East Central Reporter

Casey Westfield Community Unit School District C-4 Board of Education met Dec. 12.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Hayes

Mark Thies

Clint Spruell

Cindy Vogel

Theresa Hillyer

Ken Wohltman

Michael McHugh

Kevin Gouchenouer

MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Storm

OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy Willenborg, City Attorney

Luke Thoele, City Engineer

Greg Koester, City Planner

Gary Maninfior, Maninfior Court Reporting

Nick Taylor, Effingham Daily News

Greg Sapp, WXEF

1. Quorum and Approval of November 14, 2023 Meeting Minutes: The December 12, 2023, City Plan Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. A quorum was present. On motion by Commissioner Hillyer, seconded by Commissioner McHugh, the minutes for the November 14, 2023 Plan Commission meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as presented.

2. Public Hearing on Petition to Rezone from Class R-2, Single-Family Residence District to Class R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District and, and Petition for Special Use (17) to allow a offices and clinics operated by physicians, dentists or other members of the healing arts in an R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, and Special Use (18), pharmacy in an R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, affecting property between N. Maple Street and N. Penguin Street, Effingham, Illinois, filed by Petitioners, Sarah Bush Lincoln Heath Center, an Illinois not for profit corporation and Effingham Medical Park, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company:

Ryan Witges, President of Agracel, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Effingham Medical Park, LLC, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Witges testified that Agracel is the manager and sole member of Effingham Medical Park, LLC. Mr. Witges testified that page three of the Petition lays out the intended plan for development of the Subject Property. Mr. Witges advised that Agracel has done a number of projects with Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center in Effingham, as well as in Coles County. Sarah Bush Lincoln

Health Center has already invested heavily in the community and they are looking at additional investment in the community.

Mr. Witges pointed out that the Subject Property is owned by Effingham Medical Park, LLC, and it has always been the intention of the owner to develop the Subject Property, as well as the property on the west side of Maple, for medical facility purposes. Mr. Witges identified the uses of the property that they previously sold off on the west side of Maple including two Sarah Bush facilities, Shumacher Orthodontics and Red Cross, as well as property purchased by St. Anthony HSHS. The Subject Property is the remaining 12 acres owned by the Petitioner, and is located on the east side of Maple Street. Mr. Witges testified that the Subject Property is currently zoned R-2, Single Family Residence District, but the intention historically of the Petitioner/Property owner was to develop this property with medical facilities.

Mr. Witges testified that in 2017, the Petitioner, Effingham Medical Park, LLC, was approached by a developer that was interested in developing the Subject Property with multi-family uses. This proposed development was strongly opposed by residents around the Subject Property. Due to the opposition, they chose to not proceed with the project.

Mr. Witges testified that the intended use, and the highest and best use for the Subject Property, is medical development. The property owner is negotiating an agreement to sell the property to Sarah Bush. Mr. Witges testified that the Petition and proposed development allows them to develop the property as intended, but also includes provisions to place conditions on the development of the Subject Property restricting any future residential development on the Subject Property.

In response to questioning by City Attorney, Tracy Willenborg, Mr. Witges confirmed that the Petitioners are agreeing that if the Petition is granted, that a condition be placed prohibiting any residential development, including multi-family development, on the Subject Property and that the Subject Property only be developed with offices and clinics operated by physicians, dentists or other members of the healing arts and a pharmacy.

A member of the public inquired whether restrictions of development would encumber the title. In response City Attorney Willenborg advised that conditions on a special use will generally run with the land unless it is specifically limited to a specific property owner.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether all entrances will access off Maple Street or whether any access points will be off of other streets, Mr. Witges testified that while access points have been discussed, it has not been fully determined what will be required. In speaking with representatives of Sarah Bush, the intention is that the main entrances will be off of Maple Street, but they do not know whether the City, for life safety purposes, will require additional entrances.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the height of the building and whether the building will be three stories high, Mr. Witges testified that he understands that Sarah Bush does not intend to construct a three-story building.

Tim Kastl, the Facilities Director for Petitioner, Sarah Bush Lincoln Heath Center, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Kastl advised the Commission that he is finding locations for and overseeing the construction of medical facilities for Sarah Bush. The Petitioner is requesting that the Subject Property be rezoned to R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, as well as the grant of a Special Use Permit under paragraphs (17) and (18), which would allow Sarah Bush to have a medical office and retail pharmacy. Mr. Kastl further testified that within the Petition, the Petitioner is agreeing to a restriction prohibiting the development of multi-family dwellings without coming back for future approval. Mr. Kastl testified that Sarah Bush does not have any intent to develop the Subject Property with multi-family dwellings.

Mr. Kastl advised the Commission that the wide-open area of the Subject Property attracted Sarah Bush to this property. Sarah Bush does not intend to fill up the Subject Property with buildings. They are proposing to construct one building, but depending on the future needs, there possibly may be a second building constructed.

In response to concerns they heard about additional traffic on Pelican or Penguin Streets, Mr. Kastl testified that Sarah Bush intends to face the building toward Maple Street and anticipate that all traffic will come off access points off of Maple Street. They, however, will have to talk to the City and determine if there are any additional requirements for access.

Mr. Kastl advised that they are in the programming phase of this development. They have an idea of the size of the building, but the site plan has not yet been prepared. The current plan is to develop the building with clinic space for specialty providers, as well as a retail pharmacy.

In response to previous questions regarding the size of the proposed building, Mr. Kastl testified that they are currently looking at constructing a two-story building, with an approximate 20,000 to 30,000 square foot footprint. Mr. Kastl advised that Sarah Bush intends to not only meet the setback requirements of the City, but intends to exceed the setback requirements. Mr. Kastl further testified that they will also comply with any requirements to develop fence, trees, or vegetation.

Mr. Kastl testified that they are aware that the southern part of the Subject Property is in a flood zone. They most likely cannot change that flood zone designation, but they will not make the flooding situation any worse. If there is anything they can do to alleviate the flooding, as part of the design of the improvements, they will do so.

Mr. Kastl testified that Sarah Bush wants to be a good neighbor. As such, they intend to ensure adequate green space, including trees and grass. Additionally, if the neighbors have any concerns, he is happy to give them contact information so that they have a point of contact to discuss concerns.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding the percentage of the footage of the property that Sarah Bush intends to construct building(s), Mr. Kastl testified that the Subject Property is approximately 520,000 square feet, so the building will probably take up approximately 5% of the area of the Subject Property.

In response to questioning by the public regarding flooding in the area of the Subject Property, Mr. Kastl advised that they have not enlisted the help of a civil design engineer for the project yet, but they are aware of flooding on the south side of the Subject Property. Mr. Kastl testified that they will have to work with EPA and other associated agencies to ensure that they do not negatively impact flooding issues. If anything, they hope to make the flooding issues better.

Erica Stollard, Vice-President of Operations for Petitioner, Sarah Bush Lincoln Heath Center, appeared to testify in support of the Petition. Ms. Stollard thanked the City for valued partnership over the years as they have developed in the community. Sarah Bush is committed to their strategy of growth and they would like to bring additional programs and services to the community. In order to do so, they need to secure additional land for development. Ms. Stollard testified that the Subject Property is attractive for this future development because it is directly across the road from two buildings that they currently own and it is in the heart of the health care district in Effingham. They have looked at other properties in Effingham, but believe that the Subject Property is the best location for Sarah Bush’s needs. Ms. Kastl advised that Sarah Bush is in the preliminary phase of the planning for the development of the Subject Property, but believes that the design and plans for the building will be in the best interest of the community.

Matt Hirtzel appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Hirtzel testified that he has resided on Pelican Street for 24 years. Mr. Hirtzel testified that Agracel and Sarah Bush have been good neighbors. Mr. Hirtzel testified that a medical facility can be a good neighbor because the facilities are closed when the residents are home in the evenings. Mr. Hirtzel testified that they are, however, concerned with any access onto Pelican, Penguin, or Eden streets as another entrance for the proposed development. Mr. Hirtzel advised that there are no sidewalks on the side streets, and young children and other people utilize the streets for pedestrian uses. Mr. Hirtzel understands that most traffic will come off of Maple Street, which is better engineered for this type of traffic. Mr. Hirtzel identified possible traffic from the medical facility located on Merchant Street, that will utilize the side streets, including Pelican, Penguin, and Eden, to access the proposed development. Mr. Hirtzel testified that these side streets were not engineered or constructed to handle traffic that can be generated as part of the proposed development.

Elise Paholke appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Ms. Paholke testified that she and her husband have resided on Penguin Street for 38 years. They just bought a house directly across the field from the Subject Property. They have concerns with the possible impact of the proposed commercial development on the residential areas. Ms. Paholke testified that the commercial development will likely cause a decrease in value of the residential properties, as well as the charm and appeal of the neighborhood, which is rooted in residential uses. Ms. Paholke further identified possible environmental impacts, as well as concerns with how the lighting utilized by the commercial development will impact the adjacent residential properties. Ms. Paholke testified that the commercial development will also impact the quiet atmosphere of the community. Ms. Paholke further identified possible impacts on safety. There are a lot of young children in the adjacent residential areas. Ms. Paholke urged the Plan Commission to consider alternate locations for the proposed facility that wouldn’t disturb the residential area.

Ms. Paholke presented a Petition Against Rezoning and Special Use Permits, which was signed by 128 residents that are not in favor of the project. A copy of this Petition was made a part of the record.

Chairman Hayes inquired whether the side streets would have to be extended if the Subject Property were developed with residential uses and whether there would be more or less traffic associated with residential uses rather than the proposed development. Ms. Paholke responded that there are residential uses on three sides of the Subject Property and that it would be better if the Subject Property were developed with residential uses. Additionally, the traffic generated by residential development would not impact the existing residential uses as opposed to traffic generated by the proposed commercial development.

Amy Will appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Ms. Will advised that she lives on Flamingo Street and runs a small in-home daycare. Ms. Will advised that her biggest concern with the proposed medical facility is the possibility that patients that visit the facility may be on the sex offender list. Ms. Will advised that she understands that sex offenders cannot be within 500 feet of any daycare or school. She believes that her property line is less than 500 feet from the Subject Property.

Don Bushue appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Bushue testified that he and his wife are currently constructing a home on the north end of Maple Street. Mr. Bushue stated that the City has done a phenomenal job of developing pools, parks, and recreational uses in the area. Mr. Bushue advised that these uses played a role in their decision to construct a home in the area. Mr. Bushue testified that the Subject Property would be an excellent location to develop 25-30 residential homes. Over time, the development of the Subject Property for residential uses would increase the tax revenue for the City. Mr. Bushue further identified flooding issues on the south end of the Subject Property and this will need to be addressed whether the Subject Property is developed with a medical facility or residential homes.

Chairman Hayes inquired whether Mr. Bushue was aware of why the Subject property has not been developed with residential uses. Mr. Bushue stated that there is the potential for more money to be obtained by the property owner if the property is purchased for commercial development. Mr. Bushue encouraged the City to offer incentives to the property owner to help with the infrastructure to allow the Subject Property to be developed for residential uses. Mr. Bushue reiterated that he thinks the Subject Property would be an excellent location for the development of homes especially given the central location of the Subject Property in relation to the Workman Center, ball diamonds, and swimming pool.

City Planner, Gregory Koester, appeared and testified. In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that the Subject Property is zoned R-2, Single-Family Dwelling District and is utilized for agricultural crop purposes. In response to further questioning, Mr. Koester testified that the properties to the north, south, and east of the Subject Property are zoned R-2, Single-Family Dwelling District and developed with single-family residences. The properties to the west of the Subject Property are zoned R-3D, Multiple- Dwelling District with a special use permit (17), and a portion of this property to the west of the Subject property is part of a PRD Overlay District. Mr. Koester testified that the properties are developed with clinics or medical offices along Maple Street, except for the North 265 feet on Maple Street and other land to the west, which is utilized for agricultural crop purposes. Furthermore, there is one parcel located on the north side of Eden Avenue, which is zoned B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District and improved with a retail facility that sells medical equipment and supplies.

In response to questioning, Mr. Koester testified that the present zoning of the Subject Property is not sufficient for development of the proposed development, but rather the Subject Property will have to rezoned to R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, as requested by the Petitioner. Furthermore, the special use permits would have to be granted to allow for the proposed development.

In response to additional questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester testified that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the north portion of the Subject Property as future low density residential development, and the southern portion of the Subject Property, as well as the portion of the Subject Property along Maple Street for future medium to high density residential development.

Mr. Koester submitted a report dated December 7, 2023, which he prepared and submitted to the Plan Commission. A copy of that report was made a part of the record.

Mr. Koester advised that the future land use map has been modified over the years. The area to the west of the Subject Property is shown as a future medical park. The Subject Property, which is east of Maple Street, is not identified as part of the future medical park.

Mr. Koester testified that while the proposed development may not be in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan, previous proposals to develop the Subject Property, which were partially in conformance with the future land use map, were denied for rezoning and did not move forward. Mr. Koester advised that in 2017, a public hearing was held on a petition to rezone the subject property to R-3D Multiple-Dwelling District to allow for the development of multi-unit, multi-story apartment buildings. Due to opposition from residents in the area, the petition to rezone the Subject Property for multi-family uses was withdrawn. Mr. Koester provided additional testimony on the history of zoning and attempts to rezone the Subject Property and surrounding properties. This history is contained in his report.

Mr. Koester stated that the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance on the land use transitions and buffers between non-residential areas to protect single family neighborhoods. While the optimal means of protection is transitional zoning, meaning commercial to multi-family to moderate density single family attached and duplex to single family, this is not always possible. When land use transitioning is not possible, conditions can be placed to protect neighborhoods, including buffering incorporating elements of fencing, trees and other plant material, landscaping, berms and spacing between uses. Mr. Koester testified that if the Petition is granted, buffering requirements can be addressed in the required Site Plan.

Mr. Koester stated that while traffic and drainage can be a concern with a change in zoning districts and land use, they should not be the sole determining factor in whether a petition for rezoning is granted or denied. Mr. Koester testified that the allowable uses within a zoning district, and the uses allowed under special use permits should be the prime consideration of whether to allow a rezoning, as well as determining if such uses are compatible with the adjacent zoning and uses. Furthermore, with special uses permits, conditions can be placed on a permit to attempt to mitigate any adverse effects. Mr. Koester stated that there will still be an increase in traffic, and the drainage concerns will still have to be addressed, whether the Subject Property is developed as a medical facility or for residential uses. Mr. Koester stated that the R-3D Multiple-Dwelling District zoning designation allowable uses include multi-family, multi-unit, multi-story apartment buildings. Mr. Koester testified that the Petitioner has requested that a condition be placed on the Special Use Permit, if granted, that restricts the uses allowed to be developed on the Subject Property to be those uses allowed under paragraphs (17) and (18), and to further restrict any residential development on the Subject Property.

Mr. Koester testified that the present zoning of the Subject Property is not sufficient for development of the proposed medical facility development, but rather the Subject Property will have to rezoned to R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, as requested by the Petitioner.

Mr. Koester stated that, in his opinion, the Petitioner’s plan for development of the Subject Property for offices and clinics operated by physicians, dentists or other members of the healing arts and a pharmacy would be a benefit to any community as a whole. Mr. Koester stated that the proposed development may have an adverse effect on surrounding properties as it will likely generate more traffic during working hours than if the Subject Property were developed with residential uses. The traffic associated with the medical facility, however, would have little effect on surrounding residential uses and traffic in the area during off-work hours. Additionally, while drainage can be a concern, drainage issues are usually addressed with good engineering design and practices. Mr. Koester further advised that buffering can be incorporated in the development of the Subject Property including, requiring fencing, trees and other plant material, landscaping, berms and open spaces between uses, a campus or park style site development, which can all help with aesthetics, noise, and lighting concerns.

Mr. Koester further testified that conditions can be placed on a Special Use Permit that can mitigate many concerns. In this case, the Petitioner has included a request in their Petition that restrictions be placed on the special use permit, if granted, including a restriction prohibiting residential development on the Subject Property, including multi

family residential uses, which are an allowable use within the R-3D Multiple-Dwelling District allows. Furthermore, buffering requirements can be imposed to mitigate possible negative impacts.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that it would be appropriate to place restrictions on the special use permit, if recommended to be granted, including restricting residential development of the Subject Property, as well as requiring buffering along the north and south side of the subject property and landscaping or open space along Penguin Avenue. The buffering to be required would be as recommended by the City Engineer. This buffering would be approved as part of the site plan approval by the Plan Commission. The proposed development, due to the size of the building, does require a site plan.

Mr. Koester identified the designation of the Subject Property on the future land use maps dated 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2017. The 1995 future land use map identifies the Subject Property for development of low density residential. The 2000 future land use map identifies the Subject Property for low residential development, but the southern portion was identified for inclusion as part of a hospital or medical planning district. The 2005 future land use map no longer identified any portion of the Subject Property as part of a hospital or medical planning district, but designated the northern part of the Subject Property for low density residential and the southern part of the Subject Property for moderate to high density residential uses. The designation of the Subject Property remained the same on the 2017 future land use map.

In response to questioning by the public regarding possible buffering, Mr. Koester gave examples of possible buffering options and that staff would recommend that buffering be required along the north line and south line of the Subject Property, as well as that portion of the Subject Property adjacent to Penguin Street.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the existing sanitary sewer is sufficient to handle the proposed development, Mr. Koester advised that the City has made improvements to the sanitary sewer in the area. The Petitioner will have to provide an IEPA connection permit and information on flows in order to determine whether improvements will need to be made to the sanitary sewer infrastructure.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether the development will lower property values and how many years before the building is constructed, Mr. Koester responded that he is unable to answer these questions. Mr. Koester later testified that he does not have the expertise to testify to the issue of impact on property value.

In response to questioning by the public regarding the location of the proposed building on the Subject Property, Mr. Koester advised that this would be a question that should be directed to representatives of Sarah Bush. Mr. Koester did state that Sarah Bush testified that there is approximately 525,000 square feet of land, and the building will be approximately 20,000 square feet of land.

In response to questioning by the public regarding what uses can be allowed for “healing arts” and a pharmacy, Mr. Koester stated that a pharmacy allows a use like Andes Health Mart and “healing arts” uses include a medical doctor office, chiropractor, dentist, etc.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether a cannabis dispensary can be developed on the Subject Property, both Mr. Koester and City Attorney Willenborg advised that a cannabis dispensary would not be an allowable use on the Subject Property. A cannabis dispensary could not be developed, under the City’s regulations, due to the proximity of residential uses.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether a detention or retention pond would have to be developed, Mr. Koester advised that the developer would have to design and construct facilities to ensure that the water run-off will be at the same rate that it was prior to the development. These facilities do not have to address existing flooding issues in the area.

In response to questioning by the public regarding whether curbing and/or street improvements will be made as part of the development, Mr. Koester advised that he is not aware of what improvements will need to be made.

The public inquired about what the City will do to correct the drainage issues in the area. City Attorney Willenborg advised that the City is not liable to correct drainage issues created by private development. Mr. Koester advised that he is not aware of any studies done, or will be undertaken, on drainage in the area of the Subject Property.

In response to questioning by Commissioner McHugh regarding possible ingress or egress on Pelican or Penguin Street, Mr. Koester advised that once the City receives the site plan from the Petitioner, the City will determine what access is needed or required to Penguin, Pelican, or Eden. The City has to see the site plan before they can rule out access to side streets. Access requirements depend on size, location of the building, access by emergency vehicles, etc.

In response to questioning by City Attorney Willenborg, Mr. Koester confirmed that he is recommending that a condition be placed on the special use permit, if granted, to require buffering be incorporated in the development as required by the City Engineer, which could include buffering along the north and south sides, as well as Penguin Street.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Thies regarding addressing impacts associated with lighting, Mr. Koester advised that they can work with the Petitioner to minimize light pollution from the site.

In response to questioning by Chairman Hayes regarding the possibility of making Pelican a dead-end street, Mr. Koester advised that depending on the plan of development, Pelican Street could possibly be made a dead-end street and may even entertain the possible vacation of the part of Pelican Street lying south of Holiday.

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

Commissioner McHugh suggested that based on Mr. Koester’s report, there are factors that may justify a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Vogel suggested that the Subject Property would be a perfect location for residential development. There is a need for residential development in the community. Commissioner Vogel advised, however, that it will be a win-win situation no matter how it is developed, but would love to see it residential.

Chairman Hayes agrees with Commissioner Vogel, but questions why it hasn’t been able to be developed with residential uses. It is plausible it can be used in the manner the Petitioner is requesting. The site plan will have to be presented and is an important part in the consideration of the project.

Commissioner Thies was on the Board in 2017 when the property owner sought to develop the Subject Property as multi-family. He suggested that the requested rezoning to multi-family most likely would not pass. Sarah Bush has been a good neighbor in the area of the Subject Property. Commissioner Thies feels like the proposed development might be the best way to go. While the community needs housing, we need medical facilities too.

Commissioner Wohltman agreed with Commissioner Thie’s statements. The Subject Property would have already developed residentially if it would have been advantageous to do so. Commissioner Wohltman agrees with placing conditions on the special use permit.

Commissioner Hillyer stated that it is important to maintain neighborhoods and thinks the best use is housing and putting a medical facility in the middle of housing is not conducive to that.

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

1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: The property is utilized for agricultural crop purposes.

2. EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA: The properties to the north, south, and east of the Subject Property are developed with single family residences. The properties to the west of the Subject Property are developed with clinics or medical offices along Maple Street, except for the North 265 feet on Maple Street and other land to the west, which is utilized for agricultural crop purposes. Furthermore, there is one parcel located on the north side of Eden Avenue, which is improved with a retail facility that sells medical equipment and supplies.

3. PRESENT ZONING IN THE AREA: The Subject Property, as well as the properties to the north, south and east of the Subject Property are zoned R 2, Single-Family Dwelling District. The properties to the west of the Subject Property are zoned R-3D, Multiple- Dwelling District with a special use permit (17), and a portion of this property to the west of the Subject property is part of a PRD Overlay District. There is one parcel located on the north side of Eden Avenue, which is zoned B-1, Neighborhood Shopping District.

4. SUITABILITY OF PRESENT ZONING: The present zoning is not sufficient for development of offices and clinics operated by physicians, dentists or other members of the healing arts if a Special Use Permit is granted, but rather the Subject Property will have to be rezoned to R-3D, Multiple Dwelling District, as requested by the Petitioner.

5. EFFECT ON GENERAL WELFARE: The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the Special Use will not be detrimental to and otherwise endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, development and general welfare of the surrounding area.

6. EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTY: If the proposed Special Use is granted, the Commission finds that there will not be injury to the use and enjoyment of the surrounding property.

7. CONFORMITY TO REGULATIONS: The proposed development, rezoning, and Special Uses do not necessarily conform to the regulations of the City of Effingham future land use map, however, there are factors that justify a deviation.

Therefore, on motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Wohltman, by a 5 to 3 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council grant the Petition for Special Use Permit as presented, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. The Subject Property can only be developed with and used for offices and clinics operated by physicians, dentists or other members of the healing arts and/or a pharmacy, and is prohibited from being developed with any residential use; and,

2. Petitioner shall construct such buffering as required by the City Engineer.

3. Public Hearing on Text Amendments- Modular Dwellings & Manufactured Homes, Article 1, Article 3, Article 4, Article 6, Article 24, Article 26, and Article 27:

City Planner, Gregory Koester, testified in support of the proposed Text Amendment. Mr. Koester advised that the City’s current zoning language contains antiquated definitions and terminology concerning modular dwellings and manufactured homes. Mr. Koester identified the difference between modular dwellings and manufactured homes. The Text Amendment, in part, updates the definitions in Article 1 including definitions to the terms “Dwelling”, “Manufactured Home”, “Modular Dwelling” and “Relocatable Building”. The Text Amendment also seeks to amend Article 3 to clarify that manufactured homes must be located in a manufactured home park and further adds a restriction requiring accessory buildings that conform to Article 26-1. The Text Amendment further allows modular dwellings as an allowable use in the NU, Non Urban District and corrects language for allowable uses in an R-2, Single-Family Residence District. Mr. Koester advised that proposed revisions to Article 24 contain corrective language for signage for manufactured home parks. Finally, corrective language is being proposed for regulations concerning manufactured home parks within Articles 26 (Special Uses) and 27 (Site Plan requirements).

No one appeared in opposition to the proposed Text Amendment.

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

After due consideration and the evidence presented, on motion by Commissioner Vogel, seconded by Commissioner Gouchenouer, by an 8 to 0 vote, the Commission recommended that the City Council affirm and enact the Text Amendment as presented at the hearing.

4. Public Hearing on Text Amendments-Two and Three Family Dwelling District, Article 1, Article 7, Article 8, and Article 21:

City Planner, Gregory Koester, testified in support of the proposed Text Amendment. Mr. Koester advised the Commission that this proposed Text Amendment was discussed at the last Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Koester advised the Commission that earlier in the day he noticed that he failed to make a necessary revision and he is going to request a continuance to allow him time to make further revisions to the proposed Text Amendment.

Commissioner Wohltman questioned whether the proposed revisions to Section1- 20 allow for taking an older home and redeveloping the home into four units. Mr. Koester advised that attached single-family dwellings do not allow for the conversion of an existing single-family home since each dwelling in an attached single-family dwelling must be on a separate lot with separate utilities. Mr. Koester advised that the proposed amendments to the definitions of duplex and triplex could possibly allow an existing home to be converted into a two-family or three family dwelling. These properties, however, would have to be located in an R-3 zoning district.

On motion by Commissioner Wohltman, seconded by Commissioner McHugh, the City’s request for a continuance was approved by an 8 to 0 vote.

5. Discussion Only:

6. Public Comment: None.

7. On motion by Commissioner Vogel, seconded by Commissioner Thies, the meeting was adjourned.

https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/CZ6LLU56ED5A/$file/12-12-2024%20PC%20Minutes.pdf