Will County Gazette

Village of New Lenox Zoning Board of Appeals met March 4.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

CALL TO ORDER

A regular meeting of the Village of New Lenox Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 8:45 p.m. by Chairman Muehlnickel.

At this time Chairman Muehlnickel noted that all members from the Plan Commission meeting were present for the Zoning Board of Appeals.

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF A REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2025

A motion was made by Mr. Raidbard and seconded by Mr. Moss to approve the February 4, 2025 minutes as presented. Voice vote was taken. Motion carried.

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PARKING, BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCES

(Public Hearing)

Tru County Bar & Grille

Approximate 0.54-acre site located at 222 West Maple Street

Phil Wiechec / Mueller Roofing – Petitioner

Chairman Muehlnickel asked if proof of notice had been received, and Staff replied affirmatively.

Mr. Muehlnickel asked for a motion to open the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Raidbard and seconded by Mr. Moss to open the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Voice vote was taken. Motion carried.

Mr. Smith explained that the property is zoned C-2 Community Shopping District, and because of the way the building is positioned, along with the need to provide a new parking lot, the petitioner requested the following variances:

1. to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from 54 parking spaces to 26 spaces;

2. to legally establish an 11.5-foot front yard building setback from the existing north building to the U.S. Route 30 right-of-way and to legally establish an existing awning on the north of the building to be situated 6 feet from the U.S. Route 30 right-of-way;

3. to legally establish a zero-foot (0’) front yard setback from the existing west building wall to the Oak Drive right-of-way;

4. to reduce the minimum front yard building setback from 20 feet to 0 feet along Oak Drive for a proposed rear building addition;

5. to reduce the minimum required interior parkway landscape buffer yard abutting the parking lot from 20 feet to a minimum of 9.4 feet along U.S. Route 30;

6. to reduce the minimum required interior parkway landscape buffer yard abutting the rear building addition front 20 feet to zero (0) feet along Oak Drive; and

7. to reduce the minimum required landscaped perimeter buffer yard from 10 feet to 4.8 feet along the eastern perimeter where 10 parking stalls are proposed.

He advised there are 3 criteria in the Zoning Ordinance for the granting of a variance. 1. The property could not yield a reasonable without the variances.

Due to the number of site and building challenges, they needed the reduction in buffer yards, the legally established building setbacks, the non-conforming setback for the rear addition, and a reduction to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces. The Village’s Comprehensive Plan and Route 30 Corridor Plan mentions relief to the Zoning Code can be justified in cases so as to allow for highly desirable commercial redevelopment that would also need to be compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff felt that the reasonable return would be limited without the variances. He proceeded by mentioning past commercial redevelopment projects requiring deviations in order to move forward that were ultimately approved by the Village Board.

2. There would have to be unique circumstances with the property.

After looking at several different options for the subject commercial redevelopment proposal, limiting the number of seats was the best option in addressing minimum required parking. For instance, 1 space per 3 seats, plus 1 employee during the largest shift, is recommended to be utilized. Based on the floorplan showing a maximum of 85 seats in the restaurant and outdoor patio, this parking calculation results in a minimum of 35 parking spaces when the patio is open and a minimum of 29 parking spaces when the patio is closed. With the proposed 26 0ff-street parking spaces, there would still be a parking deficiency of 9 spaces when the patio is open and a parking shortage of 3 spaces when the patio is closed. However, by soon striping the on-street parking spaces on the east side of Oak Drive abutting the subject restaurant building, it would create 9 more spaces and thus address the parking shortage. He said there are also 7 existing striped parking spaces on the west side of Oak Drive, which could free up parking for Tru County customers when the businesses on that side of the street close. It was Staff’s opinion that the on-street parking would make up for the parking shortage. He said Staff previously suggested that the applicant enter into a shared parking with one of the neighboring businesses to provide for more parking, but the applicant was not able to come to an agreement to this point.

3. If the variance is granted, it will not alter the character of the area.

He said the 18 conditions noted for the requested Special Use permit for the outdoor patio were intended to provide for a compatible development, and furthermore, the variances were not anticipated to present traffic efficiency or safety issues. As previously noted, a maximum of 85 seats are recommended for the restaurant and outdoor patio, and any future request to increase the number of seats will require another variance that must follow the required public hearing process. Employees should park at the furthest southeast parking spots to allow for closer parking spaces for customers. He noted that a Special Use Permit would also have to be approved in order for the variances to be granted.

It was the opinion of Staff that the requested parking, building and landscape variances satisfy the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the 3 conditions included in the Staff Report. Staff requested Zoning Board of Appeals comments and recommendation.

Mr. Muehlnickel asked if a shared agreement with a neighboring business for employee parking would free up parking spaces.

Mr. Smith replied that it would.

Mr. Wienchec said they are trying to come up with ideas to purchase one of the closer buildings / properties to get extra parking should one become available.

Ms. Wolfe asked if the alley was a two-way alley. She also asked what their plans were remove the snow in the winter. She also commented that Oak Drive becomes difficult to maneuver when parking is used on both sides of the street, especially if the car is not completely up in the parking spot.

Mr. Smith said that the alley is currently 18 feet wide, but it is possible the alley will need to be widened to 20 or 24 feet so as to allow for adequate two-way traffic circulation.

Mr. Wienchec addressed they have means to remove snow completely from the property should it become necessary.

Mr. Muehlnickel commented that he sees the neighboring business employees parking on the east side of the street often, and that would take away from the parking for his business.

Mr. Wienchec commented that he hopes when his business opens, it would change. He also said that he does not feel that his business will be as busy until after that business closes and the employees leave for the day. He also wanted to address the worry about the noise, by saying they will meet or exceed the insulation requirements and with the cinderblock wall, he did not anticipate there being a problem.

Mr. Langlois said he would have a conversation with Mr. Wienchec about renting his insurance lot for employee only parking. He said they do not use the lot during the weekends or in the evening and would have approximately 7 spots available.

Ms. Wolfe asked how they would get their deliveries.

Mr. Wienchec advised that most deliveries would be made before business hours, and they would either take up the spots on Oak Drive or pull in the middle of the parking lot if nobody is there yet. He said deliveries with that size of a bar are typically loaded and unloaded within 10 to 15 minutes.

Ms. Berkey is worried about the 5-foot encroachment of the neighboring property and the big tree right next to it. She asked if there would be sufficient space for movement on the property.

Mr. Smith said anything on Mr. Wienchec’s property could be removed, but there is still a walkway to provide access to the neighboring property. He also said there will be landscaping between the properties as well.

Mr. Muehlnickel requested a motion to close the public hearing. Motion was made by Mr. Raidbard and seconded by Ms. Berkey to close the public hearing at 9:14 p.m.

Mr. Muehlnickel requested a motion recommending approval of the parking, building setback and landscape variances for the proposed commercial redevelopment on the 0.54-acre property located at the southeast corner of U.S. Route 30 and Oak Drive, also known as 222 West Maple Street, subject to the 3 conditions mentioned.

Motion was made by Mr. Hawkins and seconded by Blackburn.

Upon Roll Call, the vote was:

AYES: - Commissioners Raidbard, Hawkins, Blackburn, Berkey, Moss and Chairman Muehlnickel

NAYS: - None.

Motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS

None.

NEW BUSINESS

None.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals at this time, a motion was made by Mr. Raidbard and seconded by Mr. Blackburn to adjourn. Voice vote was taken. Motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.

https://www.newlenox.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03042025-342