East Central Reporter

City of Effingham Plan Commission met Nov. 14.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Hayes

Dave Storm

Mark Thies

Clint Spruell

Theresa Hillyer

Ken Wohltman

MEMBERS ABSENT: Cindy Vogel

Michael McHugh

Kevin Gouchenouer

OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy Willenborg, City Attorney

Luke Thoele, City Engineer

Mitch Hardiek, Milano & Grunloh

Gary Maninfior, Maninfior Court Reporting

Greg Sapp, WXEF

1. Quorum and Approval of October 05, 2023 Special Meeting Minutes and October 10, 2023 Meeting Minutes: The November 14, 2023, City Plan Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. A quorum was present. On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Thies, the minutes for the October 05, 2023 Special Plan Commission meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented. On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Wohltman, the minutes for the October 10, 2023 Plan Commission meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.

2. Preliminary and Final Plat for American Way Industrial Park Subdivision, Sixth Addition, Effingham, Illinois:

Greg Koester, City Planner, presented the Preliminary and Final Plat for the American Way Industrial Subdivision, Sixth Addition, and recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat as presented, subject to the following:

1. Signatures of the owner on Preliminary Plat;

2. Submission of the Certificate of Platting; and,

3. Submission of the mylar of the Final Plat and copies, filing fees, and recording fees.

On motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Spruell, the Preliminary and Final Plat for American Way Industrial Subdivision, Sixth Addition, was approved by a 6 to 0 vote, subject to compliance with the above-referenced items regarding the Preliminary and Final Plat.

3. Preliminary and Final Plat for Cross Pointe Subdivision, Fifth Addition, Effingham, Illinois:

Greg Koester, City Planner, presented the Preliminary and Final Plat for Cross Pointe Subdivision, Fifth Addition, and recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat as presented, subject to the following:

1. Signatures of the owner on Preliminary Plat;

2. Revise Preliminary Plat and Final Plat to provide 10’ easements along Avenue of Mid-America and Outer Belt West;

3. Submission of the Certificate of Platting; and,

4. Submission of mylar of the Final Plat and copies, filing fees, and recording fees.

On motion by Commissioner Hillyer, seconded by Commissioner Storm, the Preliminary and Final Plat for Cross Pointe Subdivision, Fifth Addition, was approved by a 6 to 0 vote, subject to compliance with the above-referenced items regarding the Preliminary and Final Plat.

4. Public Hearing on Petition to Vacate A Portion of an Alley – E/W Alley from Cherry Street to Mulberry Street - South of Fayette Avenue, filed by Petitioner, Andes Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership:

Greg Koester, City Planner, appeared to testify. Mr. Koester testified that Andes Limited Partnership, which operates Andes Healthmart Pharmacy located on the north side of the Subject Alley, is proposing to build a new facility. They are proposing to build the new facility over the alleyway. Due to the Fayette Avenue widening project, there is not much space left between the roadway and the front of the existing Andes Healthmart Pharmacy building. Therefore, the Petitioner desires to place the new facility back further from the roadway. Mr. Koester testified that the Petitioner owns the adjacent lots on both sides of the portion of the alley to be vacated, therefore, the Petitioner is the only one to utilize this area of the alleyway for direct access to properties.

Mr. Koester testified that there are utilities located within the alley. Ameren has an electric line and Mediacom and Consolidated both have communication cables in the alley. Mr. Koetser advised that the Petitioner has been in contact with the utility companies regarding the relocation of these utilities. Mr. Koester testified that there is a sanitary sewer that comes off Mulberry Street that serves the existing Andes Healthmart Pharmacy and the two lots on the corner of Mulberry and Edgar.

Mr. Koester advised that the two houses on the south side of the portion of the alley sought to be vacated are proposed to be demolished.

Mr. Koester testified that if the Plan Commission makes a recommendation to vacate the alley, the City staff does have recommendations for requirements to be placed on the proposed vacation. These recommendations include the following:

1. Andes Limited Partnership shall provide the City with written consent from the utility companies occupying the alley consenting to the vacation of the portion of the alley if no utility relocation is required.

2. If relocation of a utility is required, Andes Limited Partnership shall provide a written agreement between Andes and the utility company for the relocation of the utilities.

3. The expense of the relocation shall be borne by Andes Limited Partnership and shall be noted in the relocation agreement required above.

4. Any other items City Staff, the Plan Commission and City Council determine to be in the best interests of the City and the community.

5. The items listed above shall be addressed prior to recording the ordinance authorizing the alley vacation.

In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that only a portion of the subject alley is requested to be vacated. The remaining area not sought to be vacated does provide access to properties, but the portion sought to be vacated is not needed to access those parcels. If this area of the alley is vacated, it can no longer be utilized as an alley.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, 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 this portion of the alley since the utilities will be relocated. In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that there will be no need to reserve any easement over the alleyway since the utilities must be relocated if the alley is allowed to be vacated. In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that the public would be served by the vacation and the City would be relieved from the burden of maintaining that portion of the alley if the proposed vacation would be granted. Mr. Koester further confirmed that, if vacated, the Petitioner would become the owner of the vacated portion of alley since the Petitioner owns the properties lying on both sides of the portion of the alley sought to be vacated. Finally, Mr. Koester confirmed that the subject alley is currently improved and is used for access to properties adjacent to the alley.

In response to questioning by the public, Mr. Koester confirmed that the Petitioner is seeking to vacate only that portion of the alley that lies adjacent to the Petitioner’s properties. A portion of the alley would remain on both the east and west sides of the Petitioner’s property, including that area south of Dr. Frichtl’s former office.

In response to questioning by the public, Mr. Koester confirmed that the Petitioner’s want to rebuild the Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility. As part of this construction, the Petitioner is proposing to build back further south of Fayette Avenue. Mr. Koester presented a preliminary site plan detailing the location of the existing Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility, as well as the proposed location of the new Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility. The new Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility would be constructed across the portion of the alley proposed to be vacated. In response to questioning regarding the distance the proposed building would be placed back from Fayette Avenue, Mr. Koester responded that the plan is not to dimension so he would be unable to respond. He did, however, advise that it appears like the front of the proposed new building looks to be about 20-25 feet further south from the location of the front of the existing building, and the back of the new building looks to be about 80-100 feet further south.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies, Mr. Koester confirmed that an easement does not need to be retained over the alleyway since the utilities will have to be relocated.

Garrett M. Andes II, a/k/a Chip Andes, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Andes Limited Partnership, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Andes testified that the Fayette Avenue widening project has not worked out how they hoped. When he purchased the building 35 years ago, he knew Fayette Avenue would be expanded, but his assumption at that time was that 4 feet would be taken from properties lying on both sides of Fayette Avenue. That is not what has occurred. The portion of property that has been taken from his property as part of the Fayette Avenue widening project has been a lot more than what he thought.

Mr. Andes testified that he thought that the remnants of the properties lying on both sides of the current Andes Healthmart Pharmacy property would be able to be purchased and they could reconstruct the building over these parcels. Mr. Andes testified that they have made attempts to purchase these parcels, but they have been unable to do so.

Mr. Andes testified that they have studied plans to try to reconstruct on the property where the existing Andes Healthmart Pharmacy is located, but they have been unable to make this work. Therefore, they are asking for permission to vacate the alley and rezone the adjacent property since there is no room on the existing property to allow them to reconstruct the building. This option, to construct the new building over the vacated alley, is the last option. Mr. Andes testified that the reconstruction will be an expensive project for him, but in order to make a viable drug store, they will need to reconstruct the building as proposed.

In an attempt to respond to questions by the public earlier in the hearing, Mr. Andes advised that they are hoping to get permission to have an access onto Edgar, to allow the driveway on one side of the building and front door parking on the other side of the building. The access onto Edgar would be better than to have to circle around the building to access back onto Fayette Avenue. They are also hoping for an access onto Cherry Street, but that is up to the other parties to approve.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Andes confirmed that as a part of the Fayette Avenue widening project there was a taking of 53 feet of his property. As a result of that taking, the Petitioner needs to reconstruct the Andes Healthmart Pharmacy building.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, to clarify testimony provided by Mr. Andes, Mr. Andes testified that he was hoping to acquire the remnants left over after the IDOT takings of the Schakmann and Frichtl properties. If the Petitioner were able to acquire those remnants, the building could have been reconstructed on these parcels rather than requiring the vacation of the alleyway to allow for the reconstruction.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Andes testified that the Petitioner is only seeking to vacate that portion of the alleyway lying adjacent to the Petitioner’s properties located on the north and south sides of the alleyway. Mr. Andes confirmed that the Petitioner owns the parcels on both the north and south side of the portion of the alleyway that they are seeking to vacate.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Andes opined that no person would be deprived of access to public streets or property if the proposed portion of the alley is vacated. Mr. Andes further confirmed that they are in communication with the utility companies that have facilities within the alleyway to discuss the relocation of those facilities.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Andes confirmed that he has been informed of the City Staff’s recommendations of conditions being placed on the vacation of the alley, if approved, as testified to by City Planner, Greg Koester. Mr. Andes further advised that he did not have any objection to the conditions recommended by City Staff.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the width of the proposed entrance onto Edgar Avenue, Mr. Andes testified that he assumes it would be approximately 22-24 feet wide. Mr. Andes advised that the intention is that this access would only be utilized to exit off the property, but some people may try to utilize the access for entrance to the property.

In response to questioning by the public requesting clarification on plans to utilize the remaining portion of the alleyway to exit onto Cherry Street or Mulberry Street, Mr. Andes testified that they are hoping to construct a place for people to exit onto Cherry Street, but there are no current plans to exit on the east side toward Mulberry Street, but this can be changed.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the area of property taken by IDOT, Mr. Andes testified that this area is measured from Fayette to the front door of the existing building. Mr. Andes testified that, as part of the Fayette Avenue widening project, they are widening the street from 10 feet to 12 feet, installing a 12-foot turn lane, installing a 10 foot bike path/sidewalk. The area taken by IDOT takes away the ability to have parking in the front area of the existing building.

Mr. Andes testified that if he could have acquired the Schackman property, they would have been able to reconstruct the building to place the drive-through on the front of the building and move the parking and public entrance on west side, while allowing access directly onto Mulberry Street.

In response to questioning by the public about the possibility of placing the drive through on the south side of the existing building rather than constructing a new building, Mr. Andes testified that due to the configuration of the existing building, this would require the Petitioner to construct a giant hill of concrete to allow access due to the difference in height between the front and back of the building. They would have been able to consider moving the drive through to the back of the building, if they could have been able to purchase the Frichtl property to allow a smaller slope to access the building.

In response to questioning about the possibility to push the building further to the west and utilize alley access rather than Edgar, Mr. Andes testified that the building would not fit properly, but they did evaluate this option. Mr. Andes testified that since they were unable to acquire the Frichtl property, this is not a viable option.

In response to questioning by the public regarding concerns with lighting impacting the adjacent residential properties on Edgar Avenue, Mr. Andes testified that he is aware of the light situation on the property. Mr. Andes testified that they are hoping to put lighting on the property that is placed on a timer that shuts off at 7 pm. They would still, however, maintain lighting around the sides of the store. Mr. Andes testified that the lighting on the building would not be flood lights, like they have now, but LED lights, which would allow police to see the building when they drive around.

In response to questioning by the public about the possibility of only having an exit and entrance off of Fayette, rather than any access onto Edgar, Mr. Andes testified that this would be an option, but an exit onto Edgar would allow for travel onto a less congested route.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the possibility of constructing the building on the southwest portion of the current Andes Healthcare Pharmacy location, keeping access onto the alley rather than constructing over the alleyway, Mr. Andes testified that they are unable to reconstruct the building on the southwest side of the property because of the area needed for the drive through, setbacks from Cherry Street, and necessary parking, as well as an area to allow a vehicle to leave the drive through lane.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the possibility of facing the building in a different location, Mr. Andes testified that while the building may fit with a different reconfiguration, it would not be practical. The City will make them comply with setbacks and the setbacks will impact the ability to reconfigure the location of the proposed building.

The public expressed concerns with the lack of communication from representatives of the Petitioner to residents in the neighborhood. The public expressed frustration that Mr. Andes did not meet residents and ask for their input. Mr. Andes testified that while he did not go door-to-door, word was certainly put out. It is not like everyone in the neighborhood did not know about the request of the Petitioner. Mr. Andes stated that he understands. They evaluated every option to not encroach. Mr. Andes testified that he did not design the Fayette Avenue project, but they have just rolled with it. When the Petitioner purchased the properties to the south of the alley, this was a last resort. Mr. Andes testified that he understands shortage of housing is a problem, and he felt terrible that they have had to demolish two houses to reconstruct the building, but jobs are important. Mr. Andes stated that they are maintaining 35 jobs with this project. Mr. Andes testified that while he is old enough to retire, he does want to save these jobs. Mr. Andes testified that he has been pushed into a corner by other entities as a result of the Fayette Avenue project.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the number of jobs being created, Mr. Andes advised that he does not know how many jobs they will create with contractors for the project, but he does know that they will be saving thirty-plus jobs.

The public continued to question why Mr. Andes did not go door to door. Mr. Andes stated that he might not have been courteous with that issue, and while he probably should have, it would not have changed anything.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether there will be sufficient parking spots for the 35 employees, Mr. Andes testified that they propose to construct approximately 36 parking spots with the new facility, but not all of the employees are at the facility at the same time.

In response to questions about retaining jobs, Mr. Andes testified that if he is not able to reconstruct the building, he will not be able to maintain the business and the jobs will be lost.

In response to questions regarding the proposed exit onto Edgar, Mr. Andes testified that the proposed exit, and the location of the same, is dependent on the approval of the City. In response to questioning about whether an alternative exit could be placed onto Cherry Street, Mr. Andes advised that this is an option, but it depends on what the City allows them to do. They would like as many exits as possible, and if it could go out to Cherry, they are agreeable with that option.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Spruell, Mr. Andes testified that the original building will be demolished, and they will construct parking spots in the location of the existing building.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes, Mr. Andes testified that they do intend to place some type of separation from the property and the remaining areas of the alleyway that is not being vacated. This may include shrubs or a fence so as to not infringe upon the houses because there will be traffic utilizing the remaining alleyway if there is not some type of separation.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the possibility to loop around and exit back onto Fayette Avenue, Mr. Andes testified that this is a possibility but it can create congestion and can be a safety issue. The Petitioner is hoping for an exit onto either Cherry and/or Edgar. They would like to keep drive-through cars away from the parking areas. They would have liked the new entrance on Fayette Avenue to be over further, but IDOT determined the location of the entrance and already poured the concrete.

In response to questions by the public regarding the width of the existing Andes Healthmart Pharmacy property, Mr. Andes responded that it is 200 feet wide.

City Planner, Greg Koester, reappeared to provide additional testimony. Mr. Koester advised the public that the Plan Commission is holding a public hearing on the Petition to vacate the alley, as well as a Petition to rezone the subject properties. While the Petitioner has provided a conceptual plan for the proposed development of the new building, the Petitioner will still have to present a fully engineered site plan to address the location of entrances, parking, circulation around building, fences and bushes for buffering, etc. Mr. Koester advised that there will not be a public hearing for the approval of any site plan, but it will still be discussed at a meeting before the Plan Commission.

Mr. Koester advised that the Petitioner does own 4 lots on the north side of the alley, which total 200 feet in width. The Petitioner also owns 4 lots on the south side of the alley, which is also 200 feet in width. The south lots and the north lots, however, do not line up because of the location of the adjacent lots on each side.

William S. Damron appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Damron expressed concerns that he only became aware of the meeting when he noticed a sign on the north side of Edgar Avenue. Mr. Damron advised that he contacted the City, and a representative of the City advised Mr. Damron of the Petitioner’s proposed plans. Mr. Damron met with his neighbors and recommended that they attend the Plan Commission meeting to hear about the Petitioner’s plan.

Mr. Damron expressed a concern with a proposed access out onto Edgar Avenue. Edgar Avenue, and the entire neighborhood, is an older residential area in Effingham. Most of the properties only have a one-car garage and a one-lane driveway. Therefore, many of the property owners utilize on-street parking in front of their house. Mr. Damron advised that in the winter, there is no ditch, so parking is pushed out further in the street. If the Petitioner decides to have Edgar opened up for access, this will put more vehicles onto Edgar Avenue. This creates a higher probability of the property owner’s vehicles being struck. Mr. Damron advised that there are also two schools in the area, with several children walking to school. Mr. Damron suggested a concern of placing the children at greater risk if more vehicles utilized Edgar.

Mr. Damron testified that since the Petitioner’s property is 200 feet in width, he is of the opinion that the location of the proposed new building can be reconfigured. If the proposed building is 117 feet north and south and 46 feet east and west, this would allow 63 feet of width on either side of the property if the building is kept on the north side of the alley.

Mr. Damron stated that additional homes are being torn down to make way for this development, and these homes are being torn down in modest, middle-income family areas. Mr. Damron expressed concerns that older homes are being demolished and his family is being penalized so that a better facility can be developed. He expressed a concern with impacts to his property value with the location of commercial businesses adjacent to the residential properties.

Mr. Damron identified the location of his residential property in response to Commissioner Wohtlman’s inquiry.

Commissioner Hayes asked if the direction of the building were reconfigured whether the alley would still have to be vacated, Mr. Damron responded that he did not know.

Mr. Damron testified that he does not have a problem with the alley being vacated or the building being placed further south, but he does not want access going onto Edgar. Mr. Damron testified that while he does not want the building right up and adjacent to Edgar, he does not have concerns with it being placed further south. The employee parking lot has been adjacent to his property for years.

Mr. Damron testified that since the Petitioner demolished one of the residential homes a week ago, they have been utilizing the residential driveway to allow street access onto Edgar Avenue and he does care for this.

Allison Parker appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Ms. Parker advised that she opposes the Petition. She owns the property right behind the existing employee parking lot.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Ms. Parker stated that she does not have any opposition to the alley being vacated or the building being placed further back, but she does oppose any plan for access onto Edgar. Ms. Parker opined that allowing access would create dangerous conditions. This would also decrease property values. Ms. Parker also expressed a concern with impacts from the flood lights.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the impacts from flood lights, Ms. Parker raised a concern that additional lighting will be placed on the property, which can impact the residential properties.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the impacts from flood lights, Ms. Parker advised that since the Petitioner demolished one of the residential homes the impacts from the lights have been more noticeable.

Mr. Andes reappeared to provide rebuttal testimony. Mr. Andes stated that he is glad to hear suggestions and thoughts. Mr. Andes advised that they certainly would take these concerns into consideration. Mr. Andes advised that they could change the angle of lighting, which will make a big difference. Mr. Andes advised that the flood lights they currently have can and will be repositioned. He further advised that if the facility closes at 6pm, they can possibly have the parking lot lighting programmed to turn off at 7 pm. Mr. Andes did state, however, that the lighting on the building will have to remain on so that police can view any activity around the building.

With regard to concerns with access onto Edgar and/or Cherry, Mr. Andes testified that they are open to suggestions. Mr. Andes lived on Richland his whole life and he empathized with concerns from the neighbors. Mr. Andes said he is easy to find and if the neighbors want to talk, he is available to talk. Mr. Andes testified that he is not demanding an access onto Edgar, he will work with the City and if they will allow access onto Cherry Street instead of Edgar, he is ok with that option.

The public hearing was then closed, and the Commission considered the Petition in open session.

City Attorney Willenborg reminded the Commission of the findings that are to be found if they are to recommend a vacation of the alley. City Attorney Willenborg also reminded the Commission that the City Staff is recommending conditions be placed on the vacation of the alley, if approved.

Commissioner Storm stated that they have heard a lot of testimony, and they did not hear any opposition to the vacation of the alley. The City staff, in Mr. Koester’s report, recommended the vacation, with certain conditions. Commissioner Storm stated that while it is unfortunate that the widening of Fayette Avenue has created impacts to neighboring properties, the growth of the area will be beneficial, and he is in strong support for vacating the alley.

Commissioner Wohltman concurred with Commissioner Storm. Commissioner Wohltman stated that this situation was created because of the improvements to Fayette Avenue, and the fact that all of the improvements were pushed to the south side of Fayette Avenue. Commissioner Woltman understands that there is no real opposition to vacating the alley, while there may be concerns regarding access to Edgar Avenue. Mr. Andes advised that he is willing to explore all avenues to appease the neighboring property owners, but still allow him to develop the building.

Commissioner Thies stated that he concurs with both Commissioners Storm and Wohltman. Commissioner Thies stated that while the Fayette Avenue project is impacting the neighborhood, the project is progress for the area since it is one of the most dangerous roads in Effingham. He agrees with the closing of the alley. There are some talking points between the parties regarding the possibilities for access to Cherry Street or Edgar that still need to occur and expressed appreciation for Mr. Andes willingness to listen to concerns. Commissioner Thies also recommended that the parties work together to ensure lighting is not detrimental to adjoining neighborhoods.

The Commission found that: (1) the public would be served by the vacation of that portion of the alley requested to be vacated; (2) that the City would be relieved from the burden of maintaining that portion of the alley if the proposed vacation were granted; (3) that the Petitioner owns the land adjoining that portion of the subject alley, and that the Petitioner will become the owner of the real estate underlying those portions of the subject alley upon vacation, and, (4) no person will be deprived of access to public streets, access to property, or utilities, as a result of the proposed vacation.

On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Wohtlman, and approved by a 6 to 0 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council grant the Petition to Vacate a Portion of an Alley SUBJECT TO FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. Andes Limited Partnership shall provide the City with written consent from the utility companies occupying the alley consenting to the vacation of the portion of the alley if no utility relocation is required.

2. If relocation of a utility is required, Andes Limited Partnership shall provide a written agreement between Andes and the utility company for the relocation of the utilities.

3. The expense of the relocation shall be borne by Andes Limited Partnership and shall be noted in the relocation agreement required above.

4. Any other items City Staff, the Plan Commission and City Council determine to be in the best interests of the City and the community.

5. The items listed above shall be addressed prior to recording the ordinance authorizing the alley vacation.

5. Public Hearing on Petition to Rezone from Class R-2, Single-Family Residence District, to Class B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District, 804 to 810 W. Edgar Avenue, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioner, Andes Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership:

Mr. Andes appeared, on behalf of Petitioner, Andes Limited Partnership, to testify in support of the Petition. The Petitioner is requesting that the Subject Property be rezoned from Class R-2, Single Family Residence District to Class B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District.

Mr. Andes testified that in order to construct the new proposed Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility, it will encroach on the properties located on Edgar Avenue. Therefore, the Petitioner needs the Subject Properties to be rezoned. Mr. Andes said that due to the Fayette Avenue project, businesses are being pushed to redevelop closer to Edgar Avenue.

In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Andes testified that the Subject Property is comprised of four (4) lots. One lot is an empty lot, and the other three lots were developed with residential homes. Two of these residential homes were previously demolished. One of the lots is still developed with a residential home, but this home will be demolished. The Petitioner is seeking to redevelop the Subject Properties, as well as the proposed vacated alleyway and the Petitioner’s existing commercial property, in order to construct the new Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility. In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Andes confirmed that the Petitioner intends to replat the various lots into one lot.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Andes confirmed that in order to redevelop the Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility, it is necessary for the Subject Properties to be rezoned to Class B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District. Mr. Andes confirmed that the property on which the current Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility is located is zoned Class B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District.

Mr. Andes stated that he grew up on Richland Street and small businesses were located right in the middle of the neighborhood. The location of this type of business (pharmacy) in the neighborhood is not a foreign concept. Mr. Andes testified that US Route 40 is prime for the development of business. Mr. Andes stated that he hopes to have a small business on the properties.

In response to questioning by the public regarding possible impacts of the development of the business closer to an area school, Mr. Andes confirmed that the proposed business will be built closer to the area school.

William S. Damron appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Damron testified that he has the same concerns as to what he expressed during the public hearing on the Petition to Vacate a Portion of an Alley heard earlier in the evening. Mr. Damron stated that he does not have a problem with the alley being recommended for closure, but he is opposed to the potential access onto Edgar Avenue.

Mr. Damron stated that with the recent demolition of the residential home on one of the lots which is part of the Subject Properties, he can now see all the way to St. John Lutheran Church. Furthermore, the lights from the commercial business are more intense and coming into his room the lights are more intense.

Mr. Damron further expressed concern with impacts to those that currently utilize Edgar Avenue for on-street parking. Mr. Damron does not want to see the Subject Properties have access onto Edgar Avenue because it will affect their livelihood, as well as that of their neighbors. Mr. Damron stated that he believes it is more appropriate that the Petitioner continue to utilize the alleyways for access. Mr. Damron testified that there are signs currently existing off of the alley directing traffic from Andes Healthmart Pharmacy to utilize the alleyway for access.

Mr. Damron stated that he wished that Mr. Andes would have come to the neighborhood and discussed the proposed plans.

Mr. Damron again expressed concerns about the possible access onto Edgar Avenue. He stated that he believes it will create impacts with traffic flow.

Mr. Damron also expressed a concern with lighting generated from the business and impacts on the neighboring residential properties.

No one appeared to oppose the Petition.

City Planner, Greg Koester, appeared and testified that the Subject Property is comprised of four lots that are currently zoned R-2, Single Residence District. The Subject Property was previously developed with four older single-family homes. Mr. Koester confirmed that the Petitioner is seeking to rezone the Subject Property to B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District and further confirmed that the property on which the existing Andes Healthmart Pharmacy is located is zoned B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District. In response to further questioning, Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Property was originally developed with a single-family home on each lot. One home was demolished years ago; in the last couple of years two additional homes have been demolished. Mr. Koester stated that Mr. Andes testified that the remaining single-family home will be demolished soon. Mr. Koester further advised that one of the lots is presently utilized for employee parking. Mr. Koester further testified that the properties to the north of the Subject Property are zoned B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District, with one property being improved with the existing Andes Healthmart Pharmacy, while the property on the northeast corner was utilized by the Frichtl Chiropractic clinic, and the property on the northwest corner is the remainder of the former Schackman auction property Mr. Koester testified that the properties to the south of the Subject Property are zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District and are improved with single-family residences, the properties immediately to the east of the Subject Property are zoned R 2, Single-Family Residence District and developed with two single-family residences, while properties further east and located on the east side of Mulberry Street are zoned B-2, General Commercial District and developed with the Dollar General Store. Mr. Koester further testified that the property to the west of the Subject Property is zoned R 2, Single-Family Residence District and developed with the former Unit 40 West Side Elementary School, which is now utilized for the Fresh Start Treatment and Learning Center.

Mr. Koester testified that the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates the Subject Property for commercial use. Mr. Koester testified that the Comprehensive Plan also provides guidance on the retention and growth of commercial areas around the interstate interchanges and along arterial roads, such as Fayette Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan further provides guidance on the land use transitions between these commercial and industrial areas to protect adjacent single family neighborhoods. Mr. Koester testified that while the optimal means of protection is transitional zoning, such as commercial to multi-family to moderate density single family attached and duplexes to single family residences, this is not always possible such in this instance. In these situations, protection of the residential neighborhood can include buffering, incorporating elements of fencing, trees and other plant material, landscaping, berms and spacing between uses. In addition, in the B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District, the allowable land uses are less intense and intrusive than the land uses allowed in the other B Commercial Zoning Districts. If the rezoning is granted, Mr. Koester advised that buffering can be used to protect the residential neighborhood and can be addressed in the Site Plan. Mr. Koester read off the allowable uses within a B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District. Mr. Koester stated that the uses allowed within a B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District, tend to not be businesses that are open 24/7, and tend to be less intrusive than uses allowable in a B-2 zoning district.

Mr. Koester further testified that the Petition and proposed development is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and generally in conformance with the trend of development. Mr. Koester stated that the development in the area between Edgar Avenue and Fayette Avenue and between Henrietta Street and the Central Fire Station has been slowly transitioning from residential to commercial over previous years in anticipation of the IDOT Fayette Avenue Project. With the IDOT Fayette Avenue Project, there has been the expansion of commercial uses towards Edgar Avenue with the new O’Reilly Auto Parts store demolishing 2 single family residences and rezoning the property to B-2 General Commercial for a new facility. Mr. Koester testified that a Dollar General is developed in the block immediately east of the Subject Property. Mr. Koester further advised that the owner of the property located in the block between Linden and Maple Streets has contacted the City about a possible commercial redevelopment of the block.

In response to questions by Commissioner Wohlman about the zoning of the property located on the corner of Mulberry and Edgar, Mr. Koester testified that this property is zoned R-3B, which allows duplexes, as well as single-family attached or single family residential.

Commissioner Spruell inquired about whether the property that is developed with the Dollar General store has an access onto Edgar Avenue. After review of maps, Mr. Koester confirmed that the property does have access onto Fayette, Mulberry, and Edgar.

In response to questions by Chairman Hayes regarding how often the comprehensive plan is updated, Mr. Koester advised that it is updated every 5 to 10 years. At least one public hearing is held before an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is adopted.

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

The Commissioners concurred that the proposed rezoning and redevelopment of the Subject Property complies with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the trend of development in the area.

After due consideration and the evidence presented, the Commissioners made the following findings and recommendations:

1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Subject Property was previously developed with four single-family homes. Three of these homes have been demolished and the other home is proposed to be demolished to allow for the construction of the new Andes Healthmart Pharmacy facility.

2. EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA: The properties to the north of the Subject Property are improved with the existing Andes Healthmart Pharmacy, the property on the northeast corner was previously developed with a chiropractic clinic, and the property on the northwest corner was previously developed with Schackman Auction. The properties to the south of the Subject Property are improved with single-family residences, the properties immediately to the east of the Subject Property are developed with single-family homes, while the property further east and located on the east side of Mulberry Street is developed with a Dollar General Store, and the property to the west of the Subject Property is developed with the former Unit 40 West Side Elementary School, which is now utilized for the Fresh Start Treatment and Learning Center.

3. PRESENT ZONING IN THE AREA: The Subject Property is currently zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District. The properties to the north of the Subject Property are zoned B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District, the properties to the south and west of the Subject Property are zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District, the properties immediately to the east of the Subject Property are zoned R-2, Single-Family Residence District, and the property further east and located on the east side of Mulberry Street is zoned B-2, General Commercial District.

4. TREND OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA: The area is developing in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is trending with redevelopment for commercial uses.

5. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Petition is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.

On Motion by Commissioner Wohltman and seconded by Commissioner Thies, by a 6 to 0 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Petition to Rezone as presented to the Commission.

7. Public Hearing on Petition to Vacate a Portion of an Alley – N/S Alley South of Franklin Avenue filed by Petitioner, CW Motorsports, an Illinois limited partnership:

The Petitioner requested a continuance of the hearing on the Petition to Vacate a Portion of an Alley.

On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Wohtlman, the Petitioners’ request for a continuance was approved by a 6 to 0 vote.

8. Discussion Only:

A. Modular Dwelling Text Amendment:

City Planner, Greg Koester presented proposed amendments to definitions for dwelling, manufactured home, manufactured home park, modular dwelling, and relocatable building. These updates to the definitions are to ensure that they are consistent with current terminology. Mr. Koester advised that the proposed text amendment would also include an amendment to allow modular homes as an allowable use in the NU, Non-Urban District. Mr. Koester further advised that the text amendment also cleans up some language in the special use provisions governing manufactured home parks. Furthermore, the proposed text amendment adds provisions for allowing accessory buildings, prohibiting living space additions to manufactured homes, as well as prohibiting manufactured homes constructed prior to January 1, 2000.

Commissioner Thies inquired about the proposed revisions to the square footage for modular dwellings, as contained in the proposed definition of “modular dwelling” and what was previously contained in the definition of “relocatable home”.

B. Duplex-Triplex Text Amendment:

City Planner, Greg Koester presented proposed text amendments to City regulations on duplexes and triplexes. Mr. Koester advised that the City’s current regulations allow duplexes in an R-3B zoning classification, and then four units or more in an R-3C or R-3D zoning classification. Mr. Koester testified that the City has been approached by developers seeking to develop a triplex. The proposed text amendment would allow more transition from single-family to apartments. This would allow the smaller multi-family without zoning to R-3C or R-3D, which allows an 8-unit apartment complex.

The text amendment would allow more moderate density multi-family in R-3A and R-3B zoning designations to transition from single-family to higher density residential multi-family allowed in R-3C and R-3D zoning designations.

Commissioner Wohltman questioned whether the new language would apply to new construction or existing residential properties. Commissioner Wohltman expressed a concern with allowing the redevelopment of existing homes for moderate density multi family homes but suggested a concern with having adequate parking and sufficient lot width.

Mr. Koester advised that the proposed text amendment includes revisions to definitions of attached single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, three-family dwelling, and multiple dwelling.

Mr. Koester advised that the proposed text amendment also contains revisions to Article 7-1. When the zoning ordinance was amended in 1994, language in R-3A and R 3B was amended but failed to correct some verbiage including within the table of height and area requirements contained in Article 21.

Mr. Koester further identified some additional revisions proposed within Article 21.

Mr. Koester advised that he will be presenting the proposed Text Amendment to the City Council at an upcoming meeting to get comment from the City Council. Mr. Koester advised the Commission that he welcomes their input on the proposed Text Amendment.

C. Plan Commissioner Training on October 5, 2023:

A general discussion was held regarding the presentation provided by the American Planning Association Illinois Chapter during the October 5, 2023 special meeting.

9. Public Comment: None.

10. On motion by Commissioner Wohtlman, seconded by Commissioner Storm, the meeting was adjourned.

https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/CYATNL78084D/$file/11-14-2023%20PC%20Minutes.pdf