City of Galena Zoning Board of Appeals met Sept. 13.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
23Z-2001 – CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairperson Baranski called the regular meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Chambers at 101 Green Street on the 13th of September 2023.
23Z-2002 – ROLL CALL
Roll Call: AYES: Baranski, Gates, Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Laity & Rosenthal
Upon roll call, the following members were present: Jim Baranski, Roger Gates Steve Monahan, Dave Jansen, Desiree Einsweiler,
Absent: Bill Laity & John Rosenthal
Also present were Jonathan Miller and Joe Nack
23Z-2003 – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Acting chairperson Baranski 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 AUGUST 9, 2023
Discussion: None
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Einsweiler to approve the minutes of the regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of August 9, 2023.
The motion was carried by a voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Cal. No. 23S-04 & 23S-05 Owner and Applicant: Juan Dorontas, Ayalas Restuarante. Reading of the Finding of Fact for the Approval of Special Use Permits to allow Outdoor Dining and Outdoor Entertainment as accessory commercial land uses in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District.
Baranski read conclusions, determination, and the decision to approve from the finding of facts in the agenda.
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Jansen to approve the finding of fact to approve the request for Cal No. 23S-04 & 23S-05.
Roll Call: AYES: Gates, Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, & Baranski
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Laity & Rosenthal
Cal. No. 23V-02 Owner and Applicant: Daniel Krenz. Reading of the Finding of Fact for the Approval of a request for a Variance to reduce the front setback from 38 to 5 feet for an accessory detached garage at 311 Jackson St.
Baranski read conclusions, determination, and the decision to approve from the finding of facts in the agenda.
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Gates to approve the finding of fact to approve the request for Cal. No. 23V-02.
Roll Call: AYES: Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, Baranski, & Gates
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Laity & Rosenthal
RECUSED:
Cal. No. 23S-02 & 23S-03 Remand of the Special Use Permits previously granted to the Galena Lions Den, 109 S. Main St., to allow Outdoor Dining and Outdoor Entertainment as accessory commercial land uses in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District.
**This item was tabled to the October 2023 meeting. Noted 2 of the 5 board members present would need to recuse themselves, therefore there would not be a quorum. **
NEW BUSINESS
Baranski 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-06 Owner: Geert Glass and Lois Hanson, and Applicant: Stephanie O’Shaughnessy. Request for a Special Use Permit to operate an Artisan Studio in the Low-Density Zoning District at 202 S. West St. This item will be a Public Hearing.
Motion: Jansen made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23S-06, seconded by Einsweiler. Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Applicant, Stephanie O’Shaughnessy, 202 S. West St. O’Shaughnessy stated that she rents the property and uses the garage as her pottery studio. People happen by & can watch her work with the clay. They can purchase her work and the work of others. She does not advertise. If she is not there, she leaves the garage open, and people can self-serve for purchases.
Lynn Giles, 230 Poplar Ave. Giles stated that she is a neighbor and has been there for a decade. She really likes having the studio in the neighborhood. It’s nice to walk over and buy a gift, and it encourages other artists.
Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Gates moved, seconded by Monahan to close the Public Hearing.
Motion carried by voice vote.
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Gates to allow Ms. O’Shaughnessy to operate her artisan studio at 202 S. West St.
Discussion: Baranski said it’s great for the neighborhood.
Monahan read the 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
(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. Yes.
(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, it is compatible.
Roll Call: AYES:, Einsweiler, Baranski, Gates, Monahan, & Jansen
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Laity, & Rosenthal
Motion carried.
Cal. No. 23A-03, 23V-05, & 23HCO-04 Owner: DSW Investments, LLC and Applicant: Primax Properties, LLC. Request for Highway 20 Design review to construct a Tractor Supply Company store in the Highway 20 Corridor, Rezone from Limited Agriculture to General Commercial, and a Variance to allow a reduction in the Steep Slopes Protection Standards at the corner of US Hwy 20 W and Bartell Blvd. This item will be a Public Hearing.
Cal. No. 23A-03
Motion: Gates made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23A-03 Rezone from Limited Agriculture to General Commercial, seconded by Einsweiler.
Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Applicant, Cullan Duke, 616 N 24th St , Quincy, IL. Duke stated they want to build a new Tractor Supply Store at the subject location. It will be a 21000 square foot building with 68 parking stalls, asking zoning to allow for this.
Discussion-Monahan said this was previously zoned commercial then zoned back to Ag. Gates asked about Coneflower ever being put in, but is platted?
Miller stated that it may or may not never happen.
Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Gates moved, seconded by Einsweiler to close the Public Hearing.
Motion carried on voice vote.
Motion: Monahan made a motion to approve the Map amendment, pending annexation of parcel #13-001-106-00 for the purposes of moving the zoning back to commercial. seconded by Gates.
Gates asked for clarification of both parcels #13-001-106-00 & #13-001-106-07 getting rezoned.
Miller stated the proposal is to get both parcels rezoned as commercial as long as the annexation of the front parcel is approved by the City Council.
Gates then seconded the motion.
Monahan read the Criteria.
Approval Criteria & Recommendation for Map Amendment (23A-03):
In order to maintain internal consistency within this code and on the zoning map, proposed amendments to the text and zoning map must be consistent with the purposes stated herein.
In determining whether the proposed 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. No.
(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.; Yes, there is growing commercial in this area.
(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; Yes, it is compatible, and No, there will be no adverse impacts.
(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; Yes
(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; Yes
(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; Yes, provided that it is annexed by the City Council.
(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.
Gates asked when the City will look at the annexation?
Miller stated at the next City Council meeting.
Roll Call: AYES: Baranski, Gates, Monahan, Jansen, & Einsweiler
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Laity & Rosenthal
Motion carried.
CA-23V-05
Motion: Jansen made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23V-05, A Variance to allow a reduction in the Steep Slopes Protection Standards at the corner of US Hwy 20 W and Bartell Blvd, seconded by Monahan.
Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Applicant, Cullan Duke, 616 N 24th St, Quincy, IL. Asking for a variance due to some steep slopes. Wants to grade the site, not sure if they are natural slopes, but they will take steps to prevent erosion.
Baranski said he understood some slopes were man made, hauled in fill may have caused the slopes. Monahan said he remembers fill being dumped out there and dirt being pushed all around. Gates asked if they will be able to plant grass there?
Cullan said Yes
Monahan asked if there would be plantings of deeper roots to hold the slope?
Duke said he can talk to the company about other plantings. The steepest slope is 3-1. Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Einsweiler moved, seconded by Gates to close the Public Hearing.
Motion: Monahan made a motion to approve the variance to approve the grading of the steep slopes, seconded by Gates.
Discussion:
Monahan stated that when they tore down the Bartell Farm the slopes were man made.
Baranski said they were certainly man made, not complying withs the steep slopes and acceptable as they are not natural.
Monahan read the approval criteria.
Approval Criteria & Recommendation for Variance (23V-05):
(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; No they are going to re-grade it to a 3-1. Recommends to talk to owner to look at planting to hold new grade, but not self conflicted
(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; No.
(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; Does not
(8) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of a variance will not conflict with the goals and principles in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Will not
Roll Call: AYES: Gates, Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler, & Baranski
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Laity & Rosenthal
Motion carried.
CA-23HCO-04
Motion: Gates made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23HCO-04. Request for Highway 20 Design review to construct a Tractor Supply Company store in the Highway 20 Corridor, seconded by Einsweiler.
Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Applicant, Cullan Duke, 616 N 24th St, Quincy, IL. Duke stated he worked with zoning on the plan. Looking to add a decorative fence and a retaining wall limited to 6 feet.
Monahan said on page 69 of the Platt for Bartell Blvd. and the entrance, how far back is the set back? Duke said the Stop bar is at 150-180 feet.
Miller said the setback ordinance is 50 ft. This is farther back than the Clinic entrance for Medical Associates. Baranski said it was a good distance, and then asked about outdoor trailer storage.
Duke said the retaining wall will shield trailers, but it is partially screened in, also screened with trees and shrubs.
Gates asked, “What is quick brick?
Duke said thinner brick facia.
Gates asked if the LP tank storage will be inside fence of outdoor space.
Duke said yes.
Baranski asked if the split block is the base?
Duke said it’s standard, they are breaking up the front facade.
Baranski asked if there was any way they could add more glass in the front?
Duke said not really, due to stacking in the store.
Baranski said 2 greenhouses should cover the glass portions, so that can really work out since they are all glass. Gates said he just saw a new Tractor supply store in Long Island, New York, and it was very appealing.
Miller pointed out the corporate red stripping on the building has not been approved in the past on other applications.
Baranski said the safety red is not really what they approve of. It needs to be a toned down red and take red coping away at top of building. An example of this is that Walmart can’t have its corporate blue.
Monahan thought color was appealing.
Einsweiler said yes, but it has been discouraged before and we should continue to discourage.
Monahan said the HVAC can be seen. Miller said it will be screened. Discussion that it may not be, but it needs to be.
Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Gates to close the Public Hearing.
Motion: Monahan made a motion to approve the design review, seconded by Jansen. Discussion:
Monahan said his biggest issue was traffic, but that has been addressed. He felt the red made the building pop. HVAC was also a concern, but that appears to be screened. Greenhouses add an architectural element.
Baranski said the fence is attractive, the building fits the area. He prefers we modify the red color to go with the precedence & we need to be careful of the next person.
Amended Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Jansen to amend the motion to approve the design review minus the red trademark color on the building, but allowing it on the sign.
Monahan read the criteria.
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; Yes
(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; Yes
(4) The proposed character of the applicable design districts as described in Chapter V of the Design Manual; Yes
(5) The proposed pattern of development for the Highway 20 Corridor as described in Chapter VI of the Design Manual; n/a, site is under 10 acres in size.
(6) The standards for building orientation, design and materials as described in Chapter VII of the Design Manual; Yes, but not trademark red on the building..
(7) The standards for site features and elements as described in Chapter VII of the Design Manual. Yes, but HVAC needs to be screened.
Roll Call: AYES: Gates, Monahan, Jansen, Einsweiler & Baranski
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Laity, & Rosenthal
Motion carried.
Cal. No. 23V-03, 23V-04 & 23HCO-03 Owner: Wolff Washes, LLC and Applicant: Ridge Investment Group, LLC. Request for a Highway 20 Design Review to construct a Dollar Tree in the Highway 20 Corridor, a variance to reduce the NE setback, and a variance to reduce the number of required parking spots in lot 2 of Wolff Subdivision. This item will be a Public Hearing.
Cal. No. 23V-03
Motion: Gates made a motion to open the public hearing for item 23V-03, seconded by Einsweiler. Motion carried by voice vote.
Speaking in favor of the application
Applicant, Joe Flaherty, Ridge Investment Group, 11921 Rocky Dr, St Louis, MO. Flaherty went through several plans with the city, and wants to build a 10,000 Square foot Dollar Store, but there are levied restrictions on the lot. Walmart is requiring them to have 50 parking spaces and they usually have only 30 spaces. That is causing a hardship on the lots size being reduced and the parking spaces that are required by Walmart. This is plan #13 they have tried.
Discussion
Baranski asked if the lot was altered before or after you bought it?
Flaherty said the car wash had to shift 20 feet. When they contracted it, the lot was larger. Shifted 20 feet. Under contract was different than when they purchased.
Miller said when the subdivision was drawn, it was actually drawn to set it back, then the Car Wash had to bump back the awning on the building.
Baranski said he was struggling with the 10,000-foot store.
Flaherty stated that even if they drew up an 8,000-foot store they still need 40 parking spots. It would not change the variance request.
Additional Applicant, Robert Taylor, 1118 Pompadour Ct. Lake St. Louis, MO, made himself available for questions.
Baranski stated that he thought a plans should be submitted to fit the lot.
Taylor said Dollar Tree does not want to go smaller than 10,000 square feet. Dollar tree is doing a lot of work to get this site to work. There are restrictions in place as competitors. Walmart is refusing to give anything up. They tried to purchase across the street and were unsuccessful. Dollar Tree wants to be close to Walmart’s as you can see in other areas. Parking will still be a problem in the setback. Dollar tree is doing a lot of adjustments to make this work. The restrictions are in place because we are still competitors.
Speaking in opposition of the application
No one
Motion: Jansen moved, seconded by Gates to close the Public Hearing.
Motion carried by voice vote.
Motion: Gates made a motion, seconded by Einsweiler, to approve a variance on the 23V- 03 request for a setback on the NE side of the lot.
Discussion:
Gates said he doesn’t see that the variance is causing an issue because it butts up to another parking lot. (Walmart’s)
Einsweiler agreed since it’s a parking lot to a parking lot.
Monahan is concerned that there is no landscape plan involved and asked if they need to amend the motion? Jonathan said they have not submitted a plan for landscape, and they will have to fit that in. Monahan said they will need to amend the motion.
Nack said yes they should amend for the landscaping.
Baranski said a variance should not be allowed. It is an idiosyncrasy. Simply too big a building for this lot. We will be setting a precedence. Look at hardship, this is not a hardship.
Monahan said it is not using up greenspace.
Baranski said someone will come along to fit their building on the space.
Taylor explained the issue with Walmart & McDonalds has restrictions to no drive through so he thinks no one will put a restaurant on it.
Attorney Nack explained the covenants are not for us to enforce. If we approve or deny, it’s not our issue to consider private restrictions.
Gates asked if Dollar Tree doesn’t go in then will it be usable to another company?
Monahan asked if it doesn’t meet requirements why are we here?
Baranski said they wanted to come before the board to get an opinion.
Einsweiler said it’s not like any option is available when they can build a smaller building. Baranski said come back with a building that will fit the site.
Gates said it is peculiar as the covenants that are in place. Its almost land locked.
Baranski is pointing out all the issues that the lot is too small for this size building. This is a flat lot with no issues. There would be a 17 Ft side yard setback / variance on a flat lot. It doesn’t meet any of the requirements for a variance.
Monahan said it depends on circumstances. It’s just a parking lot. He is looking at need for the community to have a lower priced place to shop.
Baranski guesses someone will come along and make use of the property.
Gates read criteria
Approval Criteria & Recommendation for Variance (23V-03) 23V-
(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 created by him- forced upon them.
(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; personally I agree
(4) Reasonable use. The applicant and the owner of the property cannot derive a reasonable use of the property without the requested variance; True, can’t fit a store without the variance.
(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; Considering everything that is there & added landscape buffer needs
(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; 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. This case a variance is needed to make the property useful.
Roll Call: AYES: Gates
NAYS: Monahan, Einsweiler & Baranski
ABSTAIN: Jansen
ABSENT: Laity, & Rosenthal
Monahan voted no, as he reread criteria item 4, and they have an alternative.
Einsweiler voted no, based on item 5, not enough land for the proposed use.
Motion denied.
Taylor asked if Dollar Tree approves a smaller store can they approve a variance? Baranski said if they bring a building that fits, it could work.
Taylor asked what the time span was to get on the next agenda?
Miller stated to reach out following the meeting.
Cal No. 23V- 04 was withdrawn.
Cal. No. 23HCO-03
Monahan made a motion to table this item, seconded by Einsweiler.
Roll Call: AYES: Einsweiler, Baranski, Gates, & Monahan,
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Jansen
ABSENT: Laity, & Rosenthal
OTHER BUSINESS
None
22Z-2006 – ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Gates to adjourn.
The motion carried on a voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
https://www.cityofgalena.org/documents/filelibrary/side_tabs/agendas__minutes/zoning_board_minutes/2023/zoning_minutes_9132023_1B64B40BCA0D4.pdf
Alerts Sign-up