Special Planning & Zoning Commission

VILLAGE OF BERKELEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, July 9, 2025 6:30 PM 5819 Electric Avenue Berkeley Illinois 1. Call to Order 3 BK PZC special meeting notice 7-9-25.pdf 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Public hearing regarding an application for sign variation at 5319 St. 4 - 22 Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois PZC Memo 5319 St Charles Road Sign Variance.pdf 5319 St Charles Rd Variance 7-1-25 revised.pdf Revised Renderings.pdf Variance Request Form.pdf 5319 PZC Hearing Application.pdf PLAT OF SURVEY.pdf 5319 St. Charles Road Sightline Memo.pdf 5. Motion to approve findings of fact and recommendation to the Village 23 - 26 Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois (approval) BK - FOF 5319 St. Charles Road Sign Variation (revised) (approval).pdf 6. Motion to approve findings of fact and recommendation to the Village 27 - 30 Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Page 1 of 30  Road, Berkeley, Illinois (denial) BK FOF 5319 St. Charles Road Sign Variation (revised) (denial).pdf 7. Chairman's Report 8. Next Meeting 9. Adjournment Note: The Village of Berkeley, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), r equests that any persons with disabilities, who have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facility, contact Village Hall at 708-449-8840, to allow for reasonable accommodations to be made. Page 2 of 30  NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING VILLAGE OF BERKELEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given to all interested parties that a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Village of Berkeley will be held on Wednesday, July 9, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. in the Second Floor Village Board Room, 5819 Electric Avenue, Berkeley, Illinois. Public comment may be given during the meeting and the meeting will be open to the public. A copy of the Agenda for the meeting is attached. VILLAGE OF BERKELEY By: Belia Nowak Village Clerk 4935-6314-6563, v. 1 Page 3 of 30  Village of Berkeley 5819 Electric Avenue, Berkeley, Illinois 60163 Phone: 708-449-8840 | Fax: 708-449-6189 | www.berkeley.il.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Justyn Miller, Assistant Village Administrator DATE: July 3, 2025 RE: 5319 St. Charles Road-Sign Variation Request (Revised) Background The Village received an application for a sign variation from the eventual new owner of Rocky’s Restaurant located at 5319 St. Charles Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) considered the request for a 5-foot by 10-foot, double-sided monument sign at the June 16, 2025, meeting. At the meeting, the Commission raised issues related to accessibility, specifically regarding the sign being installed near the existing sidewalk and the potential encroachment into IDOT's right-of-way, as St. Charles Road is under IDOT jurisdiction. The PZC unanimously voted down (6-0) the Findings of Fact (FOF) for the request. Since the FOF included a positive recommendation and the PZC voted the item down, it was not allowed to proceed to the full Village Board for final consideration, as per the Village code. Staff did discuss this item with the Village Board at their June meeting, and the consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to reconsider the sign request and send the item back to PZC. Since that time, staff has worked with the applicant on their sign variance. More specifically, the applicant has withdrawn their original request for a 5-foot by 10-foot sign. The applicant has submitted a revised (new) request for a 5-foot by 9-foot sign. Also, the applicant submitted additional documentation, including a plat of survey, to more clearly address the issues raised by the PZC. The plat of survey, included with the backup, shows distances on the north side of the building, from the front of the building to the property line. This distance narrows from the top (east) to the bottom (west). At its shortest point, it is 9 feet 6 inches (9.5 feet), and at its widest, it is 10 feet 10.8 inches (10.9 feet). The sign is located just east of the widest point on the plat of survey. Specific to the sign, staff estimates that the sign would be located a distance of between 10.5 and 10.7 feet from the front of the building to the property line. With the estimated range and minus the size of the sign, at a minimum, the applicant would have 1.5 feet, which is more than sufficient space to address the accessibility issues raised at the last meeting and keeps the proposed sign within the existing property line, not encroaching into IDOT's right of way. Staff has prepared two FOFs, one with a negative recommendation and one with a positive recommendation, to ensure that the item can proceed to final consideration at the July Village Board meeting. Page 4 of 30 A picture of the current monument sign located on the front façade (north side) is below: A picture of the revised, proposed sign is located below: A picture of what the proposed monument sign will look like on the front façade (north side) of the building is below: Page 5 of 30 The proposed variance allows the property owner to install a larger monument sign at the restaurant while utilizing some existing components of the current sign (sign base). The Village wishes to be supportive of new restaurants, especially for the eastern portion of the St. Charles Road Corridor. It is anticipated that allowing a larger sign would attract more customers to the restaurant, which could catalyze future improvements on the eastern portion of the St. Charles Road Corridor. Staff recommends approval of the findings of fact (approval), as it will increase the visibility of the new business, is not significantly different from existing signage, and supports the overall vision for the St. Charles Road Corridor. Staff also supports the proposed conditions, including that the sign would only be allowed to be illuminated during hours of operation, must comply with all Village building codes and other applicable ordinances, and requests that the Village Engineer evaluate the proposed signage for any potential traffic visibility or pedestrian access issues. Previous Action The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at their June 16, 2025, meeting and was directed by the Village Board to reconsider the applicant's request. Page 6 of 30 Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation (approval) to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois. Budgeted Amount Not applicable. Action Motion to Approve Findings of Fact and Recommendation (approval) to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois. Attachments 1. Planning Consultant Report (revised) 2. Sign Renderings (revised) 3. Variance Application for 5319 St. Charles Road (revised) 4. PZC Hearing Application 5. Plat of Survey 6. Village Engineer Visibility Memo 7. PZC Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois (approval) 8. PZC Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois (denial) Page 7 of 30 TO: Village of Berkeley FROM: Pete Iosue, AICP, Associate Principal Emma Swanson, Associate Planner DATE: July 1, 2025 RE: Amended request for a variation from Section 12-13-9 of the Zoning Code to replace a monument sign at 5319 St. Charles Road, zoned B-1. SUMMARY OF VARIATION Applicant: Requested Variation: Rocky’s Gyros, Inc. 1. Section 12-13-9: Monument sign regulations in the Business District allow for one, two-sided monument sign of up to 64 sq. ft Property Owner: per face. in size for properties with buildings under 10,000 sq. ft. Larry Starkman Monument sign regulations also require a 5 ft. setback for (Soon to be purchased by monument signs and that the base of the monument sign be at Oliver Vidallo) least as wide as 75% of the sign above it. Property Address: The applicant is proposing a 5 ft. x 9 ft. two-sided monument sign, 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois 60163 with a total sign area of 45 sq. ft. per face. The proposed sign will attach to an existing monument sign base on the property in front Property ID #: of the building, which is approximately 6 ft. in length. The proposed #15-08-105-052-0000 sign will be approximately 9 ft. in length, which would require a base length of 6.75 ft. Therefore, a variation of 0.75 ft. is required. Zoning: B-1 Local Business District Additionally, the existing monument base to which the proposed sign will be attached is setback approximately 5 ft. from the front Property Size: lot line. The proposed sign will extend 3 ft. beyond the base, X Acres leaving only a 2 ft. setback from the front property line. Therefore, a variation from the 5 ft. setback requirement is needed; a total variation of 3 ft. The proposed sign area meets the requirements for maximum sign area for monument signs, so a variation is not needed for sign area. Page 8 of 30 The petitioner is Rocky’s Gyros, Inc. and the subject property of the application is commonly known as 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois 60163, Property Index Number 15-08-105-052-0000. The subject property is located within the B-1 Local Business District. The Plan Commission held a public hearing on the proposed variances and recommended denial of the application. However, the applicant has since amended and revised the proposed monument sign to decrease the size and address the concerns of the Plan Commission. 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley (Source Google Streetview Jul. 2022) 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley (Source Google Streetview Jul. 2022) 2 Page 9 of 30  5319 St. Charles Road – Proposed Monument Side Specifications (Source: Applicant) 5319 St. Charles Road – Proposed Monument Side (sign facing west) (Source: Applicant) 3 Page 10 of 30 5319 St. Charles Road – Proposed Monument Side (sign facing east) (Source: Applicant) 4 Page 11 of 30 STANDARDS FOR VARIATIONS The Standards for granting a variation are established in Section 12-15-4: Standards for Variations. These standards include: A. Findings And Considerations: The corporate authorities, upon report of the Planning and Zoning Commission and without further public hearing, may grant or deny a variation of the regulations of this chapter. The corporate authorities shall not grant a variation of the regulations of this title as authorized herein unless they shall have made findings of fact based upon the evidence presented to them in each specific case that: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the district in which it is located; and/or There is no evidence that the property cannot yield a reasonable return without the requested variance. The building is currently in operation and has an existing monument sign that meets the zoning standards for the district. This existing sign is slightly smaller than the proposed sign and also meets the monument sign and setback requirements. The larger sign will increase visibility of the restaurant to traffic on St. Charles Road. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; There is no unique circumstance relating to the subject property that would necessitate the requested monument sign type. The business is located on St Charles Road, a major commercial corridor, so the business owner likely desires to increase visibility of the business. There appears to be sufficient room on the front façade to accommodate a traditional wall sign. However, the existing monument sign base is already in place and can be utilized for the proposed larger monument sign, thus necessitating the proposed variance relating to the sign base length. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and The subject property is zoned commercial (B-1) and has been used for commercial purposes for many years. There has been a similar but slightly smaller monument sign on this site since at least 2011, and likely earlier. The proposed larger sized monument sign will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. For the purpose of implementing the above rules, the corporate authorities shall also, in making its determination whether there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, take into consideration the extent to which the following facts favorable to the applicant have been established by the evidence: a. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; The position of the building and the existing sign base on the site, as well as the architectural style of the building, limits building-mounted sign options as well as potential locations of non-building mounted signs, such as the existing and proposed monument signs. 5 Page 12 of 30  b. The condition upon which the petition for a variation is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification; There is nothing specified in the application that would differentiate this request from any other commercially zoned property within the Village. However, the existing building has a limited front yard setback from St. Charles Road which limits the available area for a monument sign. c. The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property; The intent of the applicant is unknown, but the desire for a larger monument sign is likely due to a desire to increase visibility of the business from St. Charles Road and installing it on the existing monument base is likely the most efficient way to install a new sign. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property; The alleged hardship is due to the limited front yard setback available for a monument sign while still providing adequate visibility on St. Charles Road and safe pedestrian access along the sidewalk. e. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; and The applicant has adjusted the size of the proposed sign to provide additional space for pedestrian access on the sidewalk. The proposed sign and location were reviewed by the Village’s engineer who determined that site visibility and pedestrian access are acceptable and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. As previously mentioned, the requested reduced front yard setback will not reduce safety or visibility for drivers and pedestrians, block sightlines, or interfere with the public right- of-way used for sidewalks and utilities. It also allows sufficient space for on-site mobility and maintenance of the sign and property without interfering with the public right-of- way. B. Imposition Of Conditions and Restrictions: The corporate authorities may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the premises benefited by a variation as may be necessary to comply with the standards set out in this section and reduce or minimize the injurious effect of such variation upon other property in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the general intent of this title. The Plan Commission recommended denial of the proposed variances. However, the applicant has adjusted the proposed sign to decrease its size and address the concerns of the Plan Commission. If the Village Board approves the requested variation to allow for the proposed monument sign, the following conditions should be imposed: • The monument sign may only be illuminated during regular hours of operation. • The monument sign must comply with the requirements of the village's building code and other applicable ordinances. 6 Page 13 of 30 RECOMMENDATION The proposed variance to replace the existing monument sign with a larger monument sign relates to the requirement of a larger sign base than the existing base, and the sign will encroach closer to the right-of- way than typically allowed. Replacing the existing sign with a larger sign will provide increased visibility for the restaurant and it is reasonable to utilize the existing sign base as long as the sign does not interfere with vehicle sight lines or pedestrian access on the sidewalk. There is very little space in the front of the building to accommodate a monument sign. Setback requirements for monument signs are designed to allow for both auto and pedestrian visibility of the sign while protecting public safety. The proposed replacement monument sign will utilize the existing sign base and also increase visibility of the sign from St. Charles Road. The Plan Commission held a public hearing and recommended denial of the proposed variations. However, the applicant has since adjusted the proposed sign to reduce its length by a foot which will provide additional room for pedestrian access on the sidewalk, which was the primary concern of the Plan Commission. The proposed sign was also reviewed by the Village Engineer, who determined that the sign will not interfere with traffic sightlines or pedestrian access on the sidewalk. Therefore, we recommend approval of the proposed variances relating to the increased length of the sign in relation to the sign base, and the decreased setback of the sign from the front property line. 7 Page 14 of 30 Page 15 of 30 President Board of Trustees Robert E. Lee, Jr. Shen-y Graf-Stone Village Clerk Jason Mathews Belia Nowak L.W. Hammar Jerry Perez Diane Salemi Roger Thomas Request for Variance NAME OF APPLICANT($): \( 0 t K ' r/S G_ '{ ~ () $ >1 T ~ e. ADDRESS OFAPPLICANT(S) $'3\~ "Stl C\J.A.-Q.1...€..S sobt>) B~R\(EL§'i I XL. !ob l ~ 3 PROPERTY INTEREST OF APPLICANT(S)_ ....._\1_E_N--'-~-"-,1't,-..~--.- ..... \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ NAMEOFOWNER(S) Ll\'KR'( S-\-PtRKtv\l\N ~N\) \ 0 ~E Ot-\VEQ.. \j'lb~LL-0 A variation is requested in conformity with the powers vested in the Board to permit the (Insert use or construction proposed) l)()UT31.--E S\pE:b S \C..1l-J) LVMlN~ttC> bCTT\\ S,1t>E"S S3\CtSr\-,C~PP.l.J::~~ . 'S\~~ 1 I , -" N€S\ t:>6) '1o~Ft Location f;E\s'KE\..ei 1-+::b~ l/)\6:s la Size '3 \~-\ft. X ~ w ft. = 45 sq. ft. roQ..o Present Use (vacant, res1'd ence, commerc1a , n dustria ,, etc. l---=""'Ll'-''---'--v\_,_1"'--'-'~.......,,!S...;....;."-= • 11 Cr:: ... , ... , er~,-, -=- \__n,~F~~~DcuSL65too, ~=-"=~-+ s~.:..,~~ 'N +-._ _ __ ZoningCategory_.B.aa:;;...-_____,,,),c;.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• For Village Use: Actions by Applicant on Property Permit: Approved _ _ or Denied_ _ An Appeal was _ _ I was not_ _ made with respect to these premises. Appeal Approved _ _ _ or Denied_ __ Revised 05/25 Village of Berkeley 5819 Electric Avenue• Berkeley, Illinois• 60163 Website: YITfW.berkele .il.u§ • Phone: 708-449-8840 • Fax: 708-449-6189 Page 16 of 30 Page 17 of 30 Page 18 of 30 Page 19 of 30 Page 20 of 30 Page 21 of 30 MEMO Date: July 2, 2025 To: Chris Baker, P.E. From: Jim Goumas, JGG Consulting, LLC Re: Rocky’s Restaurant, 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley New Sign Sight Line Analysis I have reviewed the Memorandum and pertinent information provided by Teska & Associates related to the variation request for the installation of a new sign at 5319 St. Charles Road. I performed a sight distance analysis at the intersection of Lee Boulevard and St. Charles Road to determine if the proposed sign would have a negative impact on sightlines for traffic. Based upon the speed limit of St. Charles Road, the required sight distance for a vehicle making a left turn from northbound Lee Boulevard to westbound St. Charles Road is 330’. The current sightline available is 340’. A review of the sightline with the new sign does not change the sightline available as the limiting factor in the sightline is existence of the on street parking on St. Charles Road. I also reviewed any impact the new sign would have on pedestrian safety and sidewalk maintenance. The location of the sign will provide a distance of 35’ between the sign and the crosswalk of Lee Boulevard, which is sufficient to allow drivers to see pedestrians as they enter the crosswalk. Additionally, there are other locations along St. Charles Road where planters and retaining walls are located at the back of walk and they do not appear to create a maintenance issue. Page 22 of 30  VILLAGE OF BERKELEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIATION AT 5319 ST. CHARLES ROAD, BERKELEY, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Larry Starkman is the owner (“Owner”) of 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois, Cook County property index number 15-08-105-052-0000 (“Property”), and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, petitioner Rocky’s Gyros, Inc (“Petitioner”), with the consent of the Owner, submitted an application to install a 5 ft. x 9 ft. two-sided monument sign with a total sign area of 45 square feet per face on the Property (“Proposed Sign”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12-13-9 of the “Berkeley Zoning Code,” as amended (“Zoning Code”), in the B-1 District, monument signs require a 5-foot setback, and that the base of the monument sign be at least as 75% as wide as the sign above it; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Sign has a length of approximately 9 feet, which would require a base length of 6.75 feet pursuant to Section 12-13-9 of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Sign will attach to an existing monument sign base on the Property (“Existing Sign Base”), which Existing Sign Base is approximately six feet in length; and WHEREAS, the Existing Sign Base to which the Proposed Sign will attach is setback approximately five feet from the front lot line; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Sign will extend three feet beyond the Existing Sign Base; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner’s application includes the consideration of, and a public hearing on, variations from Section 12-13-9 of the Zoning Code, to (i) permit the Proposed Sign to be installed with a length of nine feet above a base of six feet in length, requiring a 0.75 foot variation; and (ii) a variation of three feet to allow a two foot setback, as the Proposed Sign will extend three feet beyond the Existing Sign Base (collectively, the “Variations”); and WHEREAS, the Property is located in the B-1 Local Business Zoning District of the Village; and WHEREAS, the Village’s Planning and Zoning Commission (“PZC”) held a public hearing on the question of whether the Variations should be granted on July 9, 2025, as required by Section 12-15-3 of the Zoning Code, at which time all persons present and wishing to speak were given an opportunity to be heard and all evidence that was tendered was received and considered by the PZC; and 1 4914-8591-7522, v. 1 Page 23 of 30  WHEREAS, public notice in the form required by the Zoning Code was given of the public hearing by publication not more than 30 days nor less than 15 days prior to the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the Village, and by mailing notice to property owners within 250’ of the Property, excluding distances of public roads, streets, alleys and other public ways within that radius; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, Petitioner presented its request for the Variations; and WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing, the PZC discussed and deliberated on the Variations and determined that it would best serve the Village if the Variations were denied and the Proposed Sign was not installed; NOW, THEREFORE, the PZC makes the following findings of fact and recommendation pursuant to Chapter 12-15 of the Zoning Code: FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings of Fact. The PZC incorporates the recitals set forth above herein and makes the following findings of fact for the variation standards in Section 12-15-4.A. of the Zoning Code: A. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the district in which it is located. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because although the Property has previously operated with smaller signs, the Proposed Sign is reasonable in size and type to attract patrons to the Property. B. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because the business is located on St. Charles Road, a major commercial corridor, and the Petitioner desires to increase visibility of the business. C. The Variations, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because the Property is zoned B-1 and has been used for commercial purposes for many years. There has been a monument sign on the Property since at least 2011, and likely earlier. The Proposed Sign will not alter the character of the neighborhood. D. For the purpose of implementing the above rules, the corporate authorities 2 4914-8591-7522, v. 1 Page 24 of 30  shall also, in making its determination whether there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, take into consideration the extent to which the following facts favorable to the applicant have been established by the evidence: 1. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because, the position of the building on the Property and the architectural style of the building limits building-mounted sign options as well as potential locations of non-building mounted signs, such as the existing and Proposed Sign. 2. The condition upon which the petition for Variations is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because Variations for the Proposed Sign is the most efficient way to install a new sign at the Property. 3. The purpose of the Variations is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met the motivation for the Variations is due to a desire to increase visibility of the Property from traffic on St. Charles Road, and the Variations are likely the most efficient way to install a new sign. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because the business is in a commercial corridor that has largely been stagnant and the Petitioner desires to attract patrons to the Property by use of the Proposed Sign. 5. The granting of the Variations will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because the location of the Proposed Sign will provide a distance of 35 feet between the Proposed Sign and the crosswalk of Lee Boulevard, which is a sufficient distance to allow drivers to see pedestrians as they enter the crosswalk. 3 4914-8591-7522, v. 1 Page 25 of 30  6. The proposed Variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because the Proposed Sign does not impact sightlines for drivers. Based upon the speed limit of St. Charles Road, the required sight distance for a vehicle making a left turn from northbound Lee Boulevard to westbound St. Charles Road is 330 feet. The sightline for the Proposed Sign is 340 feet, allowing ample sightline distance. 2. Recommendation. By a vote of ___ to ___, the PZC recommends that the Village President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Berkeley APPROVE the Variation subject to the following conditions: A. The Proposed Sign may only be illuminated during the hours of operation for the business located at the Property. B. The Proposed Sign must comply with the requirements of the Village’s building code and other applicable ordinances. _______________________________ Paul Bullard Chairperson _______________, 2025 _________ Date 4 4914-8591-7522, v. 1 Page 26 of 30  VILLAGE OF BERKELEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIATION AT 5319 ST. CHARLES ROAD, BERKELEY, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Larry Starkman is the owner (“Owner”) of 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois, Cook County property index number 15-08-105-052-0000 (“Property”), and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2025, petitioner Rocky’s Gyros, Inc (“Petitioner”), with the consent of the Owner, submitted an application to install a 5 ft. x 9 ft. two-sided monument sign with a total sign area of 45 square feet per face on the Property (“Proposed Sign”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12-13-9 of the “Berkeley Zoning Code,” as amended (“Zoning Code”), in the B-1 District, monument signs require a 5-foot setback, and that the base of the monument sign be at least as 75% as wide as the sign above it; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Sign has a length of approximately 9 feet, which would require a base length of 6.75 feet pursuant to Section 12-13-9 of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Sign will attach to an existing monument sign base on the Property (“Existing Sign Base”), which Existing Sign Base is approximately six feet in length; and WHEREAS, the Existing Sign Base to which the Proposed Sign will attach is setback approximately five feet from the front lot line; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Sign will extend three feet beyond the Existing Sign Base; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner’s application includes the consideration of, and a public hearing on, variations from Section 12-13-9 of the Zoning Code, to (i) permit the Proposed Sign to be installed with a length of nine feet above a base of six feet in length, requiring a 0.75 foot variation; and (ii) a variation of three feet to allow a two foot setback, as the Proposed Sign will extend three feet beyond the Existing Sign Base (collectively, the “Variations”); and WHEREAS, the Property is located in the B-1 Local Business Zoning District of the Village; and WHEREAS, the Village’s Planning and Zoning Commission (“PZC”) held a public hearing on the question of whether the Variations should be granted on July 9, 2025, as required by Section 12-15-3 of the Zoning Code, at which time all persons present and wishing to speak were given an opportunity to be heard and all evidence that was tendered was received and considered by the PZC; and 1 4907-1311-7010, v. 1 Page 27 of 30  WHEREAS, public notice in the form required by the Zoning Code was given of the public hearing by publication not more than 30 days nor less than 15 days prior to the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the Village, and by mailing notice to property owners within 250’ of the Property, excluding distances of public roads, streets, alleys and other public ways within that radius; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, Petitioner presented its request for the Variations; and WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing, the PZC discussed and deliberated on the Variations and determined that it would best serve the Village if the Variations were denied and the Proposed Sign was not installed; NOW, THEREFORE, the PZC makes the following findings of fact and recommendation pursuant to Chapter 12-15 of the Zoning Code: FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Findings of Fact. The PZC incorporates the recitals set forth above herein and makes the following findings of fact for the variation standards in Section 12-15-4.A. of the Zoning Code: A. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations in the district in which it is located. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because there is no evidence that the business cannot yield a reasonable return without the Proposed Sign, and there is an already existing monument sign that meets the zoning standards for the district. B. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because there are no unique circumstances related to the Property that would necessitate the Proposed Sign. Furthermore, there is sufficient room on the front façade of the business to accommodate a traditional wall sign, such that the Proposed Sign is unnecessary. C. The Variations, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because there has been an existing monument sign on the Property since at least 2011, and 2 4907-1311-7010, v. 1 Page 28 of 30  allowing the Proposed Sign would increase the size of monument signs which is inconsistent with the other monument signs in the neighborhood. D. For the purpose of implementing the above rules, the corporate authorities shall also, in making its determination whether there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, take into consideration the extent to which the following facts favorable to the applicant have been established by the evidence: 1. The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because there are no physical conditions specific to the Property that would necessitate the Proposed Sign. The position of the building on the Property and the architectural style of the building limits building-mounted sign options as well as potential locations of non-building mounted signs, such as the Proposed Sign. 2. The condition upon which the petition for Variations is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because the specifics of these Variations are not unique or different from any other commercially zoned property in the Village. 3. The purpose of the Variations is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because the motivation for the Variations is due to a desire to increase visibility of the Property from traffic on St. Charles Road, and therefore a desire to increase business. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because there is no obvious hardship relating to the Property. 5. The granting of the Variations will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. 3 4907-1311-7010, v. 1 Page 29 of 30  Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because if the Variation from the required 5 ft. setback is granted, the Proposed Sign could potentially create potential conflicts for sidewalk users and public right-of-way maintenance. 6. The proposed Variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has not been met because if the Variation from the required 5 ft. setback is granted, the Proposed Sign could negatively interfere with safety and visibility for pedestrians on the sidewalk. 2. Recommendation. By a vote of ___ to ___, the PZC recommends that the Village President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Berkeley DENY the Variations. _______________________________ Paul Bullard Chairperson _______________, 2025 _________ Date 4 4907-1311-7010, v. 1 Page 30 of 30