City of Galena Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 9.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
23Z‐2001 – CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Rosenthal called the regular meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Chambers at 101 Green Street on the 9th of August 2023.
23Z‐2002 – ROLL CALL
Roll Call: AYES: Baranski, Laity, Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, Rosenthal
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Gates
Upon roll call, the following members were present: Jim Baranski, Bill Laity, Steve Monahan, Dave Jansen, Desiree Einsweiler, & John Rosenthal
Absent: Roger Gates
Also present were Jonathan Miller and Joe Nack
23Z‐2003 – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Chairperson Rosenthal announced a quorum of board members were present to conduct city business.
22Z‐2004 – PUBLIC COMMENTS
NONE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
23Z‐2005 – APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 12, 2023
Discussion: None
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Baranski to approve the minutes of the regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of July 12, 2023.
The motion was carried by a voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Einsweiler and Baranski recused themselves and went to a closed office.
Owner: Lemfco Inc. and Applicant: Galena Mill and Steel. Reading of the Finding of Fact for a Variance to allow a sign on an existing storage tank in the Downtown Commercial District at 185 S. Commerce St.
Rosenthal read conclusions, determination, and the decision to approve from the finding of facts in the agenda. 1
DECISION
Cal. No. 23V‐01
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that this request by Galena Mill and Steel for a Variance to allow a tank sign should be approved with the following condition.
- The sign to be painted on the storage tank may be no larger than 32 square feet.
Motion: Jansen moved, seconded by Laity to approve the finding of fact to approve the request.
Roll Call: AYES: Laity, Monahan, Jansen, & Rosenthal
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Gates
RECUSED: Einsweiler, Baranski
NEW BUSINESS
Rosenthal reminded all to sign in if they wished to speak at any of the public hearings.
Nack swore in all those wishing to testify.
Cal. No. 23S‐04 & 23S‐05 Owner and Applicant: Juan Dorontas, Ayalas Restaurant. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow Outdoor Dining and a Special Use Permit to allow Outdoor Entertainment as an accessory commercial land uses in the Downtown Commercial District at 239 N. Main St.
Motion: Einsweiler made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23S‐04, seconded by Monahan. Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Applicant, Juan Dorontas, 909 Fulton St, Galena, IL. Stated he wants to build a patio in back of the building to serve food and have entertainment.
Discussion‐
Rosenthal asked if the garage doors to the right belong to his building. Dorantes said yes. Then there was discussion that the area could be no more than 216 square feet.
Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Jansen moved, seconded by Monahan to close the Public Hearing.
Motion: Laity made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23S‐05, seconded by Monahan. Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in Favor of the Application
Applicant, Juan Dorontas, 909 Fulton St, Galena, IL. Stated he wants to have outdoor entertainment and the testimony is the same as item # 23S‐04.
Discussion‐
Rosenthal asked what kind of entertainment he was going to have.
Dorontas said Piano or guitar.
Rosenthal asked if Dorontas had gone over the rules with Jonathan Miller.
Miller stated they have, and he knows there is no amplification allowed.
Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Laity moved, seconded by Einsweiler to close the Public Hearing.
Motion: Baranski moved, seconded by Monahan to approve the request for a Special Use Permit to allow Outdoor Dining as an accessory commercial land uses in the Downtown Commercial District at 239 N. Main St.
Baranski stated this makes perfect sense for this location.
Baranski read through the Special use criteria.
Special Use Permit Approval Criteria & Recommendation:
The application shall demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the following:
(1) Site plan review standards. All applicable site plan review criteria in §154.914. Yes
(2) District standards. The underlying zoning district standards established in §154.201 through §154.209 including the defining characteristics of the district; Yes
(3) Specific standards. The land use regulations established in §154.406; Yes
(4) Availability of complementary uses. Other uses complementary to, and supportive of, the proposed project shall be available including, but not limited to: schools, parks, hospitals, business and commercial facilities, and transportation facilities. Yes
(5) Compatibility with adjoining properties. Compatibility with and protection of neighboring properties through measures such as: Yes, as so far as A, B, & C.
(a) Protection of privacy. The proposed plan shall provide reasonable visual and auditory privacy for all dwelling units located within and adjacent to the site. Fences, walls, barriers and/or vegetation shall be arranged to protect and enhance the property and to enhance the privacy of on‐site and neighboring occupants; Yes.
(b) Protection of use and enjoyment. All elements of the proposed plan shall be designed and arranged to have a minimal negative impact on the use and enjoyment of adjoining property. It will be their own property.
(c) Compatible design and integration. All elements of a plan shall coexist in a harmonious manner with nearby existing and anticipated development. Elements to consider include: buildings, outdoor storage areas and equipment, utility structures, building and paving coverage, landscaping, lighting, glare, dust, signage, views, noise, and odors. The plan must ensure that noxious emissions and conditions not typical of land uses in the same zoning district will be effectively confined so as not to be injurious or detrimental to nearby properties. Yes
Roll Call: AYES: Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, Baranski, Laity, & Rosenthal
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Gates
Motion carried.
Motion: Baranski moved, seconded by Einsweiler to approve the request for a Special Use Permit to allow Outdoor Entertainment as an accessory commercial land uses in the Downtown Commercial District at 239 N. Main St.
Baranski said same criteria is met as in motion for 23S‐04 so it does comply.
Roll Call: AYES: Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, Baranski, Laity, & Rosenthal
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Gates
Motion carried.
Cal. No. 23V‐02 Owner and Applicant: Daniel Krenz. Request for a Variance to reduce the front setback from 38 to 5 feet for an accessory detached garage at 311 Jackson St. This item will be a Public Hearing.
Motion: Monahan made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23V‐02 seconded by Jansen. Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Applicant, Dan Krenz, 311 Jackson St. Dan handed out copies of a photo of his property. He said it was an old church on Park Ave, but later they built houses in front of it, so it became a Jackson St address. Based on the photo there is a 15 ft setback to the driveway and 24 ft to the garage.
Discussion‐ Rosenthal and Monahan said the address was hard to find when they were driving by to be familiar with the property, so that made sense.
Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Jansen to close the Public Hearing.
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Laity to send a positive finding for a Variance to reduce the front setback from 38 to 5 feet for an accessory detached garage at 311 Jackson St.
Monahan read the Criteria.
1. Hardship unique to property, not self‐inflicted. There are exceptional conditions creating an undue hardship, applicable only to the property involved or the intended use thereof, which do not apply generally to the other land areas or uses within the same zone district, and such exceptional conditions or undue hardship was not created by the action or inaction of the applicant or owner of the property; Not self inflicted.
2. Special privilege. The variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands or structures in the same zoning district; Yes.
3. Literal interpretation. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; Yes.
4. Reasonable use. The applicant and the owner of the property cannot derive a reasonable use of the property without the requested variance; Yes.
5. Minimum necessary. The variance is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of land or structures; Yes.
6. Compatible with adjacent properties. The variance will not be injurious to, or reduce the value of, the adjacent properties or improvements or be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. In granting a variance, the decision‐maker may impose conditions deemed necessary to protect affected property owners and to protect the intent of this code; Yes.
7. Conformance with the purposes of this code. The granting of a variance will not conflict with the purposes and intents expressed or implied in this Code; and, Yes.
8. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of a variance will not conflict with the goals and principles in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Yes, it will not.
Discussion:
Baranski said this was the easiest variance to grant.
Roll Call: AYES: Jansen, Einsweiler, Baranski, Laity, Monahan & Rosenthal
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Gates
Motion carried.
Cal. No. 23PD‐01 & 23HCO‐02 Owner: Galena History Museum. Request for Final Approval for a Planned Unit Development with an underlying zoning district of Medium Density Residential. This item will be a Public Hearing.
For the record Rosenthal read 23PD‐02 in error then corrected himself.
Motion: Jansen made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23PD‐01 seconded by Monahan. Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Applicant, Tessa Flack, 3001 N Rawlins Rd, Galena, IL , Patrick Lynch 510 Marquette, Minneapolis, MN.
Discussion‐
Flack explained they are in the process of building a new facility. Lynch said it is a follow up to the 2017 PUD. Baranski asked if the contours are one or 2 feet?
Lynch said 1 foot parking variance. Ther was discussion on the ADA requirements.
Rosenthal asked about the Crow property being cleaned up.
Flack said the plan is to clean up tree line and do some landscaping. Windows will show the driftless area. There will be some thinning of trees to see the museum and the wedding chapel will be demolished since it is not historic. Three walls inside will be preserved as they were part of the original carriage house. They will be using local limestone with a honed finish.
Monahan stated it was interesting that the architecture is modern.
Flack said based on the National Park Services, they do not want to confuse the historic with the new structure. Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Einsweiler moved, seconded by Jansen to close the Public Hearing.
Motion carried by voice vote.
Discussion
23PD‐01 Motion: Baranski moved, seconded by Einsweiler to approve the request for Final Approval for a Planned Unit Development with an underlying zoning district of Medium Density Residential.
Baranski read the Criteria as follows and said it was consistent on every score. Rosenthal agreed. Final PUD Plan – A final development plan application shall demonstrate conformance with all the following:
(a) The approved ODP, if applicable; not applicable.
(b) The approved preliminary development plan; Yes
(c) The approved preliminary plat; not applicable.
(d) The approved PUD/TND rezoning ordinance; Final plan Phase is in conformance with the approved standards of the rezoned PUD ordinance.
(e) All other applicable development and construction codes, ordinances, and policies; Final plan meets other applicable codes.
(f) The applicable site plan review criteria in § 154.914; and Final plan meets the applicable site plan review criteria.
(g) The applicable final plat criteria in Chapter 153, Subdivision Regulations. Not applicable.
Roll Call: AYES: Einsweiler, Baranski, Laity, Monahan, Jansen, & Rosenthal
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Gates
Motion carried.
23HCO‐02
Motion: Jansen made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23HCO‐02 seconded by Einsweiler.
Applicant, Tessa Flack, 3001 N Rawlins Rd, Galena, IL, Patrick Lynch, 510 Marquette, Minneapolis, MN. Stated their testimony was the same as 23PD‐01.
Motion: Jansen made a motion to close the public hearing for item 23HCO‐02 seconded by Einsweiler. Motion carried.
Motion: Baranski made motion to grant an HWY 20 development permit for the construction of the new museum for 23HCO‐02, seconded by Einsweiler
Approval Criteria & Decision Highway 20 Design:
Highway 20 Development Permit ‐ The application shall demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the following:
(1) All applicable site plan review criteria in § 154.914; it conforms
(2) The overall context of the corridor and the goals for new development as described in Chapter III of the Design Manual; yes
(3) The corridor development concepts described in Chapter IV of the Design Manual; conforms
(4) The proposed character of the applicable design districts as described in Chapter V of the Design Manual; complies
(5) The proposed pattern of development for the Highway 20 Corridor as described in Chapter VI of the Design Manual; Yes
(6) The standards for building orientation, design and materials as described in Chapter VII of the Design Manual; Yes
(7) The standards for site features and elements as described in Chapter VII of the Design Manual. yes Monahan had a question on page 58 on the south elevation. Is it steel there?
Baranski said it wasn’t on the elevation, but a sloped roof with a nice gabled design. He thought it was a nice design, to show the changes in the Historic district. Not trying to replicate anything historic.
Monahan was having trouble with the design not looking in any way historic.
Baranski said replicating would change the narrative of what was here.
Monahan felt it was a very drastic difference when this is where we enter town and see the historic building and Grants home.
Monahan asked where the historic district ends. Miller said Stillman Mansion is in the district. The new structure is out.
Monahan and Baranski discussed more on the reasoning of not trying to replicate an historic structure.
Baranski explained how it is a narrow tall building and that is a form we all can relate to. It is rendered in a way that uses honed local limestone in a way to make it so beautiful and they went with a bronzed roof that won’t pop off the building like a red roof would. It will blend so much better.
Rosenthal said he understands the reasoning behind not confusing history with new.
Roll Call: AYES: Baranski, Laity, Jansen, Einsweiler, & Rosenthal
NAYS: Monahan
ABSTAIN: none
ABSENT: Gates
Motion carried.
Cal. No. 23PD‐02 Owner: Jo Daviess County, IL – County Board. Request for Preliminary Approval of a PUD with an underlying zoning district of Downtown Commercial. This item will be a Public Hearing.
Motion: Monahan made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23PD‐02, seconded by Laity. Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Discussion:
Applicant, Scott Toot, Jo Daviess County Administrator, 414 S Main, Elizabeth, IL. introduced Bill Groh the architect from Shive Hattery, 2144 56th Ave. W., Bettendorf, IA. Toot explained that they went through many steps and how they got to this point. They need a secure entrance. There are no secure courtrooms per Illinois standards. The estimated costs of different options to do the project went from 15 million up to 60 million dollars. Those ways would cause us to raise people’s taxes. We can do this project with Bond issued funding without raising people’s taxes, by doing an addition to the present building. The modern courtrooms must meet supreme court standards. They went to the Historic Preservation Board, and this is what they approved. This is the most cost efficient to keep the courthouse at the same location as it’s been at since 1839. They may reconstruct the Copula from the 1930's in the future. They need repairs to the eaves, the boards, facia, and other areas that really need repairs.
Groh said PUD is to request the size of building to accommodate the standards and allow for a future addition to the 3rd floor above the Public Safety part, without height restrictions or coming back again in the future. The Historic preservation committee really pushed back on the glass. The idea behind the glass was to make the addition still show the old structure through the glass. The exterior will have the same red brick as
Baranski stated to Toot Is it my understanding if they’re not allowed to do this, the County would be forced build a new building elsewhere.
Toot said that if they could not do this then, they would have to transfer prisoners to courthouse, need conference rooms for lawyers and prisoners, and rooms for security.
Baranski said the County seat would need a referendum to move the Courthouse and Jail.
Baranski said looking at Parking provisions. Monahan asked how long before they had to be compliant with court standards?
Toot said the construction would require additions to be done. The current Offices are crammed, they need a better workflow environment. This involves a complete remodel. In 1970 they had no idea what the needs of today were Like GIS and IT. They desperately need secure entrances.
Monahan said it sounds like the true reason you need this is that you need more room.
Toot said yes, but if we do any updates we have to comply.
Rosenthal said it is a trigger to get secure.
Monahan asked what they are going to do for parking?
Toot said they use St Mary’s lot and Father has agreement and there is a walkway/ the County provides Insurance. They currently have 20 spots and will get more. Father’s only request is that they park away from the Franklin McCoy Manor.
Jansen also commented on the Parking. The architect said 7 spots will remain.
Jansen said there are no spots in front.
Toot said the current spots are numbered for department heads.
Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Jansen to close the Public Hearing on 23PD‐02.
Motion carried by voice vote.
Motion: Baranski moved, seconded by Monahan to send a positive finding to the city council to approve the request for Preliminary Approval and a rezone with an underlying zoning district of Downtown Commercial to allow for the Courthouse expansion.
Baranski read the Criteria.
Zoning Map Amendment ‐ In determining whether the proposed zoning map amendment shall be approved, the following factors shall be considered:
1. Whether the existing text or zoning designation was in error at the time of adoption; Maybe is the situation.
2. Whether there has been a change of character in the area or throughout the city due to installation of public facilities, other zone changes, new growth trends, deterioration, development transitions, etc.; would submit as probably the case as well.
3. Whether the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and defining characteristics of the proposed zoning district or whether there may be adverse impacts on the capacity or safety of the portion of street network influenced by the rezoning, parking problems, or environmental impacts that the new zone may generate such as excessive storm water runoff, water, air or noise pollution, excessive nighttime lighting, or other nuisances; it is.
4. Whether the proposal is in conformance with and in furtherance of the implementation of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, other adopted plans, and the policies, intents and requirements of this code, and other city regulations and guidelines, It definitely is.
5. Whether adequate public facilities and services are available or will be made available concurrent with the projected impacts of development in the proposed zone; There are.
6. Whether there is an adequate supply of land available in the subject area and the surrounding community to accommodate the zoning and community needs; or YES.
7. Whether there is a need in the community for the proposal and whether there will be benefits derived by the community or area by the proposed rezoning. YES
Planned unit development zoning should be used only when long‐term community benefits, which may be achieved through high quality planned development, will be derived. Specific benefits that would support a PUD zoning include, but are not limited to:
1. More efficient infrastructure; N/A
2. Reduced traffic demands; N/A
3. A greater quality and quantity of public and/or private open space; N/A
4. Other recreational amenities; N/A
5. Needed housing types and/or mix; No
6. Innovative designs; and/or No
7. Protection and/or preservation of natural resources. N/A
Preliminary PUD Plan – A preliminary development plan application shall demonstrate conformance with all of the following:
a. The ODP review criteria in division (B) above; N/A
b. The applicable preliminary plat criteria in Chapter 153, Subdivision Regulations; N/A
c. The applicable site plan review criteria in § 154.914; Yes, it does.
d. The approved ODP, if applicable; N/A
e. An appropriate, specific density/intensity of uses for all areas included in the preliminary plan approval; Complies.
f. For a PUD/TND District, the area of the plan is at least five acres in size or as specified in an applicable approved ODP, or as identified in § 154.301 It does not apply.
Baranski said the Courthouse is essential to Galena and what would they do if they left town?
Rosenthal said it makes sense to keep the Courthouse and Jaill together. Keeping the beautiful old building. Monahan agreed it needs to be done and it is beautiful.
Roll Call: AYES: Laity, Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, Baranski & Rosenthal
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Gates
Motion carried.
Cal. No. 23CPR‐02 Applicant: Paul Orzeske. Request for a concept plan review to provide non‐binding feedback on a proposal for reuse of St. Mary’s School at 401 Elk St.
Applicant Paul Orzeske, 13 Reliance Lane, Lincolnshire, IL. Paul stated he looked at this building in the late 80’s and 90’s with Orlando Valente. It is in similar shape as it was then. He wants to do a small inn with 8 suites. With an Inn keeper’s unit. There is no true survey, this is more of a concept review with the zoning board so there are no issues. He still needs to acquire property and commit to the property.
Discussion:
Rosenthal asked if he is just talking about the building itself.
Baranski asked if they need 16 spots for Parking. Miller said that he needs 9 parking spots. One per room and the Inn keepers
Miller said a license agreement with the Council for parking.
Baranski said this is a feasible way to save the building but will need a variance for an inn keeper.
Baranski said the Special Use Permit is for this reason and thinks this is brilliant. He thinks one can make an argument for traffic. Guests will park on Friday and not move until Sunday, since it is only a 10‐minute walk downtown. The other 2 properties sold for taxes and were auctioned off by the County. The school was not subject to tax sale.
Jansen said I made a motion to save the school before and no one on the board at that time would second it.
Baranski said they could possibly also access it from Franklin St. Baranski told them to check into Historic Preservation Tax credits that can be for up to 30% of the cost to preserve.
Nack explained the tax sale aspect and time constraints.
Orzeske said they looked at this as residential as both apartments and Condominiums, but the numbers don’t work for that. They were there a few weeks ago and heard all kinds of rustling. Thought maybe it was Racoon but went out and saw a Turkey up on the roof and saw some fawns coming out. He said he wants to save this old building.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
22Z‐2006 – ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Jansen moved, seconded by Laity to adjourn.
The motion carried on a voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
https://www.cityofgalena.org/documents/filelibrary/side_tabs/agendas__minutes/zoning_board_agenda/2023/ZBA_Agenda_91323_reduced_file_size_12D09F19E7B08.pdf
Alerts Sign-up