East Central Reporter

City of Effingham Zoning Board of Appeals met May 23.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Mumm

Kurt Buehnerkemper

Ken Wohltman

Mark Thies

Theresa Hillyer

Carrie Rodman

MEMBERS ABSENT: Andy St. John

OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy A. Willenborg, City Attorney

Luke Thoele, City Engineer

Greg Koester, City Planner

Michael Tappendorf, Milano & Grunloh

Kim Gammon, Maninfior Court Reporting

See attached list

1. Quorum: The May 23, 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 April 25, 2023 Minutes: On motion by Board Member Mark Thies, seconded by Board Member Ken Wohltman, the minutes for the April 25, 2023 meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.

3. Location: 608 E. Temple Avenue, Effingham, Illinois

Requesting: Variance for Accessory Building Size in R-2, Single Family Residence District

Petitioners: Frederick K. Rosen and Bonnie Jean Rosen

The Petition for Variance for Accessory Building Size Variance was filed by the owners of the Subject Property, Frederick K. Rosen. The Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow the construction of an accessory building with a maximum area of 1,472 square feet, which deviates from the allowable maximum area of 1,200 square feet in an R-2, Single-Family Residential District.

Fred K. Rosen, Petitioner, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Rosen advised that he, along with his wife, own the Subject Property. In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Rosen confirmed that they are seeking a variance to allow the construction of a 1,472 square foot accessory building, which exceeds the allowable maximum area of 1,200 square feet in an R-2, Single-Family Residential District.

Mr. Rosen testified that they are moving to Effingham to be close to family. Mr. Rosen advised the Board that he is a car collector, as well as metal worker. Mr. Rosen looked at constructing an accessory building within the allowable size, but he would not be able to fit everything in the accessory building. Mr. Rosen advised that he is seeking to expand the building 6 more feet to the rear. This extra space would accommodate their needs for storage of vehicles and equipment.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Rosen advised that he has worked in a much smaller accessory building for many years. Mr. Rosen advised that the additional space of the accessory building is necessary to maintain his car collection, as well as lawn equipment and other equipment necessary to maintain the Subject Property. In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Rosen confirmed that he also proposes to include a hobby area within the building. In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Rosen testified that the additional space is necessary to maintain his investments.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Rosen testified that he did not believe the proposed accessory building would be detrimental to the surrounding property and neighborhood. He is simply requesting to expand the accessary building an additional 6 feet to the rear. Mr. Rosen stated that there would still be 40 feet to the rear lot line, so there is sufficient space on the Subject Property to construct the proposed accessory building.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Tracy Willenborg regarding the exterior materials to be utilized in the construction of the accessory building, Mr. Rosen testified that the exterior materials of the proposed accessory building will be comparable and complimentary to the existing single-family home.

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.

The Board Members concurred that the additional space was necessary and appropriate to allow Petitioners to maintain investments in vehicles and other equipment.

Board Member Wohltman stated a concern with possible issues with access on the west side of the proposed accessory building.

On motion by Board Member Kurt Buehnerkemper, seconded by Board Member Carrie Rodman, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 4 to 0 vote, with 2 abstentions, the variance as requested.

4. Location: 1001 N. Keller Drive, Effingham, Illinois

Requesting: Variance for Off-Premise Development Complex

Sign/Billboard- Electronic Message Board

Petitioner: The Lamar Companies and Barbara McMahan

The Petition for Variance for Off-Premise Development Complex Sign/Billboard – Electronic Message Board was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, Barbara McMahan, and Petitioner, The Lamar Companies. Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow an off-premises Development Complex Sign/Billboard on real estate which is not improved with a business permitted to have a Development Complex Sign/Billboard per Article 24-7.C.(8) of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham. Petitioner is also seeking a variance to allow an Electronic Message Board on the southeast side of the Billboard which (i) has an area of 300 square feet, which exceeds the maximum of 150 square feet per side per Article 1-92 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham; and, (ii) displays off-premises advertising other than limited to public service information or advertising for business located on the same real estate as the sign as generally prohibited per Article 1-92 of Appendix B of the Municipal Code of Effingham.

Daniel Hamilton, an attorney with Brow, Hay + Stephens in Springfield, Illinois, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, The Lamar Companies, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Hamilton testified that The Lamar Companies is seeking permission to install a billboard on the Subject Property, which is shown on the Plat of Easement that is attached to the Petition as Exhibit B. In response to questioning by City Attorney Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Hamilton requested that the Petition, including the exhibits attached to the Petition, be made a part of the record.

Mr. Hamilton testified that the proposed sign would be 300 square feet on each panel. The north facing panel, in accordance with City staff recommendations, would be limited to advertising on-premises businesses only and not-for-profit organizations. The north facing sign face, which faces Interstate 57, will be a traditional billboard face. Mr. Hamilton advised that the south facing panel is proposed to be an electronic digital display that changes messages on a set ten (10) second cycle. The messages that will be displayed will be static messages that do not include any moving, scrolling, blinking, flashing, or animated graphics. The electronic digital display face will utilize technology that limits the brightness of the display at night. Mr. Hamilton advised that the electronic digital display actually emits less light than the traditional billboard lighting, which utilizes flood lights.

Mr. Hamilton testified that another benefit of electronic digital display billboards is the public safety aspect associated with the signs. Mr. Hamilton identified Exhibit F to the Petition, which is a summary of the Lamar Emergency Alert System. The Lamar Companies is a national advertising company, and it has electronic billboards throughout the company. Per Mr. Hamilton, The Lamar Companies has implemented an emergency response system that will provide public notification of public emergency alerts, Amber alerts, crime stoppers information, wanted and missing persons information, and a variety of other information that the public should know about. These public safety benefits are not available from traditional signs.

Mr. Hamilton further testified that the Petitioner also permits community and not for-profit events to be advertised on the billboards for free.

Mr. Hamilton advised that Petitioner operates similar billboards throughout the State, including in Springfield, Decatur, and Peoria. Mr. Hamilton stated that the Petitioner has not received any negative feedback regarding the existing signs.

Mr. Hamilton testified that there is very little impact to any lighting due to reduction of lighting that occurs between an electronic display versus a traditional billboard display. With regard to the Subject Property, Mr. Hamilton testified that there will be no impact to residences as there are no residences immediately adjacent to the Subject Property.

Mr. Hamilton testified that he understands that the City staff have reviewed the Petition and are making three recommendations should the Board approve the variance including: (1) a limitation that the north facing sign be limited to advertising on-premises businesses only and not-for-profit organizations; (2) the variance be subject to the issuance of a permit from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) before the issuance of a City sign permit; and, (3) the existing pylon structure located on the Subject Property be removed. Mr. Hamilton advised the Board that these recommendations are acceptable to the Petitioner, The Lamar Companies.

Mr. Hamilton testified that the standards for variation are all included in the Petition. At the request of the Board, Mr. Hamilton provided testimony regarding the standards for variation.

Mr. Hamilton testified that the Subject Property cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only for the conditions allowed by the regulations. The outdoor advertising industry has moved toward electronic digital displays as the industry standard. The static signs will not be able to continue to produce a reasonable rate of return. To remain competitive in the industry, Petitioner needs to be able to utilize new and advanced technology that reduces costs for customers and Petitioner. The cost reductions occur over the course of time because there is no physical installation of the message on the sign face and the message can be tailored to the needs of the customer, which may change.

Additionally, utilizing the new technology that broadcasts timely public announcements, emergency information, and other updates, at times when the public needs to be aware of such matters, will result in an economic savings for not just the Petitioner, but also for the entire community. With an increase in safety, the risk of damage to people and property decreases. People listen to their radio a lot less than they used to; people are now listening to their phones and whatever. For this reason, people are missing emergency broadcasts. Mr. Hamilton testified that it is important to have as many avenues as possible to broadcast safety messages to the public.

With regard to unique circumstances, Mr. Hamilton testified that the relief sought in the Petition is necessary as the current City regulations do not permit electronic sign faces in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) square feet. Throughout the outdoor advertising industry, these kinds of electronic digital displays are becoming common place. Mr. Hamilton advised that the Board recently granted a variance for an electronic digital display at 1203-A N. Keller Drive, which is on the other side of the interstate from the Subject Property. The granting of the previous variance supports that this kind of display is commonplace. If the variance is not granted, the proposed billboard will have difficulty competing with the billboard that recently received a variance.

Mr. Hamilton testified that the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the locality, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, increase congestion of traffic, diminish or impair property values in the locality, or impair the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The new off-premises advertising sign proposed to be constructed on the Subject Property, will be consistent with the character of the area, as there are a variety of outdoor advertising signs in the area of similar or larger sizes. Mr. Hamilton further testified that the height, size and location of the billboard will not impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. Due to the commercial nature of the Subject Property, it is unlikely there will be any adverse impact to those factors.

In response to questioning by Chairman Mumm regarding the location of the proposed sign on the Subject Property, Mr. Hamilton identified Exhibit B to the Petition, which identifies the location of the proposed sign. The existing sign on the Subject Property will come down.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Hamilton confirmed that the proposed sign will not be located in the same area as the existing sign, but rather will be located in the area identified in Exhibit B.

In response to questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper regarding the height of the proposed sign, Mr. Hamilton stated that Exhibit D to the Petition identifies the plans and specifications for the sign. The height of the proposed sign is 30 feet from grade to the top of the sign face. The sign will be a flag design.

In response to questioning by Board Member Thies seeking clarification on the size of the sign, Mr. Hamilton confirmed that there will be 300 square feet of signage area on each side of the proposed sign.

In response to questioning by Chairman Mumm requesting information on the comparison of the sign to the sign that recently received a variance, Mr. Hamilton advised that the signage face of both signs are 300 square feet, but he does not know the height of the other sign.

In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding the size of the proposed sign face, Mr. Hamilton advised that the reason for the proposed sign face is that the size is a standard sign size. Electronic displays have standard sizes, and they do not want to vary to custom signs.

In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding the existing signs, Mr. Hamilton advised that the Petitioner has proposed to remove the existing sign bases.

In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding utilities to the sign, Mr. Hamilton advised that there are no existing electric utilities available at the pole location so they will be required to run electric utilities to the location.

In response to questioning by Board Member Thies requesting an illustration of the proposed sign, Mr. Hamilton advised that they do not have any illustration other than what is provided in Exhibit D to the Petition.

In response to questioning by Board Member Thies regarding whether the owner of the Subject Property will utilize the sign for advertising, Mr. Hamilton testified that the owner will be able to utilize the north facing sign face exclusively for their business.

In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding who controls the emergency alerts that will be displayed on the electronic sign, Mr. Hamilton testified that there is an emergency alert office at Lamar’s corporate headquarters. They will coordinate locally for emergencies, as well as utilize the Illinois State Police portal.

In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer requesting additional information on the 10 second flip for the sign, Mr. Hamilton advised that the 10 second flip complies with IDOT standards if a sign is within 600 feet of an interstate.

In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding the status of IDOT approval, Mr. Hamilton testified that IDOT has not approved the sign yet. The variance, if granted, will be subject to IDOT approving the sign. IDOT wants to see City approval before IDOT approves any sign.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding City staff recommendations should the variance be granted, Mr. Hamilton testified that he received an email from Greg Koester on May 1, 2023, advising of the City staff’s recommendation including the three conditions. Mr. Hamilton further confirmed that the Petitioner agreed to the proposed recommendations of City staff.

Michael Baietto, the General Manager of Petitioner, The Lamar Companies, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Baietto testified that one of the main reasons to install the digital sign in Effingham is that there is a demand for this type of sign from local clients. Mr. Baietto identified that companies like HSHS, Firefly, Effingham Performance Center, Culvers, and Linder’s McDonald’s are all requesting these types of signs. The Petitioner does not have a lot of sign inventory in the City of Effingham. The Petitioner’s existing signs are all sold out. Mr. Baietto advised that a semi recently hit an existing sign on Banker Street and the Petitioner lost four sign faces because of that accident. Mr. Baietto testified that the Petitioner removed those sign faces and has not asked to rebuild those signs. Mr. Baietto reiterated that there is a local demand for the type of sign that the Petitioner is seeking to install on the Subject Property.

Mr. Baietto further testified that The Lamar Companies is a national company, but 80% of revenue comes from local markets.

Mr. Baietto advised the Board that IDOT regulates the 10 second message cycle. Mr. Baietto advised that other states, including Missouri and Iowa allow for an 8 second message display. Mr. Baietto testified that they will also have to abide by certain lighting regulations. Mr. Baietto testified that they do not have any issues from lighting with signs that they have in other communities.

Mr. Baietto testified that the Petitioner, The Lamar Companies will allow the City to utilize any extra advertising space on the electronic sign to promote City and local not for-profit events.

Mr. Baietto testified that with regard to the emergency alerts that are displayed on electronic message signs, the Petitioner, The Lamar Companies, has a contract with FEMA.

Mr. Baietto testified that there is a camera on each display to make sure the signs are working properly. The Lamar Companies has 24-hour surveillance on the signs. Mr. Baietto further stated that nothing sexual will be displayed on the signs.

Board Member Hillyer inquired whether the Petitioner, The Lamar Companies will be removing the older style billboards they have within the City. Mr. Baietto advised that they did remove 4 static face signs as a result of the semi accident and have not replaced those signs. Mr. Baietto testified that they do not have any intention to remove any other existing signs in the City at this time. Mr. Baietto followed up, however, by advising that there are two signs, which are on property behind Walmart, that will be taken down later in the year to allow for the construction of multi-family homes.

Mr. Baietto presented a rendering depicting the proposed sign. Mr. Baietto testified that the proposed sign is a monopole sign. Mr. Baietto advised that the proposed signs are standard sizes. The artwork utilizes a template and the standard size signs allow them to not have to customize the sign art.

Mr. Baietto testified that the rendering depicting the proposed sign identifies the digital face. The back face, will be a static billboard, and will advertise the owner’s package store.

Mr. Baietto advised that representatives of the Petitioner have met with Ameren and a local electrician. They are proposing to bore underground electric utilities to serve the proposed sign.

Mr. Baietto advised that when the contractor installs the proposed sign, they will also be removing the existing signage and signage poles if the variance is granted.

Mr. Baietto testified that the digital signs weigh about 4,000 pounds. They have an engineer design the specifications of the signage pole to ensure that it holds the weight of the sign. Mr. Baietto further advised that the City will also inspect the sign and poles to ensure it meets specifications.

With regard to the required IDOT permit, Mr. Baietto advised that IDOT requires that they obtain City variance approval before IDOT will allow the Petitioner to apply for an IDOT permit. The Petitioner will not allow signs to be ordered until both City and IDOT permits have been obtained.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Baietto confirmed that the travelling public driving south on Keller will view the static sign advertising, and the travelling public driving north on Keller will view the electronic display.

In response to questioning by Board Member Thies regarding the south sign, Mr. Baietto testified that only on-premises advertising will be on the sign. This sign will have one LED light.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Baietto confirmed that the Petitioner will control the advertising that occurs on the electronic display on the north side of the proposed sign.

No one appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.

At the request of the Board, Greg Koester, City Planner, appeared to address questions by the Board.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that the City made recommendations on conditions to be placed on the variance, if granted. Mr. Koester testified that the recommended conditions are similar to the recommendations the City staff made when the Board granted a variance for the sign at 1203 N. Keller Drive. Mr. Koester testified that the recommended conditions include: (1) the variance be subject to the issuance of a permit from the Illinois Department of Public Transportation (IDOT) before the issuance of a City sign permit; (2) the removal of the existing freestanding sign located on the Subject Property; and, (3) a limitation that the north sign face be limited to advertising of on-premises businesses or not-for-profit organizations. Mr. Koester advised that it is his understanding that the third condition will be a condition of the State permit also.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that the Petitioner must have City zoning approval before they can apply for an IDOT sign permit.

In response to questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper regarding the businesses on the Subject Property, Mr. Koester stated that there are a total of two businesses on the property including the package store and Sean’s Produce. Therefore, there is the possibility of two businesses that can advertise on the north sign face.

In response to questioning by Chairman Mumm regarding the comparison of the proposed sign in relation to the billboard that obtained a variance at 1203 N. Keller, Mr. Koester testified that an existing billboard was located at 1203 N. Keller that was put up before the sign regulations were adopted by the City in 2017. Mr. Koester testified that the proposed sign is the same size as the sign that obtained a variance at 1203 N. Keller.

In response to questioning by Chairman Mumm regarding the size of the sign, Mr. Koester testified that the square footage is measured for the sign face.

Mr. Koester testified that he believes that both the proposed sign and the sign that obtained a variance at 1203 N. Keller are 30 feet in height. The sign at 1203 N. Keller did not require a variance for height. The applicable regulations allow a sign at a height of 35 feet.

Board Member Buehnerkemper inquired whether the City is entertaining any amendments to the sign regulations to conform to the industry standards identified by the Petitioner’s representatives. Mr. Koester testified that any change would require an amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance. Mr. Koester advised that they tend to make amendments to the City’s zoning ordinances as technology advances.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that the sign regulations are imposed to ensure safety, aesthetics, spacing and height requirements. Mr. Koester advised that some communities have more stringent sign regulations, and some communities have more broad regulations.

In response to questioning by Chairman Mumm, City Attorney Willenborg confirmed that financial reasons alone are not a legitimate hardship. While the Petitioner mentioned financial reasons, the Board has to determine if the Petitioner identified hardships that were not based on financial reasons.

In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer regarding whether changes in ownership of the Subject Property impacts what can be advertised on the static sign, Mr. Koester advised that the north side of the sign can only advertise the business on the property regardless of who owns the Subject Property.

The hearing was closed, and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.

The Board Members discussed whether the Petitioner provided sufficient testimony to support a hardship. The Board discussed whether the current regulations should be amended to conform to various “industry standards”. Notwithstanding, the Board has to look at and operate under the current regulations.

Chairman Mumm inquired whether the variance granted at 1203 N. Keller set a precedent, but each petition must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

On motion by Board Member Mark Thies, seconded by Board Member Ken Wohltman, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied, by a 6 to 0 vote, the variance as requested.

5. Discussion Only: City Planner Greg Koester advised the Board that the City is proposing to coordinate educational training for both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals.

6. Public Comment: None

7. On motion by Board Member Teresa Hillyer, seconded by Board Member Ken Wohltman, the meeting was adjourned.

https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/CT2RAT67AD0B/$file/05-23-2023%20ZBOA%20Minutes.pdf