NW Illinois News

City of Galena Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 14.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

22Z-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 August 14, 2024.

22Z-2002 – ROLL CALL

Roll Call: AYES: Baranski, Spivey, Gates, Monahan, Einsweiler, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Jansen

The motion carried.

Upon roll call, the following members were present: Jim Baranski, Bill Spivey, Roger Gates, Steve Monahan, & Desiree Einsweiler, & John Rosenthal.

Absent: Dave Jansen

Also present were Jonathan Miller and Joe Nack

22Z-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

22Z-2004 – APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 8, 2024

Motion: Gates moved, seconded by Monahan to approve the minutes of the regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of May 8, 2024

Discussion: None

Roll Call: AYES: Spivey, Gates, Monahan, Einsweiler, Baranski, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Jansen

The motion carried.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

24S-02 Owner and Applicant: Kouz Properties, LLC. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow Outdoor Dining as an Accessory Commercial Land Use in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District at 215 Diagonal St. (The Galena Taphouse)

Rosenthal read the conclusions, determination, and decision to approve from the finding of fact in the agenda.

Motion: Monahan moved, seconded by Einsweiler, to approve the request 24S-02 for a Special Use Permit to allow Outdoor Dining as an Accessory Commercial Land Use in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District at 215 Diagonal St. (The Galena Taphouse)

Discussion: None

Roll Call: AYES: Gates, Monahan, Einsweiler, Baranski, Spivey & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSENT: Jansen

NEW BUSINESS

Nack swore in those wishing to testify.

Rosenthal reminded all to sign in if they wished to speak at any of the public hearings.

24A-02 Owner and Applicant: Robert and Cherish Criswell. Request for a Map Amendment to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential at 606 S. Prospect St. This item was a Public Hearing.

Motion: Einsweiler made a motion, seconded by Monahan, to open the public hearing for item 24A-02.

Motion carried by voice vote.

Speaking in favor of the application

Cherish L Criswell, 606 S Prospect St. Requesting rezone of Avery Guest House from neighborhood commercial to low density residential so they can sell as a single-family home.

Baranski asked if she considered doing a text amendment instead of a map amendment to help if future sale of property. It would take longer.

Criswell said appreciated his information, but she just wanted to move forward as is since it is for sale now.

Speaking in against of the application

No one

Motion: Baranski made a motion, seconded by Monahan, to close the public hearing for item 24A-02.

Motion carried by voice vote.

Miller stated this property will still be able to be an Inn or a residence.

Motion: Baranski made a motion to approve the request for a Map Amendment to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential at 606 S. Prospect St., seconded by Monahan.

Discussion: Baranski said no brainer when he saw this. It’s a less intensive use and at some point, we should adjust the way the text reads to make it permitted use by right.

Baranski read the approved criteria and recommendation for map amendment:

In determining whether the proposed amendment shall be approved, the following factors were considered:

(1) Whether the existing text or zoning designation was in error at the time of adoption. The board felt there could have been an error at the time of adoption. Doesn’t apply.

(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. Not

(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

(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 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. 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

(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. Doesn’t apply.

Roll Call: AYES: Monahan, Einsweiler, Baranski, Spivey, Gates, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSENT: Jansen

Motion Carried

24V-01 Owner: Sandhills Shopping Center LLC, and Applicant: JNB Signs, Inc. Request for a Variance to allow a second internally illuminated wall sign at the new Tractor Supply Co. location at 10801 Bartell Blvd. This item was a Public Hearing.

Motion: Gates made a motion, seconded by Einsweiler, to open the public hearing for item 24V-01.

Motion carried by voice vote.

Speaking in favor of the application

Kevin Cook 3166 N Right Road Janesville, WI. I work for JNB Signs at 1221 Venture Dr, Janesville, WI. Requesting Variance to make sure they can direct people to the Garden Center and to the drive-thru pickup area.

Monahan asked if the drive-thru signs were for safety?

Cook said Yes.

Einsweiler asked if they would be illuminated during business or all the time?

Spivey said they must be off per ordinance at 10 pm or at closing time whichever comes first.

Cook said he would pass that on, and they will follow the ordinance.

Speaking in against of the application

No one

Motion: Gates made a motion, seconded by Spivey, to close the public hearing for item 24V-01.

Motion carried by voice vote.

Motion: Monahan made a motion to approve the Request for a Variance to allow a second internally illuminated wall sign at the new Tractor Supply Co. location at 10801 Bartell Blvd. item 24V-01, Seconded by Baranski.

Rosenthal said it makes sense.

Monahan read the approved criteria for a Variance.

A variance is not a right. It may be granted to an applicant only if the applicant establishes that strict adherence to this code will result in practical difficulties or undue hardships because of site characteristics that are not applicable to most properties in the same zoning district. Such variances shall be granted only when the applicant establishes that all of the following criteria, as applicable, are satisfied:

1. Hardship is 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

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, Safety perspective.

4. Reasonable use. The applicant and the owner of the property cannot derive a reasonable use of the property without the requested variance; True.

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 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; It is.

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; Is in conformance.

8. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of a variance will not conflict with the goals and principles in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. It does / is.

Discussion:

Roll Call: AYES: Einsweiler, Baranski, Spivey, Gates, Monahan, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSENT: Jansen

Motion Carried

24A-03 Owner: Jane M Bastian, Trustee, and Applicant: BTK Group LLC. Request for a Map Amendment to change the zoning from Limited Agriculture to Planned Commercial upon annexation into the City of Galena at 9808 US Hwy 20 W. This item was a Public Hearing.

Motion: Spivey made a motion, seconded by Einsweiler, to open the public hearing for item 24A-03.

Motion carried by voice vote.

Speaking in favor of the application

Mike Sproule 12901 Norris Ln., Galena, IL. Spoke that they intend to improve the property and do the landscaping & adding parking in front.

Ken Redeker 4201 Galleria, Loves Park IL. They plan to move the real estate office from Spring St. to Hwy 20.

Speaking in against of the application

No one

Motion: Einsweiler made a motion, seconded by Gates, to close the public hearing for item 24A-03.

Motion carried by voice vote.

Motion: Gates made a motion to forward a positive finding of fact for the Request for a Map Amendment to change the zoning from Limited Agriculture to Planned Commercial upon annexation into the City of Galena at 9808 US Hwy 20 W., seconded by Monahan.

Discussion:

Gates read the approved criteria and recommendation for map amendment:

In determining whether the proposed amendment shall be approved, the following factors were considered:

(8) Whether the existing text or zoning designation was in error at the time of adoption. The board felt there could have been an error at the time of adoption. Yes. A case can be made that it was.

(9) 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. Not really, it is a borderline area, so compatible.

(10) 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 will fit in

(11) 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

(12) 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 has city water and is adding city sewer.

(13) 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

(14) 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, it will help the community.

Roll Call: AYES: Einsweiler, Baranski, Spivey, Gates, Monahan, & Rosenthal

NAYS: None

ABSENT: Jansen

Motion Carried

OTHER BUSINESS

None

22Z-2006 – ADJOURNMENT

Motion: Spivey moved, seconded by Monahan to adjourn.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

The meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m.

https://www.cityofgalena.org/media/cms/ZBA_Agend_91124_Reduced_File_Size_C55A08D07E113.pdf