NW Illinois News

City of Galena Zoning Board of Appeals met Jan. 8.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

25Z-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 January 8, 2025.

25Z-2002 – ROLL CALL

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

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None

The motion carried.

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

Also present were Jonathan Miller and Joe Nack

25Z-2003 – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM

Chairperson Rosenthal announced a quorum of board members were present to conduct city business.

25Z-2004 – PUBLIC COMMENTS

None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

25Z-2005 – APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2024.

Discussion: None

Motion: Spivey moved, seconded by Gates to approve the minutes of the regular Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of November 13, 2024

The motion was carried by voice vote.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

NEW BUSINESS

ITEM 25V-01 Owner and Applicant: Linda Pitts. Request for a Variance to reduce the front setback at 501 Park Ave. for the front setback facing Monroe St.

Linda Pitts home 724 38th St, West Des Moines, Ia.

I am the owner of my mother’s house at 501 Park Ave. Monroe Street does not have side walks , there is a drain on that side that is not buried, there is quite a bit of property on that side. There were remnants of a wall at one time. I would like to add this garage to make the property more usable for parking my car while I am here and storage.

Discussion:

1. Garage Discussion:

o Rosenthal asked whether there had been a garage at the location previously.

o Miller confirmed that there had been a one-car detached garage.

2. New Garage Placement:

o Gates inquired about how much closer the new attached garage would be to the street compared to the old detached garage.

o Miller clarified that the new attached garage would be at the same distance from the street as the old garage, though the rules have changed. Detached garages needed to be 5 feet from the property line, while attached garages have different regulations.

3. Monroe Street Query:

o Baranski asked whether Monroe Street extends all the way across Park Street, which was confirmed as true.

This portion of the discussion focused on the details regarding the previous and new garage placement, and the impact of zoning rules based on whether the garage is attached or detached.

It was realized this was a public hearing and the meeting needed to be opened and closed. Monahan motioned to open the public hearing; Spivey seconded. The motion was carried by voice vote. It was noted that the testimony of Ms. Pitts was the same as stated.

Monahan motioned to close the public hearing. Einsweiler seconded. The motion was carried by voice vote.

Motion: Baranski made a motion to approve the request for a Variance to reduce the front setback at 501 Park Ave. for the front setback facing Monroe St., seconded by Monahan.

Baranski read through the approval 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; It is unique to property.

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; Is not.

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;. Not different than the ones across Park Ave

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 Yes, it 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. Yes, it is in conformance.

Discussion: Monahan said he drove over and verified that turning there would not cause an issue with seeing. Aesthetically it will look much better. Makes complete sense.

No other comments or discussion.

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

NAYS: None

ABSTAINED: None

ABSENT: None

Motion Carried

ITEM 25CPR-01- Owner and Applicant: City of Galena. Request for a concept plan review to discuss the decision of the City Council to return the appeal for a request to allow a digital message board sign for the GUSD to the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration of a text amendment.

1. Ordinance and Variance Discussion:

o Rosenthal mentioned the council meeting, noting that no member opposed the proposal but felt the ordinance needed amending to allow overruling.

o Nack agreed with Rosenthal’s observation.

o Baranski emphasized that a variance is not the appropriate way to handle this and suggested a Special Use Permit (Signage Ordinance 154A-10) be amended for the digital message board, as it is a critical issue for the Galena School District.

2. Proposed Amendment:

o Rosenthal proposed an amendment to allow a digital message board without requiring a Special Use Permit if located outside the historical district and used for community events or emergency situations.

o The amendment also allowed the city to limit operating hours based on location.

o During the discussion, the term "not" was stricken from the language.

3. Criteria and Concerns:

o Nack mentioned that the operation hours and content are key issues, referencing Ordinance 154A-10’s criteria.

o Rosenthal clarified that the sign should be outside the Historic District and intended for critical uses like emergency messages (e.g., tornado alerts).

o Baranski suggested that the signs should primarily be used for critical messages, not general ones.

o Gates brought up the possibility of using the signs for messages like active shooter alerts.

o There was concern about not allowing every taxing body to install such signs.

4. Special Use Permits and Control:

o Tonne pointed out that other taxing bodies, like the Health Department or West Galena Township, may want signs for emergencies, but they should ensure the signs are outside the historic district.

o Baranski read Rosenthal’s proposed amendment and suggested removing the phrase “permit is needed.”

o There was consensus that a Special Use Permit gives better control and more restrictions.

o Miller proposed that the Special Use Permit would limit advertising and restrict the number of signs per location.

5. Drafting Criteria for the Signs:

o Monahan stated that if more than one sign is requested, it would be denied.

o Miller mentioned that clear criteria would need to be established for sign placement, size, content, location, and other factors.

o There was discussion about ensuring the signs don’t become distractions (e.g., no TV-like scrolling).

o Nack proposed setting clear limits on the message rotation speed and avoiding advertising.

o Baranski suggested looking for existing templates or examples of similar sign regulations. 6. Review of Original Request:

o Spivey recalled that the original request for the sign had clear specifications regarding colors, text, and other details.

In summary, the group discussed amendments to the ordinance to allow digital message boards for critical uses like emergencies. There was general agreement on requiring Special Use Permits for better control over placement, usage, and content of the signs, with attention to avoiding distractions and advertising.

Monahan made a motion, seconded by Tonne to direct Miller to draft a proposal.

Motion carried by voice vote.

OTHER BUSINESS

None

25Z-2006 – ADJOURNMENT

Motion: Einsweiler moved, seconded by Monahan to adjourn.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

https://www.cityofgalena.org/media/cms/ZBA_Agenda_21225_reduced_size_2_4113763443229.pdf