East Central Reporter

City of Effingham Plan Commission met April 9.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Hayes

Dave Storm

Mark Thies

Cindy Vogel

Theresa Hillyer

Ken Wohltman

Kevin Gouchenouer

MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Spruell

Michael McHugh

OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy Willenborg, City Attorney

Greg Koester, City Planner

Adam Kramer, Milano & Grunloh Engineers, LLC

Gary Maninfior, Kessler Reporting, Inc.

Nick Taylor, Effingham Daily News

Greg Sapp, WXEF

1. Quorum and Approval of March 12, 2024 Meeting Minutes: The April 9, 2024, City Plan Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. A quorum was present. City Attorney Tracy Willenborg advised that the heading of Item 1 should be amended to state “Quorum and Approval of February 13, 2024 Meeting Minutes.” On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Hillyer, the minutes for the March 12, 2024 Plan Commission meeting were approved by unanimous vote, as amended.

2. Preliminary and Final Plat for Andes Health Mart Subdivision, Effingham, Illinois:

Greg Koester, City Planner, presented the Preliminary and Final Plat for the Andes Health Mart Subdivision, and recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat as presented, subject to the following:

1. IDOT Approval of Preliminary and Final Plat;

2. Signatures of the owner and surveyor on Preliminary Plat;

3. Submission of the Certificate of Platting; and,

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

On motion by Commissioner Thies, seconded by Commissioner Wohltman, the Preliminary and Final Plat for Andes Health Mart Subdivision, were approved by a 7 to 0 vote, subject to compliance with the above-referenced items regarding the Preliminary and Final Plat.

3. Site Plan for Andes Health Mart, 805 W. Fayette Avenue, Effingham, Illinois:

Greg Koester, City Planner, presented the Site Plan for Andes Health Mart and recommended approval of the Site Plan, subject to the following:

1. Approval of final and preliminary plat;

2. Signature of Owner and Engineer’s signature and seal on the Site Plan;

3. IDOT Approval of Site Plan;

4. Approval of storm water detention by City Engineer; and,

5. Compliance with any additional comments or requirements of City Engineer.

On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Vogel, the Site Plan for Andes Health Mart was approved by a 7 to 0 vote, as presented, subject to compliance with the above-referenced items regarding the Site Plan.

4. Public Hearing on Petition to Rezone from Class R-2, Single Family Residence District to Class R-3B, Two and Three Family Dwelling District, filed by Petitioner, W Squared Properties, LLC:

City Attorney Tracy Willenborg advised the Commission that the City Council received and reviewed the prior letter of recommendation from the Commission and voted to send this Petition back to the Plan Commission for further hearing and consideration.

Mr. Bryan Wenthe appeared on behalf of Petitioner, W Squared Properties, LLC, to testify in support of the Petition. Mr. Wenthe advised the Commission that they are appearing to provide additional information on the proposed development of the Subject Property. Mr. Wenthe advised that when people think of a duplex or triplex, they generally think of units lined up in a row. This is not the type of development they are proposing to develop. Mr. Wenthe presented renderings and other drawings including a proposed site plan depicting the proposed triplex building that the Petitioner proposes to construct on the Subject Property including the parking area. Mr. Wenthe advised that the site plan further depicts the size of the building in relation to the size of the lot. Mr. Wenthe advised that the impact of the development considering that the footprint of the structure is 36 x 36 on a 125 x 66 lot. Mr. Wenthe advised that the building would have a 15-foot side yard setback, a 30-foot rear yard setback, and a 36-foot front yard setback. Mr. Wenthe advised that the building would be three units, with one unit on the main floor, two units on the upper level, and a garage area for each unit.

Mr. Wenthe further presented a rendering detailing the street view and elevation of the proposed building to show that the look of the proposed building is in keeping with the neighborhood.

Mr. Wenthe advised the Commission that the Petitioner prepared, and included as part of the amended Petition, a map and a listing of the various zoning designations and uses of properties in the area near the Subject Property. Mr. Wenthe testified that this documentation shows that there are different zoning designations and uses in the area, including multi-family, duplex, and commercial/office units. Mr. Wenthe testified that this information supports a finding that the requested rezoning would not be out of line for the area. Mr. Wenthe advised that he counted approximately 16 duplex units and fourplex units along St. Anthony, as well as two duplex units west of the Subject Property and other units across the street and to the north of the Subject Property.

In response to concerns that the proposed development would impact property values in the area, Mr. Wenthe testified that the size and the scope of the proposed development is such that it will be a “higher tier unit”, especially because each unit will have a garage space which is not normal for apartment units in the area. Mr. Wenthe advised that they would market the units to higher end clients looking for rental properties in the central downtown area. Mr. Wenthe advised the Commission that in looking at Zillow and tax assessments for the properties in the area around the Subject Property, the property values for those properties are between $70,000 to $160,000.00. Mr. Wenthe advised that he does not believe that the investment into the Subject Property will negatively impact these types of property values. Mr. Wenthe further referenced sale prices for lots around the Subject Property including an adjacent property that sold for $27,000 in 2007, as well as a duplex lot that was listed for sale in 2019 for $89,000.00.

Mr. Wenthe then referenced the City’s Housing & Economic Recovery Plan (the “Plan”), which is available on the City’s website. Mr. Wenthe testified that economic growth in the area is stymied by the lack of housing and further advised that the Plan identified a need for different housing types. Mr. Wenthe pointed to pages 16 and 18 of the Plan which identify the need for zoning amendment approvals to allow for a gentle desensitization of different zoning classifications in an area to allow for additional housing units. Mr. Wenthe testified that the proposed development would create a transition in housing that would not have a huge impact, like a larger multi-family unit might have, on the area.

Those exhibits to the Petition, as presented by Mr. Wenthe, were made a part of the record.

In response to questioning by Commissioner Gouchenouer as to the number of bedrooms in each unit, Mr. Wenthe advised that each unit would have two bedrooms.

Commissioner Hillyer inquired whether the Petitioner had any plans to redevelop the home on the property to the south of the Subject Property for a similar project. In response, Mr. Wenthe advised that they do not own the property to the south. They are not opposed to developing additional units in the area, as they are trying to find creative ways to redevelop and inspire growth within the City.

Bradley Hibdon appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Mr. Hibdon advised that he had a letter of opposition from Tim Cotter who was unable to attend the public hearing. A copy of the letter was handed out to the Commissioners.

Mr. Hibdon provided testimony on his background and qualifications. Mr. Hibdon advised the Commission that he has nine years of experience as a real estate broker and agent, 40 years’ experience as a landlord in Effingham, 31 years’ experience with the Illinois Department of Transportation in land acquisition and construction, including appraisal work, negotiations, and relocation. Mr. Hibdon advised that he was previously an Illinois certified general real estate appraiser and he has a finance degree from the Eastern Illinois University and a civil engineering technology degree from Lakeland College

Mr. Hibdon provided testimony regarding his opinion on the highest and best use for the Subject Property. The Subject Property is currently zoned R-2, Single Family residence District. This zoning classification has defined the neighborhood for decades. The single-family homes in the neighborhood have been improved, including many with new paint, siding, roofs, porches, patios, additions, etc. Mr. Hibdon testified that the neighborhood is trending towards owner occupied. Mr. Hibdon testified that the map, which was previously presented by the Petitioner, depicting zoning in the area depicts the Subject Property surrounded by properties all zoned R-2.

Mr. Hibdon further provided testimony regarding concerns with the lack of sufficient parking on the Subject Property, as well as the surrounding area. Mr. Hibdon expressed concern that there would only be two parking spaces per unit being proposed by the Petitioner, for a total of 6 parking spaces. Mr. Hibdon testified that, in his opinion, this would not be sufficient parking for the proposed development. Mr. Hibdon advised that on-street parking is prohibited on St. Anthony. Therefore, any overflow parking from the proposed development would be forced to park on side streets, which already have parking issues. Further, Mr. Hibdon expressed a concern that if the Petitioner built additional parking on the Subject Property, the parking infrastructure might encroach on his adjacent property since the lot size is smaller. Mr. Hibdon identified the triplex located at 100, 102, and 104 Temple Avenue, which sits on a 12,120 square foot lot, and advised that there are 3 parking spots for 100 Temple Avenue, 3 parking spots for 102 Temple Avenue, and 4 parking spots for 104 Temple Avenue. Mr. Hibdon further identified a triplex at 3024 Sugar Mill Court, which is located on a 0.49 acre lot, and has six parking spaces for each unit. Mr. Hibdon also identified the three unit building on 512 Jefferson Avenue, which has 8 parking spaces for the three units.

Mr. Hibdon testified that the house that was previously located on the Subject property was 832 square feet in size and the building proposed to be developed on the Subject Property is 2,200 square feet in size, plus parking areas. Mr. Hibdon testified that all of this paved area will create drainage issues to his adjacent property. Mr. Hibdon testified that he is not able to raise the level of his yard to address drainage. Mr. Hibdon testified that a single-family residence on the subject property would be smaller, have less paved area, and also be a better fit for the neighborhood.

Mr. Hibdon thereafter testified that if the proposed rezoning is granted, it could constitute spot zoning. Mr. Hibdon identified an article in the Springfield Business Journal, which said spot zoning is the process of singling out a small piece of land for a use classification that is totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of the others. It says that spot zoning is illegal and that it would be different if you were rezoning a large portion, like a couple city blocks or a city block or a large tract of land.

Chairman Hayes inquired as to the time frame that the Subject Property has sat vacant. It was confirmed that the Petitioners acquired the Subject Property in 2020. Furthermore, it was determined that the house that was previously located on the Subject Property was demolished around December 2012.

Chairman Hayes further requested clarification as to testimony concerning the square footage of the prior building as compared to the square footage of the proposed building. Through the testimony, it was determined that Mr. Hibdon was comparing the footprint of the 832 square feet of the prior residence to the 2,200 square foot size of the entire building being proposed, which would be both stories of the two-story building. Mr. Hibdon stated that, in his opinion, the new development will be precipitously larger than the old house.

Chairman Hayes further inquired as to the proposed parking for the new development. Through questioning, it was confirmed that each unit would have one parking spot in the garage and one parking spot in the driveway in front of the garage.

The letter of opposition from Tim Cotter, who was present at the prior public hearing in March, but who was unable to attend the public hearing in April, was read into the record.

Amy Hibdon appeared to testify in opposition to the Petition. Ms. Hibdon testified that she and her husband own the properties located at 911 St. Anthony and 211 N. Cherry Street, which are both single-family homes. Ms. Hibdon advised that in searching the Effingham County property tax site, she was able to determine that 22 of the 43 parcels of property that she researched in the area around the Subject Property are owner-occupied. Ms. Hibdon testified that, for the most part, other rental properties in the area, like the ones they own, are well taken care of. Furthermore, many of the homes in the area have been improved with new roofs, siding, and windows. Ms. Hibdon testified that the apartment buildings in the outlying areas near the Subject Property tend to be neglected, with trash and debris accumulating around the yard and parking areas.

Ms. Hibdon provided a packet of documents, which she wanted to present to the Commission. This packet of documents was made a part of the record.

Ms. Hibdon testified that the Petitioner has owned the Subject Property for four years. Ms. Hibdon advised that there is a tree that has fallen in the backyard, prior to the Petitioner acquiring the property, that still has not been cleaned up.

Ms. Hibdon advised that Article 6 of the City’s zoning regulations addresses R-2 Single Family Residence District zoning. Ms. Hibdon advised that the regulations provide that the purpose of the district is to provide for low-density, single-family residential development on small lots where water and sewer services are provided. The district is intended for application to older areas of the City and extensions of the areas. Ms. Hibdon testified that the regulations of this district are intended to preserve and protect the character of existing lots, improved with single family dwellings and to permit compatible development. Ms. Hibdon stated that the Subject Property and all of the properties surrounding the Subject Property are all zoned R-2.

Ms. Hibdon testified that the proposed development by the Petitioner would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Hibdon advised that the planned three-unit building, with all of the garages facing the street, would not look like the other residential buildings in the area and, in her opinion, would not preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Hibdon stated that the highest and best use for the Subject Property would be to remain single-family, as such a use would be more compatible with adjacent houses.

Ms. Hibdon testified that the City’s Comprehensive Plan provides, in pages 24- 28, that housing, particularly single-family housing, is the most sensitive of local uses to external forces and that its protection is critical to property values and quality neighborhoods. Ms. Hibdon opined that property values would most certainly be conserved by denying any more multi-family units in the neighborhood. Ms. Hibdon testified that keeping this lot zoned as R-2 would be in the best interest of the citizens of Effingham.

Commissioner Hayes requested clarification on the number of owner-occupied homes in the area around the Subject Property. In response, Ms. Hibdon confirmed that 22 of the 43 properties that she searched in the area around the Subject Property are considered owner-occupied.

Mr. Wenthe reappeared to provide rebuttal testimony. Mr. Wenthe, in response to prior testimony concerning the highest and best use of the Subject Property, testified that the Petitioner, as a property developer, has owned the property for four years. They have evaluated different options on what can be constructed on the Subject Property. Mr. Wenthe testified that if they constructed a single-family home on the Subject Property, the footprint of a single-family home would be larger than what they are proposing to construct on the Subject Property. People are not looking for an 800 square foot house. Furthermore, they cannot justify constructing a single-family home costing somewhere around $200,000, in a neighborhood with houses that are valued between $90,000 to $170,000.

Mr. Wenthe testified that they are proposing to develop something that is approximately 40 feet by 70 feet on the Subject Property, which is in conformity with the properties around the Subject Property.

Mr. Wenthe advised that many of the homes in the area also have limited parking, and further identified that Mr. Hibdon’s tenant on the adjacent property utilizes an area on the Subject Property for overflow parking.

In response to possible drainage issues, Mr. Wenthe advised that there is a drainage tile on the east side of the Subject Property that runs to the City storm sewer. Mr. Wenthe advised that a possible resolution to drainage issues that may be existing on the Hibdon property, or that might be created by the development of the Subject Property, would be to install a drainage tile on the west side. Mr. Wenthe advised that the testimony in objection to the Petition identified issues associated with torrential rains. These drainage issues occur all around the City, not just on the Subject Property and surrounding properties.

Mr. Wenthe testified that they also pulled tax information in looking at the amount of owner occupied versus non-owner occupied and that information, which was included as an exhibit to the Petition, shows that over 50% of the properties in the area around the Subject Property are non-owner occupied.

To address concerns that the aesthetics of the proposed development would not be in keeping with the neighborhood, Mr. Wenthe presented renderings detailing the front of the building, which, in his opinion, support that the proposed development is in keeping with the residential look of the area.

In response to questioning from the public regarding parking, Mr. Wenthe advised that they do not, at this point, intend to develop additional parking for the proposed development. If additional parking is deemed necessary in the future, they will address those issues as needed.

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

Commissioner Storm advised the different uses of property in the area, including multi-family uses less than a block from the Subject Property, supports a finding that the trend of development in the area is moving toward medium density residential. Commissioner Storm expressed an appreciation for the additional information and renderings provided by the Petitioner. Commissioner Storm stated that, in his opinion, it would not make sense to construct a new single-family residential use on the Subject Property.

Chairman Hayes stated that he appreciated the additional information and renderings provided by the Petitioner. Chairman Hayes further mentioned that approximately 50% of the homes in the area are not owner-occupied. Furthermore, the Subject Property has been vacant for approximately 12 years. These facts could support a finding that the proposed development might be highest and best use for the Subject Property.

Commissioner Wohltman expressed concerns with parking and shifting of the vehicles from the proposed development. Commissioner Wohltman agreed that there may be a need for this type of residential development but expressed a concern with the vehicles from the property backing out onto St. Anthony and the traffic confusion that can result of the proposed development. While the other driveways in the area back out onto St. Anthony, these homes are older. Commissioner Wohltman stated that he believes a duplex might be more appropriate for the Subject Property but expressed a concern with the proposed triplex.

Commissioner Vogel concurred with the position that a duplex might be appropriate for the Subject Property, as well as the concerns that a triplex might create. A triplex would need more parking than what is being proposed. Commissioner Vogel identified the testimony that other triplexes in the area have more parking.

Commissioner Thies stated that the property is not large enough for the proposed development. Commissioner Thies stated that while there might be some transition for housing in the neighborhood, a triplex is not the best type of housing for this property.

Commissioner Hillyer made statements that the R-2 zoning classification is appropriate for this Subject Property.

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

1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Subject Property is currently zoned R-2, Single Family Residence District and is currently unimproved.

2. EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA: The properties surrounding the Subject Property are improved with single-family residences, with a mix of owner occupied and rental properties.

3. PRESENT ZONING IN THE AREA: The Subject Property, as well as all properties surrounding the Subject Property are zoned Class R-2, Single Family Residence District.

4. TREND OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA: The area has remained generally stagnant. The properties are improved with a mix of owner occupied and rental single-family residential homes.

5. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Petition is not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.

On motion by Commissioner Wohltman and seconded by Commissioner Hillyer, by a 4 to 3 vote, the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council deny the Petition to Rezone as presented to the Commission.

5. Discussion Only:

A. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment- Wind Energy Systems: City Planner, Greg Koester, introduced the proposed text amendments concerning “Wind Energy Systems”. Mr. Koester advised that the regulations would prohibit larger wind energy systems and would only allow “Small Wind Energy Systems”. Commissioner Wohltman expressed concern with possible negative impacts associated with wind energy systems. Mr. Koester responded to inquiries regarding height restrictions and possible impacts on businesses in the area.

Mr. Koester requested that the Plan Commission review the proposed Text Amendment and provide any comments and/or concerns back to him. Mr. Koester advised that the draft Text Amendment will be presented for public hearing at an upcoming Plan Commission meeting.

B. City of Effingham Comprehensive Plan- Project Timeline: City Planner, Greg Koester, presented an update on the update to the City of Effingham Comprehensive Plan. The City will have to form a steering committee of community members as part of the project. The goal is to have the plan approved by the end of 2025. Mr. Koester provided a copy of the current Comprehensive Plan, including all amendments and updates.

6. Public Comment: None.

7. On motion by Commissioner Storm, seconded by Commissioner Hillyer, the meeting was adjourned.

https://go.boarddocs.com/il/voeil/Board.nsf/files/D54SH572B474/$file/04-09-2024%20PC%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf