMITY TO REGULATIONS: The Special Use does conform to the regulations of the City of Effingham and the Special Use does conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner McHugh, by an 8 to 0 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council grant the Petition for Special Use Permit as presented, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: The Special Use Permit shall be a personal privilege to the Petitioner and shall not run with the land, and will automatically terminate upon the transfer, sale, assignment, or conveyance of the Subject Property to any third party.
8. Public Hearing on Text Amendments to Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham- Article 1 (Definitions), Article 23A (Solar Energy Systems), and Article 26 (Special Use Regulations):
City Planner, Gregory Koester, testified in support of the proposed Text Amendment. The proposed text amendment is the third or fourth amendment to the City’s solar energy system regulations. This Text Amendment is in response to regulations that need to be clarified, accidentally omitted from previous text amendments, and some other additional clean-up of the language.
Mr. Koester testified that the proposed Text Amendment, in part, makes revisions to the definitions of “Solar Energy System, Large (Solar Farm)” and “Solar Energy System, Small” contained in Article 1 of Appendix B. These amendments provide clarity to what is a small solar energy system and a large solar energy system. The large energy systems are the large solar farms that provide energy to the grid.
Mr. Koester testified that the proposed Text Amendment also makes revisions to the current provisions contained in Sections 23A-2 and 23A-3. These revisions are necessary to include provisions that were inadvertently omitted in a previous text amendment relative to roof setbacks. Mr. Koester testified that this language is necessary so that solar energy system installers can design and install the systems to get the correct setbacks from the eaves and edges.
Mr. Koester advised that additional portions of the Text Amendment remove and/or revise some duplicative language. A lot of the strike out in the Text Amendment removes the duplicative language.
Mr. Koester testified that the proposed Text Amendment also amends regulations on small ground-mounted solar energy systems, including adding thresholds to determine if either a variance or special use would be required due to size. Mr. Koester stated that ground mounted systems are not allowed in residential zoning districts, but are allowed in NU, M-1, and M-2 zoning districts. Mr. Koester gave an example that if a property in a NU, Non-Urban District, is comprised of 5 acres or more, the property owner can install a system that does not exceed 50,000 square feet. If the property owner desires a system in excess of 50,000 square feet, but not more than 100,000 square feet, the property owner could seek a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. If a property owner desires a system that is in excess of 100,000 square feet, they would be required to obtain a special use permit.
Mr. Koester further testified that the Text Amendment also addresses code compliance for properties located in the extra-territorial jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Koester advised, that while the city controls zoning and subdivision in the extra-territorial area, the City does not issue electrical or building permits. If a property owner wants to install a solar system on property in the extra-territorial jurisdictional area, they will still have to comply with zoning regulations and the City will give them a zoning certificate certifying compliance with the zoning regulation. It will, however, be up to the property owner to ensure compliance with electrical and other code requirements. Mr. Koester advised that the City will notify fire departments that serve the property to advise that a solar energy system is being installed at the property. Some of these solar energy systems store energy even after power is cut so it is important for firefighters to know that there is a solar energy system on the property.
Mr. Koester further testified that the proposed Text Amendment further amends paragraph 43 of Article 26 to Appendix B of the Municipal Code of the City of Effingham, which allows for a special use of a Large Solar Energy System in an NU, Non-Urban District, M-1, Light Industrial District, or M-2, Heavy Industrial District in accordance with the requirements of 23A-3, Large Solar Energy Systems. More specifically, the Text Amendment adds that a large solar energy system with a surface area greater than 100,000 square feet will require a special use permit.
In response to questioning by Commissioner Hillyer whether the Text Amendment will cause existing solar energy systems to be deemed nonconforming, Mr. Koester stated that he does not believe so. Mr. Koester advised that the Text Amendment will most likely bring some existing systems into conformance rather than taking them out of conformance.
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 Gouchenouer, seconded by Commissioner Wohltman, by an 8 to 0 vote, the Commission recommended that the City Council affirm and enact the Text Amendment as presented at the hearing.
9. Public Hearing on Text Amendments to Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham- Repeal Appendix D to Appendix B and Adopt New Article 24A (Wireless Communication Facilities):
The City of Effingham Plan Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) hereby transmits for your consideration its recommendations regarding proposed text amendments to authorize the repeal of Appendix D to Appendix B of the Municipal Code of the City of Effingham, Illinois, and to adopt Article 24A to Appendix B of the Municipal Code of the City of Effingham, Illinois (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Text Amendment”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
City Planner, Gregory Koester, appeared to testify in support of the proposed Text Amendment. Mr. Koester advised the Plan Commission regarding the City’s regulations on Wireless Communication Facilities. When the current regulations on wireless communications facilities were adopted, as part of Ordinance No. 26-2000, the regulations on wireless communications facilities were codified as Appendix D to Appendix B of the Municipal Code of the City of Effingham, Illinois. There are also some appendices to Appendix D to Appendix B. To prevent confusion regarding all the appendices, the City is proposing to repeal Appendix D to Appendix B, and readopt largely similar regulations as part of a new article to Appendix B.
Mr. Koester advised that the City’s regulations provide for certain overlay districts that wireless communication facilities can be located. District 1 includes sites that are pre-approved sites for the location of cell towers. These sites only require a permit to be filed with the City Building Official. These sites are City owned sites. The current District 1 sites include the old fire station across from Kirby Foods, the City street and maintenance garage, the property by the south water tower on Jaycee Avenue, the City water treatment plant, the City water maintenance garage on Grove Avenue, and the City water treatment plant, and the former fire station on South Banker. The City no longer owns the former fire station property on South Banker. Therefore, this site needs to be removed as a District 1 site. Mr. Koester further advised that the water treatment plant will remain a site, but they are seeking to change the location that a tower may be installed to an area along Route 40 that goes back to the plant.
Mr. Koester stated the Text Amendment also incorporates language so that the wireless communications language will reference the new Article 24A instead of Appendix D to Appendix B.
Mr. Koester further testified that the Text Amendment also includes language clarifying buffering requirements around towers.
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 Wohltman, seconded by Commissioner Storm, by an 8 to 0 vote, the Commission recommended that the City Council affirm and enact the Text Amendment as presented.
10. Discussion Only: City Planner, Gregory Koester mentioned the possible change of time of meeting. Since the issue was not put on the agenda, they cannot take action on changing the time.
11. Public Comment: None.
12. On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner McHugh, the meeting was adjourned.
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/CSLSC96A0A15/$file/05-09-2023%20PC%20Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up