The meeting will please come to order.

This is a duly advertised meeting of the Juliet Zoning Board of Appeals.

In our capacity, we hear petitions for relief from the strict provisions of our city ordinance.

In matters of this type, the decision of this board is final.

Does not go to the mayor or the city council for any further action.

If you disagree with our decision, you do have recourse on a court of record.

We also hear petitions for variations of land use in matters of this type.

We act as an advisory committee to the mayor and city council, making the recommendation either for or against.

The final decision on land use is made by the mayor and the city council.

Secretary, please pull the board.

Mr.

Bias.

Mr.

Nattreb will be absent.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Ms.

Roar.

Here.

Ms.

Schmidt?

Here.

Mr.

Stiff.

Here.

Chairman Hennessy.

Sure.

First on the agenda is the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes from September 18th of 2025.

Motion would be in order.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We have motion to second to approve.

Pull the board.

Mr.

Bias.

Present.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Ms.

Roar.

Aye.

Ms.

Schmig.

I was not at the meeting.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

Hi.

Okay.

Um, I want to make a note before we move forward on the agenda that we did have one agenda item that is withdrawn, and that is petition number 2025 45, which was a special use permit to allow an expansion of an existing home daycare business located at 913 Plaintain Drive.

So if you are here for that, um, that's not uh it's been withdrawn from the agenda tonight.

Okay.

First on the agenda is citizens to be heard on agenda items.

This section is for anyone wanting to speak regarding agenda items and are allowed a maximum of four minutes.

It is not a question and answer period, and staff and the zoning board of appeals members do not generally respond to public comments.

Now on the screen is our public participation rules of procedure.

Um I also make a note that every agenda item listed today on the meeting for this meeting is a public hearing.

So if you would like to speak when the agenda item is called during the actual public hearing, you can do so then.

Um or you can speak now, but it will be outside of the public hearing.

So anyone would like to speak under citizens to be heard on agenda items at this point in time.

Okay.

Next on the business on our agenda is old business public hearing, and we have no agenda items.

And then we have new business public hearing.

And during the public hearing, members of the public will be allowed to present evidence and ask questions subject to the rules of the meeting.

First on the agenda is petition number 2025 40, which is a variation on maximum fence height to allow a six-foot fence in a corner side yard located at 2916 Reflection Drive.

The applicant and owner of the property is RSLI of Elves, and the purpose is the applicant is requesting a variation to allow for a six-foot high fence in a corner side yard located at 2916 reflection court.

Per section 47-17.6 of the city's zoning ordinance.

Fences constructed within a corner side yard shall not be higher than four feet in height unless the property owner obtains the written approval of the adjacent property owner.

If they cannot obtain written approval, the property owner may request a variation to allow for a fence higher than four feet within the corner side yard.

The zoning board of appeals makes the final decision on this variation request.

Under site specific information, the subject property sits on a corner lot within a residential zoning district.

The property in question previously had a four-foot-high wooden privacy fence, and the existing six-foot high vinyl fence was permitted and installed in 2022.

The existing six-foot high vinyl fence is set back ten feet from the southeastern property line that runs along Horizon Court.

For surrounding zoning land use and character, the property is surrounded by other single-family homes in the Caton Ridge subdivision, all with R2 single family residential zoning.

Under applicable regulations, we have section 4716 or sorry, 47-17.6 heights of fences.

Under discussion, the applicant wishes to move the existing six-foot high fence from its current location, located approximately ten feet from the property line to the property line.

The applicant has expressed the desire to keep the fence at six foot high to allow for more privacy within the backyard for their family.

They have also stated that they do not have the financial means to remove and replace the existing fence with one that complies to standards.

Therefore, a variance is required.

While staff finds no hardship with this request, a six-foot high fence in the corner side yard would not detract from the neighborhood character nor be out of place within the subdivision as there are several corner lots with six-foot high privacy fences.

And for suggested conditions, staff is recommending none.

And that concludes staff's report.

Yeah, come forward.

I must swear you in.

I need your names and addresses.

Speak into the microphone.

I am her daughter.

My name is Karina Vega, and I live at 1644 two lip lane in Munster, Indiana, 46321.

Okay.

Any comments you'd like to make?

Yes, it's almost she wishes not to make any comments at this time.

Okay, is there any questions by the board?

What particular reason would you like to move the fence closer to the sidewalk?

Just for the room inside.

Can you repeat the question?

You just want to give yourself more room on the in the uh on the backyard.

Is that the only reason?

She would like to keep it the same way that it is now.

Any other questions?

Um has the neighbor indicated they are against it or have they just not responded?

No, no, me at one of the business in the book, a young piece of memory.

Okay.

Uh she's stating that she has not responded to her, but um back in 2022 when she was first thinking of changing the fence, the neighbor never she didn't want to sign for her to move the fence where it is, or that's what she's telling me.

Any other questions by the board?

Yes, we have one.

Yes.

Um, I'm interested in knowing have you talked with the neighbor even though she didn't submit or they didn't submit formal a formal approval or concern.

No, these are no, she has not had any contact with their neighbor.

Okay, and it's my understanding you're asking, or you just stated that you just wanted to keep the six-foot fence, and yet the per the request is also to move it to the lot line, which means expanding it further out to the sidewalk.

She's saying that because she was told that she can move it up to the line where her property begins without the neighbor signing.

But if her it is her preference to keep it this way due to financial hardship.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, so I'm confused.

So we do want to move the fence to the lot line, correct, James?

Yes.

She needs she had indicated that she wants to move the fence to the property line, which is allowed if the property adjacent property owner, as you can see in this in the screen, signs off.

The property owner has not signed off for reasons that she's indicated, so therefore her only recourse to move the six-foot high fence closer is a variance.

Otherwise, it'd have to be a four-foot without permission.

Yeah, and the her what her the doc staff reported tests that she had indicated that it would be a financial hardship to take down the entire six-foot high fence and put up a four-foot high fence that would comply.

And could could there be a compromise where a portion of it is moved to four feet in the existing foot footprint?

Um that was not the herbariance request to the city at this time.

And we do we did post a sign and or send notice of today's hearing to all neighbors and give them the opportunity to be here today, correct?

Yes.

Does staff have a problem with it?

Staff did not find any objections to it.

Um the staff report noted that there are examples in this neighborhood and and throughout the city where there are six-foot high fences on corner lots, but again, there is that provision that you know we require the neighbor to sign off.

Um, and if they don't, their recourse is to come before you.

So or send public comment.

Is that correct?

Um so the so the public was again.

No, it's fine.

This is a good question.

The public was notified with with who lives within 600 feet of the this affect the affected property, and they have an opportunity to send public comments through our public comment email portal, and then those comments are if they come in advance up to like a couple of hours before this meeting, they get distributed to the zoning board of appeals members via email.

And we do have those.

So Silent gives consent then, right?

If the if the if it was posted, no one objected.

Then silent gives consent.

Uh but the decision is with you as the zoning board of appeals on this variance request.

Uh my understanding is we had we had one public comment come through the email portal and it was in support of the request.

Um there was another against.

Oh, there was another against?

Okay.

Any further questions by the board?

Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Is there anyone opposed?

So the person that was opposed to it or wouldn't sign isn't here.

We can't even submit that as evidence.

Uh because you have to be here to be sworn in.

We'll keep that in mind when you're voting.

Chair closed petition and ask the board for discussion in a motion.

I motion to accept.

We have a motion and a second to approve the petition.

Pull the board.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Ms.

Rohr?

No.

Ms.

Schmig?

No.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias?

Aye.

Chairman Hennessey.

Aye.

Okay.

This request passes with a vote of four-two.

So um continu can continue to move forward with the building permit application.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Next on the agenda is a series of variations, which is petition, sorry, petition number 2025 41, a series of variations on landscape requirements and parking lot design standards to allow the reconstruction of existing parking lots located west of Northeastern Avenue at Van Buren Street.

The applicant for this petition request is Juliet Township High School District 204, and they are the property owner.

The applicant is requesting the following variations to allow the reconstruction of three existing parking lots for Juliet Central High School.

The first is a variation to reduce the perimeter landscaping from 10 feet and 5 feet to zero feet.

The second variation is to omit curved landscaped islands at the end of each parking row.

And the third variation request is to reduce required parking stall area from 180 square feet to 162 square feet.

The zoning board of appeals makes the final decision on these variation requests.

Under site specific information, the subject site comprises six parcels that are approximately one acre total and contain existing parking lots for faculty and staff of Juliet Central High School.

The south and middle lots are located west of Eastern Avenue between Jefferson Street and Van Buren Street, and the north lot is located at the northwest corner of Eastern Avenue in Van Buren Street.

The south and middle lots are separated by an east-west public alley that will remain.

The properties are all zone V3 General Business.

Based on aerial imagery, most of the parcels have been used as parking lots for at least 30 years.

The asphalt lots are currently in disrepair and need to be reconstructed.

The existing parking stalls are around nine feet wide with varying depths.

The lots do not have any existing perimeter landscaping except a strip of grass along the west side of the north lot and a small landscaped area at its southwest corner.

For surrounding zoning, land use and character, the property is part of the Juliet Central High School campus located east of downtown Juliet.

The zoning and land use for the adjacent properties are as follows.

To the north is B3 General Business, and it's the Boys and Girls Club of Juliet.

To the south is B3 General Business and it's a Juliet Central High School parking lot.

To the east is R for multifamily residential zoning, and it's occupied by Juliet Central High School, their main building.

To the west is zone B3 General Business, and it is the Juliet Central High School Athletic Fields, as well as Cornerstone Services Staff Training Center and a city owned parking lot.

Under applicable regulations, we have Section 47-15E.5A, perimeter landscaping, Section 47-15 E.6A, interior landscaping of off-street parking areas, Section 47-15H.11, minimum recommended parking lot requirements, and section 47-19.8, findings of fact facts supporting a variation.

Under discussion, the approval of the requested variations would allow existing parking lots for Juliet Central High School to be reconstructed similar to their existing conditions.

The proposed redevelopment of the lots would require them to comply with the current landscaping and parking lot standards, which include a 10-foot wide landscaped area along the perimeter adjacent to the public right-of-way, a five-foot-wide landscaped area along the perimeter adjacent to non-residential uses, landscape islands with barrier curb at the end of each parking row, and a minimum parking stall area of 180 square feet.

The existing lots do not currently meet these requirements.

If the reconstructed lots were to comply with the regulations, the school district would lose a significant number of parking spaces for this campus.

The proposed layout will improve safety and circulation within the lots while maintaining the current number of parking spaces.

And you can see the attached concept plan.

All proposed stalls will be nine feet by 18 feet, which meets the parking stall with requirement, but requires a variation to reduce the stall area from 180 to 162 square feet.

The stalls would need to be increased to 10 feet wide or 20 feet deep to meet the minimum area requirement, which would result in a reduction of the total number of parking spaces.

These lots are mainly used for staff parking and will not have frequent vehicle turnover like a typical commercial parking lot, so the reduced depth will not gener will not greatly impact the flow of traffic within the lot.

The reconstructed lots will meet the requirement for perimeter curb and gutter.

Stormwater will be managed within the existing storm sewer system.

The existing landscaping at the site corners adjacent to Eastern Avenue will remain, and any additional land outside of the parking lot borders will be returned to grass.

Staff finds that the request meets the variation criteria for physical hardship because adherence to the current parking lot and landscaping standards would cause a significant reduction in available parking spaces.

The south parcels are irregularly shaped due to the angle of Eastern Avenue and are separated by a public alley, which limits the possible arrangement of the stalls.

Staff also finds that approval of the requested variations will not alter the essential character of the area.

The lots are part of a large urban school campus and have existed as parking lots for decades.

Under suggested conditions of approval, staff is recommending none, and that includes staff's report.

Names and addresses.

Joe Hammer.

We agree with staff report.

We've made uh a number of uh concessions around the perimeter to increase the landscaped area from what is there now.

Um parking lots are in disrepair and do need to be reconstructed.

Uh we've done a number of things to improve the traffic flow within the lots and to standardize the lot spaces as much as possible without losing parking stalls.

Other than that, if anybody has any questions, we'd be happy to answer.

Okay.

Okay, questions from the board.

Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Is there anyone opposed?

Chair closes the petitioners.

The board for discretion and the motion.

A motion to accept.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the petition.

Pull on the board.

Ms.

Rohr?

Aye.

Ms.

Schmink?

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Chairman Hennessy.

Hi.

Thank you, John.

Thank you.

All right.

Next on the agenda is petition 2025 42, a series of variations on signage to allow wall and monument signs located at 2121 West Jefferson Street.

The applicant for this petition is Kuntal Shah, and he's the business owner.

The property owner is SUP Development Group LLC.

The applicant is requesting the following variations on signage for wall and ground signs at 2121 West Jefferson Street.

The first is a variation to allow a wall sign that does not face a public way, which would be on the east side elevation.

Second variation is to reduce the required setback for a pull sign from 15 feet to one foot.

And the third variation is to increase the total permitted sign area from 200 feet to 234 feet square feet.

The zoning board of appeals makes the final decision on these variation requests.

For site-specific information, the subject property is around 0.75 acres and contains an approximately 6,000 square foot commercial building and adjacent surface parking lot.

In April of 2025, City Council approved a special use permit to allow an adult use cannabis dispensary at this location.

The building is currently being remodeled for the Bisa Lena Cannabis Dispensary with exterior facade improvements on the south and east sides.

The property is part of a two-lot commercial subdivision within the Walgreens property to the east.

The two sites have access easements that provide shared use of the two driveway entrances off Jefferson and Hamas Avenue.

The property is zoned B3 General Business.

For surrounding zoning, land use and character.

The surrounding properties all have B3 general business zoning and contain the following uses.

To the north is stormwater detention, to the south is multi is a multi-tenant space.

It's Mary Crest Shopping Plaza.

To the east is Walgreens, and to the west is a multi-tenant retail building.

For applicable regulations, we have section 47-17.21, which is signs, and section 47-17.21 3, which is criteria for granting a sign variation.

For discussion, the petitioner Kuntel Shaw with Valteist, Illinois seeks to install two wall signs and a new pole sign for their new business at 2121 West Jefferson Street.

Both wall signs would be 82 square feet, with one located on the south wall facing Jefferson Street and the other located on the east wall of facing the Walgreens lot.

The proposed pull sign would be 17 feet tall with a sign area of approximately 70 square feet.

Sign renderings are included in the staff report packet.

The City of Juliet zoning ordinance does not allow wall signs that do not face a public street in the B3 General Business Zoning District.

The petitioner would like to install a wall sign on the east facade to help direct westbound traffic on Jefferson Street to the site.

With the addition of a second wall sign, the total proposed sign area for the site is 234 square feet.

The site is permitted to have 200 square feet of signage based on the street frontage of having 100 feet.

Linear feet.

Therefore, the petitioner requests variations to allow a wall sign that does not face a public way and to exceed the total sign allotment for the site.

Additionally, the petitioner requests a variation to reduce the setback to the poll sign from 15 feet to one foot.

The setback is measured to the leading edge of the sign.

The pole itself will be approximately five feet from the property line.

You can see figure two in your staff report packet.

The petitioner states that the reduced setback is needed due to existing landscaping on Jefferson Street, which will block the view of the sign for westbound traffic.

The proposed pull sign will meet sign visibility requirements.

It'll be located just outside of the visibility triangle at the Jefferson Street Driveway, and the bottom edge of the sign will be over seven feet above grade.

The existing monument signed on the east side of the driveway will need to be removed if the new sign is installed, since only one ground sign is permitted at this site.

Staff finds that the requests for an additional wall sign and to increase total sign area for the site meet the following criteria for sign variations.

The proposed use would not be detrimental to the use or development of other property in the area.

Ownership of the property has been demonstrated.

In approval of the variation, would not be contrary to the objective of improving the overall appearance of the city.

Many other properties on Jefferson Street have wall signs on their side elevations.

The proposed east wall sign will be integrated with the updated facade of the building.

Staff does not find a hardship for the request for a reduced setback for the pull sign.

There is space within the grass area adjacent to the driveway to locate the sign farther back from the property line closer to the required setback of 15 feet.

However, there are many examples of non-conforming ground signs along Jefferson Street.

For suggested conditions of approval, staff is recommending none.

And that concludes staff's report.

Petitioner.

Oops.

Where is the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law?

I do.

Names and addresses.

Any comments you'd like to make?

Yeah, so I think speaking of the mic, please raise that up.

So you know, we're very excited to be opening up soon in the Joliet community and bringing in significant tax revenue.

Uh the request we are seeking is twofold.

One for the monument sign.

We want to be um in the congruence with the other monument signs that are on Jefferson next to us, which do not have a similar setback.

We think aesthetically it'll keep more consistent um flow and view down Jefferson Street in terms of where the monument signs are instead of them being staggered.

Um as far as for the uh additional sign on the uh east facing uh wall, we want to increase visibility so people are able to uh see the business um from all directions, and uh there have been uh other businesses we've seen that have had um similar um signage both on the main road as well as uh on the side of the building uh when there has been like a gap between the next building, such as we have currently with the Walgreens.

Um I believe the Joliet Bank and Trust, which is across the street from us, um, has similar two signs, uh one that faces um on Jefferson and the other one that faces uh to the east side of the building.

So in addition to that, we think it'll also uh you know increase the aesthetic value of uh the building by having signage um wrapping around the corner, just providing an overall uh visually more appealing uh storefront for the building for the for our building.

Thank you.

Any comments by the board, questions?

Will any of these signs be lit?

Um the poll sign uh as well as both wall signs will be internally illuminated.

The wall signs are internally illuminated face flip channel letters that will be flush mounted to the building, uh, and the poll sign will be internally eliminated as well.

Um a question for staff.

We have to vote on these together, correct?

You don't have to.

Okay.

We can separate them if we want to.

Any further questions by the board?

You have been given uh permission to sale cannabis, right?

Yes, we have been approved, and uh we have all licensing.

Are you the guys that was here about a year ago?

Uh okay.

And have you asked your neighbors uh about what they think about the signage being closer?

Is that um we have not uh asked neighbors in terms of the full sign being closer?

Any further questions?

The sign that you plan to erect will be pretty much the same signs that you would see up and down the street all the time, anyway, right?

Okay, yes, we designed them to be very similar in uh size, height, shape to all the other signs that are neighbors.

Okay.

And may I comment that I think it's um while there are a lot of signs on the on Jefferson Street that are were not properly, they didn't follow the ordinance.

I don't think we should be responsible for continuing past mistakes.

Like with big Jefferson Street, this Jefferson Street has just become signs, random signs, and it is detract.

Any other comments by the board?

Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Is there anyone opposed?

Chair closes the petition and ask the board for discussion and a motion.

I'd like to make a motion, but I'd like to separate them.

And I'd like to make a motion for the um let's do the monument sign first, and I would like to uh you mean the poll sign?

Or the poll sign, yes.

Changing from to the poll sign.

I would like a uh nay vote on that.

So you're define the yes, decline the uh motion to deny your motion tonight, that's a word.

Thank you.

We haven't called for a motion yet, so anyone else make a motion?

Go ahead.

Uh do you have a reason for requesting it that way?

Yeah, my reasoning is is the same as what is what she had indicated.

I personally believe that number one, it's gonna be blocking the sign right next to it.

So when you're coming down, my second reason for it is that a business like this, I I I just don't see people driving down the road and being like, oh, I really need to go to B.

Selena's uh like they would maybe at Walgreens where they're you know they're driving or oh look, it's a McDonald's.

There it is.

I think this is more of a planned route, and I don't think we should be adding to the the street sign noise that we currently have on Jefferson.

That's why I would like to see it.

So did you make the motion?

I made the motion we'll wait for a second of second.

We have motion and second to deny the petition.

To deny the poll sign variance request that we'll vote on the other one separately as well.

The other the other sign that's gonna be asked to be erected.

Is it closer to the ground?

Why?

What's the difference?

What are the differences between the both of the signs?

I can I can you repeat that for me?

I can't.

What's the difference between the signs, the both of the signs?

What's the difference?

Well right now the motion is for the poll sign.

We can talk about the motion your the discussion.

It sounds like your discussion item for for just the zoning board at this point in time is is for the other two signs.

Is that your question, sir?

Yeah.

Okay.

I don't know what the other sign is gonna.

I've missed it someplace in the other.

I don't know what the other sign.

They asking for oh, they asked the question.

So the two, okay.

There's three variance requests.

The first one that you're that's that's there is a motion on the floor right now to deny the request for a poll sign.

Then one is out next to the street.

Yeah.

The existing one is a monument sign, and they're requesting to have to erect a mo a poll sign instead and then position it in a manner that um is not consistent with our zoning requirements for a poll sign.

And then the other two requests are regarding the one is the total sign allotment for the site and then the location of a second wall sign.

Okay.

And those so that would be the two other requests that you can vote on after this this first.

Okay.

All right.

Ms.

Schmick.

No.

Oh yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Stiff?

No.

Mr.

Bias?

No.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Is that a yes?

Okay.

Ms.

Rohr?

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

No.

Okay, so the motion to deny the request did not pass.

Can I make a second motion for the um wall signs?

No?

I like a motion.

You still have to deal with the poll sign.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought it was okay.

I didn't hear that.

I'm sorry.

It was three-three, so they can't.

So we still have to deal with that.

The poll sign.

So someone can make a motion to approve it, and you can fails.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the monument sign.

The poll sign.

The poll sign.

Okay, the poll sign.

Okay.

Second the motion?

Yes.

We have a second.

I second that motion.

We have a motion to a second.

Pull the board.

Mr.

Stiff?

Aye.

Mr.

Bias?

Bye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Ms.

Rohr?

No.

And Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

Wait, Ms.

D Ms.

Schmeg vote?

No.

Ms.

Schmidt?

No.

Chairman Hennessy.

I said aye.

They said aye.

Okay.

So the motion failed, so the variance request does not.

So the request for the poll sign did not pass.

Okay.

That's a point of clarification.

What was your clarification?

Is this for the not having the setback for the poll sign?

This was just the poll sign instead of the monument.

That was the motion.

We or if I can say something.

Actually, in the zoning ordinance, as far as I understand, we are allowed to have a poll sign.

We were petitioning to decrease the setback of the I mean if you want to come to work with staff to for a poll sign that meets our requirements.

We can work with you on that.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you.

So now we have the other remaining two variants requests, which is a variance to allow a wall sign that does not face a public way.

Let's go with that one.

And I would like to make a motion to approve the proposed wall sign.

Second.

We have a motion of a second to approve.

Pull the board.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Ms.

Rohr.

Aye.

Ms.

Schmid.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

Okay.

So the variance for the second wall sign has been approved.

And that brings us to our third variance request, which is to increase the total permitted sign area from 200 feet to 234 square feet.

Motion be in order.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We have motion, second to approve.

Pull the board.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Ms.

Rohr.

Aye.

Ms.

Schmick.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

Okay.

So those two variance requests were approved, and you can continue to work with the city on your signed permit request through the building division.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just before you guys leave, could I ask a question?

What's the prospective sale amount that you think you might be selling per year?

Um we're hoping between 12 to 20 million dollars net sales a year.

And the city take would be about three percent.

Three percent.

Three percent.

Sorry, sorry, three percent.

Uh three percent.

That would be let's let's say if we go with the twenty million dollar number, that's I think six hundred thousand per year.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next on the agenda is petition 2025 43, a series of variations to allow construction of a new commercial building located at 103 and 105 South Brig Street.

Um, and one 1522 East Washington Street.

Again, so let's see here.

The applicant is Amin Ponjavani.

The applicant is the property owner.

And the applicant is requesting the following variations to allow the construction of a two-tenant commercial building and associated drive-through at 101 South Brig Street.

It's a first is a variation to reduce perimeter landscaping from 10 feet to zero feet on the east side.

The second is a variation to reduce perimeter landscaping from 10 feet to 5.5 feet on the north side.

The third is a variation to reduce perimeter landscaping from 5 feet to 2 feet on the west side.

And the fourth variation request is to reduce required parking stall area from 180 square feet to 165 square feet.

The zoning board of appeals makes the final decision on these variation requests.

Under site specific information, the subject site is around 0.84 acres and comprises four lots at the southwest corner of Brig Street and Washington Street.

The two north lots have B-1 neighborhood business zoning and contain a vacant multi-tenant commercial structure built around 1955 that previously contained a pharmacy and a convenience store.

The remainder of the commercial property surrounding the building is paved and does not contain any landscaped areas.

The two south lots are zoned R2 single family residential.

The east residential lot contains a two-unit residence approved through a variation of use in 2001.

And the west lot is vacant.

The north and south parcels are separated by a 14-foot wide public alley that runs east-west between Brig Street and Hebbard Street.

The alley is unimproved and does not provide access to any adjacent residential properties.

The petitioner is proposing to redevelop the site with a new commercial building that will contain a Duncan restaurant and drive-through, as well as an additional retail tenant.

The proposed redevelopment requires a subdivision of land, a vacation of the public alley adjacent to the parcels, and a partial zoning reclassification.

The proposed subdivision would create two lots, a larger north lot, approximately 122 feet by 203, 203 feet, with B1 zoning for the commercial development, and a smaller south lot with R2 zoning for the existing residents, which will remain in you can see that on the screen here and in your staff report packet.

The subdivision vacation and reclassification petitions are scheduled to be heard later this afternoon at the October 16th Plan Commission meeting.

The proposed development also requires approval of a drive-through permit.

Joliet City Council reviewed and approved the drive-thru permit for the proposed Duncan restaurant at their meeting on October 7th of 2025.

For surrounding zoning, land use and character, the property is located at the southwest corner of Brig Street and Washington Street.

The surrounding zoning is a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses.

The zoning and land use for the adjacent properties are as follows.

To the north is R2 single family residential, and that's an elementary school.

To the south is R2 single family residential and it's commercial.

To the east is County Zoning, C2, which is local commercial designation, and it's a commercial use.

It's a gas station and county R5, which is single family designation, and it's a residential use.

To the west is B1 neighborhood business zoning, and it's a commercial laundromat.

And to and then as well as R2 single family residential, and there's a residential use.

Under applicable regulations, we have Section 47-15E.5A, perimeter landscaping for non-residential uses.

We have Section 47-15H.11, minimum recommended parking lot requirements, and Section 47-19.8, findings of facts supporting a variation.

For discussion, the petitioner is requesting variations on landscaping and parking stall size to allow the redevelopment of an existing commercial site with a new commercial building.

The proposed development will contain an approximately 3,500 square foot commercial building with two tenant spaces.

The south tenant space is planned for a Duncan restaurant and drive-thru, and the north space is proposed for retail with no known user at this time.

The commercial development will have one access driveway off Brig Street.

Surface parking is located on the south and east sides of the site, while the drive-thru lanes wrap around the west side of the site.

There will be a seven-foot-wide sidewalk along Brig Street as required by Will County, which has jurisdiction over Brig Street.

The proposed site plan is included in the staff report packet, and it's on the screen.

Additionally, the drive-thru lanes encroach on part of the north landscape area.

Therefore, the petitioner requests variations to reduce the perimeter landscaping on the east, north, and west.

The development will include the required 15-foot landscape area and solid fence adjacent to the residential properties on the lower west and south sides.

The site plan includes 18 parking spaces, which meets the off-street parking requirement for this proposal.

Eleven of these spaces are designated for customers and seven are designated for employees.

The employees stalls are around 165 square feet in area, which is less than the minimum required area of 180 square feet.

Therefore, the petitioner also requests a variation to reduce the area for the seven parking stalls along the south side of the site.

The customer stalls along the east will meet the width and area requirements.

Staff finds that the request meets the variation criteria.

The petitioner could not develop the site for a drive-thru restaurant if they comply with landscaping and parking stall standards.

The site is small for a modern commercial development and is located on the corner of a major intersection, which limits potential access points and requires additional landscaping and sidewalk compared to an interior lot.

Per Will County requirements, the petitioner must install seven-foot sidewalk along seven-foot-wide side lock along Brig Street, which further reduces the available area for perimeter landscaping.

Staff also finds that the approval of the requested variations will not alter the essential character of the area.

The existing site does not have any perimeter landscaping.

The proposed plan will add an adequate landscape area along the north next to Washington Street and will also meet the requirements for landscaping and fencing adjacent to residential uses.

For suggested conditions of approval, staff is recommending none, and that concludes staff's report.

Yes.

My name is Michael Caldwell, and with Caldwell Engineering at 1316 North Madison Street in Woodstock, Illinois.

Go ahead.

One of the things I did want to point out with regard to the employee parking.

One of the reasons we are having a smaller width of the employee parking is so we could have a uh landscape island that's not required by uh the village or the city.

So just we're just trying to add landscaping wherever we can on this property.

Thank you.

Questions for the board?

So the existing bill will be a total uh total tear-down, right?

That is correct.

Okay.

We had a public comment asking, could you put in a bicycle rack?

Uh I have no objection to putting the bicycle rack, but I would have to talk to my client before we move forward.

The only real feasible spot to put a bicycle rack would be in one of the landscaped areas.

Uh that would be uh uh on the northeast uh portion of the building there.

Um we're certainly uh willing to talk to staff and work with staff about something like that if it works.

I'm all for bicycle.

And apparently there are a lot of bicyclists in the area and old plank road uh bike path is close by.

I think it could be two years.

Oh, good.

Any other comments?

When will it be shovel ready?

Uh the sooner that uh the sooner it's approved, the sooner we can submit our final engineering plan.

We're working on the final engineering plans now.

We've been authorized to do that, but try to move the process along.

I would anticipate this would be a spring start.

Any other comments from the board?

Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Anyone appoint?

Chair closes petition and as the board for discussion.

Any motion?

Motion to accept.

Second.

We have a motion second to approve the petition.

Mr.

Dokovich Ms.

Rohr.

Aye.

Ms.

Schmig?

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff?

Aye.

Mr.

Bias?

Aye.

Chairman Hennessey.

I think thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next on the agenda is petition 2025 44, a series of variations to allow construction of a new detached garage located at 703 Clements Street.

The applicant and owner of the property is Saul Rodriguez Garcia.

The applicant is requesting a series of variations to allow for the construction of a detached garage in the rear at the property located at 703 Clement Street.

The zoning board of appeals makes the final decision in this matter.

The requested variations from the zoning board include a variation to reduce the rear garage setback requirement from 10 feet to 5 feet and a variation from the required lot coverage.

Lock coverage is not to exceed 30% in residential districts, but the existing lock coverage is 46%, and this would increase to 49% with the new proposed garage.

For site specific information, the subject property is approximately 4,700 square feet in size.

It is zoned R2 single family residential.

The property includes a one-story detached garage in the rear with alley access.

For surrounding zoning land use and character, all properties in this vicinity are zoned R2 single-family residential.

Most properties have detached garages with alley access or front yard driveway access.

Yes.

For applic under applicable regulations, we have section 47-6.4, R2 single family residential yard and lot requirements, and then section 47-19.8 criteria for granting a variation.

For discussion, the applicant seeks to replace a one-story detached garage in the rear of the property with a larger one-story detached garage.

The existing garage is 247 square feet in size and large enough for a single car.

The proposed garage will be 400 square feet, which will allow for two cars to be parked inside.

The property has an existing non-conforming lot coverage of 46%.

Therefore, the applicant seeks a variation on lot coverage to increase to 49% to allow for a larger garage.

The existing garage is located on the property line in the rear, as well as the side property line to the north.

The applicant would like the new garage to be in the same general area.

The zoning ordinance requires a 10 foot setback when the garage access is from the alley.

The zoning ordinance also requires a three-foot setback from the side yard property line.

The proposed garage will exit to the alley to allow for easier ingress and egress of vehicles and will be set back five feet from the property line and six feet from the side property line to the north.

Therefore, the applicant must obtain a setback variance because the proposed garage will not require to the ten foot setback from the alley.

Floor plans and building elevations for the proposed project are included in the staff report packet.

Staff finds that the hardship for this petition stems from the non-conforming lot size created by a blanket rezoning by the city that does not meet current standards and does not allow for the practical use of the property without requiring this variation these two variation requests.

For suggested conditions of approval, if the zoning board desires to approve these two variation requests to allow a 400 square foot 20 feet by 20 feet detached garage, the following condition should be included that a building permit shall be obtained prior to construction.

And that concludes staff's report.

Yes.

Yes.

Your name and address, please.

Saur Rodriguez.

Thank you.

Anything you'd like to say.

Do you have any comments you'd like to make?

No, only in the petition.

Sorry.

Is there any questions by the board?

How long have you lived there?

Four years.

It looks as if the uh the one that you're going to construct is in line with the with the garage directly behind it.

Could you repeat the question, Mr.

Bias?

It seems as if from the picture that is setback from the city is going to be from the street's going to be about the same as the ones all along that alleyway, right?

The the his proposal, the request in front of you is to step the garage access back five feet.

Currently it's at zero feet from the property line, which ten feet are modern day requirement for garages that exit into an alley.

So all the garages, the line of garages that you're looking at in this picture are all non-conforming with the setback.

This is all due to the age of the properties.

Anything in that area is going to have the same problem.

Right.

Right, because he's choosing to reconstruct it today or for today's construction.

This is not any exceptional request.

So the foundation is staying the same, correct?

Or it there is movement.

Do we need some of that?

I don't know if foundation is staying the same, but he has to move he's he's I remove everything.

You're moving everything, yeah.

Because the the property, the garage right now you see is zero on one side and zero on the other property line.

So he's m he's complying with the side yard requirement.

He's just asking, so he's moving at that six feet as opposed to zero, which complies, and then now he's asking to move it in or in five feet, which still doesn't comply, which is the request in front of you.

Any further questions?

Yes.

Any better the audience versus speak in favor?

Anyone both?

Sure.

Sir, please pause one second.

Okay.

Yeah, let's see if they look at the same.

Okay.

All right.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion to second to approve full of the board.

Ms.

Rohr.

Aye.

Ms.

Schmink.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Chairman Hennessy.

Okay.

Your request is approved, so continue to work with the building division on your permit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

As previously stated, the next petition, which is 2025 45, which was a special use permit to allow expansion of an existing home daycare business located at 913 Plantain Drive.

That that request has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Which brings us to petition.

These are a dual companion case.

Um petition 2025 46, which is a special use permit to allow a truck and trailer parking and storage lot located west of Vera Court and south of Oakleaf Street, and the companion case is petition 2025 47, a series of variations to allow a truck and trailer parking and storage lot located west of Vera Court and south of Oak Leaf Street.

The applicant in this man in this matter is Montana Investments LLC, and they are the property owner.

The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow a truck and trailer parking and storage lot in the I-1 Light Industrial District on the west side of Vera Court, south of Oakleaf Street.

For the City of Joliet zoning ordinance, carting, express, and hauling establishments may be allowed as special uses in the I-1 zoning district by the mayor and city council with the advice of the zoning board of appeals in accordance with section 47-5.2.

The applicant is also requesting the following variations.

The first is a variant a variation to reduce perimeter landscaping from 10 feet to 0 feet.

The second is a variation to omit curved landscaped islands at the end of each parking row.

And the third is a variation to omit barrier curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot.

The zoning board of appeals makes the final decision on these variation requests, and the city council makes the final decision on the special use permit request.

For site specific information, the 2.1 acre subject site comprises three parcels on the southwest side of Vera Court within Unit 9 of Oak Leaf Center subdivision, which was recorded in 1997.

Oak Leaf Center is an industrial subdivision located between McDonald's Street and Interstate 80 that contains a mix of light industrial and commercial uses.

Most of the properties surrounding the subject site were developed in the late 1990s.

The subject property remained undeveloped until 2011 when a gravel parking area and storage yard was approved and constructed over all three lots.

Based on aerial photographs, the site was mainly used for the storage of building materials until it was purchased in 2024 by the current owner.

The site is zoned I-1 light industrial.

Subject site has two existing access points off air court.

The lots are enclosed by a solid eight-foot high fence on the east and a chain link fence on the other three sides.

There is an existing detention basin on the south end of the site that was installed in 2011 when the gravel lot was constructed.

The owner recently paved the site with asphalt and a concrete landing gear pad.

Under surrounding zoning, land use and character, the property is located within the Oak Leaf Center Industrial Subdivision and is surrounded by industrial warehouse of properties that contain uses such as contractors, fabricators, and manufacturing facilities.

The site is bordered by Interstate 80 on the south.

The properties to the east and north are zoned I-1 light industrial, and the property to the west is zoned I2 light industrial.

Or sorry, I2 General Industrial.

Under applicable regulations, we have Section 47-14.2A D, special uses in all industrial districts.

Section 47-15E.5A permit or landscaping for non-residential uses.

Section 47-15 points or 15E.6 landscaping of off-street parking areas.

Section 47-5.2C criteria for issuance of a special use permit.

And section 47-19.8 findings of facts supporting a variation.

Under discussion, the petitioner and property owner, Montana Investments LLC is requesting a special use permit to allow a parking and storage lot for trucks and semi-trailers.

The parking lot will be located on 2.1 acres in the center of an industrial subdivision and would also contain passenger vehicle parking.

The owner plans to use the site primarily for overflow parking for nearby industrial properties also under their ownership, such as the adjacent warehouses at 540 to 600 Joyce Road.

According to the petitioner, there is limited parking at the Joyce Road site and other sites within the vicinity.

The concept plan shows that the lot would contain approximately 26 trailer stalls and 38 passenger vehicle spaces.

The site would retain its two existing access points off Vera Court and vehicle traffic would continue to access the site via Oakleaf Street.

The surrounding eight-foot fence will remain.

The site was recently paved with asphalt to the same dimensions as the prior gravel lot.

The site the development of the site requires the lots to comply with the current landscaping requirements and parking lot standards, which include a ten-foot wide landscape area along the east perimeter adjacent to the public right-of-way, landscape islands with barrier curb at the end of each parking row, and barrier curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot.

Staff is not requiring landscape areas along the north and west sides due to existing public utility and drainage drainage easements along those property lines.

The south side of the site contains the existing detention basin, which has some surrounding landscaping.

There are existing street trees along the west side of Vera Court.

The petitioner requests variations from these requirements based on the prior approved conditions of the site, which did not include landscaping or meet the parking lot standards.

According to the petitioner, the development of an asphalt parking area with no additional landscaping will be substantially similar in appearance to how the site has existed since 2011 and will be in character with the surrounding industrial park.

Staff finds that the request meets the following special use criteria.

The establishment and operation of the special use will not be detrimental to the public health and safety, nor will it impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property.

The subject site is in the center of an existing industrial subdivision and the proposed use is complementary to the existing uses in the subdivision.

The site is served by existing public streets and will continue to use the access driveways off-fair court.

The trailer parking stalls will be subject to the payment in lieu of taxes pilot program per the terms of the approved ordinance for truck parking facilities.

A stormwater detention pond is provided on site.

Pond capacity and drainage conditions will be evaluated as part of the required engineering review of the application.

Staff finds that the requests for perimeter landscaping in parking island variations meet the following criteria.

The installation of a 10-foot wide landscape area along the east side would reduce the size of the existing parking area, which was approved and installed in 2011.

Additionally, the site has an irregular shape due to the adjacent cul-de-sac.

Staff also finds that the granting of the variation would not alter the essential character of the area, as the existing conditions of the site are similar to the surrounding industrial properties.

Staff does not find a hardship for the variation request to install to not excuse me.

Staff does not find a hardship for the variation request to not install barrier curbing around the perimeter of the site.

The petitioner can comply with this request and still maintain the same layout as proposed on the concept plan.

A parking lot with no perimeter curb would not be consistent with other recent parking lot approvals within the city.

Additionally, as part of the engineering review application, staff will evaluate if a perimeter curb is needed as part of the stormwater drainage plan.

For suggested conditions of approval.

If the zoning board desires to approve the special use permit and series of variations to allow a truck and trailer parking and storage lot on the west side of Vera Court, the following conditions would be included.

The first is that an engineering review application shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to occupancy of the site.

Second, that the lots shall be consolidated into one lot through the county land consolidation process prior to occupancy of the site.

The third is that the property shall be enrolled in the payment in lieu of taxes, also known as the pilot program as part of the terms of the pilot program ordinance.

Four is that the special use permit granted shall terminate in lapse unless a building permit or certificate of occupancy is obtained not later than 180 days of the effective date of this ordinance.

And five, should the property be declared a public nuisance, it may be subject to a rehearing and possible revocation of the special use permit.

And that concludes staff's report.

Petitioner.

I do.

Uh Nathaniel Washburn, 11 North Ottawa Street with KGGLLC.

I'm the attorney for the applicant.

Charles Sharp 300 Trowood Lane, Sherwood, Illinois.

I'm the applicant.

Any comments, gentlemen?

We stand behind staff's report.

Uh you know, this is a slightly irregularly shaped lot.

It's in an existing subdivision.

Uh my client owns uh the adjoined uh or contiguous, not really a joined, uh, Joyce Road facility and other properties in the area, and as the aerials of the uh region show, there is limited parking for the already existing warehouse uses, and with these lots uh in the configuration and location they are.

We feel that this would be a good use for this property to service the already existing uh facilities in the area.

Thank you.

Any comments on the floor?

Could you staff elaborate on pilot, please?

Can you can you talk more loudly that could you elaborate on the pilot?

What what uh the pilot program the pilot program?

Yes.

Um the pilot program, which stands for payment in lieu of taxes, charges a fee per stall, and it's it's a it's a fee that the city collects in recognition that because the lot is does not have a building that would pay property taxes, that this is an alternative way to um generate some benefit to the city, you know, for you know things that would go on trucks and stuff that would go on our roads.

Okay, all right.

First I've heard of that, okay.

Yeah, uh is it already ready to go into action?

Do you have to pave it?

Is it already set?

So the the lot was I believe what brought this to the city's attention was the paving of the lot.

It was an existing gravel lot.

Uh my client owns many properties, and they're aware that Joliet code requires asphalt or paving, and since it was in our view a non-conforming gravel lot, they undertook to pave it after I believe staff became aware of that.

There were, you know, my client was notified, and therefore we're here just trying to clean up uh you know this lot and site.

Uh, but it is currently paved as was shown in the aerial photo, uh, but the rest of uh but it's not being utilized or occupied uh pending all of this.

Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

You want to pose chair closes the petition and as the vote for discussion in a motion.

Motion to accept second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the petition, holding board.

And petitions are but just right.

You're this is for all of them.

No, let's take the two and then the one.

Well, just to be clear, what are you doing?

Is this for the all of them or are you doing a variation separate from the special use?

Variation separate.

Okay, so this the motion we want to redo the motion then make sure what we're voting on.

Uh pick out which one you want.

We can do the variation first.

Okay.

I second.

We have a motion and second.

Ms.

Schmick.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff?

Aye.

Mr.

Bias?

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Ms.

Rohr.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

Okay.

Variance requests are approved.

Is there a motion on the special use permit request?

I'd like to make a motion.

I can make a motion with special permission be in order.

Be accepted.

We have a second.

Second.

Motion to second to approve.

Ms.

Schmig?

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Ms.

Rohr.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

Okay.

So the variance requests were approved, and those um can move forward and then or they're decided.

Your special use permit request will be scheduled for a future city council meeting, and that tentatively will likely be November 18th.

Thank you.

Was the parking how many parking spaces for trucks?

26, I believe.

26.

Okay.

Thank you, General.

Thank you guys.

Next on the agenda is petition 2025 48, a series of variations to allow continuation of a landscaping business located at 18 Henderson Avenue.

The applicant in this matter is Anastasio Lopez.

He is the property owner.

The applicant is requesting the following variations to allow the continuation of a landscaping business that is operated on the subject site since 2012.

The first is a variation to reduce the required landscape easement for the screening of outdoor storage areas that are adjacent to a public street from 30 feet to zero feet.

The second is for a variation to reduce the perimeter landscaping on of excuse me, the perimeter landscaping of the lot adjacent to a public right of way from 10 feet to zero feet.

And the third variation request is to allow an existing parking lot with gravel surface in lieu of Portland cement concrete or bituminous concrete surface.

The zoning board of appeals makes the final decision on these variation requests.

Under site specific information, the subject property is approximately 2.9 acres in size and contains a historic industrial warehouse building with limestone facade that was built in the 1920s.

When the applicant purchased the property in 2012, he converted the building into an office for his landscaping business.

The remaining excess acreage on the property has been used for storage of landscaping materials in cars and trucks.

The property contains a dense line of trees along its southern border, which is directly adjacent to the Rock Island Line railroad right-of-way.

Additional industrial uses border the property to the north and east.

The property's frontage along Henderson Avenue is directly across from residential residentially zoned properties with several detached single family residences in the nearby vicinity.

Under surrounding zoning land use and character, the zoning and land use for the adjacent properties are as follows.

To the north is I1 Light Industrial and it's a warehouse.

To the south is County I2 zoning, and that's which is their general industrial designation category, and it's railroad right of way.

To the east is I1 light industrial zoning designation and it's a warehouse manufacturing use, and to the west is R2 single family residential zoning with parking lots.

For applicable regulations, we have section 47-15E.12, landscaping of outdoor storage areas within industrial districts.

Section 47-15E.5A1 perimeter landscaping for renovations and rehabs.

Section 47-17 point uh 17 J off-street parking regulations.

Section 47-19.8 findings of facts supporting a variation.

City staff was alerted by several zoning code violations pertaining to the storage of vehicles on the site.

Staff views the existing landscaping business as an allowable contractor's shop use within the I-1 light industrial zoning district.

However, the manner in which the use operates at this location is not in compliance.

The requested variations would allow the applicant to continue to operate his business at the subject property in an orderly and compliant manner.

The attached site plan shows the extent of the proposed outdoor storage area for the landscaping business.

Storage of materials will not be allowed outside of this area, which shall be fenced per the requested conditions.

The surplus area on the property's west side will not include outdoor storage or parking and will be required to be returned to grass.

The driveway approach leading to the property from Henderson Avenue will also need to be paved with either concrete or asphalt.

The main building also contains several windows that need to be enclosed with a neutral color plywood to secure the building.

Lastly, storage of trucks that are unrelated to the business on the subject property will not be allowed.

For suggested conditions of approval, staff is recommending one that the applicant shall install a six-foot tall to twelve-foot tall fence around the proposed material storage area within six months of the effective date of the requested variations.

Two, that all items kept for storage shall be located within the material storage area.

Three, that all items intended for storage shall be stored in an orderly manner not to exceed the height of the solid fence.

Four, that the driveway apron leading out to Henderson Avenue and extending into the main parking area as indicated on the attached site plan exhibit shall be paved with Portland cement concrete or bituminous concrete within six months of the effective date of the requested variations.

Five, that non parking areas as indicated on the attached site plan exhibit shall be returned to grass within six months of the effective date of the requested variations.

Six, that the property owners shall board up all window openings on the main building with neutral color plywood to secure the building within two months of the effective date of the requested variations.

And seven, that the property shall not retain semi-trucks or truck trailers that are unrelated to the business.

And that concludes staff's report.

Nathaniel Washburn for the record, uh KGGLLC 11 North Ottawa Street.

Staff did a good job of summarizing this report.

This is a old site that's not been really in conformance for a very long time.

When my client purchased the property, it was in severe disrepair, very disorganized, very overgrown, muck everywhere, lots of junk and debris over the course of his ownership he's undertaken to clean up the property, uh, and be it that it was I1 Industrially zoned.

Uh he wasn't aware until uh staff approached him about these violations that he wasn't in code compliance since finding out about the violations and the issues with the property.

He's continued to undertake and invest money.

Uh the fence, as pictured in staff's photos, now has slats in it.

Those did not exist uh you know several months ago.

He continues to clean up and remove junk and debris.

There were junk cars and other vehicles that are in some of these photos, uh, many of which, if not all of which have been removed and continue to be removed.

Uh the variances that we are requesting will allow uh Mr.

Lopez to continue to support his family-owned uh landscaping business and further bring this site into code compliance.

Uh certainly happy to answer any questions that anybody might have, but we would ask for uh vote of approval on these variances to allow the continued redevelopment of the site.

I remember when they bought the building and they put the roof on, but they stopped there.

Is there any potential uh use that he has in mind for the interior of the building?

So he has thoughts on what may be possible with the building in the future, but this is a very old building and needs a heck of a lot of work if these variances are approved and we can get the site uh code compliant.

I believe the next step will be to try to reinstall uh electrical service and potentially water service, neither of which is currently uh appropriately functioning on the site.

Uh and then from there, as you know, he continues to you know grow and develop his business and continue to redevelop the site, uh, the building may at some point be redeveloped and repurposed.

For now, we're in agreement with staff that we need to do it at a minimum, get it secured so that there's nobody going in and out of it as it is in pretty severe disrepair currently.

Can I ask can I ask who monitors compliance on this?

Like some of the stipulations six months from now.

Does the city of Joliet monitor that they have complied with yes?

So the planning division within it has a zoning enforcement component to it, so we do have inspectors who would enforce this.

We also work very closely with the neighborhood services division as well, who have a code enforcement team.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions by the board?

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor?

Anyone opposed?

Chair closes the petition as the vote for discussion and the motion.

I'd like to make a motion and it'd be accepted.

Second.

We have a motion and second to approve the petition.

Close and board.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Ms.

Roar.

Aye.

Ms.

Schmink?

Aye.

Chairman Hennessey.

Aye.

Thank you.

All right.

Next on the agenda is petition 2025 49, a special exception to allow a roof-mounted solar installation located at 3300 Shanahan Road.

The applicant in this case is Dimension Energy.

And the status of the applicant is less C.

The property owner is Shanahan owner LLC.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a roof-mounted solar installation for community supply on the existing industrial building at 3300 Shanahan Road.

Community solar is generally defined as a solar project where the benefits from an off-site solar array are shared by multiple customers, including individuals, businesses, and other groups.

Customers typically receive monetary credits on their electric bill based on their subscription to the project.

Because a community solar installation supplies power back to the utility grid and not solely to on-site facilities.

It is considered a principal use and not an accessory use.

The zoning ordinance does not include provisions for solar installations as a principal use.

Therefore, this request must be considered as a special exception.

For site specific information, the subject site is lot one in Keetone Business Center Unit 1 subdivision, located southwest of the intersection of Hobalt Road and Shanahan Road.

The property contains a 1.2 million square foot warehouse and surrounding parking area for a target distribution center.

The property is zoned I2 General Industrial District.

For surrounding zoning land use and character, the property is located in the Keetone Business Center Industrial Subdivision and is surrounded by other properties within the industry within the subdivision with I-2 General Industrial Zoning.

Adjacent land uses include a warehouse and logistics building and a commercial equipment sales facility.

Under applicable regulations, we have Section 47-3.9 BB, miscellaneous terms, zoning exceptions, and variances.

Under discussion, the petitioner, Dimension Energy, is a national company that develops, owns, and operates community solar and other clean energy projects across 14 states, including Illinois.

They are requesting approval of a special exception to allow a roof-mounted solar installation and associated ground equipment for a community solar project at 3300 Shanahan Road.

The solar array would be located on the roof of an existing warehouse building in an industrial subdivision.

The solar installation would be owned and operated by Dimension Energy, who would lease the roof and ground space from the property owner.

Dimension Energy would be responsible for the installation, maintenance, and removal of the solar panels.

The expected life cycle of the installation is around 25 years.

The proposed solar installation would be for community supply, not a behind-the-meter system that generates electricity for on-site use.

The installation would be connected to comet equipment and would supply power back to the utility grid for use by properties served by that system.

A community solar project is supported by subscribers who receive credits on their energy bill for their share of the program.

They do not receive electricity directly from the solar installation.

Subscribers can be individuals, businesses, municipalities, nonprofits, and other groups.

For this project, subscribers would need to be located in Comed's Illinois utility territory.

The physical arrangement and appearance of the installation would be very similar to an accessory solar installation that serves the building.

The rooftop panels would not be visible from the ground as they would be set back from the edge of the building and only rise about one foot above the roof surface.

The ground equipment is similar to the equipment used for a building's electrical service.

Dimension Energy proposes two installations on this building, one on each half of the roof to be owned by two separate LLCs.

Each installation would have an enclosed equipment area on the side of the building.

There will also be an equipment area for ComED's ground equipment on the north corner of the parking area near the access driveway.

The comet equipment would not be enclosed but would be painted dark green for minimum visibility.

Examples of recently completed Dimension Energy roof mounted solar projects and their equipment are shown in figures three through seven in the staff report packet and on the screen.

Staff does not believe that the proposed solar installation will have a negative effect on the area.

The physical appearance is similar to a permitted accessory installation and is not out of character with an industrial site.

The petitioner will have a lease and an agreement with the property owner that addresses maintenance, installation, and removal of the installation.

The petitioner will be required to obtain all necessary building permits for the proposed project.

For suggested conditions of approval, the if the zoning board desires to approve the special exception to allow a roof-mounted solar installation at this location.

The following condition will be concluded, and it's that a building permit shall be obtained.

And that concludes staff's report.

The evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law.

I do.

Kale Skagan, 3050, Beach Tree Drive Northwest, Suite 350, Atlanta, Georgia, 30305.

I've got uh a presentation uh to give you a little more information about the project and community solar in general.

Um the staff report did a really good job of covering uh the installation, so thank you for that.

And any questions you have along the way, please feel free to stop me.

This is on route six.

That's right, yeah.

The entrance to the building is off Route 6.

From the school book factory next to it.

The one where they used to make the electric buses.

I'm not sure if that was the one that's next to it.

It's the building one in from Route 6.

The really the really big target building.

Uh I'm not sure what the one closer to the road is, but it's not that one.

Um my name's Kale Skagan.

I'm the project developer for this uh facility.

I'm with Dimension Energy.

We've been around since 2018, and as the staff report says, we own and operate community solar projects around the country.

Um we are a little different than some other developers in that we own the projects all the way through commercial operations, so we uh you know we're highly motivated to do a good project, stay in good graces with the city and counties where we operate because we are the long-term owner.

So it's not a quick flip like some other developers are um with a long-term owner.

Uh our fleet of solar projects aims to reduce electricity bills for subscribers, um, deliver clean locally produced energy, and provide tax revenue for the city, which I will summarize in a later slide.

Um community solar, just a quick overview.

Basically, it's like a ledger.

Um, the projects contribute solar to the grid, contribute energy to the grid.

That's read by the ComEd meter, kept track of by ComEd, distributed to subscribers of the project only.

Um customer can take up to 40% of the offtake of any given system.

That would be like a huge commercial account because it will make a lot of power.

Um, but most of it is smaller sections of the power generated.

And all the systems operating in the state contribute to the larger amount of power put on the grid that can be subscribed to.

So that is municipal accounts, that is commercial accounts, residential accounts.

Anybody who has a comed bill can take part in the program.

And that's a state program.

Um I don't need to belabor the point.

I can share this presentation later.

Um again, the uh subscribers of the program are really anybody with a comet account.

The projects are designed to be in full compliance with all national, state, and local codes.

So, you know, it's a really strict standard that we are held to electrically for these projects.

They do last 25 plus years.

So it's uh all outdoor-rated equipment, all very robust construction that meets and exceeds any code.

Overall layout of the site.

This ground equipment here is our equipment, so that's the customer-owned equipment that will be enclosed.

Uh typically in a chain link fence with privacy slats.

The comet equipment is closer to the street.

That is not able to be enclosed, but as Jane mentioned, that's going to be their standard grain equipment.

So it's pretty low profile.

It's really what you would see in any other building electrical service.

It doesn't know whether it's solar or not.

It's just uh electrical switches.

Um, the pin here, it is zoned I-2.

Um, and it is heavily industrial, so you know there's not any neighbors living nearby the project, it's all industry and um some wooded area.

The project is two individual projects.

Um they could proceed independently.

We would like to build them both, but if for whatever reason, you know, only one can proceed.

Uh they are two separate projects owned by two separate uh special project vehicles, which is an entity, an LLC that owns each project.

Uh totaling 10 megawatts AC.

The majority of the project, what you can see here is located on the roof.

So the solar panels, they're about a foot or less off the roof, not able to be seen from the ground.

Um the only thing that's going to be visible from the ground if you were to walk around the building is this ground equipment.

And even the ground equipment, the comed equipment is over 500 feet off the road.

So I I drove by, it was pretty clear in the photo in the staff report as well.

It is just you would not be able to see it from the street.

Some foliage, some terrain that would block it from view.

So the project, there's no special access requirements for the project.

It's just accessed by existing entrances.

It is behind the locking gate, so it's secure.

It's going to be locked anyway, but it is already behind the customer gate.

There's going to be some signage with emergency and owner contact information for the system.

So that'll be our service center if anybody does have an issue with the system or need access.

But there also will be a ladder to the roof to access it.

And that is locked.

So that's not going to be able to be publicly accessible.

We will provide a locking box for the fire department to access the disconnect switch, just like any other building electrical service would have.

So these are the devices that convert the DC electricity when the sun is shining into AC.

And the green routes there are the conduit paths down to the roof.

The inverters do make some sound.

There's some cooling fans in the inverters.

Only audible during the day when they're producing, but given their placement on the roof, they're not going to be audible from even the ground level.

Let's see here.

And there will be a little bit of electrical work at the ground level.

Conduit will run down the side of the building.

It can be painted to match the building.

And it'll be undergrounded to our equipment pad.

And from that point, it is all underground.

So you will not see any electrical infrastructure outside of that fence.

And a couple questions we typically get on these.

There's no, it's it's an unmanned system once it's completed and operational.

We will conduct a couple of yearly site visits for cleaning, maintenance, preventive maintenance, just to check on the system.

But once they're built, they're not a it's not a traffic generating busy facility.

It really should not be accessed.

Nobody should know it's there.

It'll continue to provide discounted electric rates for subscribers for the life of the system.

And again, that is residences, commercial accounts, can even be municipal accounts.

And over the life of the system, over 20 years, likely longer, the first 20 years, it should result in about $940,000 in tax revenue for the city and local entities.

That is excluding the county.

Including the county, it's about a million dollars.

We've submitted the application to COMED, and it's actually been approved.

So we have an interconnection agreement with COMED.

We've not signed it yet.

It's due to be signed by the end of next month.

But both systems have been approved by Comed at this point.

Any upgrades that are associated with the project, and there are about a million dollars in upgrades per project are borne by the project entity.

So that does not get passed on to ratepayers.

Comed rate payers, taxpayers, that is all borne by Dimension Energy.

In this case, uh distribution lines or poles outside of the project site.

So our equipment in this on these projects are ground mounted, so there's no poles, and it uses the existing infrastructure.

So there are some power lines along Route 6.

Nothing new will be added.

It's using those existing infrastructure.

Timeline about timeline of the project.

Through the end of this year, we're going to be signing that interconnection agreement with ComEd that allows them to start their final design and planning any upstream upgrades that need to happen for the project.

Q1, Q226 is going to be pre construction activities, so that's project engineering, getting the building permit as mentioned, and procuring equipment.

We just are on their timeline at that point.

But the majority of the construction will be done in 26.

It will likely not be operational until the first part of 27.

And just a little bit of a breakdown of the taxes here.

You can see uh some more see that in more detail.

You'll notice year one is not like an even 20-year, it's not an even proportion of the overall 20-year taxes.

It does step down over the course of the project each year, and that's just due to the reduced value if you were to reclaim the system.

So first year it's you know, brand new year 20, it's less valuable.

So that's how that step down is calculated.

But you'll see at the on the far right column over the life of each system, it's about $500,000 total.

Um 470,000 goes to everything, um every line except for that Will County line.

Majority is the school district, uh, school district 30C and high school district.

Any questions?

If I understand your concept, you in direct uh competition with ComEID?

No, it's actually we work with ComEd.

It's uh is a state program, and they're required to basically host the project.

So we are the discount would be seen on the Comed bill.

The customer would still be a customer of Comed.

They would just get a reduced rate.

So the the utilities, you know, we are giving them very cheap, reliable power.

So they actually like the projects.

And it's part of the upgrades that we pay for, and we're modernizing the substation in the area.

So you know that we we're doing them a favor.

How many of these locations have you participated in?

Uh we've got, I believe about 20 permitted.

I think about six are in construction right now.

Um we've got uh quite a few more rooftops being permitted.

They tend to be um in areas that are less saturated with solar.

So um we just got one permitted in Joe uh in New Lennox down the street.

Um there is a handful of them coming down the line.

I think I've got about 20 to 30 more in development right now.

And most of these were in the southwest, or uh there's a lot of them in the southwest are you mean in Illinois or in the country?

Nationwide.

Illinois is a really big market right now.

It's a very uh favorable state.

Um the program is just really really good.

Um the government.

Uh Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, they're all kind of coming uh right behind.

There's a big market in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, California has been a big market, it has kind of stopped for it.

They're not doing this type of project anymore in California.

Any other questions?

What are the board?

Yeah, just one other.

If I personally want to do use your product.

I would I would discontinue ComEd and No, you would stay with Comet.

You keep any utility keeps their customer, you would keep your ComEd account.

It would be a subscription through, I believe the the Illinois Shines program is how you would identify your local provider and project.

Um but you would keep ComEd, you would make a separate subscription, but I believe it's a single bill.

So it would just see it would just come as a line item as a reduction on your bill.

So there's no investment, no upfront cost for participants, and that's why that's what is the intent of the state's program because a solar system may have a long may have a high upfront cost and a long payback period.

Um so it's a way to get savings from solar without making an investment.

But you would stay with ComEd for sure.

Percentage wise.

If I left ComEd and what would you percentage, how much would that save?

You wouldn't leave ComED.

You would stay with Comed.

Um, and it depends on a lot in income bracket, uh, a lot of different statuses, minimum 10%.

It can be higher.

It can be up to I believe 30 or 40 for certain uh certain subscribers, certain entities that qualify.

But you would stay with comed or amor or whoever is your utility provider.

Anyone in the audience commission to speak in favor?

Not up.

What's the uh design wearing up?

Sir, come up here.

Sir?

Way of the come up to the podium, please.

You must be sworn in, sorry.

My name is Ron Swetn off.

Raise your right hand.

I do.

So say uh name and address.

Name is Ron Sweatman from Elwood.

Uh just sitting here, I just couldn't resist asking what is the design weight for that warehouse.

What's the weight of the solar panels?

And then what's the total weight of the snow value?

That could end up there.

Yeah.

That's our first uh calculation.

Um is to get a structural feasibility report.

So we've got the plans for the building, but we've also had a site visit to verify the condition of the building to make sure that all the members are still in good shape.

And they are.

So the systems are it sounds pretty staggering.

They're each about a million plus pounds.

So they're really, really heavy.

Um it's a ballasted roof, so we actually remove some of the ballast, some of the gravel ballots because the solar acts as a ballast replacement.

So that's a very specific calculation.

We don't remove more ballots than we need to.

But yes, it does.

We we have a stamped structural report showing that the building is viable and how much ballast we have to remove.

Um that also does take into consideration the snow drift.

So the snow drift has been calculated like on the edges, it does accumulate, so the panels are set back enough in strategic locations to not exceed the building's weight with the snow.

So that that is our first and most common kind of project killer is buildings that can't support the weight.

But these ones can.

It's a new building, and we're we're very confident it's got plenty.

The ballasted the ballasted roofs are extremely heavy anyway.

They're about 14 pounds per square foot, yeah, they're heaviest.

So you can remove about half of that, and that gives a lot of room for solar.

Anyone else wishing to speak in favor?

Anyone opposed?

Chair closes the petition and ask the vote for discussion and a motion.

Thank you.

Motion to accept.

Second.

We have a motion and second to approach the petition.

Hold the board.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Ms.

Roar.

Aye.

Ms.

Schmig.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

All right.

That request will move forward to the November 18th City Council meeting.

Um that's when it'll be tentatively scheduled.

So please work with staff on that request.

Thanks.

Next on the agenda is old new business, not for final action or recommendation, to which there is none.

Which brings us to public comment.

This section is for anyone wanting to speak regarding non-agenda items and are allowed a maximum of four minutes.

It is not a question and answer period, and staff and the zoning board of appeals members do not generally respond to public comments.

On the screen is the public speaking procedures.

Please note speakers who engage in conduct un injurious to the harmony of the meeting shall be called to order by the presiding officer and may forfeit the opportunity to speak.

Is there anyone here would like to address the zoning board of appeals at this time?

Alright, with that, that brings us to adjournment.

Motion to adjourn the motion.

Second.

We have motion and second to adjourn the meeting.

Poll and for Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Ms.

Rohr.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Chairman Hennessey.