City of Effingham Zoning Board of Appeals met July 25.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Thies
Kurt Buehnerkemper
Ken Wohltman
Theresa Hillyer
Carrie Rodman
Andy St. John
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Mumm
OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy A. Willenborg, City Attorney
Dennis Presley, Assistant City Administrator
Luke Thoele, City Engineer
Greg Koester, City Planner
Chris Roedl, Building Official
Matt Kulesza, Assistant Fire Chief
Gary Maninfior, Maninfior Court Reporting
See attached list
1. Quorum: The July 25, 2023 City Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg. A quorum was present.
2. Selection of Chairman Pro Tem: On motion by Board Member Ken Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Andy St. John, Board Member Thies was selected to serve as Chairman Pro-Tem for the meeting by unanimous vote.
3. Approval June 27, 2023 Minutes: On motion by Board Member Ken Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Andy St. John, the minutes for the June 27, 2023 meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.
4. Location: 805 E. Rickelman Avenue, Effingham, Illinois
Requesting: Variance for Addition to Non-Conforming Building Petitioners: Eric J. McWhorter and Amy L. McWhorter
The Petition for Variance for Addition to Nonconforming Building was filed by the owners of the Subject Property, Eric J. McWhorter and Amy L. McWhorter. The
Petitioners are seeking a variance to allow the construction of an alteration (addition) of 1,500 square feet to an existing allowable non-conforming accessory building for a total 2,200 square feet building, which deviates from the restrictions contained in Article 28-2 of Appendix B to the City of Effingham Municipal Code.
Mr. Eric McWhorter, Petitioner, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. McWhorter advised that he and his wife own the Subject Property. Mr. McWhorter stated that they are looking to add additional storage for vehicles, a camper, and equipment used to maintain the property. In response to questioning by City Attorney Tracy Willenborg, Mr. McWhorter testified that the Subject Preoprty is developed with their home and a small outbuilding. In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. McWhorter testified that the Petitioners are seeking to build an addition to the existing outbuilding. The addition will be 1,500 square feet and the total building would be 2,220 square feet. The current regulations do not allow the addition because the buildings on the Subject Property are considered non-conforming and the rules prohibit adding onto non-conforming buildings. The Petitioners are seeking a variance to allow the addition to the existing non-conforming accessory building. In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. McWhorter testified that the Petitioners’ hardship is that they require additional storage and cannot add onto the existing non-conforming building. The Subject Property does not have an existing garage, so they are looking to construct the addition for interior storage.
In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. McWhorter testified that, in his opinion, the variance, if granted, would not be detrimental to any other adjoining properties, nor would it be detrimental to the character of development in the area. Mr. McWhorter stated that they do not have any neighbors on the side of the road that the Subject Property is located.
Ms. Amy McWhorter, Petitioner, also appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Ms. McWhorter testified that the Petitioners are looking to extend an existing outbuilding that is located on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. Ms. McWhorter testified that when they purchased the Subject Property, they were just getting started. Now they have two older children, who will both be driving soon. They will have two more vehicles on the property. The proposed addition would allow a two-car garage and storage for the bush hog and other equipment to maintain the Subject Property.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Ms. McWhorter advised that the Subject Property is approximately 5 acres. In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Ms. McWhorter testified that they do not have either an attached or detached garage on the Subject Property. They have an old corn crib that is utilized to store two mowers, go-cart, and other items. There is no area to park vehicles out of the weather. The plan is to construct the garage to allow them to park vehicles, as well as additional space for storage.
In response to questioning by Board Member Hillyer, Ms. McWhorter testified that they have lived on the Subject Property for 12 years and they purchased the Subject Property at auction.
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 Petitioners’ hardship is that the property has allowable nonconforming buildings, which cannot be increased in size to allow for the construction of a garage area. This additional space is an appropriate need for residential purposes. Furthermore, the Board concurred that the variance would not be detrimental to the area.
On motion by Board Member Ken Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Carrie Rodman, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved, by a 6 to 0 vote, the variance as requested.
5. Location: 201 S. Fourth Street (100 W. Fayette Avenue), Effingham, Illinois
Requesting: Variance for Parking
Petitioner: Effingham Shakti Corporation, an Illinois corporation
The Petition for Variance was filed by the owner of the Subject Property, Effingham Shakti Corporation, an Illinois corporation. The Petitioner is seeking a variance to allow a reduction from the required 120 parking spaces, as required in Article 25 in Appendix B to the City of Effingham, Illinois, down to 58 parking spaces.
City Planner, Greg Koester, appeared to testify. Mr. Koester advised that the Subject Property is zoned B-2, General Commercial District. The City parking regulations are found in Article 16 of Appendix B, which refers to Article 25 containing the parking requirements. The Petitioner is proposing a mixed-use building, so Article 25 provides that they must look at each type of use in order to determine the required number of parking spaces for a development. In this case, the strict application of the regulations would require, the following:
(1) The proposed partial basement, which will be utilized for inventory does not require any parking spaces;
(2) The 1st floor will be comprised of 7,000 square feet retail space, which the regulations require 1 space per 200 square feet of retail space. Therefore, this area would require 35 spaces;
(3) The 2nd floor will be comprised of a 7,000 square feet of bar-lounge assembly, which the regulations require 1 space per 100 square feet of assembly space. Therefore, this area would require 70 spaces; and,
(4) The 3rd floor, including both the interior and exterior assembly areas, will be comprised of 7,000 square feet of bar-lounge assembly, which the regulations require 1 space per 100 square feet of assembly space. Therefore, this area would require 70 spaces.
Mr. Koester testified that the strict application of the parking requirements would require that the Petitioner develop 175 parking spaces for the proposed development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City has, consistent with past practice, reduced the parking requirements, to exclude certain areas from the square footage calculations to determine minimum parking requirements, including, but not limited to, cooler areas, elevator areas, and stairs. Utilizing the square footage of usable public space on each floor, as provided by the Developer, the City agreed to waive the strict application of the regulations concerning parking to reduce the number of required parking spaces down to 120 spaces.
Mr. Koester advised that some have questioned why this proposed development has to provide off-street parking while other uses in the downtown area do not. Mr. Koester identified a map of the downtown area. The area shaded in green is zoned B-3, Central Business District. Mr. Koester testified that the City zoning regulations do not require off-street parking for properties zoned B-3, Central Business District, although some of the more recent developments in the B-3, Central Business District have included off-street parking as part of the redevelopment of the properties including, Dust & Sons, Washington Savings Bank, Midland States Bank, etc.
Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Property is outlined in red and zoned B-2, General Commercial District.
Mr. Koester stated that there are some special uses in the B-3, Central Business District. Mr. Koester testified that these special uses do require off-street parking. An example would be the mixed-use residential and office included as part of the Midland Lofts project.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Tracy Willenborg, Greg Koester confirmed that the strict compliance with the regulations would require the construction of 175 parking spaces, but the City, in an effort to work with the developer, agreed to reduce the required parking by 55 spaces, which is how they came up with the required 120 parking spaces.
Mr. Koester advised that the square footage of the uses was provided by the Petitioner. The City has been provided with a conceptual plan but has not been provided with final building plans or a site plan. The final plans could change the required parking requirements if the Petitioner increases the proposed square footage of the development
or the areas of public use for the proposed development. The calculations of parking requirements are all based on preliminary calculations from the information provided by the Petitioner.
Thereafter, Mr. Koester identified the areas where Petitioner was proposing to construct parking, including areas on the Subject Property, as well as two other separate properties, owned by Petitioner, which are within 500 feet of the Subject Property. These separate tracts of parking are allowed within zoning regulations as they are within 500 feet of the Subject Property.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester advised the 58 parking spots identified in the Petition were based on a number provided by the Petitioner prior to publication of the notice of public hearing. Since the Petitioner filed the Petition, the Petitioner has advised that they can provide additional parking in excess of the proposed 58 parking spots.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg and Chairman Pro Tem Thies, Mr. Koester advised that the additional parking spots proposed by Petitioner are already identified on the map provided to the Board. These parking spots are within 500 feet and located on property owned by Petitioner. The City zoning regulations authorize parking infrastructure to be located on lots separate from the Subject Property as long as the parking is on property within 500 feet and either owned by the same developer or property in which the developer has a parking agreement with the owner of the property.
In response to questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper about the parking requirements if the Subject Property was zoned B-3, Central Business District, Mr. Koester testified that they would not have to provide any off-street parking. Chairman Pro Tem Thies stated these B-3 properties are in some of the original downtown properties that were developed when there were not any cars and people used horses. Mr. Koester stated that these properties utilize on-street parking and public parking lots in the downtown area.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that the Petitioner cannot utilize on-street parking or public parking areas to meet parking requirements.
In response to questioning by the public regarding why the Subject Property has not been designated as a B-3 zoning, Mr. Koester advised that no one has petitioned to zone the Subject Property B-3. The owner or interested party can petition to zone the Subject Property as B-3. The City, however, does have a future land use map that serves as a guide to the Plan Commission.
The public inquired why public parking areas cannot be utilized to meet off-street parking requirements, Mr. Koester advised that the downtown area properties are not required to provide off-street parking. Therefore, the City has provided on-street parking, as well as developed various public parking lots throughout the downtown area. If they do not have parking in the downtown area, then people will not visit the businesses within the downtown area. Mr. Koester further stated that public parking lots can be utilized by anyone, and the regulations prohibit any one business or company from having sole use of those parking spaces.
In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the city plans to build any multi-story parking garages in the downtown area, Mr. Koester advised that the City does not have any plans to develop multi-level parking garages.
Nirav Patel appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, Effingham Shakti Corporation, an Illinois corporation, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Patel advised that the Petitioner owns the property at 101 W. Fayette, which is currently developed with A-1 Liquors. The building will be demolished as part of the widening of the State Highway (Fayette Avenue). The Petitioner is being forced to sell that property as part of the State’s expansion project. The Petitioner acquired the Subject Property in November 2019 to redevelop the A-1 Liquor establishment so they are not out of business. The Petitioner is proposing to construct a 3-story building on the Subject Property. They have also purchased the property behind 101 W. Fayette, south of the existing A-1 Liquor property, to provide an additional 40 parking spots. The total number of parking spots, including parking spots on the Subject Property, and the two separate parcels of property, is 81 parking spots.
Mr. Patel advised that the hardship is that they are being forced to sell the existing A-1 Liquor property. Mr. Patel testified that while they can build a liquor store, similar to the existing A-1 Liquor establishment, they are proposing to build a larger facility to provide for growth of their business and downtown Effingham.
Mr. Patel advised that they have worked hard to come up with the proposed 81 parking spots. Mr. Patel testified that they are landlocked and have been unable to acquire additional properties to develop the required parking infrastructure. Mr. Patel advised that they are not saying they will not develop additional parking infrastructure in the future. He stated when, and if, they are able to they will add more parking.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Patel confirmed that they would not need a variance and would be able to comply with the City’s parking requirements if they built the same size of building as the current A-1 liquor building on the Subject Property.
In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Patel testified that, in his opinion, the variance, if granted, would not be detrimental to any other adjacent property or the character of the area. The proposed development would bring in more people to the downtown area.
Chairman Pro-Tem Thies inquired about the timing of the State taking over the current A-1 Liquor property and whether the existing parking spots on the A-1 Liquor property would be available to utilize for the proposed development. In response, Mr. Patel testified that the State has now informed them that at the end of fall and beginning of January 2024 the State will approach them with offers to purchase the existing A-1 Liquor property. The existing parking spots will be utilized as part of the road expansion project and the existing A-1 Liquor building will be torn down, as well. Mr. Patel advised that they are going to try to purchase back any pieces of property that are left after the expansion project.
Board Member St. John asked how much the State was wanting to purchase of the existing A-1 Liquor property. Mr. Patel testified that the State will purchase the whole property, but the State may allow them to buy back any portions of the property not utilized by the expansion project. The new sidewalk will be installed in same area as the existing drive-through.
Board Member Wohltman asked whether the clientele utilizing the proposed off site parking lot on the property to the south of the existing A-1 Liquor Property would be required to cross Fayette Avenue to come to the proposed facility on the Subject Property. Mr. Patel confirmed that they would have to walk across Fayette Avenue to get to the Subject Property.
In response to questioning by Board Member Buehnerkemper regarding the width of the existing A-1 Liquor property, Mr. Patel advised that the lot is approximately 105 feet north to south. Board Member Buehnerkemper stated that if the State takes 40 feet, there would be some parking spaces that might be available on the existing A-1 Liquor property.
Dr. Tony Wilson appeared and testified in support of the Petition. Dr. Wilson testified that he is superintendent of Pinckneyville High School. Dr. Wilson started as a regular customer of Mr. Patel’s businesses including the location on Highway 33. Dr. Wilson worked with Mr. Patel to form the A-1 scholarship, which has given $15,000 to 8 high school seniors this last year and has also worked with Mr. Patel on other charitable initiatives.
Dr. Wilson stated that Mr. Patel’s businesses bring in people to the community from all over the Midwest. These people come to Effingham, eat dinner in Effingham, go to local bars, stay in hotels, and buy gas in Effingham. Mr. Wilson testified that he believes that the proposed development will be a great opportunity for Effingham.
Ms. Melinda King appeared and testified in support of the Petition. Ms. King advised that she is a loyal customer and friend of Mr. Patel. Ms. King supports the proposed expansion, which, in her opinion, will allow growth in Effingham. A-1 Liquor is not just a liquor store but brings people from all different cultures and outside of the Midwest to the community.
Gerald Donahue appeared and testified in support of the Petition. Mr. Donahue is employed at A-1 Liquor and has seen it grow from 6-7 employees to 30 employees with the expansion of the second site on Highway 33. Mr. Donahue testified that the owners of A-1 Liquor treat their employees like family. The proposed development on the Subject Property would provide employment opportunities for more people, including many people who live around the downtown area that do not have vehicles.
In response to questioning by Board Member Wohltman regarding the number of employees per shift who will be present at the proposed development, Mr. Donahue stated that they have approximately 17 bartenders employed at the A-1 Liquor facility on Highway 33, and about 7-8 employees at the A-1 Liquor facility across the street from the Subject Property. Mr. Donahue advised that he does not know how many employees will be present per shift at the proposed facility. The open patio section, on the third floor of the proposed building, will not be open year-round. Mr. Donahue stated that he estimates approximately 10 employees per shift at the busiest times for both bar area and liquor store.
Michael Edwards appeared and testified in support of the Petition. Mr. Edwards stated that he does not live in the community, but frequently comes to A-1. His community would be blessed with the opportunity to have the proposed development built in the community. Mr. Edwards testified that letting the proposed development not proceed over parking is ridiculous. Mr. Edwards advised that he does not understand why the public parking areas are excluded to satisfy the parking requirements for the development even though the City’s zoning regulations do not allow it. Mr. Patel has done a lot of good in the community and is involved in charitable organizations for this community, as well as other communities.
Deb Kinkelaar appeared and testified in support of the Petition. She advised that her support is primarily for the family. Ms. Kinkelaar met Mr. Patel’s father three years ago and bonded over gardening. Ms. Kinkelaar advised that the Patel family have entrepreneurial spirit. The whole family is hard working and all the members of the family work for the A-1 Liquor business. The family is well-known in the community and they are representatives of the characteristics of what the people of Effingham are. Her father was on the tourism board for years and they were always looking for opportunities to get people to Effingham. The family has put time, money, and reputation at stake to build this business.
Austin Phelps appeared and testified in support of the Petition. Mr. Phelps stated that denying the variance would be a mistake. Mr. Phelps testified that Mr. Patel has done nothing but live the American dream and built something from nothing. Mr. Phelps advised that the Patel family has helped him out personally, not only financially, but in other ways, as well. Mr. Phelps testified that there are other B-2 zoned properties that have been given a parking variance. Mr. Phelps identified EPLegends and said that property does not have enough parking spots.
Elizabeth Kidd appeared and testified in support of the Petition. Ms. Kidd testified that it should not matter that people have to walk to get to parking. Mr. Patel is a taxpayer and should be able to utilize public parking spaces. Public parking is paid for by the businesses in the area. Ms. Kidd does not see a problem with granting a variance because there are public parking spaces available. Ms. Kidd testified that additional parking can be discussed in the future after the proposed development is constructed. Ms. Kidd stated that Mr. Patel, and his family, have gone out of their way to help people, including herself.
No one initially appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition.
Greg Koester, City Planner, reappeared to provide additional testimony and respond to any inquiries.
City Attorney Willenborg inquired about the number of estimated parking spots identified in the Petition. Mr. Koester testified that the number of spots is estimated because the Petitioner only provided preliminary drawings. Subsequent to the filing of the Petition, the Petitioner provided the City with additional drawings, which depict parking on the Subject Property, as well as parking on two satellite parcels. Mr. Koester advised that the additional drawings also provide square footage of each floor of the proposed development of the Subject Property. Mr. Koester advised that the drawings misidentified the square footage of the third floor, because the calculations do not include the exterior assembly area, which has to be included for parking purposes. The correct square footage is 5,703 of assembly area, which requires 58 spaces. Therefore, the 18 spaces needed for the first-floor retail, the 44 spaces needed for the second floor assembly, and the 58 spaces needed for the third floor, added together is how they came up with the required 120 parking spaces. Mr. Koester testified that he agrees that while the exterior patio area on the third floor may not be utilized in the winter months or hot days, they have to look at the facility being at capacity in determining the parking requirements.
City Attorney Willenborg inquired whether the City has already allowed a waiver of strict compliance with the regulations to come up with the minimum 120 parking spots for the proposed development. Mr. Koester testified that the City, as it has done for other past developments in the City, has calculated parking based on “usable” spaces in the building. Mr. Koester testified that the proposed development would require 175 parking spaces if they strictly applied the regulations. However, they have trimmed that number down to 120 by looking at “usable spaces” in the proposed building.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg regarding the drawings provided by the Petitioner, Mr. Koester advised that the plans contained in the drawings are not to scale and do not contain dimensions. When the Petitioner provides the full site plan, they will have to show dimensions of the parking aisles and parking spaces. Mr. Koester said that he did preliminary calculations utilizing information provided on the preliminary drawings and it appears that the proposed parking spaces are 9’ x 20’ or 10’ x 18’ and the parking aisles are larger than the 24 feet, but the numbers are not exact.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that he cannot confirm that the Petitioner can develop the proposed 81 parking spaces because the drawings are not to scale and not to dimension.
Mr. Koester added that the City staff has worked with the Petitioner to already reduce parking requirements from 175 spots down to 120 parking spots. The City is not saying they cannot utilize on-street parking or public parking spots, they just cannot utilize these spaces to meet the off-street parking requirements for the proposed development.
City Attorney Willenborg inquired whether the Petitioner could construct the same size as the current A-1 facility on the Subject Property and meet the parking requirements of the zoning regulations. Mr. Koester stated that he believes that they could.
Board Member Buehnerkemper inquired whether the alley behind the current A-1 Liquor facility could possibly be vacated in the future to be utilized for parking. Mr. Koester advised that the alley is a City maintained alley that could possibly be vacated depending on whether there are any utilities within the alley.
Board Member Buehnerkemper inquired whether City staff had discussed the possibility of rezoning the Subject Property to B-3, Central Business District. Mr. Koester responded that they discussed rezoning to B-3, Central Business District, but one of the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to ensure sufficient parking in the downtown area. Mr. Koester stated that City staff felt that getting a variance, rather than rezoning to B-3, where the development would not be required to have any parking areas, would be better to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Buehnerkemper stated that the Subject Property is right next to the downtown area. Mr. Koester restated that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure adequate parking in the downtown area. While the Subject Property might be located within what is considered the downtown area, a rezoning of the Subject Property to B-3, which would not require parking, would go against the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this is why City Staff recommended that the Petitioner seek a variance, rather than rezoning the Subject Property.
Mr. Koester advised that when the City and Dust & Sons swapped property, Dust & Sons did not have to develop additional parking, but they did. Mr. Koester advised that Washington Savings Bank and Midland States Bank also developed additional parking when they redeveloped their downtown properties even though they were not required to do so as part of their redevelopment projects.
In response to questions by the public regarding the additional parking that Petitioner is proposing to add to the downtown area, Mr. Koester advised that while the Petitioner may be adding a few spots to the side of the proposed new building, the satellite parcel to the east of the Subject Property is already utilized for parking. Therefore, the proposal submitted by the Petitioner will not add a significant number of additional parking spaces to the downtown area. Mr. Koester further stated that the other parking area, where the Petitioner is proposing an additional 40 parking spaces is across Fayette. He questioned whether anyone from the downtown area would utilize that parking lot except when there is a downtown event. Mr. Koester confirmed that of the 81 spots proposed by Petitioner, approximately 50 new spots are being proposed in addition to existing parking spaces.
A member of the public inquired whether a goal of the Commission is to stop growth of the downtown area, Mr. Koester stated that, in addition to ensuring adequate parking, there is also a goal to grow the downtown area to make it viable. Mr. Koester testified that when the City paved Jefferson Avenue, both contractors constantly complained about the high amount of traffic that utilizes the downtown area. Mr. Koester took that as a compliment. The City’s goals are to grow the downtown area to make sure it is a place to visit, shop, drink, and eat. Mr. Koester testified that they have to balance ensuring successful businesses in the downtown area and having enough parking for those businesses.
In response to questions by the public regarding access to the parking lot proposed on the south side of Fayette Avenue, Mr. Koester advised that the City does not have jurisdiction over Fayette Avenue since it is a state route. There are currently crosswalks and signals for pedestrian traffic crossing Fayette Avenue. From all indications, the State will still provide for crosswalks and lights for pedestrian traffic as part of the expansion project.
In response to questions by the public regarding whether the Petitioner has advised that they would provide additional parking in the future, Mr. Koester advised that Mr. Patel testified about willingness to provide additional parking in the future if he can acquire additional property. A willingness to provide additional parking in the future, however, cannot be utilized in meeting the requirements of the City’s parking regulations.
In response to questions by the public whether the City is willing to work with the Petitioner to help them with their dream, Mr. Koester stated that the strict requirements of the City’s regulations require 175 spaces for the proposed development. The City, in looking at usable space of the proposed development, knocked down those requirements to 120 spaces. The City has already agreed to reduce the number of spaces by 55 spaces.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that the City cannot consider possible future parking infrastructure in determining compliance with regulations concerning development of property and parking requirements. Mr. Koester advised that after Fayette is expanded, there may be leftover parcels on the south side of Fayette that could be developed with parking, but this potential for additional parking cannot be counted.
In response to questions by the public regarding size requirements for a parking spot, Mr. Koester advised that the regulations require each space to be 180 square feet in size, which is 9’ x 20’ or 10’ x 18’. These are based on best engineering practice.
The public inquired whether the City considers economic impact of a development, including sales tax and property tax, by not allowing this project to proceed because of parking requirements. Mr. Koester testified the City Council always considers economic impact of a project. The City, however, has to ensure there is sufficient parking in the downtown area and whether not having enough parking in the downtown area would impact people coming to the downtown area.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that the City cannot consider financial aspects of a proposed development in the calculation of parking requirements. The parking requirements are based on the use. The required parking requirements are determined by the applicable regulations and are not dependent on whether a project generates property or sales tax.
City Attorney Willenborg reminded the Board that a variance cannot be based on financial considerations.
Chairman Pro-Tem Thies asked Mr. Koester to remind everyone of his job duties. Mr. Koester advised that part of his job duties is zoning enforcement. In looking at a development, the City has to ensure that the development is an allowable use in the zoning district and whether it has enough parking, green space, etc. The zoning regulations were originally adopted in 1948 and have been amended over the years. The zoning regulations are looked to when something is developed to make sure compatible uses are developed in specific zoning areas. Part of the zoning regulations include that there is adequate parking and green space as part of the development.
In response to questioning by the public regarding the GIS photo presented to the Board and whether the photo reflects that public parking areas are not being utilized and could support the development, Mr. Koester testified that the GIS photo depicts the downtown area before the Midland States Bank was developed. Mr. Koester advised that while there may or may not be sufficient public parking lots in the area, off-street parking and public parking lots cannot be utilized in the calculations of the required parking for the proposed development of the Subject Property.
In response to questioning by the public whether the City proposed additional areas for parking, Mr. Koester advised that they discussed utilizing areas on the south side of Fayette to develop additional parking, but they cannot utilize future parking possibilities to comply with the regulations.
The public continued to question the City on public parking and the use of these spots. Mr. Koester testified that these lots are for public parking and can be utilized for customers of any business in the downtown area. While these public parking spaces can be utilized by guests of the proposed development, these spots cannot be utilized in the calculations of the required parking for the proposed development of the Subject Property.
In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that a lot of the downtown businesses were developed before zoning and before vehicular traffic utilized roadways.
Katina Niebrugge appeared to testify. They do not necessarily oppose the project but wanted to present testimony. Ms. Niebrugge advised that she is appearing to read a letter on behalf of Boris Bonutti, which was made a part of the record. Ms. Niebrugge read the letter into the record. The Petitioner is requesting a variance to allow approximately 50% less parking spaces than what is required to accommodate the proposed facility, being approximately 60 parking spaces. This would place a burden of 60 parking spaces on the balance of the downtown business community. This would impact many downtown landlords, tenants, and public offices, and create a lack of access to parking for employees, clients, guests, and visitors. Within the letter, Mr. Bonutti advised that the redevelopment of Jefferson Avenue in 2018, which created outdoor café spaces, already resulted in the loss of 3 parking spaces on Jefferson and Banker Streets. Prior to the commencement of that project, Judge Kimberly Koester wrote a letter expressing concern about the loss of parking in the area, which would impact the ability of county and court employees to find parking. Within the letter, Mr. Bonutti expressed a concern of the burden that would be created by the proposed variance, which would reduce the number of parking for the proposed development of the Subject Property, by approximately 60 spaces. Within the letter, Mr. Bonutti requested that the Board deny the request for variance.
The hearing was closed and a discussion was conducted among the Board members in open session.
City Attorney Willenborg advised the Board that the regulations require a concurring vote of 4 members of the Board to grant a variance. City Attorney Willenborg further advised that the Petition requests a reduction of spaces from 120 to 58 spaces. The Board can lessen the extent of the variance requested but cannot authorize a greater reduction. City Attorney Willenborg thereafter advised the Board of the options it has in considering a Petition for Variance, including to deny a variance, approve a variance, grant a variance with conditions, and can also continue a public hearing.
Chairman Pro Tem Thies advised that he is leaning toward continuing the hearing. Chairman Pro Tem Thies stated that they appreciate what the Petitioner has done in the community and supports the business, but he does have concerns with reducing the parking spots from 120 down to 58. Chairman Pro Tem Thies advised that he believes there is an opportunity for more discussions between the Petitioner and the City to see what else can be done.
Board Member Wohltman stated that he is also in favor of continuing the hearing and allow the City and Petitioner to have additional discussions.
Board Member Buehnerkemper expressed concerns about not allowing the proposed development to proceed because the Subject Property is 100 feet from the B 3 zoned downtown area. Board Member Buehnerkemper advised that he is aware of two other developers that will not develop in the City because of the hoops they have to go through to develop in the City.
Board Member Hillyer stated that she believes that they will be able to get the requested number of parking spaces as the project develops since there will be additional areas available in the future after the Fayette Avenue expansion is completed. Board Member Hillyer stated that she knows A-1 is a great facility but does not know if the project is ready to be developed until after the Fayette Avenue expansion is completed.
Board Member Buehnerkemper expressed concern with making the Petitioner wait to redevelop its business until after the Fayette Avenue expansion is completed since the Petitioner wants to stay in business.
On motion by Board Member Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Hillyer, the public hearing was continued by a 4 to 2 vote.
6. Discussion Only: None
7. Public Comment: None
8. On motion by Board Member Ken Wohltman, seconded by Board Member Carrie Rodman, the meeting was adjourned.
https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/CUSQWG690EDA/$file/07-25-2023%20ZBOA%20Minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up