Special Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting

VILLAGE OF BERKELEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, June 16, 2025 6:30 PM 5819 Electric Avenue Berkeley Illinois 1. Call to Order 3 Special Meeting Notice: BK PZC special meeting notice 6-10-25.pdf 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Motion to Approve the Planning and Zoning Minutes from April 22, 4-7 2025 Planning _ Zoning Commission - Apr 22 2025 - Minutes.pdf 5. Public hearing regarding an application for sign variation at 5345 St. 8 - 23 Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois PZC Memo 5345 St Charles Road Sign Variance.pdf 5345 St Charles Rd Variance Teska Report.pdf Sign Exhibit.pdf PZC Hearing Application.pdf Variance Request Form.pdf 6. Motion to approve findings of fact and recommendation to the Village 24 - 27 Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5345 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois BK FOF 5345 St. Charles Road Sign Variation.pdf Page 1 of 70 7. Public hearing regarding an application for sign variation at 5319 St. 28 - 45 Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois PZC Memo 5319 St Charles Road Sign Variance.pdf 5319 St Charles Rd Variance Teska Report.pdf 5319 St Charles Sign Renderings-Reduced.pdf 5319 PZC Hearing Application.pdf 5319 St Charles Road Variance Request Form.pdf 8. Motion to approve findings of fact and recommendation to the Village 46 - 49 Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois BK FOF 5319 St. Charles Road Sign Variation.pdf 9. Public hearing regarding an application for sign variation at 5245 St. 50 - 66 Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois PZC Memo 5245 St Charles Road Sign Variance.pdf 5245 St Charles Rd Sign Variance Teska Report.pdf 5245 St Charles Road Sign Rendering-Reduced.pdf 5245 St Charles Road Speical Use Application.pdf 5245 St Chalres Variance Request Form.pdf 10. Motion to approve findings of fact and recommendation to the Village 67 - 70 Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5245 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois BK FOF 5245 St. Charles Road Sign Variation.pdf 11. Chairman's Report 12. Next Meeting 13. 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 70  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 Tuesday, June 10, 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 70  VILLAGE OF BERKELEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Minutes Tuesday, April 22, 2025 6:30 PM 5819 Electric Avenue Berkeley Illinois 1. Commissioner Chairman Paul Bullard calls meeting to order at 6:30pm Present at Roll Call: Commissioners Rhonda Laye, Bruce Routen, Pat Hurley, Jackie Jones, Gail Winfield, Chairman Bullard Also present: Assistant Village Administrator Miller, Village Attorney Courtney Willits, Public Safety Director Larem, Planning Consultant Carol Brobeck 2. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Motion to Approve the Planning and Zoning Minutes from October 22, 2024 October 22 2024 PZC Minutes.pdf Commissioner Motion Second Ayes Nays Absent Abstain Patrick Hurley X Bruce Routen X Paul Bullard X Jackie Jones X X Gail Winfield X X Rhonda Laye X VOICE VOTE-MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bullard swears the audience in for any comments brought forward to today’s meeting. Page 4 of 70 5. Public hearing regarding proposed Text Amendments to Regulate the Height of Lawn Decorations PZC memo - Lawn Decorations.pdf Resolutions No. 25-06.pdf Assistant Administrator Miller provides background on the issue of the height of Lawn decorations. Assistant Administrator Miller gave the floor to Public Safety Director Larem. He provided additional information on the trends of lawn decorations and complaints brought forward to code enforcement. Chairman Bullard opened the floor for public comments. Resident Valerie Dodgson would like to see a timeline for decorations to be removed in a reasonable amount of time. Resident Heather Brandnur comments that she has a large skeleton in her front yard that she does not consider unsightly, and thinks 3 feet is not a large enough size. Resident Larry Hammar comments that any decorations could be kept in the backyard. Resident Teresa McKelvy comments on wanting a limited timeline for decorations. Resident Mark Dodgson agrees with having a timeline for removal. Commissioners and residents provide input and additional comments regarding lawn decorations. 6. Motion to approve findings of fact and recommendation to the Village Board regarding proposed Text Amendments to Regulate the Height of Lawn Decorations BK - FOF Text Amendments Lawn Decorations.pdf Commissioner Motion Second Ayes Nays Absent Abstain Patrick Hurley X X Bruce Routen X Paul Bullard X Jackie Jones X X Gail Winfield X Rhonda Laye X MOTION CARRIED 7. Public hearing regarding proposed Text Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments PZC memo - PUD B-4 Zoning District Language Cleanup.pdf Assistant Administrator Miller provides background and states that this proposed change is to ensure there is not a conflict in the current code. Planning Consultant Brobeck clarifies proposal. Village Attorney Courtney Willits explains current code. Page 5 of 70 8. Motion to approve findings of fact and recommendation to the Village Board regarding proposed Text Amendments Related to Planned Unit Developments BK PZC FOF Text Amendment Planned Unit Developments B-4.pdf Commissioner Motion Second Ayes Nays Absent Abstain Patrick Hurley X Bruce Routen X X Paul Bullard X Jackie Jones X X Gail Winfield X Rhonda Laye X MOTION CARRIED 9. Public hearing regarding an application for a Special Use Permit at 5241 – 5245 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois PZC Staff memo - 5245 St Charles Accessory SUP.pdf Teska Report - Special Use - Banquet Hall - 5245 Saint Charles Rd.pdf Special Use Application.pdf Parking Outlook for Approval.pdf First and Second Floor Layout.pdf Assistant Administrator Miller provided background of the sale of the formerly known as Dream, located at 5245 St Charles Rd. The new owner, Mr. Perry Orr, and his wife address the commission. Chairman Bullard raises concerns, along with other commissioners, regarding noise, accessibility, and parking. Assistant Administrator communicates that these issues can be added as conditions of the special use. Public Safety Director Larem addresses safety concerns. Attorney Courtney Willits addresses concerns. Resident Larry Hammer welcomes the proposed development and states that, as long as a nightclub is not involved, parking should not be an issue. 10. Motion to approve findings of fact and recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a Special Use Permit at 5241 – 5245 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois BK - FOF PZC Special Use Permit for Banquet Hall at 5245 St. Charles Road.pdf Commissioner Motion Second Ayes Nays Absent Abstain Patrick Hurley X Bruce Routen X X Paul Bullard X Jackie Jones X Gail Winfield X Page 6 of 70  Rhonda Laye X X MOTION CARRIED 11. Chairman's Report Chairman Bullard wants to thank Gustavo Villafana for his service, and also welcomes Commissioners Rhonda Laye and Patrick Hurley. Assistant Administrator Miller informs all JK’s recently sold and that the PZC may consider future items for this property. 12. Next Meeting- TBD 13. Meeting Adjourned at 8:11pm Commissioner Motion Second Ayes Nays Absent Abstain Patrick Hurley X X Bruce Routen X Paul Bullard X Jackie Jones x X Gail Winfield X Rhonda Laye X VOICE VOTE-MOTION CARRIED ________________________ Chairman Paul Bullard Page 7 of 70  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: June 13, 2025 RE: 5345 St. Charles Road-Sign Variation Request Background The Village received an application for a sign variation from the new owner of the old JK’s restaurant property located at 5345 St. Charles Road. The new restaurant will be called Very Berry Pancake House. The property owner is proposing the installation of two signs; the front façade (north side) sign does not require a variance as it would meet current Village requirements. The sign proposed for the side façade (west side) would require a variance. The applicant is requesting an approximate 40-square-foot variation for the installation of a wall sign on the west side of their building (the total size of the proposed sign is 60 square feet). Currently, under the Village Code, the property is allowed a 20-square-foot sign on the side façade (west side). A picture of what the proposed north and west sides of the building currently look like is below: A picture of the proposed sign on the north side of the building is below: Page 8 of 70 A picture of the proposed sign on the west side of the building is below: Page 9 of 70 The proposed variance allows the property owner to install a larger side façade sign at the location. Allowing a larger side façade sign does not significantly alter the character of the corridor, as other businesses in the vicinity have similar signage, comparable to what is being proposed. Staff recommends approval of the sign variance as it will allow the property owner to 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. Previous Action None. Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5345 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois. Budgeted Amount N/A Action Motion to Approve Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5345 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois. Attachments 1. Planning Consultant Report 2. Sign Renderings 3. Variance Application for 5345 St. Charles Road 4. PZC Hearing Application 5. PZC Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5345 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois Page 10 of 70 TO: Village of Berkeley FROM: Pete Iosue, AICP, Associate Principal Emma Swanson, Associate Planner DATE: June 10, 2025 RE: Request for variation from Section 12-13-9 of the Zoning Code for increase in wall sign area for a secondary wall sign for property located at 5345 St. Charles Road SUMMARY OF VARIATION Applicant: Property Address: Requested Variation: Very Berry Pancake 5345 St. Charles Road, House Berkeley, Illinois 60163 Section 12-13-9.B.7: Wall sign regulations in the Business District allow for two wall signs per Property Owner: Property ID #: business, however the sign area for the second Jorge Sandoval #15-08-104-039-0000 wall sign is limited to 50% of the maximum sign area permitted for the first wall sign. Based on this Additional PINs: provision, a secondary wall sign could not exceed #15-08-104-005-0000 20 sq. ft. in size. #15-08-104-011-0000 The applicant is proposing a second wall sign on Zoning: the side façade of the building, which will be 36 ft B-4 Regional Community x 2 ft., for a total sign area of 60 sq. ft. This sign Business District necessitates a variation of approximately 40 sq. ft. Property Size: 7,437 sq. ft. The petitioner, Jorge Sandoval of Very Berry Pancake House, the property and business owner of 5345 St. Charles Road (PIN #15-08-104-039-0000), has requested to install two new wall signs on the subject property, both of which require a variation from Section 12-13-9 of the Village’s Zoning Code. The subject property is currently zoned B-4 Regional Community Business District. Page 11 of 70  5345 St. Charles Rd.: front (N.) and side (W.) facades (Source Google Streetview Nov. 2021) Wall sign regulations in the Business District (Section 12-13-9.B.1) limit wall sign area to 1 sq. ft. per 1 ft. of building frontage for buildings setback between 1-100 ft from the front property line. The subject property’s principal building is setback 20 ft. from the front property line and has a frontage of 40 ft, which would limit wall sign area to a total of 40 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing a sign that is 12 ft. by 1.25 ft., for a total sign area of 15 sq. ft. This sign does not require a variation. However, the secondary sign on the side façade requires a variation. Wall sign regulations in the Business District (Section 12-13-9.B.7) allow for two wall signs per business for corner lots facing two rights-of-way. However, the sign area for the second wall sign is limited to 50% of the maximum sign area permitted for the first wall sign, which in this case is 40 sq. ft.. Based on this provision, a secondary wall sign could not exceed 20 sq. ft. in size. The applicant is proposing a second wall sign on the side façade of the building, which will be 36 ft x 2 ft., for a total sign area of 60 sq. ft. This secondary sign necessitates a variation for increased sign area of approximately 40 sq. ft. 2 Page 12 of 70 Proposed primary sign on the front (N.) facade (Source: Applicant) Proposed secondary sign on the side (W.) facade (Source: Applicant) 3 Page 13 of 70 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 property previously operated with smaller signs, however the secondary sign on the side façade was previously larger than that of front façade as is currently proposed. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; There is no obvious unique circumstance relating to the subject property that would necessitate the requested increase in sign area. However, the business is located at the intersection of St Charles Road and Wolf Road, two major commercial corridors, so the business owner likely desires to increase visibility of the business. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and The subject property is zoned commercial (B-4) and has been used for commercial purposes for many years. While the previous signs on the building were much smaller, the secondary sign facing Wolf Road was larger than the sign on the front façade, similar to the proposed sign configuration. Additionally, there are other businesses nearby, such as the bank across the street, that have larger signs similar to the ones being proposed. Therefore, the proposed new sign will not alter the 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; There is no obvious issue specific to the physical conditions of the subject property that would require the requested increase in permitted sign area. 4 Page 14 of 70  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. 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 sign is likely due to a desire to increase visibility of the business from St. Charles Road and Wolf Road given the location of the business at this prominent major intersection in the Village. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property; There is no evidence of a hardship affecting the subject property relating to signage. 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 proposed increased sign area will not have any detrimental impact on adjacent commercial properties to the north, east and west. Residential properties to the south will not be impacted, given that there will be no sign facing to the south. 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. The proposed increase in sign area will not impair light and air to adjacent properties, or increase congestion, or pose a danger to the public health and safety within the Village. 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. If the Village approves the requested variation in sign area, no additional conditions or restrictions should be required. 5 Page 15 of 70 RECOMMENDATION The proposed variance to increase the maximum allowable wall sign area for the secondary sign on the side façade is reasonable in order to provide visibility to both adjacent rights-of-way, and will not negatively impact the neighborhood or the Village of Berkeley in general. We therefore recommend approval of the proposed variation to increase the allowable wall sign area for the secondary sign on the side façade from 20 sq. ft. to 60 sq. ft. However, the applicant has not provided strong evidence of an actual “hardship” as is technically required for the granting of a variance. A hardship is typically a physical aspect or condition of the property that specifically prevents the owner from complying with the code. In the case of a sign variance, a typical hardship might relate to a lack of visibility resulting from a building being set back from, or oriented away from the road frontage, etc. The petitioner should provide evidence relating to any potential hardship necessitating the proposed variance. If the Village wishes to allow for larger wall signs, a more appropriate course of action may be to amend the code to permit larger wall signs for buildings of this size in the B-4 district or amend the limitations on secondary wall signs for corner lots. If the Plan Commission agrees with the findings and recommendations of this report, then we recommend that the Plan Commission adopt this report as its preliminary Findings of Fact. 6 Page 16 of 70 PROJECT Internal illuminated front and backlite channel letters fe:.''.; lll'tJt^- ST CH - RLES RD 5345 ST CHARLES RD BERKELEY IL60163 Page 17 of 70 PROJECT Internal illuminated front and backlite channel letters 30 QimiIB^i 24 ^ . OLF RD 5345 ST CHARLES RD BERKELEY IL60163 Page 18 of 70 Page 19 of 70 Page 20 of 70 Page 21 of 70 Page 22 of 70 Page 23 of 70  VILLAGE OF BERKELEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIATION AT 5345 ST. CHARLES ROAD, BERKELEY, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Jorge Sandoval is the owner (“Owner”) of 5345 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois, Cook County property index number 15-08-104-039-0000 (“Property”), and WHEREAS, the Property contains a building which operates as a restaurant (“Building”); and WHEREAS, the Building currently has a wall sign measuring 40 square feet; and WHEREAS, on _______, 2025, petitioner Very Berry Pancake House, LLC (“Petitioner”), with the consent of the Owner, submitted an application for consideration of, and a public hearing on, a variation from Section 12-13-9 of the Village of Berkeley Zoning Code (“Zoning Code”) to permit the installation of a secondary wall sign on the Building that measures 60 square feet (“Proposed Sign”), where a secondary wall sign, is limited to 50% of the maximum sign area permitted for the first wall sign, requiring a 40 square feet variation to increase the sign area authorized for the secondary Proposed Sign (“Variation”); and WHEREAS, the Property is located in the B-4 Regional Community 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 Variation should be granted on June 16, 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 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 Variation; and WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing, the PZC discussed and deliberated on the Variation and determined that it would best serve the Village if the Variation was granted and the proposed wall sign was installed; NOW, THEREFORE, the PZC makes the following findings of fact and recommendation pursuant to Chapter 12-15 of the Zoning Code: 1 4926-1751-5341, v. 3 Page 24 of 70  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 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 Property is located at the intersection of St. Charles Road and Wolf Road, two major commercial corridors, and the Petitioner desires to increase visibility of the business. C. The Variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds this standard has been met because the Property is zoned commercial (B-4) and has been used for commercial purposes for many years. While the previous signs on the building were much smaller, the secondary sign facing Wolf Road was larger than the sign on the front façade, similar to the Proposed Sign. Additionally, there are other businesses nearby that have larger signs similar to the ones being proposed. Therefore, the Proposed Sign will not alter the character of 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 been met because the Property is located at a busy intersection of the commercial corridor in the Village, and the existing signs on the Property are not clearly visible from the roadway. 2 4926-1751-5341, v. 3 Page 25 of 70  2. The condition upon which the petition for Variation 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 due to the location of the Property. 3. The purpose of the Variation 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 because the motivation for this Variation is primarily due to the desire of the Petitioner to increase visibility of the business from St. Charles Road and Wolf Road given the location of the business at this prominent major intersection in the Village. 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 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. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because the Proposed Sign area will not have any detrimental impact on adjacent commercial properties to the north, east and west. Residential properties to the south will not be impacted because there will be no sign facing to the south. 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 area will not impair light and air to adjacent properties, increase congestion, or pose a danger to the public health and safety within the Village. 3 4926-1751-5341, v. 3 Page 26 of 70  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. _______________________________ Paul Bullard Chairperson _______________, 2025 _________ Date 4 4926-1751-5341, v. 3 Page 27 of 70  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: June 13, 2025 RE: 5319 St. Charles Road-Sign Variation Request Background The Village received an application for a sign variation from the new owner of Rocky’s Restaurant located at 5319 St. Charles Road. The restaurant will be relatively the same, but the menu will be revamped. The property owner is proposing the replacement and installation of a larger monument sign. This sign would be similar to the one currently located on the front façade (north side) of the building, but would be larger. Similar to the proposed sign for the Gallery, the applicant proposes the installation of a 5-foot sign. X 10-foot, two-sided monument sign, for a total sign area of 100 square feet (counting both sides). The applicant proposes reusing the current sign base, although it will need to be slightly enlarged to accommodate the proposed sign. A picture of the current monument sign located on the front façade (north side) is below: A picture of the proposed sign is located below: Page 28 of 70 A picture of what the proposed monument sign will look like on the front façade (north side) of the building is below: Page 29 of 70 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. 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 sign variance, 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 request the Village Engineer to evaluate the proposed signage for any potential traffic visibility or pedestrian access issues. Previous Action None. Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois. Budgeted Amount N/A Action Motion to Approve Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois. Attachments 1. Planning Consultant Report 2. Sign Renderings 3. Variance Application for 5319 St. Charles Road 4. PZC Hearing Application 5. PZC Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois Page 30 of 70 TO: Village of Berkeley FROM: Pete Iosue, AICP, Associate Principal Emma Swanson, Associate Planner DATE: June 10, 2025 RE: 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 10 ft. two-sided monument sign, 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois 60163 with a total sign area of 50 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 10 ft. in length, which would require a base length of 7.5 ft. Therefore, a variation of 1.5 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 4 ft. beyond the base, X Acres leaving only a 1 ft. setback from the front property line. Therefore, a variation from the 5 ft. setback requirement is needed; a total variation of 4 ft. The proposed sign area meets the requirements for maximum sign area for monument signs, so a variation is not needed for sign area. 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. Page 31 of 70 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley (Source Google Streetview Jul. 2022) 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley (Source Google Streetview Jul. 2022) 2 Page 32 of 70  5319 St. Charles Road – Proposed Monument Side Specifications (Source: Applicant) 5319 St. Charles Road – Proposed Monument Side (sign facing west) (Source: Applicant) 3 Page 33 of 70 5319 St. Charles Road – Proposed Monument Side (sign facing east) (Source: Applicant) 4 Page 34 of 70 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 setback requirements. 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. The existing monument sign base is in place and can be utilized for the proposed larger monument sign. 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 monument sign on this site since at least 2011, and likely earlier. The proposed larger sized monument sign will not alter the 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; There is no condition specific to the physical conditions of the subject property that would require the requested increase in permitted sign area. Rather, the position of the building on the site 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 monument signs. 5 Page 35 of 70  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. 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; There is no obvious hardship relating to the subject property. 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 Without the required 5 ft. setback of the proposed monument sign, the sign could potentially interfere with sightlines for drivers, specifically those turning off the side street onto St Charles Road and create potential conflicts for sidewalk users and public right-of-way maintenance (i.e. snow removal). 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 5 ft. setback standard for monument signs is required to maintain safety and visibility for drivers and pedestrians, prevent blockage of sightlines, and keep signs out of the public right-of-way used for sidewalks and utilities. It also allows 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. If the Village approves the requested variation to allow for the proposed monument sign, the following conditions should be imposed: • The projecting signs may only be illuminated during hours of operation. • The monument sign must comply with the requirements of the village's building code and other applicable ordinances. • Determination by the Village Engineer that the proposed sign does not conflict with traffic visibility or pedestrian access. 6 Page 36 of 70 RECOMMENDATION The proposed variance to replace the existing monument sign with a larger monument sign will require a larger sign base than the existing base, and will encroach closer to the right-of-way. Replacing the existing sign with a larger sign will provide increased visibility, and is reasonable to utilize the existing base as long as it can be determined that it does not interfere with traffic/pedestrian visibility and sidewalk access. The applicant has not provided strong evidence of an actual “hardship” as is technically required for the granting of a variance. A hardship is typically a physical aspect or condition of the property that specifically prevents the owner from complying with the code. In the case of a sign variance, a typical hardship might relate to a lack of visibility resulting from a building being set back from, or oriented away from the road frontage, etc. 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 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. We recommend approval of the proposed variance, subject to determination by the Village Engineer that the proposed larger monument sign does not impede traffic sightlines or pedestrian access. If the Plan Commission agrees with the findings and recommendations of this report, then we recommend that the Plan Commission adopt this report as its preliminary Findings of Fact. 7 Page 37 of 70 Page 38 of 70 Page 39 of 70 Page 40 of 70 Page 41 of 70 Page 42 of 70 Page 43 of 70 Page 44 of 70  Board of Trustees President Robert E. Lee, Jr. SherryGraf-Stone -^ -Y- . .j Jason Mathews VUlage Clerk L. W. Hammar Belia Nowak J Li.U. Jerry Perez Diane Salemi RogerThomas Re uest for Variance NAMEOFAPPLICANT(S): ^\OC^. S ^ ROS .±(^C- ADDRESSOFAPPLICANT(S)5"^' C ^^S 0 TO^t- -l-L. (p^l PROPERTY INTERESTOFAPPLICANT(S) ^ ^ »^A NAMEOFOWNER(S) L^^^- SY^^^M^^ (^^^TG> Ol~\^e^\? l^^^O A variation isrequested in conformity with the powers vested inthe Board to permit the (insert useor construction proposed) C^ . E ^ :^ 5 IC^ L-OMl^AcTCC? B<^-^ S^t^ ^^nnVf^^^ft^W^ LotSize ft.X ft.=-sq. ft. PresentUse(vacant,residence,commercial,industrial,etc. ) ^_ ^A^A . C- . ZoningCategory For Village Use: Actions by Applicant on Property Permit: Approved_ or Denied. An Appeal was_/was not_ made with respect to these premises. AppealApproved or Denied. Revised 05/25 Village of Berkeley 5819 Electoric Avenue . Berkeley, Illinois . 60163 Website:www.berkele .il.us . Phone:708-449-8840 .Fax:708-449-6189 Page 45 of 70  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 ______, 2025, petitioner Rocky’s Gyros, Inc (“Petitioner”), with the consent of the Owner, submitted an application to install a two-sided monument sign with a total sign area of 50 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 10 feet, which would require a base length of seven and a half feet pursuant to Section 12-13-9 of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Sign will attach to an existing monument sign on the Property (“Existing Sign”), which Existing Sign 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 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 base length of 10 feet above a base of six feet in length, requiring a 1.5-foot variation; and (ii) a variation of four feet to allow a one foot setback, as the Proposed Sign will extend four feet beyond the 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 June 16, 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 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 1 4928-0029-4989, v. 3 Page 46 of 70 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 granted and the Proposed Sign was 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 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 Variation, 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 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: 2 4928-0029-4989, v. 3 Page 47 of 70  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 Variation 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 Variation for the Proposed Sign is the most efficient way to install a new sign at the Property. 3. The purpose of the Variation 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 Variation is due to a desire to increase visibility of the Property from traffic on St. Charles Road, and the Variation is 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 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. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because __________________________________________________. 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. 3 4928-0029-4989, v. 3 Page 48 of 70  Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because __________________________________________________. 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. C. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Proposed Sign, the Applicant must obtain a statement from the Village Engineer that the Proposed Sign does not conflict with traffic visibility or pedestrian access. _______________________________ Paul Bullard Chairperson _______________, 2025 _________ Date 4 4928-0029-4989, v. 3 Page 49 of 70  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 Bullard Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Justyn Miller, Assistant Village Administrator DATE: June 13, 2025 RE: 5245 St. Charles Road-Sign Variation Request Background Mr. Perry Orr, representing 5245 LLC, is seeking to install a building-mounted projecting sign at the Gallery Restaurant, located at 5245 St. Charles Road. The proposed sign would be double- faced and illuminated during operating hours. Each side of the sign would have an area of 50 square feet, resulting in a total sign area of 100 square feet. Please review the concepts outlined in the agenda packet regarding the sign. Section 12-13-7 prohibits building-mounted projecting signs. Mr. Orr is requesting a sign variance that would allow this type of sign to be put at the upper level of the business, displaying the business information and daily/weekly specials. This building has been vacant for many years. It has been many different restaurants over the past decades, but it has been vacant for over ten years. The Village permitted an event space and banquet facility to open on the property, but that use proved to be a challenge for the Village. It was strongly agreed that a restaurant use would be the ideal use for the property, but it was always challenging to find a purveyor for a restaurant. Village staff supports the sign variation for the Gallery Restaurant at 5245 St. Charles Road. 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. Previous Action On April 22, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the approval of a Special Use Permit for an event space at the Gallery Restaurant. The Village Board concurred with the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation and approved the Special Use Permit on May 20, 2025. Page 50 of 70 Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5245 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois. Budgeted Amount N/A Action Motion to Approve Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5245 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois. Attachments 1. Planning Consultant Report 2. Sign Renderings 3. Variance Application for 5319 St. Charles Road 4. PZC Hearing Application 5. PZC Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the Village Board regarding an application for a sign variation at 5319 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois Page 51 of 70 TO: Village of Berkeley FROM: Pete Iosue, AICP, Associate Principal Emma Swanson, Associate Planner DATE: June 10, 2025 RE: Request for a variation from Section 12-13-7 to allow for an illuminated, double-faced projecting sign for the property located at 5245 St. Charles Road, zoned B-1. SUMMARY OF VARIATION Applicant: Requested Variation: Perry Orr of 5245LLC 1. Section 12-13-7: The Sign Regulations chapter of the Zoning Code prohibits ‘building mounted projecting signs’. Property Owner: The applicant is proposing a double-faced, illuminated projecting signs on the front façade of the building. Property Address: • Each sign face would have an area of 50 square feet; for a total sign 5245 St. Charles Road, area of 100 sq. ft. Berkeley, • The illuminated projecting sign will exhibit the business logo and will Illinois 60163 remain a fixed image, and incorporate a changeable-copy area Property ID #: allowing the business to display daily or weekly food specials. # 15-08-106-046-0000 • The sign will be installed on the upper level of the building that is set back approximately 10 ft. from the first floor facade. The overall Zoning: height of the sign above grade will be 15 ft. B-1 Local Business • The proposed sign will project 14 ft. from the front façade of the District building. • The proposed sign will be internally illuminated. Property Size: 7,218 sq. ft. The petitioner, Perry Orr of 5245 LLC, business owner and prospective property owner of 5245 St. Charles Road (PIN #15-08-106-046-0000), has requested to install a new building-mounted projecting sign on the subject property, which require a variation from Section 12-13-7 of the Village’s Zoning Code. The subject property is currently zoned B-1 Local Business District. Page 52 of 70 Section 12-13-7: ZONING DISTRICTS PROHIBITIONS: establishes provisions that prohibit ‘building mounted projecting signs’. Because this Section prohibits projecting signs entirely, there are no provisions for projecting signs that establish the size, style, or location of such signs. While the zoning code does not have established standards for projecting signs, it does have standards for other types of signs that would have a similar visual impact as a projecting sign. Monument signs, for example, are also 2-sided signs that can be installed perpendicular to the front façade. In regard to the sign area of the proposed projecting signs, the size seems appropriate given that the maximum sign area for a monument sign would be 64 sq. ft. per sign face, and the sign area of the proposed project signs would be approximately 50 sq. ft. per sign face per sign. However, monument signs require at least a 5 ft. setback, which the proposed signs do not provide. Below is a chart comparing the proposed signs to permitted sign types in the business district: TYPE QUANTITY SIGN AREA LOCATION HEIGHT Projecting 14 ft. from façade Overall (Proposed) 1 two-faced 50 sq. ft. per face height = 15 wall* Projecting Signs projecting sign 100 sq. ft. total ft. above 0 ft. setback from grade property line Max. 30 sq. ft. for primary Front façade and 2 wall signs due sign on front façade side façade Wall Signs to lot’s double N/A frontage Max. 15 sq. ft for a second Shall not project sign on side facade more than 12 in. 64 sq. ft. per face 11 ft. 1 two-faced Monument Signs A setback of 5 ft. maximum monument sign 128 sq. ft. total total height *Per the specifications of the projecting sign provided by the applicant, the sign would be installed on the upper level of the building, which is set back from the lower front façade. Therefore, the projecting sign would be installed over the roof of the lower portion of the building and would not be installed over a pedestrian walkway. However, the proposed sign will project 14 ft. from the wall to which it will be affixed, which would provide no setback from the front property line given the location of the building on the lot. 2 Page 53 of 70 5245 St. Charles Rd.: side (W.) facade (Source Google Streetview Jul. 2022) 5245 St. Charles Rd.: front (N.) facade (Source Google Streetview Jul. 2022) 3 Page 54 of 70 Proposed projecting signs attached to the front (N.) facade (Source: Applicant) 4 Page 55 of 70 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. However, the previous business closed down and the building is currently vacant, indicating there may be issues relating to the property. The building has two existing wall signs on the front and side facades from the previous user. These signs are much smaller than the proposed signs and adhere to the permitted sign types for the district (i.e. wall sign). The proposed projecting sign will provide increased visibility for traffic going either way on St. Charles Road which will benefit the business. 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 projecting 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 to allow for visibility of the sign from traffic going both ways on St. Charles Road. There is enough wall space on the front and side facades to install appropriately sized wall signs that would be visible from passersby traveling both directions on St Charles Road. 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. Because projecting signs are entirely prohibited by the zoning code, there are no other nearby businesses with projecting signs similar to those proposed. Additionally, past users of the subject property used wall signage on the north and west façades of the building. The proposed projecting signs could alter the character of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood, and may lead to more requests for similar projecting signs for other businesses along the corridor. 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; 5 Page 56 of 70  There is no condition specific to the physical conditions of the subject property that would require the requested projecting signs of that size. However, the proposed projecting sign will provide increased visibility to both directions of travel along St. Charles Road. 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. Approval of this variance could result in additional requests for projecting signs for other businesses on St. Charles Road or businesses within the B1 zoning district in general. 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, projecting sign is likely due to a desire to increase visibility of the business from traffic on St. Charles Road. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property; Without substantial evidence of an alleged difficulty or hardship, it is hard to determine if such hardship has been created by the property owner. 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 proposed projecting sign would not have any significant or detrimental impact on adjacent commercial properties to the north, east and west given the location of the sign. Residential properties to the south will also not be impacted, given that there will be no southern facing sign. 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. The proposed sign type and increase in sign area will not impair light and air to adjacent properties, or increase congestion, or pose a danger to the public health and safety within the Village. 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. If the Village approves the requested variation to allow for projecting signs, the following conditions should be imposed: • The projecting signs may only be illuminated during hours of operation. • The projecting signs must comply with the requirements of the village's building code and other applicable ordinances. 6 Page 57 of 70 RECOMMENDATION Prohibition of projecting wall signs is likely a result of a desire by the Village to promote cohesive and consistent signage along the corridor while providing adequate signage options for local businesses. Projecting signs are more commonly used in a downtown environment accommodating pedestrian traffic. Projecting signs are more difficult to read from a car moving at speed, but it will provide for visibility to both directions of traffic. The applicant has not provided strong evidence of an actual “hardship” as is technically required for the granting of a variance. A hardship is typically a physical aspect or condition of the property that specifically prevents the owner from complying with the code. In the case of a sign variance, a typical hardship might relate to a lack of visibility resulting from a building being set back from, or oriented away from the road frontage, etc. It is difficult to recommend approval of the variance when there is not sufficient evidence of a hardship to support the need for the prohibited sign type and associated variance. We will defer a recommendation until after testimony by the petitioner at the public hearing. If the Village wishes to allow for building-mounted projecting signs, a more appropriate course of action may be to amend the code to permit projecting signs for all businesses in the B-1 District (and potentially the B4 district as well) and establish specific standards for such signs. The recently approved (2023) St. Charles Road Corridor Plan recommended establishing a consistent and attractive overall signage plan suitable for auto and pedestrian visibility for all businesses on the corridor, and inclusion of projecting signs could possibly be incorporated as a part of any potential revision of signage requirements. If the Plan Commission agrees with the findings and recommendations of this report, then we recommend that the Plan Commission adopt this report as its preliminary Findings of Fact. 7 Page 58 of 70 Page 59 of 70 Page 60 of 70 Page 61 of 70 Page 62 of 70 Page 63 of 70 Page 64 of 70 Page 65 of 70 President Board of Trustees Robert E. Lee, Jr. Sherry Graf-Stone Village Clerk ^ J Jason Mathews Belia Nowak L.W. Hammar JenyPerez Diane Salemi RogerThomas Re uest for Variance NAMEOFAPPLICANT(S): '^\^^0^ LUL T^t^^-l ADDRESSOFAPPLICANTIS) '5<z^5 5-^, C^ARL^S^0 . BEe L^i ^01 ^ PROPERTY INTERESTOFAPPLICANT(S) ^ <\ NAMEOFOWNER(S) ^^^ ^ \S ^0^ ^^^ C>E^T A variation is requested in conformity with the powers vested in the Board to permit the (insert use or construction proposed)T)^3. IB^^C^S^^ LO^I^^T&^^^US^ES Location524^S+,Q^^L£S^size^<5ft(. X tZ-S*ft.3@?sq6ft. PresentUse(vacant,residence,commercial,industrial,etc.) 0 ZoningCategory .......... ForVillageUse: Actions by Applicant on Property Permit: Approved_ or Denied. AnAppealwas_ / wasnot_ madewithrespectto these premises. Appeal Approved_ or Denied. Revised 05/25 ViUage of Berkeley 5819 Electric Avenue . Berkeley, Hlinois . 60163 Website:www.berkele -il.us .Phone:708-449-8840 .Fax:708-449-6189 Page 66 of 70  VILLAGE OF BERKELEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIATION AT 5245 ST. CHARLES ROAD, BERKELEY, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, on _______, 2025, petitioner Perry Orr of 5245 LLC (“Petitioner”), owner of 5245 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illinois, Cook County property index number 15-08-106-046-0000 (“Property”), submitted an application for consideration of, and a public hearing on, a variation to allow an illuminated, double-faced projecting sign on the Property (“Proposed Sign”), where building mounted projecting signs are prohibited by Section 12-13-7 of the Village of Berkeley Zoning Code (“Zoning Code”), requiring a variation to allow the Proposed Sign (“Variation”); 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 Variation should be granted on June 16, 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 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 Variation; and WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing, the PZC discussed and deliberated on the Variation and determined that it would best serve the Village if the Variation was granted and the Proposed Sign was 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. 1 4910-8561-0573, v. 3 Page 67 of 70  Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met, because the previous business at the Property closed down and the building is currently vacant, indicating there may be issues related to the Property. Additionally, the Proposed Sign will provide increased visibility for traffic going either way on St. Charles Road which will benefit the business. B. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that the Property is located on St. Charles Road, a major commercial corridor, where business has been stagnant, and the Petitioner desires to increase visibility of the Property to allow for visibility of the Proposed Sign from traffic going both ways on St. Charles Road. C. The Variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that the Property is zoned B-1 and has been used for commercial purposes for many years. While there are no projecting signs in the area, there are other similar signs in nature that are not significantly different from the Proposed Sign. 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 been met, because while there is no condition specific to the physical conditions of the Property that would require the requested Variation, the Property has been vacant and business has been stagnant in the area, and the Proposed Sign will provide increased visibility along St. Charles Road. 2. The condition upon which the petition for Variation 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, as the Property has been vacant and is in the Village’s commercial corridor, and the Proposed Sign will attract patrons to the Property. 3. The purpose of the Variation is not based exclusively upon a desire 2 4910-8561-0573, v. 3 Page 68 of 70  to make more money out of the property. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met because the motivation for this Variation is primarily due to the desire to increase visibility of the Property from traffic on St. Charles Road. 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 Property is currently vacant and the Petitioner desires to attract patrons to the Property. 5. 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. Finding of Fact: The PZC finds that this standard has been met, because the Proposed Sign will not have any significant or detrimental impact on adjacent commercial properties to the north, east and west given the location of the Proposed Sign, and the residential properties to the south will not be impacted as there is no southern facing sign. 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, as the Proposed Sign will not impair light and air to adjacent properties, or increase congestion, or pose a danger to the public health and safety within the Village. 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 3 4910-8561-0573, v. 3 Page 69 of 70  Chairperson _______________, 2025 _________ Date 4 4910-8561-0573, v. 3 Page 70 of 70