Okay, the meeting will please come to order.

This is a duly advertised meeting at the Joliet 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.

Respect it does not go to the mayor or the city council for any further action.

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

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

We act as an advisory board to the mayor and city council.

Making a recommendation either for or against the final decision on land use is made by the mayor of the city council.

Secretary, call the roll.

Mr.

Bias.

Here.

Mr.

Noctrieb.

Here.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Here.

Ms.

Schmig.

Mr.

Stiff.

Here.

Chairman Hennessy.

Here.

All right.

We have quorum.

First on the meeting agenda is the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes approval for February 19th of 2026.

We have a motion.

Motion.

Second.

Yeah, motion second to approve.

Pull the board.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Mr.

Noctrieb.

Aye.

Ms.

Rokovich.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

All right.

Chairman Hennessy.

Okay.

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

The 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.

So you know, if you would like to speak during the public hearing and have your testimony as part of that public hearing, I would recommend speaking then.

But you're also welcome to speak now under citizens to be heard on agenda items.

Okay.

Hello, everyone.

Yes, I do.

Your name and address.

Michelle Arana, 1229 Buell Avenue, Joliet 60435.

Okay, what do you wish to say?

Thank you.

I'd like to speak on behalf of Joe Spilley.

Um he's here, we'll be here today to speak about his tattoo studio that he wants to put in downtown Joliet.

So my name is Michelle Rana.

I'm the owner of Inner Node Greenery and Home, located at 81 North Chicago in downtown Joliet, which is the same building that the proposed tattoo studio will be going into.

I'd like to speak on his character and what his studio would bring to downtown Joliet.

Joe is not only one of the most talented artists I know, but he's also one of the kindest people I've ever met.

Clients travel from all over the country to come to his studio to have his art placed upon them.

Having his studio in downtown Joliet would align with the creativity and culture of the area and what we're trying to do to revitalize the downtown Joliet City Center.

His clients come to his studio with intention, and he has an appointment-based model that ensures that all visitors are scheduled and vetted rather than having walk-in or unannounced traffic.

Like I said, Joe is one of the kindest and most supportive people I've ever met.

About three years ago, I had put on our social media a call for action for customers because we were not doing well.

I didn't even know if we could pay rent for that month.

Joe is one of the first people to walk into the door that weekend, and not only did he make a purchase, he shared about our business on his social media with his thousands of followers, and he's continued to support us ever since.

And at that time he didn't even know us.

He had never even been in our shop.

He didn't know me.

He just saw that there was a small business who needed support, and he came and helped that day.

Thank you.

There you go.

Anyone else?

Let's proceed.

Oh, okay.

Raise your hand, please.

Do you swear the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law?

I have your name and address.

1211 AH Hill Avenue Joliet, Illinois.

Okay.

I am not familiar, but I want some clarification on the duplex that's going to be built at 1216 Fairview.

Sure, I I'm gonna that item is being deferred to the June zoning board of appeals meeting.

So it is I was gonna make an announcement when we got further into the agenda, and it's not um going to be reviewed today.

So then and there was no information in the staff report packet for this agenda tonight or today, so there's no information to share at this time.

Thank you.

Yes.

So if anyone else is here for the um the 1216 Fairview Avenue Duplex case, that item is going to be deferred to the June meeting of the zoning board of appeals.

Is that on our agenda today?

No.

No.

It's what says to be deferred.

Okay.

Hello, um.

Hi.

Hello.

Oh, you are just worried that you have an insurance piece of truth under penalty of law.

Yes.

And address.

My name is Trinita Stevenson, 1211 Edge Hill Street, and we did receive a paper about that same instance of so that's why we came.

But um, also would like to make mention since we've lived in that area for uh many many years.

What they plan to do with is I don't know if this is on the agenda or what's happening with the area on the side of the uh former correctional center of Collins Street where they're putting the golf disc and things like that, and um not sure what's going on with that, what's uh happening with that.

I thought this is zoning.

We could talk about that at some point if it's on the agenda or my first time coming to a meeting.

Want everybody to know that my grandmother that lives in that house is 109 years old.

So uh that's something that we need to be concerned about is things that are going on in the neighborhood and with that area, especially.

It would be very nice to have maybe like a walking trail or something that could benefit the community in that area, and this is maybe a petition and zoning for us to speak about it on that time at this time or another time.

You let me know.

Yes, at another time that would be appropriate.

Um we can also if we could give your contact information to I'll say Helen right here.

We could follow up with you about um that area of the city.

Okay, thank you so much.

Go over here now right here.

Shall we proceed now?

Okay, that's it.

Yep, okay.

So next on the agenda is old business public hearing, um, which we have no agenda items, which brings us to new business public hearing.

Excuse me.

And the first agenda item we have is petition 2026 4, which is a series of variations on signage located at 16329 South Boulevard Place, um, which is council district number one.

The applicant in this matter is David Michael with SES branding, and the status of the applicant is agent of the property owner.

Um the purpose for this request is to uh for variations to allow signage as shown on the attached elevations for a new Longhorn Steakhouse restaurant at 16329 South Boulevard Place, which is um there's two requests a variation to allow two wall signs on the north side of the building, and a variation to allow two wall signs on the west side of the building.

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

Under site-specific information, the subject property is a 1.5-acre lot within the Boulevard Place Plan Unit Development located at the northwest um corner of Plainfield Road and Interstate 55 interchange.

The proposed restaurant is under construction on lot seven of the Boulevard Unit 4 subdivision within the planned unit development.

When the Boulevard Place planned unit development was last amended in 2019, the City of Juliet entered into an intergovernmental agreement to adopt design guidelines that both municipalities would use to establish mandatory development standards for properties within the PUD footprint.

The design guidelines are intended to supplant each municipality zoning regulations.

The site development standards section within the design guidelines regulates signage.

Section 3B of the standards states that only one sign per building frontage of the building shall be permitted.

The petitioner wishes to install two signs on the north and west sides of the restaurant.

Staff views the requested variations as a minor change from the concept and intent of the boulevard place design guidelines, which allows for the city's discretion to require approval of the requested variations by the zoning board of appeals.

Both the north and west sides of the building would include an approximately sized 69 square foot internally illuminated channel letter signs spelling out the restaurant's name.

These facades would also include an approximately sized 20 square foot steer logo sign that is a common feature of other Longhorn Steakhouse restaurants.

The requested size of all signage is within the allowable square footage.

For surrounding zoning, land use and character, the subject property is the Boulevard Place PUD and is surrounded by B3 General Business District zoning on the north, west, and east sides.

Interstate 55 right-of-way is directly south of the subject property.

For analysis, approval of the requested variations would allow the developer to install two signs on the north and west facades of the proposed restaurant building.

Section 47-19.8 of the city's zoning ordinance details the findings of fact that need confirmation to support a variation request.

Staff does not believe a hardship or practical difficulty to allow the proposed signage exists.

The property in question can still yield a reasonable return.

The variations are not granted, and there are no perceived unique circumstances.

However, staff does believe that the variations, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

The requested signage is a common feature on other Longhorn Steakhouses throughout the country.

Staff concurs with the applicant's assertion that the proposed signage is architecturally integrated within the building design, utilizes channel letters and halo illuminated logos that are consistent with other commercial developments in the PUD area, and does not introduce excessive height, animation, or off-premise messaging.

The sign as proposed does not introduce visual clutter beyond what is typical for similar properties in the PUD area.

For these reasons, staff supports the requested variations to allow additional signage on the north and west facades of the building.

For suggested conditions of approval, we are recommending none.

And that concludes staff's report.

Just raise the applicant present to be the truth under penalty of law.

I do.

Thank you, staff for providing that in-depth uh recount of the request.

Um basically just kind of want to walk you through what we uh have proposed here.

Um this site specifically, umhorn steakhouses, they're a non-reservation-based business.

So studies have been done by Darden Restaurants, the parent company that around 50% of the clientele is from out of town or people just passing through.

So Longhorn finds their signage to be important to them.

It helps with wayfinding and identifying the building so that uh potential customers can uh safely get to their buildings in an efficient manner.

So we have the channel letter sets on the south and west side of the building, has great visibility to the highway there.

Um, however, if you look at the traffic patterns uh just before the site plan page in the artwork, it shows that uh most people will be coming off the highway, taking a turn uh past the building, losing sight of the building for a little bit, and then turning around the road and coming into the parkway from or the parking lot from the rear.

Um we find that the uh steer head logos as far as building identification goes.

Uh, it's more of a glance to recognize okay, there's the steakhouse instead of scanning and looking for information.

Um, I know studies have been done.

Uh legibility for signs, when is it legible?

How useful is a sign?

Um typically you need a certain amount of time uh before you can move your vehicle in the correct way to get to uh your final destination, which is Longhorn.

Um it takes 10 seconds to look for the sign, see the sign, digest the information, and then turn your car appropriately and safely while maneuvering through uh the streets safely.

So the Longhorn Steakhouse uh steer head logo.

One is built or is made to be housed on those chimney features.

They look great, they're halo illuminated, which means they're sort of backlit.

Um they look super cool at night.

You can see the illumination view at the bottom middle of the page there.

Um lights up the side the sidewalk there a little bit, gives a nice ambiance when you're walking around the outside of the building trying to get to the front door, and it also works as a wayfinding uh element as well to help uh people locate the building and make sure they're not passing it or they're turning into the right uh drive aisle to get to the building.

So for those reasons, we're requesting to have the steer head logos on the front elevation and the right elevation, which would be the north and west elevations respectively.

That's where the main viewing corridors would be once you're closing in on the building, and then you can glance and say, Okay, yep, that is the steakhouse.

Um the steer logo doesn't necessarily scream Longhorn Steakhouse, but you can identify it as a steakhouse, so uh it helps with wayfinding as well.

And for those reasons we find that uh the steer head logos are important and they also provide um life and personality for the building as well.

It's a it's a sleek look and um draws people in from out of town.

Hopefully, in this developed area, it'll keep people and they can enjoy their time uh in Joliet.

So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them.

Um, and I appreciate your time.

Any questions by the board?

But the signs currently up to the the code compliance signs are up right now.

So that would be just the channel letters that say Longhorn Steakhouse.

There are no steer heads.

So the only thing you're putting on right now are the steer heads.

Correct.

The uh building or Longhorn is planning to open in October.

Uh they have the channel letters up there on the walls right now.

It looks like a finished building.

I'm assuming the interior is still being worked on, trying to get staff and all that.

So until we get the proper approvals, we'll wait until uh to install these signs.

Any other questions?

Are you going to be the manager?

No, no, I wish though.

I do love the Longhorn Steakhouse.

I think uh it's a very nice restaurant, and I love steak.

So it would I mean might think about it.

But no, I will not be the manager.

Any further questions about the board?

I have a question.

Uh can you explain to us why one wall sign per uh frontage is not sufficient for this building?

So for the reasons why we find the steer head logos necessary in this instance is uh most of the traffic patterns or where most people are going to be coming from is the highway, and they'll be driving down um the main right of way there, and that you can identify the building with the channel letters, and then you'll drive past the building, you'll take a right, you'll go around another business.

I believe it's Olive Garden.

So the building will technically be blocked for a time, and then once you get past the Olive Garden, you can glance at the building while you're going around the curve, see the steer head logo, identify the building again, and safely and efficiently get into the parking areas.

I know GPS is a thing, but I also know that if you're looking at your phone, you're scanning the environment back forth, where do I 200 feet?

I I don't know what so GPS can help for sure, but these signs on the building help you get into the parking areas and identify the correct parking areas.

Any other questions?

Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Anyone opposed?

Chair closes petition.

Yes, the board for discussion and vote.

I move we approve.

Second.

We have a motion to second to approve the petition.

Fold the board.

Mr.

Knocktreed.

Hi.

Mr.

Drakovich.

I Mr.

Stiff.

I Mr.

Bias.

I.

Chairman Hennessy.

Okay.

That variance passes.

Next on the agenda is petition 2026 5.

The applicant is Amgad Sukheyer, and the property owner is John Bays.

The location is 203 North Ottawa Street.

The request is a variation on signage to exceed the maximum total sign area in the B-2 Central Business Zoning District.

The applicant is requesting a variation on signage to exceed the maximum total sign area in the B-2 Central Business Zoning District from 50 square feet to 234 square feet in size.

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

The subject property is a three-story multi-tenant building, and the applicant currently occupies 2,600 square feet of space on the first floor in the southwest portion of the building.

The occupied space was formerly a Harold's chicken from 2021 until 2025.

The subject property is zone B2 Central Business District.

The applicant for discussion.

The applicant seeks to install signs on the canopy that extends over a dry aisle located the southwest corner of this building.

One sign will face Cass Street, the other sign will face Joliet Street and the parking lot on the west side of the building.

The applicant requests approval of the sign to better advertise this existing business, which is baby's cheese stakes.

The sign will face Cass Street.

The sign sorry, the sign that will face Cass Street will be 132 square feet in area, and the sign facing the parking lot or Juliet Street will be 120, sorry, 102 square feet in size.

The attached rendering show the that the signs will be illuminated and will meet all other requirements.

There is an existing projecting sign on the facade that is approximately 25 square feet in size.

The zoning ordinance allows for a maximum of 50 square feet of sign area for a single tenant in the B 2 Central Business Zoning District.

With these two proposed additional signs, the total sign area for this tenant space would be 259 square feet.

Included in the staff report packet are your elevations showing the sign as well as proposed dimensions.

For recommended action, approval of the requested variation would allow the developer to install two signs on the west and south dry bile canopy of the restaurant tenant space.

Section 47-17.21 BB details the findings of facts that need confirmation to support a variation request.

Staff does not find that the variation request meets the criteria for hardship or practical difficulties.

The property in question can still yield a reasonable return if the variations are not granted and there are no perceived unique circumstances.

However, staff does find that the approval of the requested variation will not alter the essential character of the area and would not be contrary to the objective of improving the overall appearance of the city.

The signed text is appropriately sized to fit within the existing canopy frame.

The sign also does not detract from the architectural style of this building and canopy for conditions.

If the zoning board desires to approve this variation request to exceed the maximum total sign area in the B-2 Central Business District, staff recommends that the following conditions should be included.

One that the increased maximum sign area granted herein shall be specific to the two canopy signs at the tenant space only and shall not be reallocated to other locations on the building in the future.

Two, that the maximum at the maximum sign area of this tenant space shall not be expanded in the future, and three that a building permit shall be obtained prior to construction and installation.

And that concludes staff's report.

Petitioner here.

Yes.

Name and address.

Go ahead.

Yeah, so as she mentioned, we were hoping to get better exposure on the space that's located downtown, Joey.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We did open up around a month and a half ago.

And we realized we didn't realize until we already started construction with the with the I believe it's the Cass Street Bridge that's been down a little bit.

And the exposure, um, even though our buildings addresses 203 North Ottawa, it kind of sits on Joliet and uh Cass Street, and we notice a lot of that traffic being back there.

So we feel that that exposure will help a good amount for our business, especially being where the bridge is down.

So we're hoping to get this variation for more exposure.

Okay, any questions by the board.

Well, I wish you're well with all the problems we've got in business closing down, and you need all the help you can get.

So thank you.

Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Is there anyone opposed?

Chair closes the petition.

Motion to accept.

Second.

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

Ms.

Radokovich.

No.

Mr.

Stiff.

Hi.

Mr.

Bias.

Hi.

Mr.

Noctrie.

I Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

Okay.

The variation request is approved.

So please work with staff with building permits.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next on the agenda is petition number 2026 6.

The applicant is the Fall Creek Homeowners Association Unit 2.

And the status of the applicant is the property owner.

The location is the southeast corner of Theodore Street and Staghorn Drive.

The request is a variation to allow an to allow an illuminated subdivision monument sign in the R1A single family zoning district.

The applicant again is requesting a variation on signage to allow illumination of the existing subdivision monument sign for the Fall Creek Unit 2 subdivision at the southeast corner of Theodore Street and Staghorn Drive.

Illuminated signs are not permitted by right in residential zoning districts.

Zoning Board, the zoning board of appeals makes the final decision on this variation request.

For site specific information, the subject site is part of the Fall Creek Unit 2 subdivision, which was approved and recorded in 2005 and 2006.

The sign is located at the southeast corner of Theodore Street and Staghorn Drive at the entrance to the subdivision.

The Fall Creek Homeowners Association owns and maintains the lot that contains the sign.

The existing sign consists of a wood panel containing the name Fall Creek mounted between two stone pillars.

The sign is not currently illuminated.

Again, the property is zoned R1A single family residential.

For discussion, the petitioner, the Fall Creek Unit 2 Homeowners Association is requesting a variation to allow internal illumination of the existing subdivision monument sign at the southeast corner of Theodore Street and Staghorn Drive.

The letters will be backlit and mounted on a new aluminum panel that would replace the existing panel.

The full panel itself would not be illuminated.

The proposed sign requires approval of a variation because illuminated signs are not permitted by right in residential zoning districts.

There are several examples of other illuminated subdivision signs within the city.

According to the petitioner, the proposed sign will allow greater nighttime visibility of the subdivision entrance for residents, visitors, and emergency personnel.

The sign faces the corner of a commercial property and a utility right-of-way and does not directly face any nearby residential homes.

For recommended action, staff finds that the variation request meets the following criteria for sign variations.

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

Ownership of the property has been demonstrated, and approval of the variation would not be contrary to the objective of improving the overall appearance of the city.

The proposed sign will have internally illuminated letters, which is an appropriate style for this location and type of sign.

The sign does not face residential properties and is located along a major street.

An illuminated subdivision sign is not out of character with the area.

For suggested conditions of approval, we are recommending none.

And that concludes staff's report.

Petitioner here.

Yes.

Justin Harrison, I'm at 1311 River Haven Trail, Joliet 60431.

So I represent the Fall Creek Homeowners Association.

Last year we had electricity installed at our front entrance for so that we could have holiday lights on our trees.

And it was around that time I noticed that our existing signage was falling apart.

It hasn't been replaced since the community was established approximately 20 years ago.

The hardware was falling off.

There are some wood rot going on.

So when I looked into new signage, I did want to make use of the fact that we do have electricity there and that there is sometimes difficulty seeing our community with the there is no lighting right now.

So the thought process was that this new signage would be sufficient to hold up for years to come and also provide uh visibility for both residents and their visitors.

Question by the board.

Does that require a majority vote of the homeowners association?

Of the board.

Yes, it does.

Okay.

Lower the mic on.

Sure.

Do you swear the evidence rebounds presented to be the truth under penalty of law?

Yes, sir.

Your name and address.

Erica Teas, 1514 Staghorn Drive.

Joliet.

I just have questions for the sign.

I just want to know who's paying for it.

Uh, if our homeowners association maintenance fee will increase, or is the HOA going to absorb the cost?

Um I know that last year there was we paid for some kind of uh sign or some kind of something next door to the subdivision next door to us.

So we just want to know if that electric sign will fall on our responsibility.

That's my big concern.

And the answer for that.

Yes.

So at this time there are no plans to increase our HOA fees from what they have already been increased to.

So it'll come out of existing funds.

Correct.

Okay.

And maintenance?

Maintenance fees?

Yeah, that's all from existing funds.

Okay.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Anyone against Chair closed the petition and asked the vote for discussion in motion.

Motion.

Second.

We have a motion to second to approve both board.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias?

Aye.

Mr.

Noctreet?

Aye.

Ms.

Radokovich.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

All right.

The variation request passes.

So please proceed on to building permit.

Okay.

Okay.

Next on the agenda is just reading this in again is an item that is being deferred to the June Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, which is a special use permit to allow a duplex located at 1216 Fairview Avenue, which had a companion variation of use request as well as a series of variations requests.

Again, this agenda item is being deferred to the June meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

All right.

Next on the agenda is petition numbers 2026 10 and 2026 11.

The applicant is dive right in Scuba Inc.

The status of the applicant is contract purchaser.

The owner of this property is the Greater Joliet Area YMCA.

The location is 749 Hobalt Road.

And the second request is a variation to allow unlighted outdoor recreational facilities within 200 feet of a single family residential zoning district.

For purpose, the applicant is requesting a variation of use to allow an indoor and outdoor commercial recreation facility within the RB restricted business district.

Commercial recreation facilities are permitted uses in the B-2 Central Business and B3 general business districts, while unlighted outdoor recreational uses and facilities are permitted in the B3 General Business District.

The site was developed for and is currently occupied by a branch of the Greater Joliet Area YMCA.

Because the YMCA is a nonprofit organization, the facility was categorized as a public and semi-public building, which is permitted under the RB district.

The petitioner's proposal is for a commercial facility and therefore needs a variation of use to be located in the RB, which is restricted business zoning district.

The variation of use request must be considered by the city council following the recommendation of the zoning board of appeals.

The zoning ordinance states that unlighted baseball fields or similar open-air recreational uses and facilities shall not be located within 200 feet of any single family or two family residential zoning districts.

The existing baseball fields as well as the open existing open fields and outdoor track on the western portion of the property are already within 200 feet of the property to the south, which has R1 single family residential zoning.

Therefore, the petitioner is also requesting a variation from the spacing requirement to allow the existing outdoor facilities to remain as is.

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

For site specific information, the 16-acre subject property was annexed and zoned restricted business in 1969.

The existing recreational facility was constructed around 1982 and has operated as the Gallowitch family branch of the Greater Juliet Area YMCA since that time.

This YMCA branch will permanently close at the end of April.

The petitioner is currently under contract to purchase the property.

The site currently contains an approximately 25,000 square foot building, surface parking, two baseball fields, an outdoor walking track, and an open grass fields.

The building contains an indoor swimming pool, indoor basketball courts, and a fitness center.

Parking is located on all sides of the building, and the site has 104 parking stalls.

In 2008, the zoning board of appeals approved a variation to allow a reduced setback for the existing monument sign.

For discussion, the petitioner Dive Right in Scuba Inc.

is requesting a variation of use to allow an indoor and outdoor commercial recreation facility within the RB restricted business district at 749 Hobalt Road.

The proposal called the Flex will include several primary uses that are similar to the existing operations at the facility.

These uses consist of aquatics programming, including swimming instruction, using the existing indoor swimming pool, indoor basketball for local youth organization, such as No Mercy basketball, which would make use on the existing indoor courts, and retail and training areas related to scuba instruction and aquatics programming, as well as outdoor youth sports programming on the existing outdoor athletic fields as well as a leased snack bar space.

The petitioner intends to partner with local youth organizations to promote youth athletics and to fully use all amenities of the existing facility.

A full business narrative is included in the staff report packet.

The petitioner states that the facility will support around 30 to 35 employees at full operation.

Proposed hours of operation are 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

seven days a week.

The site contains existing surface parking surrounding the main building.

There are approximately 104 off-street parking spaces, which meets the requirement for the proposed use.

There are no exterior modifications proposed to the building or to the site at this time.

The facility will be owned and managed by Dive Right in Scuba.

Dive Ride in Scuba has two existing locations in Plainfield and Orland Park.

They offer a variety of retail repair and training services related to diving as well as a swim program at the Oreland Park location.

In addition to the variation of use, the petitioner is requesting a variation from the spacing requirement for unlighted outdoor recreation facilities.

The zoning ordinance states the that open-air recreational uses and facilities shall not be located within 200 feet of a single family or two-family residential zoning district.

The property to the south, which is owned by Joliet Jr.

College and currently used for agricultural purposes, has R1 single-family residential zoning.

The existing baseball fields and track area are within 200 feet of the shared lot line with this property.

There are no proposed additions to the outdoor facilities, nor does the petitioner have plans to install outdoor lighting at this time.

Approval of the variation would allow the existing outdoor fields to remain in their current condition.

It should be noted that per the zoning ordinance, pedestrian lighting and security lighting do not constitute lighting as it pertains to unlighted versus lighted outdoor fields.

For recommended action, staff finds that the request meets the following criteria for a variation and variation of use.

Strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would involve practical difficulties for the appropriate reuse of the site due to the site's existing design.

This property would not be able to yield a reasonable return if it you if used only under the conditions allowed within the RB zoning district.

The hardship is due to the site's unique setup as an indoor and outdoor recreational facility, and the granting of the variation and variation of use would not alter the essential character of the local area.

The property is set up to be used as an indoor and outdoor recreational facility and would not be practically used for other permitted uses in the RB district, such as professional offices or medical facilities.

The location of the existing outdoor fields in relation to the adjacent R1 zone property to the south is an existing condition of the site that will remain unchanged as part of this request.

The petitioner's proposal for a multi-use indoor and outdoor sports, aquatics and recreation facility is very similar to the historical and current use of the property.

And there's one should the property be declared a public nuisance, the property may be subject to a rehearing and possible revocation of the variation of use, and that concludes staff's report.

Petitioner.

Names and addresses.

My name is Kathleen West.

My office is 111 East Jefferson Avenue in Naperville.

Mike Peterson.

1491 Crimson Lane, Yorkville, Illinois.

You can kneel down if you want.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon.

Our law firm represents Dive Right In Scuba and the petitioner in this case.

As explained, Dive Ride In is a contract purchaser of the Gallowitch Family YMCA located at 749 Hold Bulk Road.

This YMCA facility includes a swimming pool, basketball courts, training rooms, and unlighted outdoor athletic fields.

Dive Ride In proposes to repurpose this facility into a professionally managed multi-use indoor and outdoor sports aquatics and recreation facility intended to serve youth, families, schools, and organized athletic programs in the Joliet area.

In order to utilize this facility as proposed, as Jane explained, we need two variations.

Dive Right In currently operates two facilities.

The downtown Plainfield facility provides diving instruction, retail sale of diving equipment and products, and repair diving equipment.

In addition to the diving experience in Plainfield, the Orland Park facility also provides swim instruction, aquatic safety education, and related programming.

The YMCA property gives Mike the opportunity to expand sports education and programming.

The Jolia facility will be known as the FLEX, and the Flex will consolidate several complementary uses into a single coordinated location.

It will provide aquatics and diving programming operated by Dive Right In.

The basketball courts will be utilized by No Mercy Joliet Basketball, a local not-for-profit youth basketball organization for practices, training, and games.

The outdoor athletic fields will be used for organized youth sports and programming.

There will be no lighting on these fields.

There will be an accessory retail area and a juice and snack bar.

All the programming is structured, scheduled, and supervised.

Aquatic activities will be supervised by trained and certified staff with lifeguards present whenever the pool is open.

Dive Right In has existing relationships with most of the fire departments in the state of Illinois, including the Joliet Fire Department, and it also provides services to other fire departments through throughout the country.

Dive Right In submits that its proposed use of the YMC property satisfies the criteria for the granting of the request to variations.

The existing YMCA building and the outdoor fields are really a specialized facility, which cannot be easily repurposed.

And if it can't be repurposed, then that will negatively impact the surrounding ability, the surrounding community, and the ability for that property to yield a reasonable return.

The unique circumstance of the subject property is that it's already improved with the specialized building.

And the granting of the variants will not impact the essential character of the area.

Only the ownership of the subject property is changing.

The use is remaining the same.

Based on the information presented, Mr.

Pete Peterson requests that the zoning board of appeals recommend approval of the variation of use and approve the setback variation.

Mike and I are here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh, wouldn't you take over?

Is the name Galowitch gonna stay on there?

I don't believe so.

I'm wondering because that was dedicated to uh Jerry Galowitz went uh back years ago.

He was killed in a plane wreck coming back from the municipal league uh down in Springfield State meeting with a bunch of the city councilmen on there.

I was a city councilman at the time, and I was in the plane right behind it when they crashed, and that was dedicated in his memory, so I'm wondering if there's some sort of perpetual thing where you can't change the name.

The YMCA hasn't brought that to our attention.

I don't think they had the building, they own the land, and they donated the land it was built on.

And I'm pretty sure that was a memorial of Ron Galter's twin brother.

And they did that was a dedication to him.

So I just as you might want to check that out.

Yeah, we'll check into it.

Any other questions by the board?

Yes, I'm interested in the utilization of it.

Uh you're going to be teaching diving, scuba diving?

Yes.

Is it that much demand for teaching scuba diving to maintain a bill in that says?

Well, uh, Mike now operates uh diving schools in both Plainfield and Orland Park.

Um like I said, he teaches scuba diving to fire departments across the state of Illinois.

But maybe you can address more of the we do over a thousand certifications already, um, just locally from entry level all the way through instructor level.

We are a state a college with the state of Illinois, also, so we do VA programs for veterans and stuff like that across the country, um, helping out those that have served, like Mr.

Galowitch and everything as well.

Um, with PTSD and suffering and things like that.

We are also one of the largest online stores in SCUBA as well.

We do repairs, we do all of the training all the way through as Kathy was saying.

So we are a very big operation, we've been in business 20 years and everything.

This is a huge opportunity for us to expand as well as get into more with swim lessons, which we already do through the swim advantage at our uh school in Oilham Park.

So it's really just a continuation of business we're already doing and our growing operations.

Yeah, I have so the chairman asked about the name Gallowitch.

Is there some thought that you might somehow keep that name?

None of that was ever disclosed to us.

I have zero hesitations if that is something for the community in changing that or doing anything like that.

I'm all for history and historical aspects of things like that, so we are open to those opportunities if there is something.

It's not I'm not opposed to that in any way.

Yeah, that would have been back in the 70s, but there was a lawsuit involved there because the plane was uh had mechanical problems that caused it to crash.

And out of the settlement that they got years later, that's when that was dedicated.

So it could have been 10, 12 years after that that that was dedicated, but you may want to look into that because I think that was in perpetuities.

Yeah, and they have two total locations in July Air.

And we're all about history.

You know, um, we have two dive boats, one on Lake Michigan and one on Lake Huron, preserving shipwrecks and finding shipwrecks and taking divers out there.

So again, just to show that we are a historical company as well, so we would definitely look to preserve some of that.

There was an is this a family-owned business or is the corporation?

Huh.

So I'm a corporation, but I'm also a family guy, and uh you know, me and my dad started the business 20 years ago, so I guess uh it can go either way, but yeah, for the most part a family business that just does really well has grown.

No, this is just the our lawyer okay.

Any other questions?

Anybody in the audience wish to speak in favor?

Is there anyone opposed?

Chair closes the petition, ask the board for discussion in the motion.

Motion to accept second.

We have a motion to second to approve the petition.

Pull the board.

Mr.

Bias.

Hi.

Mr.

Doctor.

Hi.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Hi.

Mr.

Stiff.

All right.

Chairman Hennessy.

Hi.

Okay.

Um this request will move on to the city council.

Um, tentatively to one of their meetings in May.

All right.

Next on the agenda is petition number 2026 12.

The applicant in this matter is Omega Sign Lighting Incorporated, and the property owner is Stone Hill Bible Church.

It is located at 1516 Edgerton Drive.

The request is a variation to increase maximum maximum area of a ground sign for a non-residential use in the R2 single family zoning district.

The applicant is requesting a variation to increase the maximum area of a ground sign for a non-residential use in the R2 single family residential zoning district from twelve square feet to sixty square feet in size, located at 1516 Edgerton Drive.

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

The subject site is approximately 3.8 acres in size and is zoned R2 single family residential.

The current principal use of the property is a non-residential use.

It is a church.

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

There is a utility greenway to the east of the property as well as forest preserved property to the north of the property.

For discussion, the applicant Omega Sign and Lighting, who is the sign contractor, seeks to install a ground sign that will exceed the allowable square footage set forth in the zoning ordinance.

The proposed dimensions for the sign are 148 inches wide and 59 inches long for a total sign area of 60.

Um six three square feet in sign area.

The sign will be mounted to two six foot high posts.

The ground sign will be installed on the northwest corner of the property at the intersection of Theodore Street and Edgerton Drive, well outside of the required visibility triangle where the two streets intersect.

The zoning ordinance allows for one ground sign on the property within an R2 single family residential zoning district with a maximum sign area of 20 square feet and a maximum height of eleven feet.

The proposed ground sign will have a sign area of 60 square feet and will be six feet in height.

Sign elevations for the proposed project are included in the staff report packet.

Staff finds that the variation request meets the criteria for sign variations.

Enforcement of the ordinance would cause hardship due to unique attributes of the property.

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

Ownership of the property has been demonstrated, and the approval of the variation would not be contrary to the objective of improving the overall appearance of the city.

The zoning ordinance limits square footage of a sign for non-residential uses in the residential zoning district to 12 square feet in a maximum height of 11 feet.

The proposed dimensions again are 60.63 square feet in area, and this is appropriate for a property of this size.

The property in question is roughly 3.8 acres and is much larger than a standard residential lot, and the placement of the proposed sign will be along Theodore Street frontage.

The proposed sign will not face the residences that are to the west of the property and will not be illuminated.

The sign will also be located well outside the visibility triangle and will not be a concern for drivers traveling along Theodore Street or Edgerton Drive.

The larger sign will allow the property owners to better promote the church and any future functions as well as providing wayfinding for attendees for conditions of approval.

If the zoning board desires to approve this variation request to allow a ground signed, ground sign with a 60.63 square foot area.

Staff recommends the following conditions be included.

One that the sign shall be maintained and shall not show visible signs of wear or tear, and two that a building permit shall be obtained prior to construction.

And that concludes staff's report.

Do you swear the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law?

Yes.

My name's Fernando Duran.

I am from Omega Sign and Lighting.

I actually reside in Plainfield at 2207 Dalewood Court in Plainfield.

I'm representing Christ Community Church.

They actually bought out the old church.

This church is active.

So the I just I wanted to clarify a couple of things that um you said.

I know there was comments about so this is a V-shaped sign, not a B shape, an L shape.

If you could show the rendering, it is an L shape.

The purpose is to show this on Edgerton and on Theodore.

I wanted to make sure we it is right that it is an L-shape sign.

And he wants to be faced.

We do want it facing Edgerton and Theodore.

And basically this is a new church.

This church has has these in three other areas, has it an Lgin and Huntley?

They basically go, they put three posts on the corner of their building, and the banners are to um the banners will be changed for um events.

As you can see, there's welcoming the Joliet Church once it opens.

Later on, they're gonna have uh in the summer they have events, summary events, basically posting what the church is doing actively prior to the event.

Also gives them a little bit of footprint of where the church is because when you're driving by the church is actually deep into the street in Editerton.

And that's basically it.

Everything we're just trying to get this done.

Any questions?

Ad can you pause for a second?

They're one panel.

Um so staff was not aware that it was a two-faced sign, which would increase your request from 60 square feet and another 60 square feet.

So the total is yeah, correct.

So the total will be 120 square feet.

So the sign this petition was not advertised with that request.

Um so staff is recommending that this be deferred to the next meeting to clarify what the actual request is at this point in time.

When I posted the the public notice signs, it does say on the notice signs the public notice that I posted that they are that's that was what the request was for.

The public notice signs at 120 square feet.

Correct.

I do have pictures of them posted of the public hearing sign that needs to be posted 15 days prior.

Okay.

Can I show you that?

Sure.

Oh, this wasn't it.

No nodding off.

No colors.

Have a better photo if you want to consider it.

Okay.

So this gentleman showed us the public notice sign that they are obligated to post, and it does clarify that it is 60 square feet per face.

It is stated on their public notice sign.

Our legal advertisement for this agenda case just said requested variation, so it didn't get into specificity about the size of the each face.

So with that in mind, um, knowing what you know with that it is two faces each with 60 point something square feet.

Um we leave that up to the board if you would like to make a decision on this request at this time.

Um I I staff feels that you have the information.

Um, but if you would like this to come back, we are happy to work with you to do that as well.

Let's just proceed.

Okay, so proceed.

Okay.

I would like to make a motion if we put the sign up and you someone starts to complain.

A lot of people start to complain because of the uh excess of the sign, and then you might have to come back.

But if no one don't say anything, might be good to go.

I'll make that motion that you from your own, that you that it be permitted.

Okay.

We haven't had a general.

Okay.

Any other questions by the board?

Anyone in the audience who is to speak in favor?

Anyone opposed?

Chair closes petition has the floor for discussion in the vote.

I'll make the motion.

I second the motion.

We have a motion and a second to approve the petition subject to the Congress made.

Could you reiterate your statement, Mr.

Bias?

Since the thing faces in two different directions, if for whatever reason people is driving along the road and they feel this an obstruction, if people start to complain about it.

And you know, you need to have to come back and talk to us.

Absolutely.

I think just getting the correct setback will avoid would avoid that obstruction.

I think right now we currently have a 10-foot setback.

I will request to increase that setback.

There's a big hill on that intersection.

There's actually a hill to get up on that.

The problem with the condition is it's too vague.

One person, two people, four people.

I I don't know what the standard is, and I don't think I think staff is saying it would not be an obstruction.

Is that correct?

So all sign permits get reviewed for obstruction of visibility.

We have a very strict 45-degree visibility triangle.

So this was already evaluated with that in mind and does not fall within that visibility triangle.

So we would we would always look for that.

Okay.

Do you want to withdraw Mr.

Roger?

I withdraw that uh make the motion that you have to sign as is.

Thank you.

We need a second for that motion.

I second it.

We have a motion and a second again to approve poll the board.

Mr.

Nocktree.

Aye.

Ms.

Radokovich.

Mr.

Steph.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessey.

Hi.

Right.

Uh next steps would be proceeding with building permit application.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next is petition numbers 2026 13, 2026, 14, and 2026 15.

The applicant in this matter is Joseph Spilley.

The property owner is tire Tyler and Gary Schumall.

The location is 81 North Chicago Street.

The request, there's three of them.

It's a variation of use to allow a B3 general business zoning district use in a B2 central business discral business zoning district, a special use permit to allow a tattoo studio and a variation to allow a tattoo studio within 1,000 feet of a library.

The applicant is requesting a special use permit, a variation of use, and a variation to open a open and operate a tattoo studio at 81 North Chicago Street.

Requested actions from the zoning board of appeals include a variation of use to allow a B3 general business zoning district use in a B-2 central business zoning district.

A variation to allow a tattoo studio within a thousand feet of a library, and a special use permit to allow a tattoo studio.

The subject property is at 81 North Chicago Street, and this is a four-story multi-tenant building in downtown Joliet.

The tenant space subject to this request is located on the third floor of the building and is approximately 870 square feet in size.

The proposed studio will consist of a waiting area, a utility and janitorial room, and a private tattoo station.

Restrooms are shared with other commercial tenants within the building.

For surrounding zoning, land use and character, properties in this vicinity are all zoned and located within the central business district.

For discussion, the applicant seeks to establish a tattoo studio at 81 North Chicago Street.

The proposed studio would operate by appointment only.

It would not be a walk-in studio.

The applicant states that the appointment only model would allow them to control the volume of people, maintain the privacy of clients, and would minimally impact the surrounding area.

The zoning ordinance specifies that tattoo shops must be a minimum of 1,000 feet from any school, church, daycare, park, or playground library, and other tattoo businesses.

The proposed studio would be within 1,000 feet of the Ottawa Street branch of the Juliet Public Library.

And therefore, the applicant is also requesting a variation from the spacing requirement.

The applicant will comply with all other requirements set forth by the City of Juliet as well as the health requirements from Will County in the state of Illinois.

For requested action, staff does not find that the variation of use and variation requests meet the criteria for hardship or practical difficulties.

Tattoo studios are allowed in the B3 general business and industrial zoning districts by special use permit approval.

However, staff does find that the proposed studio would not alter the essential character of the area.

The proposed studio will be located on the third floor of the building and will serve clients by appointment only.

The proposed studio was also small in size.

Additionally, staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria for a special use permit.

The establishment of the studio would not be detrimental to the health or general welfare of the public.

Additionally, the proposed use will not impede the use and enjoyment of tenant spaces in the building and surrounding property due to the studio size and limited volume of clients.

The applicant will also apply for all necessary licensing from the city of Joliet and Well County for conditions.

If the zoning board desires to approve the variation requests and special use permit to allow a tattoo studio, the following conditions should be included.

One, that a business license shall be obtained prior to the use commencing, and two, should the tattoo studio be declared a public nuisance, it may be subject to a rehearing and possible revocation of the special use permit and variation of use.

And that concludes staff support.

Yes.

Joseph Spilly, 2506 Lynwood Street in Morris, Illinois.

Okay.

Like I said, I am the owner of Ink Everything Tattoo Studio.

The proposal today is for a private tattoo studio that would be at the third floor of 81 North Chicago Street in Joliet.

The two petitions that I wanted to address immediately, the first being the B3 to B2 business area.

Tattoo shops statistically are B3 business because they are usually high traffic, high intensity.

Being that I will only have one client a day and it is extremely appointment-based, only something that's booked out months in advance.

Being within one 1,000 feet of the library is a totally understandable concern.

I will not be providing any external signage.

So there's no real need to kind of impede on anybody around me.

I will be doing an extremely private practice.

We do not do walk-ins.

All of my consultations, all of my designing that's all done digitally to prevent kind of no contact until the actual appointment date.

Yeah, and if there's any other questions, uh today with me, I brought a table of contents that kind of has a brief business business description of mine, um, a business floor plan so you guys could kind of see the layout uh in front of you rather than on the screen.

Um outside studio and parking photos so you can see how my studio relates to Chicago Street and where people will be parking.

Indoor studio photos before and after the renovations that I had completed into the studio to make it um accessible uh acceptable by Will County's health department.

Um my bloodborne pathogen certificate, uh, which will permit me to tattoo in the studio given uh zoning passes it, and my service portfolio, which is um not too much to look at, it's just some of the tattoos that I've done that kind of reinforce the fact that it is an all-day situation.

Um I don't think anybody that's looking at the tattoos that I'm doing can assumptively say that there would be multiple people in the building.

It's a really like hyper-focused thing that focuses on my uh my clients' privacy and their artwork, like uh was stated earlier in the meeting.

Um, most of my clients are coming from out of town, out of state.

Um, so parking isn't really so much of an issue because a lot of them are flying in taking external um Ubers and Lyfts, things like that, so they're not really parking anywhere.

Um, but outside of that, if you guys have any questions or concerns, I have a couple copies of these tables of contents if anybody is interested in seeing them at all.

Um let me know.

Please.

Where were you located before?

Um, so I've bounced around between shops uh in Lockport, Morris, Shannon, and now Joliet.

So what do you advertise nationally?

You said take up in front of the state.

So no, it's just uh to be honest with you.

I never wanted to be a high volume tattoo artist.

I started doing a few tattoos, and it's turned into a wildfire.

Uh my clients have graced me with uh being kind of human billboards that kind of wear the artwork around, and people can't uh prevent themselves from asking, and now people have come from out of town and an out of state.

It's really unusual to me, but that's just how it's turned out to be.

Any other questions for the board?

If I could ask, what's the average price for medium?

So my tattoos personally, I book full day um appearances only.

I am 1,000 dollars for the day.

Um, so it is a high maintenance thing.

This is more um, like I said, I have pictures of this in the studio.

It's less like any tattoo shop that has probably been pictured before, and more like what would be like an aesthetic doctor's office, it's seeming like so um I'm generally 1,000 for the day.

I don't do small tattoos.

I am booked one tattoo a day, and this is booked three or four months out.

Now I'm booking uh what would be the end of the summer, early fall.

Well, if he walked in and I walked in with I do them for free.

I was gonna say I ought to get a cheaper price because there's only half half of the bottom.

That's all right.

Like I said, free is there's no half price on free.

Oh, okay.

It won't happen.

Well, you just got my phone, so yeah, that's true.

Any other questions?

So the only signage you're gonna have is lobby signage.

I won't have any signage at all.

You won't have any?

No, ma'am.

Even on your door or an adjacent junior door?

No, ma'am.

I um I'm prioritizing privacy, the privacy of my clients.

A lot of my clients happen to be women and they they require an extensive privacy.

So we got the parking deck right behind you there.

There's all kinds of graffiti, maybe you can go get some.

Who knows if you invite me back one day?

Yeah, I don't think you could use it in public.

Sure.

Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Anyone opposed?

I I lost some money on you.

I had him as a tattoo artist.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I just I ought to get a free tattoo.

Okay.

You would have had my guess too, buddy.

I'm not gonna lie.

Somebody said, Where are you?

Well, you're in Jolly.

Yeah.

Ellen, what tattoo did they want?

What kind of tattoo do you want?

I don't know.

And I meant wear on your body.

We'll have a contest.

Okay, pull the board.

Um we need a motion.

So moved.

Second.

Motion to second to approve the petition.

Pull the board.

Ms.

Radokovich.

I.

Mr.

Stiff.

I Mr.

Bias.

I.

Mr.

Noctrie.

I.

Chairman Hennessy.

I'm okay.

This um these requests move on to the city council with a recommendation for approval.

This will be scheduled tenatively for a meeting in May.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you guys.

Take care.

Okay, next on the agenda is petition numbers 2026 16 and 2026 17.

The applicant is Menard Inc.

And the status of the applicant is the property owner.

The request is a special use permit to allow a self-storage facility, and then a variation from non-residential design standards to allow engineered wood siding in the I-1 light industrial zoning district.

The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow a self-storage facility in the I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District at 2450 West Jefferson Street.

Per the City of Joliet zoning ordinance, self-storage facilities may be allowed as special uses in the I-1 district by 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 a variation from the non-residential design standards to allow engineered wood siding as an exterior material for new buildings within the I-1 district per section 47-15H of the zoning ordinance.

Exterior walls in the industrial districts shall be constructed with institutional quality masonry materials, including but not limited to pre-cast concrete panels.

The exterior walls of the proposed storage buildings will be sided with LP Smart Side, a textured engineered wood siding for site-specific information.

The two point acre subject site is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and contains a vacant commercial building and extensive surface parking.

The building was occupied by Bookie McGee's Hideaway and OTB since its construction in 2004 until the business relocated in uh 2022.

The building has been unoccupied since then.

The site is lot 16 of the Menards Juliet subdivision that was approved and recorded in 2003.

The lot is located behind the Menards and Walmart sites and does not have frontage on a public street.

The subdivision contains ingress and egress easements along the interior roads to allow traffic circulation throughout the subdivision.

Secretary of State DMV facility is located on the lot to the east, and a detention pond for the subdivision is located on the lot to the west.

Menard Inc.

is the store or sorry, is the owner of the subject site as well as the DMV lot, the detention lot, and the Menard store site.

For discussion, the petitioner is Menards Inc.

and is requesting approval of a special use permit to allow a Menard self-storage facility at 2450 West Jefferson Street.

The storage facility would be owned and operated by Bernard Inc.

In recent years, the company began establishing self-storage facilities next to or near existing Menards home improvement stores.

There are currently around 25 of these facilities operating in the Midwest.

The storage sites are an extension of the storage of the store operations and are managed by the local Menards employees with support from the Menards General Office in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

The proposed self-storage facility will contain around 92 climate controlled units within the existing building in around 174 non-climate controlled units in several proposed buildings located around the site.

The new storage buildings would be constructed along the perimeter of the site and within the existing parking lot footprint.

The proposed buildings would be 11 feet or 12 feet tall, measured to the top of the roof.

The interior of the existing building would be remodeled for the climate controlled units.

The exterior of the building will not be significantly modified.

The site would be accessed by a gated entry with overhead doors located at the northwest corner of the site.

The door would be controlled by a pin pad so that only users with private access codes could enter the site.

The storage facility will be overseen by employees of the adjacent Menard store who would check on the site daily and be available for other issues during store hours.

The storage facility would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for renters of the units.

The facility would have security cameras throughout in addition to the secure gate acts secure access gate.

The site would be entirely enclosed with fencing installed between the perimeter buildings and connected to the existing south fence at the southwest and southeast corners of the site.

The proposal will be required to follow all zoning ordinance and building code requirements, including those for lighting, paving, and emergency access.

The proposed storage buildings would be constructed with gray engineered wood siding and red steel roof panels.

The petitioner is requesting a variation from the zoning ordinances non-residential design standards to allow exterior siding that is not a masonry material in the I-1 light industrial district.

Engineered wood siding is allowed as a subsidiary material in the B-1 neighborhood business and B3 general business districts.

The site is located adjacent to commercial uses as well as a residential subdivision, not within a typical light industrial area.

Therefore, staff finds that the requested materials are more appropriate than those required in the zoning ordinance for industrial properties.

The site will have perimeter landscaping on all sides, the existing 15-foot landscape area and six-foot fence along the south property line adjacent to the residential subdivision will remain.

There is also an existing landscape area along the west next to the detention area that will remain.

Additional perimeter landscaping would be installed along the north and east sides.

There are 12 north-south rows of parking between the existing building on the subject site and the DMV facility to the east.

The subject site contains eight of these rows, while four rows are located on the DMV lot.

There is currently no physical distinction between these parking areas for the two lots, so they act like shared parking.

The petitioner proposes to leave two existing rows of parking on the east side of the subject site for continued use by users of the DMV facility.

If the special use permit is approved, the petitioner will be required as part of their development plans to record an access easement over this portion of the self-storage lot to allow use by the DMV lot.

Passenger vehicle parking for users of the self-storage facility will be located along the sides of the main building on the interior of the facility.

Staff finds that the special use request meets the attached criteria for special uses.

The establishment and operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health nor be injurious to the use of other property in the immediate vicinity.

Additionally, the proposed use will not impede development of the surrounding property.

The site was constructed as a commercial property within a commercial subdivision, and the proposed use is in character with the existing uses in the subdivision.

The storage facility will be fully enclosed and only accessible by a secure gate.

The site contains a 15-foot landscape buffer and a solid six-foot fence along the south side, which is the zoning ordinance requirement for commercial uses adjacent to residential properties.

Staff also finds that the adequate staff also finds that adequate drainage and utilities are provided to the site as it is an existing lot within a developed subdivision.

Adequate ingress and egress are also provided via the interior private roads within the subdivision.

While staff does not find a hardship for the variation requests for exterior materials, staff believes the requested materials are more compatible with the surrounding properties than the type of masonry materials required in industrial districts.

Staff finds the proposed materials will not alter the essential character of the area.

Approval of the requested petitions will allow the reuse of a vacant site as a Menards self-storage facility adjacent to an existing Menards home improvement store.

The subject site is in a low profile location that may not be attractive to other commercial uses that require street front edge for visibility.

For conditions, if the zoning board desires to approve the special use permit to allow a self-storage facility and a variation from the non-residential design standards to allow engineered wood siding in the I-1 light industrial zoning district at 2450 West Jefferson Street, staff recommends that the following conditions be included.

One, that the special use granted shall heron terminate and lapse unless a building permit or certificate of occupancy is obtained not later than 180 days.

The effective date of this ordinance and the erection or alteration of a building is started or the use is commenced within such a period.

And two, 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.

My name is Josh Melder on behalf of Menard Inc.

5101 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 54703.

Thank you for having me here.

Thank you to the staff for that summary.

As I said, you know, most people when they think of the Menards, they think of our home improvement stores.

Well, over the last five years or so, we've gone through our excess land portfolio and tried to figure out ways that we can continue to invest in the communities in which we are located.

And one of those ways that we have determined that is a possibility is through the expansion of the Menard self-storage business.

And so we now have self-storage facilities located throughout the Midwest, many of them in locations that are adjacent to our stores.

We try to run these with the same standard that we run the stores, and so we have store employees that are specifically assigned to the self-storage site as a site coordinator.

They're there to help tenants with any issues they may have to make sure that the sites are maintained in a cleanly operation standard, to the standard that we as Menards run our home improvement stores as well.

You may be familiar with this site, the former OTB.

It has sat vacant for a couple of years.

We have had it on the market.

We've had uh brokers that we've engaged with and we have tried to find someone to uh fill that spot after the OTB left.

However, we have been unsuccessful.

Um we believe because this property is uniquely situated compared to most commercial uh properties.

It is buried behind the Walmart and the Menards and is also behind the DMV, so it is very difficult to see this property from public rights of way.

And so it's kind of been difficult to find people who've been wanting to take that as a tenant uh space.

And so rather than uh continue to let it sit vacant, uh, we are here uh requesting the special use uh to try to fill this as a self-storage facility, try to get it to use, um, hopefully increase maybe the property tax value as well.

Um, again, kind of reinvesting in the communities in which we are located in as it uh goes to the variance uh for the materials.

Um so our typical facility is built uh with a steel siding and steel roofing.

However, we understand that this is a little bit of a unique uh facility compared to most of the ones that we've built where it is located adjacent to residential properties located next to the DMV and behind our store in Walmart.

And so we are proposing to use what's called uh LP Smart Siding, which is an engineered wood siding, has a cedar texture, so it kind of looks similar to what you would think of with cedar siding.

Um, and it would be our uh Minard self-storage colors.

We have branded the self-storage business in gray and red, and so it would be a gray engineered wood siding material.

Um we believe that this uh fits with the uh character of the uh area with the residential to the south and the businesses there, and uh would be uh not out of line with the look of the area.

Um, so we thank you for uh this uh requested petition and uh be happy to answer any questions that you have questions.

Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Is there anyone opposed?

Chair closes the petition.

There's the board for discussion of the motion.

Move we approve.

Second.

We have a motion and second to approve the petition.

Pull the board.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Mr.

Noctreed.

I Ms.

Radakovich.

No.

Chairman Hennessey.

Aye.

Okay.

This request does move on to the city council with a recommendation of approval.

Um it'll be tentatively scheduled for one of the May City Council meetings.

Okay, next on the agenda is petition number 2026 18 and 2026-19.

The applicant is Israel Hernandez.

The status of the applicant is property and business owner.

The location is 370 Ruby Street.

There's two requests again.

The first is a special use permit to allow an automotive repair facility, and the second is a variation from the spacing requirements for an automotive repair facility near a residential zoning district.

The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow an automotive repair facility at 370 Ruby Street.

For the City of Juliet zoning ordinance, an automotive repair facility may be allowed as a special use in the B3 General Business District by the mayor and city council with advice from the zoning board of appeals.

The zoning ordinance states that any part of the building where repair takes place shall not have any openings within 100 feet of a residential zoning district.

The petitioner is requesting a variation from this requirement because the existing building has a loading door within 40 feet of the residentially zoned property to the south.

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

For site specific information, the subject site is around 12,000 one hundred square feet and contains an existing 1,300 square foot commercial building with two garage bays, restrooms, and an office area.

The rest of the site surrounding the building is paved but is not currently striped with parking stalls.

There are three curb cuts that provide access to the site, two off Ruby Street and one along the west side of Center Street.

There is an existing six-foot wood fence along the south property line adjacent to the residential property to the south.

The subject property is zoned B3 General Business District.

The current building was constructed around 1960 and was this in sorry, was constructed around 1960 when the site was developed with an automobile service station.

Around 1976, Please Radiator Service, an automotive repair business, occupied the site and was listed in the city directories at this address until around 2020 when the petitioner purchased the property.

The petitioner has been parking sales inventory on the property in the last few years, but is now pursuing the requested petitions to allow an automotive repair use at the site.

For surrounding zoning, land use and character to the north we have general business and it's a residential use.

To the south is R3 zoning, which is one and two family residential, and that's a residential use.

To the east is B3 General Business Zoning, which is a commercial use contractor business, and then to the west is B1 neighborhood business, which is a commercial uh professional office use.

For discussion, the petitioner and property owner Israel Hernandez is requesting a special use permit to allow an automotive repair facility in the B3 General Business District located at 370 Ruby Street.

The petitioner owns Gigante Motors, a car dealership located several blocks to the east at 267 Ruby Street.

The proposed facility at 370 Ruby Street would serve the general public and also be used to service and repair cars for sale by Gigante Motors.

Repair services offered would include routine maintenance, diagnostics, brake repair and replacement, and engine code identification and repair.

The business would accept walk-in customers in addition to scheduled appointments.

The petitioner anticipates servicing around four vehicles per day or around 24 vehicles per week.

The business will have three employees, two mechanics, and one office staff member.

The proposed hours of operation would be Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

and Saturday from 9 a.m.

to 3 p.m.

The existing building contains office space and repair bays for the business.

There are no significant exterior modifications or additions planned for the building.

The petitioner will be required to ensure that a functional oil separator is in place for the floor drains within the two repair bays prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

The petitioner and city staff have worked to identify several site improvements that will be required as conditions of the special use permit.

A proposed site plan is included as an attachment in the staff report packet.

The petitioner will remove the asphalt and install grass at the northwest corner of the site that is within the visibility triangle for the intersection of Center Street and Ruby Street.

They will also install grass along the north property line as a buffer between the parking stalls and the public sidewalk.

These improvements will add green space to the property and improve traffic safety and circulation on and around the site.

The petitioner will also remove and replace the sidewalk and curb along Ruby Street from the west edge of the east from the west edge of the existing western curb cut to a point near the west edge of the existing eastern curb cut.

This removal will eliminate the western entrance and create a 30-foot wide entrance on the east, which is the maximum permitted width for commercial driveway.

Finally, the petitioner will need to stripe the parking lot in accordance with city standards.

These parking areas are identified on the attached site plan.

Additionally, if the site has an outside dumpster, it will need to be screened on three sides with a solid enclosure as required by the zoning ordinance.

In addition to the special use permit, the petitioner is requesting a variation from the spacing requirement for automotive repair facilities.

The zoning ordinance states that the building where repair takes place shall have no openings within 100 feet of a residential zoning district.

The loading doors for the two bays are approximately 40 feet from the rear property line that is shared with the residential property at 341 Marble Street.

Therefore, the petitioner needs approval of a variation to allow an automotive use within the existing building, though there are no proposed additions to or expansions of the building.

For recommended action.

Staff finds that the special use request meets the criteria for special uses.

The operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health nor be injurious to the use of other property in the immediate vicinity.

Additionally, the proposed use will not impede development of surrounding property.

The site has functioned as an automotive use, repair use or automotive use since the 1950s and is located along an established commercial corridor.

The proposed site improvements will enhance the impairance of the site and improve site circulation.

Adequate drainage and utility infrastructure exists at the site.

The site has existing points of ingress and egress, and the proposed curb replacement along Ruby Street will improve site circulation by eliminating the curb cut that is close to the intersection.

Staff finds that the variation request meets the following criteria for variations.

The enforcement of the spacing requirement would improve would involve practical difficulties due to the existing conditions of the site.

The building is existing and the location of the doors could not practically be reconfigured to meet the spacing requirement.

The doors face north away from the residential property.

Staff also finds that the approval of the variation will not alter the essential character of the area since the building has a long history of operation as an auto repair use.

If the zoning board desires to approve the special use permit and variation to allow an automotive repair facility at 370 Ruby Street, staff recommends that the following conditions be included.

One that all proposed site improvements are completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, including removal and replacement of the curb and sidewalk along a portion of Ruby Street, removal of asphalt and installation of turf grass at the northwest corner and along the north side of the site, striping of the parking lot in accordance with city standards.

Two, that a functional oil separator shall be in place for the garage bays prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Three, that all service and repairs shall be performed within the building.

Four, that a city business license shall be obtained.

Five, that the special use granted shall herein terminate and lapse unless a building permit or certificate of occupancy is obtained not later than 180 days after the effective date of this ordinance and the erection or alteration of a building is started or the use commenced within such a period.

And six, should the property be declared a public nuisance, it may be subject to a re-hearing and possible revocation of the special use permit, and that concludes staff's report.

Hello.

My name is Tiffany Hernandez at 217.

217 North Schmidt Bolenbrook.

My name is Israel Hernandez, and uh I'm I live at 217 North Schmidt Road in Bolinbrook.

Okay.

Any comments you'd like to make?

Well, I think she summed everything up.

We're just looking to make a repair shop.

Okay.

Any questions by the board?

We also have street parking, don't we?

Does the subject property have street proper uh street parking?

No.

Uh there is street parking in the vicinity.

I mean it's not tied to any specific um property owner along the street.

But it is in front of the building, the building on two sides.

So you know what?

I I think I know now what you're asking.

There is no street parking in the north side of this building.

It's actually striped to prevent that.

Is that correct?

How about on the south side?

It isn't one second, we'll clarify.

There's no parking allowed on I don't believe there is parking allowed on our street.

Uh Ruby Street, you could park on there, but obviously not in front of the entrances, and then our municipal code has requirements for distance from an intersection.

Center street side.

I am not seeing that the center street side allows parking due to the width of the existing road.

So and then Ms.

Miller was pointing out the in front of this building right now doesn't allow parking next to the intersection, um, and then with the new improvements that are being proposed on site that would essentially not allow parking really in front of this particular property.

That's what I'm worried about is street parking.

I'm sorry, can't hear you.

That's what I worry about is street parking on Ruby Street.

Right.

We're working with the city.

We're working with the city to put in no parking signs.

There you go.

Any other questions for the board?

Do you have other garages?

Do we have other locations?

I have a location at 267 Ruby Street.

Uh uh use dealer uh car dealership.

Any other questions?

Anybody in the audience wishes to speak in favor?

Is there anybody opposed?

Chair closes petition, asked for discussion any vote.

Motion to accept.

Second.

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

Mr.

Bias.

Uh here.

I mister Nocktree.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

I mr.

Stiff.

I chairman Hennessy.

Hi.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

So that will move to the city council with a recommendation approval.

It will be scheduled uh tentatively for a meeting in May.

Right.

Next on the agenda is petition numbers 2026 20 and 2026 21.

The applicant is Abraham Garcia.

Status of the applicant is property owner.

The location is 540 Bluff Street.

The request is there's two requests.

A variation of use to allow a conversion of a single unit residence into a two-unit residence, which is an R3 1 and 2 family residential use in the R2 single family residential zoning district.

And the second request is a variation to reduce the front yard setback to allow a second story addition.

The applicant is requesting a variation of use to allow the conversion of a single unit residence into a two-unit residence, an R3 one and two family residential use within an R2 single family residential zoning district and located at 540 Bluff Street.

The variation of use requests must be considered by the City Council following the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The applicant is also requesting a variation to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 12.9 feet to allow a second story addition on the existing structure.

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

For site specific information, the subject site is an 80-foot by 100 foot double lot at 8,000 square feet that contains a one and a half story single unit residence that was built around 1906.

There is an existing asphalt driveway along the south side of the house.

The property is zoned R2 single family residential.

The property was reclassified from R4, which is multifamily residential, to the R2 single family residential zoning classification in 1995 as part of a neighborhood wide rezoning process.

At that time, the property was identified as a single family use.

Based on historic Juliet Street Directory information, the property appears to have been a single family residence since its construction.

The house has an existing non-conforming front yard setback.

The setback to the porch is around 8.3 feet, and the setback to the front wall of the house is around 12.9 feet.

The required front yard setback in the R2 zoning district is 30 feet.

Section 47-17.223, nonconforming structures of the zoning ordinance allows pre-existing non-conformities to remain as long as the structures are not enlarged or altered in a way that increases their nonconformity.

The addition of a full second story with the same 12.9 foot front yard setback as the existing structure, increases the non-conformity and requires approval of a variation.

For surrounding zoning land use and character, the property is located in the bicentennial Bluffs neighborhood on the east side of Bluff Street, south of Lime Street.

The area contains a mix of single unit, two-unit, and multi-unit residential uses.

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

To the north you have R2 single family residential and it's a residence.

To the south is R2 single family residential, it's a residence and auto repair business.

To the east is the Displains River, and to the west is the R2 single family residential zoning designation with residences.

For discussion, the petitioner Abraham Garcia is requesting a variation of use to allow a two-unit residence in the R2 single family residential zoning district.

The petitioner purchased the property in December of 2025 and began construction to convert the structure from a one and a half story single unit residence to a two-story two-unit residence.

The owner began work without a permit.

When city staff alerted the owner to apply for a building permit, staff also informed the owner that a two-unit was a prohibited use in this zoning district and that approvals of a variation of use and variation would also be needed.

The owner ceased work on the structure and applied for these petitions.

The structure prior to the recent construction is shown in figure one.

The current structure is shown in figure two.

The proposed elevations and floor plans are included as an attachment to the staff report packet.

Each floor would contain one dwelling unit with three bedrooms and approximately 1,012 square feet of living area.

The units would have separate entrances and no interior connections.

The existing front porch and enclosed side porch would remain.

The proposed two-story structure would have a gable roof with a 412 pitch.

As a condition of approval, the parkway along the front edge of the north side of the lot would need to be returned to grass.

The required number of off-street parking spaces for a two-unit residence is three spaces.

The site plan shows that these will be provided on the existing paved driveway along the south side of the house.

The property also meets the required lot area per family of 3,500 square feet, which is the area required per unit for two-unit dwellings in the R3 1 and 2 family residential district.

The construction of a full second story requires approval of a variation because the front wall of the second story has the same non-conforming front yard setback of 12.9 feet as the existing structure.

The variation for the second story addition is required regardless of whether the structure contains one unit or two units.

The petitioner states they plan to live in one of the units and rent out the other unit.

If the variation of use is approved, the property will need to be enrolled in and comply with the city's rental inspection program.

For recommended action, staff does not find the variation of use request meets the criteria for hardship or practical difficulties.

However, staff does find that the proposed two-unit use would not alter the essential character of the area.

The neighborhood has a mix of single and multi-unit properties.

The property in question can accommodate the required number of off-street parking spaces.

Approval of the variation of use would allow one additional dwelling unit within the neighborhood.

Staff finds that the setback variation request meets the following criteria.

For conditions, if the zoning board desires to approve the variation of use to allow conversion of a single unit residence into a two-unit residence and a variation to reduce the front yard setback to allow a second story addition at 540 Bluff Street.

Staff recommends that the following conditions would be included.

Number one, that the property shall be enrolled in and comply with the city's rental inspection program.

Two, that the area between the street edge and the front property line shall be seated or sided with turf grass prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Three, that the use of the property shall not be expanded in the future.

And four, should the property be declared a public nuisance, the property may be subject to a rehearing and possible revocation of the variation of use, and that concludes staff's report.

Yes.

Name and address.

If you guys have any questions by the board.

No, sir.

A did you buy this house from a realtor or I I bought it from a gentleman that um I believe was going through some hardship and were you informed at the time what the zoning was?

I'm sorry, sir.

Were you informed at the time what the zoning was?

That's required by law.

Yeah, you should have known what the zoning was when you purchased the property.

Um no, sir.

It was um it was a cash sale, and um went to a title company, and that was the word that there was a non-conforming use on that property already.

I'm sorry.

There was a non-conforming use already granted to that property back probably in the 90s, and one of the conditions there is that it never be expanded upon.

You know, where is that?

No, sir, it was not.

You say this is a cash deal.

Yes, sir.

It's recorded, I believe.

I'm not sure.

I'm pretty sure it has to be legally recorded.

No.

If not, I have I have all the information.

Do you own other properties in town?

Yes, I do, sir.

I own um, I think today it's up to about five.

So I I I I plan on living in that on that second unit.

Um, my office is is uh five minutes from there.

Um I'm recently new to Julia.

Um I I I like it.

I'm here to stay.

I'm hoping you guys can help me.

Uh I I know I made a couple mistakes.

We're here to fix it.

We um we put plans together.

Um we also um we retained uh United Architects.

So since that date uh we've hired them.

Um they've came out.

The structure can't handle two stories.

Um I got them here with me actually today.

If you guys have any maybe structural questions, yeah, based on the age of this building back then, probably they would use an exterior two by four for two before for exterior walls.

Today we do two by sixes.

What did you use for support for the second story for the exterior?

Um I I do know we we have its code.

Um how we you we use whatever the code the code is asking to use.

Um not sure about I I'm sorry, I just I I I don't I don't do construction.

Sorry.

I must swear you in too, sir.

Do you swear the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law?

Yes.

Name and address.

Bob Gable from United Architects 1002 Plainfield Road and Joliet.

Okay.

So yes, they're two by four walls on the first floor and the second floor.

And that's somewhat typical in houses these days.

The two by sixes are used more to get more insulation in for the energy code these days.

Why would you want to cheat yourself out of that much uh another two inches when it comes to insulation?

Exterior walls, what's the R uh require R value?

What's the required R value for exterior walls?

It's an R20 in the in the cavity, and then they have to have like an R5 continuous insulation.

How can you get there with a two for four?

With the spray foam insulation.

Oh, spray foam?

Yes.

Any other questions?

We should just speak in favor.

And if there is a question that we're gonna use three food, we we are gonna use three.

Was it building ever inspected by any official from the city inspection department?

As of today, no, sir.

I mean, but we're open to inspections also.

Uh everything's halted.

If you want to put that as a condition that that's fair and fine.

We've applied for all the permits with um with the proper information from the contractors.

So it's it's it's all just pending this.

So I think there is oversight after this decision, it's not like it would be a yes, and then I'm able to finish without any other permits.

There's other permits that we've also applied for, um, but if I'm if I'm if I'm correct, I have to start here first and then be issued permits, and then there would be an inspection process.

If I'm correct, I could be wrong.

I'm not sure um step by step how it works, but I'm pretty sure that's how it goes.

If the zoning board desires, you could separate these requests.

So um one request again is a variation of a use to allow a two-unit in a in a single family zoning district.

The second request, regardless if it's a two-unit or one or a single family unit is to um allow that second story because it's increasing the existing non-conformity, but they do have to get approval even if it were to stay as a single family home, it would still have to get a variation from that setback, front yard setback to retain the second story.

So just you can keep that in mind when you make your um discussions and motion uh sir, you were the are the architect yes, correct?

Yes, will you provide guidance on the hiring?

Yeah.

Yes, and we put together the plans and we were going to submit for permit, and then this all came up.

Yes.

And are you satisfied that using two by fours to hold the second story up is sufficient?

Well, that's what they called us in for, and we're gonna do everything we need to to make it work.

Yes.

That's two by four construction again is is sufficient.

It's not that wide of a house with this the span and that.

But yes, we were we're not I'm not gonna put my stamp on it without checking it out.

What other areas did you not?

I mean, even to build a garage.

Well, how people don't live in a garage.

Usually they don't.

It's required that you put in two by six walls, exterior.

In the garage.

Is it it?

No, it's not required.

It all depends on the size and shape of the the house or the garage.

A lot of these builders are building two by four walls and they're filling it with certain insulation and there's well, even if it was normal with a one story, now you build another house on top of it with the exterior.

I don't know what else you might have cut curves on on the interior.

I don't you know, even the floor structure here.

What did you prints?

What's that?

Where's where are the prints?

We're putting those together.

Yes.

No, I'm not happy.

Well, it seems to me that the hardships here are self-imposed.

Mm-hmm.

And that he owns other properties, he should have gone some of these regulations and rose.

I can't go along with this.

Yeah.

How do we know if we approve this?

How do we know if we approve this?

Or eight of my wind, amount now when collapses display.

How do we know that?

I don't know what else you did on the interior.

You don't you don't you're not providing us with any prints.

Well, that's what we're gonna provide for the building permit.

That's what's gonna be required.

They're gonna go through and they're gonna say, Well, what did you do with the the floor to beef that up?

They actually came by and they doubled all the joists to to make that floor on the second floor to work, and we we're gonna go through and check if that meets the requirements for the the loads and all that.

What are the size of the floor joists?

They were double two by sixes.

That's sitting on a two by four wall.

Yes.

And you think that's right.

Do I think it's right?

And it's not normal.

No, no, it's not.

It's the way it was constructed.

And we're I don't feel comfortable with that.

Well, neither do we, and that's why we have to do the plans and make it work.

So if we gotta come back and we gotta add another two by six, or we add two by tens in there, that's what we gotta do.

Um still needs a motion.

Um staff would what really request that you separate the two variation of use.

You can do that one first, and then the variation request is a second motion.

So first motion we would suggest doing a very voting on the variation of use request and then take another vote for the um front setback variation request.

Well, the front setback variation.

I don't have any problems at all.

The other nice I say so.

Sorry to hurry up.

So I I'm not gonna build it, you know, for it to collapse.

We would have to meet the code, but so it's not like I can get away with building a second floor that's gonna be unstable, but nobody inspected it.

What they will we have to go through this process first so they can expect it, sir.

Otherwise, then yeah, you're right, it'll never be inspected, but then I would just reapply for it, and then I guess we could just go step by step, but they're going they're they will inspect it, yes.

And then the doubled six by sixes does carry the load.

But it's second floor, they're sitting on a single two by four on the first exterior wall.

The the house is not being supported by the two by fours on the exterior walls, no, sir.

Oh, it's just sitting in thin air.

That's what you do.

No, that what that's why you have your floor joists, everything's tied in together.

The floor joys have to sit on something.

They are on the two by exterior wall.

But I mean again, I mean it's it's it's not just this one house.

I there's many houses built this way.

Many houses, new houses, new home constructions are being built this way.

They're not or that that's all I have.

I mean, but we would follow the code.

Would it be that we're not gonna follow the code?

Nothing's finished, it's all bare.

It could be anything can be removed at this moment and added at this moment.

Anything can be added and can be removed, yes.

Even including the second floor.

But if the inspectors are going and say, hey, this is wrong, you need to fix this for you to get the thumbs up, then that's what we would have to fix to get the thumbs up.

It's not like you would say yes, and then I can move my stuff in tomorrow without following code.

We still would have to follow the code.

I don't know what it should be.

I don't like it.

Someone has to make a motion there.

Motion to deny.

Second.

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

Pull the board.

This is the variation of use.

Those of them.

Both of them.

Both of them.

Okay.

All right.

Um pull the board.

Mr.

Noctree.

Mr.

Radokovich.

I.

Mr.

Stiff.

I.

Mr.

Bias.

Before I say that.

You know better.

I know you know better.

You own property.

You know better.

You didn't have to cut the club.

When I first came on this board, it was a gentleman in the one area that had a garage.

He went and did the garage and added a second story without permission from the city.

And this board voted for him to tear it down.

That was a garage.

You know, a place where you're going to shoot pool, drink beer, tail lies with his budded.

But somebody's going to be living in this place.

Chairman Hennessy.

Hi.

Okay.

Um this motion moves forward to the city council with a recommendation for denial, and the variation request was also tied to this by your vote, and the variation request was denied.

Next on the agenda is and for those of you that just walked in, we are wrapping up our zoning board of appeals meeting and plan commission meeting will commence after the conclusion of this zoning board of appeals meeting.

So last case on this agenda is petition number 2026-22.

The applicant in this matter is Maria Garcia.

The status of the applicant is the property owner.

The location is 201 North Williams Street.

The request is for a variation of use to allow the continuation of a three-unit residence, which is an R for multifamily residential use in the R2 single family residential zoning district.

For purpose, the applicant is requesting a variation of use to allow the continuation of a three-unit residence in an R4 multifamily residential use in the R2 single family residential zoning district located at 201 North William Street.

The variation of use request must be considered by the city council following the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

For site specific information, the subject site is approximately 85.6 feet by 124 feet, which is 10,648 square feet, and contains a two-story, three-unit residence built around 1956.

The property has an existing paved driveway off William Street that leads to an attached two-car garage.

The property is zoned R2 single family residential.

The property currently contains three separate dwelling units.

According to City Directory information, the house has contained at least two units since its construct since its construction.

Notes from neighborhood services history of the property indicate that it had three units in 2008 when it was added to the rental inspection program.

The area has been zoned R2 since the zoning maps were established in the 1960s and 70s.

The petitioner purchased the property in May of 2025.

At that time, staff alerted the petitioner that the three-unit was not a permitted use and that a variation of use would need to be obtained.

Following the purchase of the property, the petitioner was in contact with neighborhood services staff regarding the existing or sorry guard regarding existing rental inspection violations from an inspection performed for the previous owner.

The petitioner was able to have all violations abated as of November of 2025, and neighborhood services issued a two-year rental certification for the property that expires in September of 27.

In February of 2026, the petitioner applied for the variation of use.

The House has existing non-conforming front yard setbacks.

Section 47-172, non-conforming structures of the zoning ordinance allows pre-existing non-conformities to remain as long as the structures are not enlarged or altered in a way that increases their nonconformity.

And there are no proposed changes to the exterior footprint of this building.

For surrounding zoning land use and character, the property is located in the cathedral area neighborhood at the northwest corner of William Street and Oneida Street.

While the area predominantly contains single family uses, there are some two units and multi-unit residences throughout the neighborhood.

There appear to be single unit residences to the north, east, and south, and a multi-unit residence to the west.

For discussion.

The multi-unit use within the R2 single family residential zoning district is no longer considered grandfathered because the zoning ordinance has permission provisions for the termination of non-conforming uses after certain time periods.

Therefore, the property owner needs to obtain a variation of use to allow continuation of the existing three-unit residents.

The zoning mismatch was noticed by planning staff when the property was for sale around 2023, but the previous owner did not apply for a variation of use.

When the property was for sale again in 2025 and then purchased by the petitioner, planning staff alerted the petitioner of the need to obtain a variation of use.

A plat of survey and floor plans are included in the staff report packet.

The first floor contains an attached garage or two two-car garage and one dwelling unit, which is unit one, that is around 780 square feet with two bedrooms.

The second floor contains two dwelling units.

Unit two is around 780 square feet with two bedrooms, and unit three is around 568 square feet with one bedroom.

The second floor units are accessed by an interior staircase that leads to both entrances.

The required number of off-street parking spaces for a three-unit residence is five spaces, which is 1.5 spaces per unit.

The property contains the required spaces as the garage has two spaces and the driveway can accommodate three spaces.

The property also meets the required lot area per family of 2,500 square feet, which is the area required per unit for multi-unit dwellings in the R4 multifamily residential district.

The property is currently enrolled in the rental inspection program and has received a two-year rental certification.

There is there are no outstanding rental inspection violations at the property.

Neighborhood services does not have concerns about the property remaining as a three-unit.

If the variation of use is approved, the property will remain enrolled in the rental inspection program.

For recommended action, staff finds that the request meets the following variation of use criteria.

The use of the property at as fewer than three units would involve practical difficulties since the three units have been established for years.

The site has the unique circumstances of being constructed as a multi-unit structure with within a predominantly single-family area, and the approval of the variation of use will not alter the essential character of the area.

While the surrounding neighborhood is largely single-family rental or single-family residential in character, there are some existing multi-unit structures located throughout the area.

There are no proposed changes to the exterior or appearance of the existing residents.

The property can accommodate the required off-street parking spaces for the three units.

An approval of the variation of use would allow the existing three-unit structure to remain as it is it currently exists.

For conditions of approval, if the zoning board desires to approve this variation of use to allow the continuation of a three-unit residence, which is an R4 multifamily residential use in the R2 single-family residential zoning district at 201 North Williams Street, staff recommends that the following conditions be included.

One that the property shall remain enrolled in and comply with the city's rental inspection program.

Two, that the use of the property shall not be expanded in the future.

Three, should the property be declared a public nuisance, the property may be subject to a rehearing and possible revocation of the variation of use, and that concludes staff's report.

Ow.

Hi.

You're ready for it.

Yes.

Do you swear the evidence you're about to present to be the truth under penalty of law?

Yes.

My name is Maria Garcia, representing 201 North Williams Street, Jolia, Illinois, 60435.

Um I'm here to uh she summoned it up pretty well.

I'm here to request uh the building to be up to legal statuses.

It's uh I bought it at the three-unit uh family residential last May 4th, 2025, and um I bought it with 24 violations, city violations that were not up to code.

I worked really hard to put those codes up to up to the um compliance, and then I got the certificate in fall of uh 2025.

But at that moment, the inspector Maya Pusao did notify me that I cannot have three units rented because the unit number three, the smallest one, was not uh because it was on R2 coded and it has to be put up to status.

Um and that's what I'm here to do.

So to request and to answer any questions that you might have here.

Any questions by the board?

Do you live in one of those units?

No, I actually uh I just uh moved to the city because my work it was taking me two hours to commute.

So that's why I have to put the other one to rent.

I live in downtown for now.

Downtown Chicago.

Downtown Chicago, yeah, so to be close to my job.

Any other questions?

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor?

Anyone opposed?

Chair closes the petition, ask the board for discussion.

And a motion.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion, second to approve the petition.

Hold the board.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Aye.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Mr.

Bias?

Aye.

Mr.

Noctrieb.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.

I spoke too soon.

I got excited.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

All right.

Moving on the agenda.

We do have one item under new business.

Um we do need a new vice chair since the person who previously held that position is no longer on the zoning board of appeals.

So at this time, would anyone like to make a motion for someone to be uh of the vice chair?

I Jesse Stiff would like to make a motion to nominate Ryalf Bias to be our vice chair.

Okay.

Second.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for Mr.

Bias to be the vice chair.

Would you please pull the board?

I get to say that.

Oh, I'm I'm yeah, I'm putting on my historic preservation commission secretary role.

Uh Mr.

Bias.

I'm sorry, yeah, you're right.

Please you usurping my duty.

I I am, I didn't mean to.

Mr.

Bias.

Yeah, follow the board.

Call a vote.

Yeah, we're vote.

I I guess so.

Uh aye.

Mr.

Noctreed?

Totally aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

I Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

I suppose so.

Okay.

Okay.

Um next on the agenda is older new business, not for final action or recommendation.

We have no agenda items, um, which brings us to public comment.

The section for anyone wanting to speak non-agenda items for this boat zoning board of appeals meeting, and are allowed a maximum of four minutes.

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

Is there anyone here who would like to speak under public comment for the zoning board of appeals meeting?

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

And with that, it brings us to adjournment.

Motion to adjourn would be in order.

Second.

Motion and second.

Okay.

Mr.

Bias.

Aye.

Mr.

Noctrieb.

Aye.

Ms.

Radakovich.

Mr.

Stiff.

Aye.

Chairman Hennessy.

Aye.