Committee of the Whole

Village of Brookfield Agenda Committee of the Whole Meeting Monday, June 9, 2025 @ 7:00 PM or Immediately Following Village Board Meeting Edward Barcal Hall 8820 Brookfield Avenue Brookfield, IL 60513 I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR BUSINESS 1. Discussion Concerning Case #25-05 for 8819 Ogden Avenue Request for Sign Variations to Allow a Third Permanent Sign Type and to Allow an Awning that is Not a Solid Color Discussion of Case #25-05 2. Discussion Concerning Case #25-06 Request for Variation from Section 62.290 Required Parking to Reduce the Number of Required Parking Spaces at 9211 Broadway Avenue Discussion of Case #25-06 3. Discussion Concerning Case #25-07 Request for a Special Use Permit Section 62.30 to Allow a Dog Grooming Establishment at 9448 W. 47th Street Discussion of Case #25-07 4. Discussion Concerning Case #25-08 Request for a Variation from Section 62.17 to Allow a 526 Square Foot Garage that Exceeds the Maximum of 472 Square Feet at 3936 N. Maple Avenue Discussion of Case #25-08 III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. EXECUTIVE SESSION V. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 56  Committee Item Memo Meeting Date: June 09, 2025 Staff Contact: Libby Popovic, Community Development Director Department: Community Development Subject: Discussion Concerning Case #25-05 for 8819 Ogden Avenue Request for Sign Variations to Allow a Third Permanent Sign Type and to Allow an Awning that is Not a Solid Color Background Information: On May 22, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a petition in Case #25-05 for 8819 Ogden Avenue, request for sign variations to allow a third permanent sign type and to allow an awning that is not a solid color. With a vote of 7-0, the Commissioners recommended with approval to advance the matter to the Board for consideration. Background Information PINs: 18-03-223-001, 18-03-223-002 & 18-03-223-003 Applicant: Demetrios Konstantopoulos Current Zoning: C 1 General Service District Current Land Use: Commercial, Restaurant Bill’s Place recently acquired the closed restaurant at 8819 Ogden Avenue (Tom & Lou’s 34 Drive-In). They plan on opening a restaurant “Bill’s Place Express” on the property after an extensive renovation, updating and expansion. The applicant has previously appeared before the President and Village Board of Trustees having requested and ultimately received a Property Improvement Grant for the expansion and renovation of the restaurant. Existing Conditions & Site Context The subject site is 8,500+ square feet and is improved with a one-story commercial building with a parking lot on both the east and south side of the building. The site can be accessed from both Ogden and Grove Avenues. The adjacent zoning and land uses to the East, West and North are C1 General Service District. To the south across the alley is A1 Single Family. Zoning Comprehensive Plan Current Land Use North C1 Commercial Corridor Commercial South A1 Residential Single Family Page 2 of 56 East C1 Commercial Corridor Commercial West C1 Commercial Corridor Commercial Analysis The Sign Regulations (42.86(1)C limit each property to two permanent sign types. The applicant is requesting three permanent sign types: awning, monument and wall. Permits have been submitted for the Wall and Monument signs. The proposed awning sign would be a third permanent sign type and thus would require a variation. Also, the proposed awning is striped rather than a solid color which requires a variation as the Code mandates that awnings should be one solid color. In the attached image page is a rendering of the building with a solid blue awning and then the building with the proposed awning with thin white stripes added. We have also provided an image of the existing Bill’s Place on Maple Avenue in La Grange Park with its signature blue and white awning as is proposed for 8819 Ogden Avenue. Applicant’s Request 1. Variance for the number of permanent sign types on a property from two to three. 2. Variance for the display standards for awning signs to allow a blue awning with white stripes. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS Standards of Review In accordance with Section 42-206 Standards for Variance, the following findings shall be met and proven by the applicant before any positive consideration is to be made in granting of a variation: New signs. With respect to the erection of new signs, a variation from the regulations set forth in this chapter shall not be granted unless evidence is presented that: (1) The proposed variation will not be materially detrimental to other nearby property; (2) Notwithstanding the benefits, the property in question will suffer some demonstrable and irreversible hardship if made to conform to the strict letter of this chapter; (3) The alleged hardship has not been created by anyone presently having a proprietary interest in the property; and (4) The proposed variation is in harmony with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Recommendation The staff has reviewed the application and the property’s environs and believe that the requests meet the above standards. And therefore, staff respectfully recommends approval of Case Number 25-05 Sign Variations under Section 42.86 to allow an additional permanent sign type (from two to three). And also a variation from 42-86 to allow the proposed awning sign to be blue with white stripes rather than a solid one-color awning at 8819 Ogden Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. All signs shall be in substantial compliance with the signs presented with this variation petition. Page 3 of 56  2. All signs shall obtain a permit from the Community Development Department and all required inspections be conducted and approved. The Commission recommended the two sign variations. Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the two sign variations. Attachment Description: Application Attachments: 03.26.25 Application packet Page 4 of 56 Page 5 of 56 Page 6 of 56 Page 7 of 56 Page 8 of 56 Page 9 of 56 Page 10 of 56 Page 11 of 56 Page 12 of 56 Page 13 of 56 Page 14 of 56 Page 15 of 56  Meeting Date: June 09, 2025 Staff Contact: Libby Popovic, Community Development Director Department: Community Development Subject: Discussion Concerning Case #25-06 Request for Variation from Section 62.290 Required Parking to Reduce the Number of Required Parking Spaces at 9211 Broadway Avenue Background Information: On May 27, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applicant's petition, Case#25-06, request for variation from Section 62.290 required parking to reduce the number of required parking spaces at 9211 Broadway Avenue. With a unanimous vote of 7-0 the Commission recommended the application with approval for further Board review. Background Information Location: 9211 Broadway Avenue PINs: 15-34-307-026-1003 Applicant: Saul Soto Current Zoning: C3 Centralized Commercial District Current Land Use: Commercial The property is located in the C3 Centralized Commercial District (8 Corners) which is intended to provide for the development of a concentrated pedestrian oriented commercial shopping area. This type of district provides a symbiotic relationship with public transportation and public services in the immediate vicinity. This district is intended to encourage the preservation of the historic characteristics of the district while encouraging the establishment of planned commercial and residential development. The property was developed years ago with a multiple tenant commercial building located on the front property line with a small parking area at the rear. There are 270 diagonal parking spaces on Broadway Avenue. Existing Conditions & Site Context The 8,578 square foot site is improved with an approximately 4,900 square foot multiple tenant commercial building. The former use of the approximately 1,000 SQFT space was a Page 16 of 56 laundromat. The space is currently vacant. Other uses in the building are the 9207 Broadway Treasures Depot, 9209 Broadway Mama Barone’s (restaurant) and 9213 Broadway the Brookfield Academy for Mini Musicians. The property as well as abutting sites are all Zoned C3 Centralized Commercial District. Zoning Comprehensive Plan Current Use North C3 Mixed Use Commercial South C3 Mixed Use Commercial East C3 Mixed Use Commercial West C3 Mixed Use Commercial Analysis Section 62-289(a) states “Whenever a legal use existing on the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived is changed thereafter to a new use, parking facilities for the new use shall be provided as required herein for the number of parking spaces needed in excess of the number of spaces which would have been required under the terms of this chapter for the prior use or degree of prior existence. The property’s prior use as a laundromat would require four parking spaces, a restaurant requires seven parking spaces while the property allocates only two to this commercial space. The Zoning Ordinance allows credit for one space on Broadway Avenue, giving the use a total of three parking spaces. There is no open space on the property to construct additional parking for this use or the other existing uses in the building. As noted above there are 270 on street spaces on Broadway Avenue. The proposed ice cream shop will have seating for 12 at four tables. Applicant’s Request 1. Variance from Section 62.290 to reduce the required parking from 7 to 3, two on site and a credit for one on the street. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS Standards for Variations In accordance with Section 62-760 Standards for Variation: (a) No variation shall be granted pursuant to this division unless the applicant shall establish that carrying out the strict letter of any regulation requested to be varied will result in practical difficulty or particular hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any regulations and only when the variation granted is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the provisions of this chapter. Evidence of hardship or difficulty that will support a variance must relate to the land itself and not the owner-applicant. (b) The following standards shall be met and proved by the applicant before any positive consideration is to be made in the granting of a variation: (1) The hardship alleged as the basis for the variation must be derived from difficulties pertaining to the property itself which prevent full use of the property of the same extent other properties in close proximity within the same zoning district can be used. (2) The hardship alleged as the basis for a variation must not be self-created or self-imposed by the applicant or his agent nor by unauthorized and unpermitted acts of any prior owner; Page 17 of 56 (3) That there is no other means other then the requested variation by which the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of the property; (4) That the variation sought will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property; (5) That the variation sought will not unreasonably diminish the values of adjacent property; (6) That the variation sought will not unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets or otherwise endanger public safety; and (7) That the variation is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. Recommendation The staff has reviewed the application and the property’s environs and believe that the requests meet the above standards. And therefore, staff respectfully recommends approval of Case Number 25-06 Parking Variation under Section 62.290 to allow a restaurant with a reduced parking of two on site spaces plus a credit for one on street space versus the seven subject to the following conditions: 1. The property be developed in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with the variation application. The Commission recommended approval of the parking variation. Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the parking variation. Attachment Description: Applicaiton Attachments: Variance Form A-100 A-200 Plat of Survey Page 18 of 56  Village of Brookfield Community Development Department Variance 8820 Brookfield Avenue, Brookfield, Illinois 60513-1688 Application (708) 485-7344 ext 3 • www.brookfieldil.gov Applicant Information Full Name: Saul Soto Address: 9211 Broadway Ave Email Address: sotosaul.90@gmail.com Phone number: 312-678-3699 Is the applicant in the process of purchasing the property?  Yes  No ✔ If yes, is the purchase contingent on approval of this request?  Yes  No ✔ Property Information (This information can be found online on the Community Portal.) Address: 9211 Broadway Ave Brookfield IL, 60513 Zoning district: 8-Corners Use type: Commercial Property Index Number(s) (PIN): 15-34-307-026-1003 Legal Description: Centralized Commercial District (attach if necessary) The property is:  Conforming ✔  Non-conforming explain non-conformity What will the property be used for?  Personal  New Business ✔  Rental  Resale ✔ Surrounding zoning and land uses: Land Use Zoning District (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) North: C3, Centralized Commercial. 8-Corners Commercial East: C3, Centralized Commercial. 8-Corners Commercial South: C3, Centralized Commercial. 8-Corners Commercial West: C3, Centralized Commercial. 8-Corners Commercial Variance Request List the variance(s) you are requesting: 1. Section 62-289(a) Variance request to waive parking requirement for new use Ice Cream Shop 2. Section Variance request to 3. Section Variance request to Page 1 of 5 Page 19 of 56  Checklist for submittal  Pre-application Meeting with Staff A pre-application meeting with Village staff is strongly suggested prior to filling application.  Completed Application Completed applications should be submitted at least 3 weeks before PZC meeting.  Application Fee The $675 application fee is due at the time of submittal. A $75 deposit will also be collected for the public hearing sign. This deposit will be returned after the meeting.  Current Plat of Survey A LEGIBLE plat of survey showing the property in its current conditions and improvements.  Signed Affidavit and Proof of Ownership Affidavit of ownership completed and notarized submitted with a copy of a current tax bill, deed, or other official document showing current ownership.  Supporting Photos or Graphics Any photos and/or drawings that illustrate the current condition, the request, and the resulting condition if the request is granted, as well as the dimensions of the sign(s).  Project Summary (optional) A written statement describing why the request. Any background information that may help the staff and the Board understand the request should be included.  Public Notice (submitted subsequently) In advance of public hearing, adjacent properties within 250 feet must be notified by mail. Once letters are mailed, an affidavit and letter must be submitted to the Village. Signatures I hereby affirm that I have full legal capacity to authorize the filing of this Petition and that all information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The Authorized Signer invites Village representatives to make all reasonable inspections, investigations and pictures of the subject property during the processing period of this Petition. I agree to pay all fees consistent with the Village payment policies and comply with the Village Codes. I understand these fees will include publication expenses and may include engineering expenses and attorney fees. Printed name of Applicant Signature of Applicant Date Printed name of Property Owner (if different) Signature of Property Owner (if different) Date Page 2 of 5 Page 20 of 56  Standards for Granting Zoning Variations There are 7 standards that are considered and must be met in order to approve variances in the Village of Brookfield. (Sec. 62-760) Please describe how your request demonstrates compliance. 1. “The hardship alleged as the basis for the variation must be derived from difficulties pertaining to the property itself which prevent full use of the property of the same extent other properties in close proximity in the same zoning district can be used;” How does this property itself create difficulties that other similar properties do not have? This property faces difficulties in meeting the parking requirement due to its limited size and layout, which prevent it from accommodating the required 18 parking spaces, a challenge shared by other similar properties in the area. 2. “The hardship alleged as the basis for a variation must not be self-created or self-imposed by the applicant or his agent nor by unauthorized and unpermitted acts of any prior owner;” Owner shouldn’t have created the alleged difficulties; how did these difficulties come to be? The difficulties in meeting the parking requirement arose due to the property's existing size and layout, which were established prior to the current zoning regulations, and were not created by the owner. The current parking constraints were inherited from the property's original design, which did not anticipate the modern parking requirements now in place. 3. “That there is no other means other than the requested variation by which the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of the property;” Without the requested variance, why can’t you use this property to its full extent? Without the requested variance, I would be unable to fully utilize the property for its intended purpose, as the parking requirement of Without the requested variance, the property will be able to operate as intended, but it will not be able to meet the parking code, as it is impossible to provide the required number of parking spaces due to the limited available space on the property. 4. “That the variation sought will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property;” How will the neighbor’s air and light supply remain unimpaired? This does not apply to the variance request as it will not affect neighbors air or light supply. 5. “That the variation sought will not unreasonably diminish the values of adjacent property;” If approved, how will this variance affect surrounding property values? If approved, this variance is unlikely to negatively affect surrounding property values, as the property will continue to operate in a manner consistent with its intended use. 6. ”That the variation sought will not unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets or otherwise endanger public safety; ” If approved, how will this variance affect traffic congestion in the area? If approved, this variance is unlikely to significantly affect traffic congestion in the area, as the property’s use will remain consistent with its intended purpose. 7. “That the variation is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance.” This variance request aligns with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because… This variance request is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, as it allows for the continued use of the property while addressing the practical limitations of the site, without compromising the overall goals of the zoning regulations or negatively impacting the surrounding area. Page 3 of 5 Page 21 of 56  AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP & DISCLOSURE OF BENEFICIARIES  the sole owner ✔ I, Saul Soto , under oath, state that I am:  an owner printed name  an authorized officer for the owner ✔ of the property described as 9211 Broadway Ave and that such property property address is owned by Soto Estates Inc. as of this date. property owner’s name Further, the property to which this application relates IS / IS NOT the subject of a land trust as defined in Section 765 ILCS 405 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, “The Land Trust Beneficial Interest Disclosure Act.” If the foregoing statement was complete in the affirmative, the following statement shall be completed and verified: I, , as the trustee/beneficiary of Printed name Trust Number, , Trust name pursuant to Section 765 ILCS 405 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, being first duly sworn, hereby sate and represent that the person(s), body(ies) Politic, corporation(s), or other entity(ies) below are the beneficiary(ies) of said land trust, that the beneficiary(ies) designated by a checkmark hold(s) the power of direction created therein, and that no beneficiary hold a beneficial interest as nominee for a person, body, politic, corporation or other entity not named herein. Name Address Interest Property Owner Signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF , Day Number Month year Public Notary Page 4 of 5 Page 22 of 56  AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The undersigned petitioner, on oath states that they notified, in writing, the owners of all property within 250 feet, excluding rights of way, in each direction of the property to which his petition relates, by personal delivery or by mail; that a public hearing would be held to consider such petition; that such notice was given no less than 15 days prior to such hearing; and that the owners so notified, are those shown on the last available tax records of the county. (Please attach a list of notified property owners). Saul Soto Property owner name Property owner signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF , Day Number Month year Public Notary Page 5 of 5 Page 23 of 56  PLUMBING DEMOLITION NOTES 1. REMOVE ALL UNUSED ABOVE GROUND FLOOR PIPING AND ACCESSORIES AND HANGER COMPLETELY TO A POINT JUST BEYOND THE DEMISING PARTITIONS- CAP OFF, NOT GREATER THAN 2' CANNOT BE CREATED. 2. REMOVE UNUSED FLOOR DRAINS FROM SLAB AND PLUG WASTE ROUGHT-IN AT A POINT BELOW THE SLAB WITH GAS-TIGHT PLUG BELOW SLAB WASTE PIPING SHALL BE ABANDONED, NOT GREATER THAN 10' CANNOT BE CREATED. 3. REMOVE WASTE ROUGHT-IN TO A POINT BELOW THE SLAB AND PLUG WASTE LINE WITH GAS-TIGHT PLUG. PIPING SHALL ABANDONED IN PLACE. 4. REMOVE ALL UNUSED VENT(S)-THRU-ROOF COMPLETELY AND PATCH. KEY NOTES 1. EXISTING STORE FRONT TO BE REPLACED; 2. TOILET 4. 2. EXISTING PARTITION WALL TO BE REMOVED; 3. 3. EXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED; 4. 1. EXISTING STORE FRONT TO BE REPLACED; 2. EXISTING RETAIL SPACE REV. ISSUE DATE 100% CD 03/22/2025 3. 1. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: NATALIE L REGAN DRAWN: JP CHECK: NR PROJECT NO: 20251050 SCALE: AS NOTED EXISTING FLOOR TITLE: PLAN A-100 Page 24 of 56  PLANS-NOTES ADA-NOTES: THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL ACQUAINT HIMSELF WITH THE BARRIER FREE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1. CASEWORK BY OTHERS. CUSTOMER SERVICE COUNTERS TO BE 34" AFF FOR A MIN. OF 36" WIDE. APPLICABLE STATES AND THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) AND SHALL ENSURE THAT THIS FACILITY WILL BE 2. PROVIDE A VISUAL AND TACTILE EXIT DISCHARGE SIGN PER ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBLE DESIGN ACCESSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE STRICTER REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS. THE FOLLOWING IS A PARTIAL LIST OF REQUIREMENTS. 3. JANITOR'S SINK - PROVIDE DEDICATED WATER SUPPLY FOR P&G DISPENSER (SEE NATIONAL ACCOUNTS). P&G EQUIPMENT INSTALLED BY VENDOR. 1. DOOR HARDWARE SHALL BE MOUNTED BETWEEN 36" AND 42" ABOVE FLOOR AND BE LEVER TYPE. 4. RECESS MOUNT HAND DRYER BY EXCEL DRYER INC. SEE NATIONAL ACCOUNTS; (413-525-4531) 2. TOILETS: 5. P.O.S. OUTLET BOX (48" A.F.F.) WITH 12" CONDUIT W/ PULLSTRING TO CEILING A. LAVATORY TO HAVE LEVER HANDLES, SELF METERING FAUCETS OR SPRING FAUCET. FAUCETS SHALL BE 6. PROVIDE SHELF AND STRAPPING FOR TANK WATER HEATER (WHEN USED) MOUNTED OVER MOP SINK SET TO REMAIN OPEN FOR 10 SECONDS MINIMUM. 7. COMPARTMENT SINK W/ 2 INTEGRATED DRAIN BOARDS- PROVIDE DEDICATED WATER SUPPLY FOR P&G B. A COAT HOOK 48" ABOVE THE FLOOR SHALL BE MOUNTED ADJACENT TO THE BARRIER FREE STALL DOOR. DISPENSER (SEE NATIONAL ACCOUNTS). P&G EQUIPMENT INSTALLED BY VENDOR. C. LOCATE THE WATER CLOSET 16" TO 18" FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE FIXTURE TO THE WALL. THE SEAT 8. FROST PROOF HOSE BIB WILL BE 17" TO 19" ABOVE THE FLOOR TO THE TOP OF SEAT. FLUSH HANDLE TO BE ON EXPOSED SIDE OF 9. ELECTRICAL PANELS; SEE ELECTRICAL SHEETS WATER CLOSET. 10. HAND SINKS ARE REQUIRED WITHIN A 25 FT. RADIUS OF ALL WORK STATIONS IN SERVICE AREAS AND KITCHEN D. PROVIDE ONE 42" AND ONE 36" LONG x 1 1/2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER PEENED GRAB BARS, 1 1/2" FROM THE 102 WALL WITH ONE BEHIND AT 12" FROM CENTER LINE OF WATER CLOSET ON ONE SIDE. ONE ADJACENT TO 11. SEE DTL. FOR ENLARGED BATHROOM AREA PLAN AT 12" FROM THE WALL 33"-36" PARALLEL TO AND ABOVE THE FLOOR. 12. ELECTRICAL METER - PROVIDE APPROPRIATE CONNECTION TO ELECTRICAL PANELS AS PER FEDERAL, STATE, E. LAVATORY TO BE MOUNTED 34" MAX. ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR TO RIM WITH KNEE SPACE OF 30" IN AND LOCAL CODES WIDTH AND 27" IN CLEAR HEIGHT. (29" CLEAR UNDER FRONT EDGE) 17'-0" 5'-6" 13. PROVIDE DIRECT LINE W/ TEMPERATURE REGULATOR VALVE FROM HWH TO ALL HAND WASHING SINKS F. INSTALL MIRROR 40" MAX. ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR TO BOTTOM EDGE OF REFLECTING SURFACE (MIRROR GLASS BOTTOM) AND 72" TO TOP. 14. TANK TYPE HOT WATER HEATER (SEE SPECS.) MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF RINNAI UNIT - COORDINATE EXACT SIZE 1" W/ LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. G. DISPENSERS TO BE MOUNTED A MAXIMUM OF 42" ABOVE THE FLOOR TO ALL OPERATING OR DISPENSING 7'-02 KITCHEN 1" SLOTS. 102 7'-112 15. G.C. TO PROVIDE ANCHOR BOLTS FOR SLAB MOUNTED SAFE IN OFFICE- REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS TO BE BATHROOM PROVIDED BY FRANCHISEE. H. TOILET PAPER DISPENSERS MOUNTED 19" MIN. TO CENTER LINE ABOVE THE FLOOR AND 7" MINIMUM AND 9" MAXIMUM FROM FRONT EDGE OF WATER CLOSET MEASURED TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE DISPENSER 103 16. WATER FILTRATION SYSTEM (BRANCH OFF MAIN LINE) FOR SODA EQUIPMENT, ICE MACHINES; LOCATE ABOVE WATER METER 17. WATER METER LOCATION. KEEP TIGHT TO WALL. 104 18. ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC ENTRANCE. SIDEWALK SHALL SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 FOR 5' IN FRONT OF DOOR. MAX. 103 1/2" THRESHOLD AT DOOR. 19. PROVIDE HEAVY DUTY BROOM RACK IN JANITOR AREA. 20. PROVIDE HEAVY DUTY MOP RACK LOCATED OVER MOP SINK. 21. PROVIDE NSF SHELVING ABOVE MOP SINK 80"AFF. 7'-6" 9'-5" 8'-1" 5'-0" NEW WALL - SEE TYPE A EXISTING WALL ALL JUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE WALL SURFACES AND THE EDGES OF SALES AREA ATTACHED EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS ALL ANNULAR OPENINGS AROUND 101 PIPES DUCTS OR OTHER CONDUITS WERE THEY PASS THROUGH WALLS AND FLOOR SHALL BE SEALED WITH A MIXTURE OF STEEL WOOL AND APPROVED CAULK/ SEALING COMPOUND. 2'-6" 2'-0" 36'-10" ENSURE TOP PLATES AND THE JOINTS BETWEEN WALLS AND CEILINGS ARE SEALED. DUCT SHAFT & PIPING PENETRATIONS: OPENINGS FROM CRAWL 2'-10"MAX SPACE AND ATTIC ARE SEALED. ALL SHAFTS: PROPER FLASHING AROUND FLUE AND GAPS SEALED 9'-5" 13'-1" AND CAULKED ALL PENETRATIONS AT EXTERIOR WALLS ARE SEALED INCLUDING VENTS, AND ELECTRICAL CONDUIT & BOXES. 30'-7" PROVIDE CORROSION-PROOF RODENT/BIRD SCREENS (E.G., STEEL MESH) FOR ALL BUILDING OPENINGS THAT CANNOT BE FULLY FRONT DESCK SCHEDULE SEATING AREA SEALED AND CAULKED (E.G., VENTILATION SYSTEM INTAKE / (REACH OVER) EXHAUST OUTLETS AND ATTIC VENT OPENINGS). REV. ISSUE DATE 100 100% CD 03/22/2025 ROOF DECK ROOF DECK 101 GRANITE SILL EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL 4" METAL STUD FRAMING METAL CEILING @ 16" O.C. 3 5/8" (20 GA.) METAL STUDS STUDS @ 16" O.C. EXISTING WALL FURRING (INSULATION TO BE VERIFIED) FINISH EXISTING WALL PER 5/8" GYP BD. 5/8" THICK TYPE "X" TYPICAL SUBSTRATES FOR GYP BD. INTERIOR WALL; NEW ALUMINUM STORE FRONT w/1" INSULATED & TEMPERED FLOOR FLOOR GLASS, THERMALLY BROKEN NATURAL ANODIZED FRAME TYPE "A" TYPE "B" FLOOR U - FACTOR = .38, SHGC = .40 STORE FRONT TO COMPLY WITH FIRE RATED ASSEMBLIES 49 MIN. TYPE "C" EXISTING ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: NATALIE L REGAN DRAWN: JP CHECK: NR PROJECT NO: 20251050 SCALE: AS NOTED PROPOSED FLOOR TITLE: PLAN A-200 Page 25 of 56 Page 26 of 56 Page 27 of 56  Committee Item Memo Meeting Date: June 09, 2025 Staff Contact: Libby Popovic, Community Development Director Department: Community Development Subject: Discussion Concerning Case #25-07 Request for a Special Use Permit Section 62.30 to Allow a Dog Grooming Establishment at 9448 W. 47th Street Background Information: On May 22, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an application Case#25-07 request for a special use permit, Section 62.30 to allow a dog grooming establishment at 9448 W. 47th Street. With a unanimous vote of 7-0 the Commissioners recommended with approval to advance the matter to the Board for review. Background Information Location: 9448 W 47th Street PINs: 18-03-324-036-0000 Applicant: Aidy F. Cardona Diaz Current Zoning: I1 Light Industrial District Current Land Use: Commercial Petitioner is seeking to operate “The Cutest Dog” a Dog grooming salon. Dog grooming falls under the Animal Service Use category and is allowed in the I1 Light Industrial District as a Special Use. Existing Conditions & Site Context The subject site is 8,789+ square feet square feet and is improved with a two-story mixed-use building. There are five dwelling units on the second floor and the first floor contains the 1,000 square foot retail space proposed for the dog grooming salon and approximately 7,700 square feet of warehouse space. The site has 14 parking spaces, 7 in the rear accessed from the alley and a 7 car parking lot to the east and south of the “L” shaped building. Surrounding Zoning and Uses Property Zoning Comprehensive Plan Current Land Use Page 28 of 56  I 1 General Light Subject Property Light Industrial Mixed Use Industrial North A1 Single Family Multiple Family Single Family LM Light Industrial South Industrial Industrial McCook I 1 General Light East Light Industrial Industrial Industrial I 1 General Light West Light Industrial Commercial Industrial Analysis The I1 General Light Industrial District provides a location which affords access only to primary thoroughfares and proximate access to the interstate system allowing for industrial and manufacturing and kindred support operations requiring direct access moderate motor vehicle use. The former barber shop space has been vacant for approximately two years. Frisky Dog a full service dog Training, Boarding, “Playcare” and Grooming establishment is located east of the subject property at 9216 47th Street. Overview of the operation Tentative hours of operation are by appointment only.  Sunday & Monday closed  Tuesday through Saturday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Clients will drop off their dog and return later to pick the dog up. Each grooming session is between two to four hours. It is anticipated that there will be four to seven appointments a day. The submitted floor plan sketch indicates three dog grooming station and one dog “bathtub”, along with a storage room and two bathrooms. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS Applicant’s Request The applicant is opening a dog grooming salon. No structural building changes are envisioned, only interior modifications to accommodate the new use. The parking required for the Dog Grooming Salon and the Barber Shop are the same. Therefor no parking variation is necessary. The landlord has the residential tenants to park on the north side of the building off the alley and is holding the seven spaces accessed form 47th Street for the commercial tenant. Standards of Review Special uses are uses which have unique, special, or unusual impact upon the use or the enjoyment of neighboring properties beyond those uses normally included "of right" within any one zoning district. In developing its recommendation, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall determine if, and to what extent, the proposed special use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service or a facility that is in the interest of public convenience or will provide for the general welfare of the zoning district or the village as a Page 29 of 56 whole (Section 62.821e). An application for a special use permit should be considered in the context of the following standards:  The compatibility of the use with the extent and purpose of the property’s zoning district.  The compatibility of the use with the existing uses on the site and in the vicinity.  Special actions that are contemplated to modify any unique, special, or unusual impacts which the special use may cause or intensify upon properties or uses upon public facilities or neighboring properties. The Commission recommended the approval of the special use permit under Section 62.25 to allow a dog grooming salon at 9448 W. 47th Street subject to the following conditions:  The property shall be developed in compliance with the floor plan submitted to the Village as part of the application. Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the approval of the special use permit subject to the condition that the property shall be developed in compliance with the floor plan submitted to the Village as part of the application. Attachment Description: Application Attachments: 9448 W 47th St Application 05.22.25 PZC Minutes Page 30 of 56 Page 31 of 56 Page 32 of 56 Page 33 of 56 PZC MEETING MINUTES Meeting started at 7:00 PM May 22.2025 Attendance: Present: Evans, Miller, Sabourin, Svoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund Absent: None Present at Meeting: Trustee Hendricks, Community Development Director Libby Popovic, Village Attorney Brian Baugh and Interim Planner, Scott Viger. Motion to approve January 23, 2025 Regular Meeting and April 10, 2025, Special Meeting minutes: Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Sabourin. Motion passed, 6-0-1 with Commissioner Evans abstaining. Public Comment: No public comment Old Business - Case # 25-01 Application for Sign Variations at 9000 Ogden Avenue Castle Motors Chair Grund entertained a Motion to open the public hearing for Case#25-01 for Sign Variations at 9000 Ogden Avenue. Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Chairperson Grund swore in Paul Castelbuono Jr. Mr. Jay Kostecki, the attorney for the petitioner reviewed the requested variations, the sign contractor’s failure to obtain the required permits for the signs and the staff recommendations and the current nature of signs along the Ogden Avenue corridor and stated that Castle Motors has generated over $51,000 in Sales Taxes in calendar 2025 to date. Castle Motors feels they need these signs to continue to thrive as a business here in Brookfield. Commissioner Evans reviewed that the variation process is meant to be completed prior to the installation of the signs that require the variation and personal responsibility of the business owner. Mr. Kosecki agreed but that that his client relied on and trusted a professional sign contractor and believed that the permits had been obtained. His client is trying to gain compliance by seeking the variation and engaging Mr. Kosecki’s firm. Commissioner Miller asked who identified the mistake, the Village or the business owner. Mr. Castelbuono Jr. stated that it was the Village that notified Castle Motors of the issues. Commissioner Svoboda recounted the history of the signs and how they were installed without the proper permits. There was discussion on the timing of the two new signs Page 34 of 56 installation. Were they both installed at one time or separately? Mr. Castelbuono Jr. said they were installed within a month of each other based on the manufacture of the signs. Staff report presented by Interim Planner Scott Viger. Staff took the Commissions prior discussions looking for a compromise solution and internal staff discussions we drafted a supplemental memo recommending approval of the variations for the wall sign (south elevation) and denial of the awning sign (west elevation). The Village Inspector noticed the wall sign and then during a staff site visit we noticed the awning sign. Chair Grund inquired about the other signs on the site (east elevation), were permits issued for that one. Mr. Viger, the staff has no record of permits for those either. Mr. Castelbuono Jr. recapped some history of the site and signage including that they removed an existing pole sign at the staff’s request. As part of that removal, the staff allowed the sign to be placed on the east elevation of the building. Commissioners Miller asked about permit requirements for the older east elevation sign, so there are three signs erected without the required permits. Commissioner Evans discussed looking for a path forward and that the Commission offered suggestions and possible solutions at the last meeting and the petitioner did not provide any. Commissioner Svoboda asked if any alternatives have been proposed since the last meeting. Mr. Castelbuono Jr. stated no, as they believe any reduction in signage will have a huge negative impact on their business. Chair Grund stated that since the petitioner is seeking variations and that this Commission has always suggested that variations are a “push and take” , you erected a sign that is per the Code too big and too high, so we asked last time to give us a compromise. He believes two signs not three or four is what is appropriate here. Commissioner Weber, as a starting point would we consider the removal of the “Service” sign as a compromise? Chair Grund and Commissioner Straka said “No”. Commissioner Evans referred to the pending revised Sign regulations and his desire to have new regulations in place. He believes the wall sign (south elevation) enhances Ogden Avenue as does a lot of the work you have done on the building does. We want your business here in town, but we need to follow the path of the Code. Granting a variance for the front sign makes sense. The other signs are not as substantial as the wall sign. I would approve the wall sign, but we will see others asking for forgiveness after the fact. Chair Grund asked the staff how they would get a permit after the fact. Mr. Viger reviewed the process. Commissioner Miller asked if the business had been fined? Mr. Viger responded that the fines are held in abeyance pending this petition. Page 35 of 56 Chair Grund asked for staff’s recommendation. Mr. Viger stated that the supplemental memo includes the recommendation to approve the variations for the wall sign (south elevation) and deny the variations for the awning sign (west elevation). Chair Grund asked for the Commission’s thoughts on the staff recommendation. Commissioner Straka is comfortable with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Weber agreed. Commissioner Evans felt both the east and west signs should be removed. Mr. Kostecki stated that they have applied for the variations to comply. Mr. Castelbuono Jr. said if they could have a pole sign, they would remove the wall signs. Mr. Kostecki mentioned that these are difficult business decisions and that a brief continuance would allow his clients to determine what they might be able to offer as a compromise. Chair Grund felt that is what the Commission did when the petitioner last appeared before us, and they didn’t do it. He would be happy to do it again if they come back with a different proposal. Mr. Kosetki felt that would be appropriate. Chair Grund asked if there were any members of the public in attendance that would like to be heard on this matter. Seeing none, Chair Grund entertained a motion to continue this matter. Commissioner Evans made a motion to continue this matter until July 24, 2025, seconded by Commissioner Straka. Motion passed 7 – 0. New Business – Case # 25-05 Application for Sign Variations at 8819 Ogden Avenue Bill’s Place Express Chair Grund entertained a Motion to open the public hearing for Case#25-05 for Sign Variations (a third permanent sign type and an awning that is not a solid color) at 8819 Ogden Avenue. Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Sabourin, Motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Chair Grund swore in Demetrios Konstantopoulos, petitioner for Bill’s Place Express. Mr. Konstantopoulos stated they want stripes on the awning to be like their current restaurant in LaGrange Park. There were no Commission questions of the petitioner. Commissioner Svoboda asked for clarification from staff of the images in the Commission’s informational packet. There are two different monument signs shown. Staff apologized for the confusion; the monument sign has been issued a permit as has Page 36 of 56 the wall sign. The monument sign is rectangular and meets the Code requirements. The petitioner originally presented a Pole Sign and staff suggested that a monument sign would be more appropriate, the petitioner complied with that staff request. The variation is for the awning sign only, the other two meet the Code and have been permitted. Chair Grund clarified that the two variations are first to allow a third sign type (the awning) and that the awning is not a solid color. Mr. Konstantopoulos said the monument sign would have the logo and drive through with an arrow. There being no further Commission questions, Chair Grund asked if there were any members of the public in attendance that would like to be heard on this matter. Seeing none, Chair Grund entertained a motion. Commissioner Straka made a motion to recommend approval of a third permanent sign type and an awning that is not a solid color seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion passed 7 – 0. Chair Grund entertained motion to close public hearing for Case #25-05. Motion was made to close the Public Hearing by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Straka. Motion passed 7 - 0. Public Hearing closed at 7:47 PM. Case # 25-06 Application for Parking Variation at 9211 Broadway Avenue Chair Grund entertained a motion to open the public hearing for Case # 25-06 a parking variation for La Flor Michoacana at 9211 Broadway Avenue to reduce the number of parking spaces from seven to three. Commissioner Weber moved and Commissioner Sabourin Seconded. Motin passed 7-0. Public Hearing opened at 7:48 PM. Chair Grund swore in Mr. Saul Soto, the petitioner. Mr. Soto testified that he was unaware of the parking requirements for his ice cream shop were different than the prior use. Staff brought it up and so he has submitted the variation petition. We were able to come up with three spots but need seven under the Code. Commission questions of the petitioner. Commissioner Weber asked about the menu. Mr. Soto stated in addition to ice cream they would serve yogurt and prepared corn and a few other items. Commissioner Weeber asked about the number of employees at the shop. Mr. Soto replied seven employees in total but perhaps no more than four at any one time. His hours of operation are estimated to be from 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Page 37 of 56 Commissioner Evans asked about employee parking in the rear of the building. Mr. Soto said there were two spaces in the rear designated for this business’ employees and the Code then allows a credit for one car on Broadway Avenue. There being no further Commission questions Chair Grund asked for the staff report. Mr. Viger gave an overview of the location and surrounding zoning and the parking. And how the parking was calculated. Staff respectfully recommends approval of the variation as we believe the request meets the standards found in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Miller asked about the prior use and its parking requirements. Mr. Viger stated the laundromat required four spaces. There being no further Commission questions, Chair Grund asked if there were any members of the public in attendance that would like to be heard on this matter. Seeing none, Chair Grund began Commission discussion. Chair Grund believe there is a hardship for tis petitioner, no one in the 8 Corners area has parking on site. This business will bring in more customers than the laundromat and that’s a good thing. I’m in favor. Commissioner Weber in favor as this business would have short term customers and compliment the other businesses in the area. It is more of a walk to or bike to business. Commissioner Evans felt the business complemented the area. Commissioner Miller agrees with Commissioner Weber that this type of business better compliments the area than the prior laundromat. Commissioner Straka said that looking back Joel’s Deli succeeded for a while and there didn’t seem to be any parking problems reducing the number of spaces from seven to three. Chair Grund made a motion to recommend approval of the parking variation with the conditions that the property be developed in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with the application and that the two spaces in the rear be clearly marked for La Michoacana staff. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. Motion passed 7 – 0. Chair Grund entertained motion to close public hearing for Case #25-06. Motion made to close the Public Hearing by Commissioner Svoboda, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion passed 7 - 0. Public Hearing closed at 7:59 PM. Chair Grund entertained motion to close public hearing for Case #25-06. Motion made to close the Public Hearing by Commissioner Svoboda, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion passed 7 - 0. Page 38 of 56 Public Hearing closed at 7:59 PM. Chair Grund entertained a motion to open the public hearing for Case # 25-07 a Special Use Permit to allow a dog grooming establishment in the I – 1General Light Industrial District at 9448 W. 47th Street Avenue. Commissioner Sabourin moved, and Commissioner Miller seconded to open the public hearing at 8:00 PM. Chair Grund swore in Jennifer Navarez, real estate agent for the petitioner and Aidy Cardona, petitioner. Ms. Cardona desires to open the grooming salon here in Brookfield. She is new to the area. There is a similar use a few blocks down the street, and she loves dogs and has four years in the dog grooming business. In response to Commissioner Weber’s questioning, The proposed hours of operation. Hours proposed to be Tuesday through Saturday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Two dogs at any one time with 4 to 7 appointments a day. The appointments run for about 2 to 3 hours. The dogs would be dropped off and picked up by their owners. The owners would not wait on site. Commissioner Evan asked about boarding. No boarding of animals is proposed and not sought. There being no further questions of the petitioner Chair Grund asked for the staff report. Mr. Viger provided an overview of the property, its surroundings and the building’s current mixed uses. Staff did receive one email from a resident that was provided in your packet. The resident was concerned about parking and pedestrian and animal safety. There is another dog facility, “Frisky Dog” a few blocks east on 47th Street. That facility is much larger and has a whole host of services including day care, training and boarding in addition to grooming. Mr. Viger reviewed the Special Use approval standards and staff belief that this petition meets the standards and respectfully recommends approval. Commissioner Miller inquired about the second floor residential units. Mr. Viger replied staff believed they are rental units. Commissioner Evans asked for clarification that this request does not include board inf dogs. Mr. Viger, Correct. If boarding was requested in the future another public hearing would be required and a new or amended Special Use. Village Board Liaison Hendricks had two additional public comments that she read into the record. Charles Lupori, a 20 year resident unable to attend. This is a dangerous corner and his concern for the animals’ safety, parking and the similar business east on 487th Street. The second public comment is from Ashley Gerrel who resides on the Page 39 of 56 4400 block of DuBois Avenue. She is a dog lover and excited about additional services but is concerned with parking, safety and weekly street cleaning. There are problems with speeding vehicles on 47th and DuBois. New businesses are fantastic but other locations in town may well be available for this business. Chair Grund asked for additional public comment, there being none he asked for a motion. Commissioner Svoboda moved to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a dog grooming establishment at 9448 W. 47th Street. Commissioner Straka seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Chair Grund entertained motion to close public hearing for Case #25-07. Motion was made to close the Public Hearing by Commissioner Straka, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Motion passed 7 - 0. Public Hearing closed at 8:11 PM. Case # 25-08 Application for Garage Bulk Variation at 3936 N. Maple Avenue Chair Grund entertained a motion to open the public hearing for Case # 25-08 a garage bulk variation for at 3936 N. Maple Avenue to allow a garage of 528 square feet rather than the maximum area of 472 square feet. Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner Evans Seconded. Motin passed 7-0. Public Hearing opened at 8:12 PM. Chair Grund swore in Tiffany Geisert, Andrw Geisert petitioners and Dave Krecek of Blue Sky Builders. Mr. Geisert explained that they have resided in town for ten years at this home, they have made several improvements to the home. The garage is the next step as there has never been one. Both their cars are currently parked on the street. Maple Avenue is a busy street, and both their vehicles have been hit several times when parked on the street. They are requesting a larger garage as they have a pickup truck that is rather large and they look to store their lawn mower, snow blower and such items in the garage. Chair Grund referred to the Code section that includes an extra 100 square feet of garage in lieu of a shed. It includes a provision that it be recorded at the county prohibiting a shed. Mr. Geisert was aware of that provision and stated they intend to remove the existing shed if the variation is approved. Commissioner Weber asked about gutters on the garage, to which Mr. Krecek answered yes. Commissioner Weber asked about routing the gutters to the yard rather than the alley. Mr. Krecek discussed the stormwater requirements which will be determined at the building permit stage. Mr. Krecek stated the petitioner would be fine Page 40 of 56 with routing the gutters to the yard. He also commented that limiting the garage to 10% of the lot area is too low. There being no further questions of the petitioner Chair Grund asked for the staff report. Mr. Viger reviewed the property, its zoning, and environs. Also reviewed were the contractor’s plans for the proposed garage. The proposed Site Plan is below the maximum lot coverage and above the minimum green space requirements. Staff believes these two items are important in situations like this. Staff believes the standards for the requested variation are met and respectfully recommends approval of the request. Commissioner Evans commented on stormwater management and that those concerns would be addressed at the building permit phase. Commissioner Svoboda commented that the proposed garage also meets the sideyard requirements and that no additional shed would be allowed. Commissioner Straka concurred. Commissioner Evans stated that the garage would be an improvement to the area by reducing congestion on the busy street. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Grund asked for additional public comment, there being none he asked for a motion. Commissioner Sabourin made a motion to recommend approval of the variation to allow a garage of 528 square feet at 3936 N. Maple, with the condition that no other accessory structure be constructed and that the gutter downspouts be directed to the green space and not the alley. Second, by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed 7 – 0. Chair Grund entertained motion to close public hearing for Case #25-08. Motion made to close the Public Hearing by Commissioner Sabourin, seconded by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed 7 - 0. The public hearing was closed at 8:27 PM. Case # 25-09 Application for a Special Use Permit to allow a Coffee Roasting establishment at 9525 Southview Avenue Chair Grund entertained a motion to open the public hearing for case # 25-09 a Special Use Permit to allow a coffee roasting establishment at 9525 Southview Avenue. Commissioner moved Svoboda and Commissioner Miller seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Dan Schvain of 4537 Clausen Avenue, Western Springs and members of the public was sworn in by the Chair. Page 41 of 56 Mr. Schovain currently operates his small batch coffee roasting business in another business he operates in Western Springs. He operates the coffee roasting individually. The total space is approximately 600 square feet. Duie to size limitations he is looking to relocate his coffee roasting to 9525 Southview Avenue here in Brookfield. Chair Grund asked if there were questions from the Commission for the petitioner. Commissioner Evans asked for an explanation as to how the business works. Mr. Schovain explained that a small batch roaster standard is a roaster of 100 pounds or less, he operates a 15 pound roaster that is “extremely small”. Generally, he roasts 12.5 pounds at a time three to four days a week for between one and three hours a day. Between 25 – 50 pounds per day. Currently his roaster occupies between 50 and 75 square feet. Chair Grund asked if they anticipated the same amount of roasting here in Brookfield. Mr. Schovain said he hoped to grow a little but any large increase in their business would require them to move to a larger location. Commissioner Weber asked when he roasts, Mr. Schovain responded from 5:00 AM to 7:00 AM and noon and 3:30 PM. Referring to the public comment letters the Commission received, Commissioner Evans asked about the aromatics of the roasting operation and what might we see from the outside. Mr. Schovain said that if a person were to walk by the business during roasting, they would experience a smell like baking bread and see some visible smoke going into the air for two to three minutes of the 15 to 17 roasting time. Commissioner Svoboda asked about the peak roasting ability at this location. Mr. Schovain stated that the site could accommodate a larger roaster, that could double or triple the capacity of the roaster. That would not change the roasting time. Commissioner Weber inquired if the larger capacity would increase the aroma etc. Mr. Schovain was not sure if there would be an increase in odor or smoke. Commissioner Miller asked if they had received any complaints while operating at their current location. Mr. Schovain stated that they have not received any complaints and that there are residences approximately 100’ from their location. Currently they are near the Village Hall, police and Fire Stations are all nearby. Commissioner Weber asked if there was a device to reduce the scent. Mr. Schovain stated that there is but it’s about a $20,000 expense to buy an afterburner. The afterburner would reduce both the smell and the smoke. Commissioner Svoboda asked if there would be roasting on the weekends, Mr. Schovain “tries not to” but could not guarantee that there would not be. However, he would be agreeable to a condition of approval. There being no further questions of the petitioner Chair Grund asked for the staff report. Page 42 of 56 Mr. Viger reviewed the property, its zoning and the environs, highlighting the “A” district residential to the north and the requirement for a Special Use for coffee roasting. This area is the only I2 district in the Village. Staff believes that the petition does meet the standards for a Special Use and respectfully recommends its approval. Chair Grund referred to the proximity of the residential uses to the coffee roasting and stated that he expected more information on the mitigation process for possible smells. The Commission would like more information on the coffee roasting process, and he didn’t realize that the proposed operation was so small. Commissioner Weber believes as proposed it is a relatively low impact operation, but we all hope the business is successful and if they were to grow and the number of batches increases it could have a larger impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Evans asked if the public comments came in recently. Staff responded that the comments were received this week. Commissioner Evans stated that we have the public hearing to receive public comment, but the staff has recommended approval is the village staff obligated to research the petitioner’s current location etc. Mr. Viger responded that we have not visited Western Springs location. Commissioner Miller asked if the petitioner could provide documentation that there were no complaints at their current location. Mr. Schovain has correspondence from the Western Springs Village President, Heidi Rudolph in support of their business, that should have been included with the Commission’s packet. He stated that the roasting operation produces a smell like baking bread, and it produces less exhaust smoke than a charcoal grill and far less than a fireplace. Chair Grund asked for additional public comment. Mr. Dalici lives across the street, as a professional engineer he can guarantee that the operation will produce a lot of smoke and a lot of fumes and is bad for the environment and for the children in the area. The sugar facility generates a lot of trucks, and the neighborhood doesn’t need another issue. The Special Use requirement is proof that there is a problem with the roasting process. He felt the business would decrease his property value. Kathy Parpovich 3849 Kemman Avenue (the corner of Kemman and Southview), is concerned with the fumes. She has resided in her home since 1978 and is concerned about her property value. Mike McQuillan 3804 Blanchan Avenue earlier today submitted an email for the public record, referring to the Municipal Code considering coffee roasting of more than five kilos a moderate impact to the adjacent properties in terms of smoke, noise, particulate matter, odors or vibration mentioned in Section 62.26. The Code refers to 5 kilos and this operation is close to that in batch size, they state they will do multiple batches a day Page 43 of 56 thus pushing them over the five-kilo limit. He believes the proposal does not meet the standards for a Special Use and asks that the Commission not approve the request. Dan Chopp, owner of 9525 Southview Avenue, the subject property for this petition, reminded the Commission that this coffee roasting would generate less smoke than our backyard grills and that the I2 zoning district is the only district in town that would allow coffee roasting. Under the Special Use we can impose conditions to limit the smell, we want to be a good neighbor. There are other permitted uses in the I2 district that would have a larger impact on the neighbors. Chair Grund asked if the petitioner would like to rebut any of the public comments. Mr. Schovain said that he would not petition for this if he believed there would be an impact on children. The vent pipe would be the same height as a chimney and little or no smoke affects the neighbors, there is no exterior noise associated with the roaster, no vibration, no fumes, no chemicals are used, it emits CO2. Commissioner Evans referred to a public comment that Western Springs was looking to have the use leave Western Springs, but the Mayor of Western Springs in her email says she visits the site in both the mornings and the evenings and she has not noticed a roasting smell, is that correct? Mr. Schovain, correct. Chair Grund addressing Village Attorney Baugh, that the Commission has received multiple comments about the smell including some tonight, should they be read aloud? Village Attorney Baugh suggested that additional information should be collected and presented to the Commission. People are concerned with the smell, and we simply don’t know. Based on counsel’s recommendation, the petitioner needs to do a lot more homework and if there are smells how do you direct them away from the neighbors but if the smell is minimal that’s different. I would recommend we continue the case so that we can all become better educated. Commissioner Miller stated that we need to base our recommendation on facts not fears and potentially harming someone’s business on fears that may be unfounded. Commissioner Evans, perhaps the Commission members should visit the current site. Chair Grund entertained a motion. Commissioner Straka moved, and Commissioner Miller seconded to continue the case to July 24, 2025. Motin passed 7 – 0. Other Business Chair Grund asked for the report form staff. Director Popovic discussed the possibility of a Special Meeting in June for the purposes of reviewing a text amendment relating to Electric Vehicle charging. Chair Grund entertained amotion to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 44 of 56 Commissioner Miller moved and Commissioner Svoboda seconded a motion to close the meeting. Motion passed 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:13 PM Page 45 of 56  Committee Item Memo Meeting Date: June 09, 2025 Staff Contact: Libby Popovic, Community Development Director Department: Community Development Subject: Discussion Concerning Case #25-08 Request for a Variation from Section 62.17 to Allow a 526 Square Foot Garage that Exceeds the Maximum of 472 Square Feet at 3936 N. Maple Avenue Background Information: On May 22, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application for Case #25-08 request for a variation from Section 62.17 to allow a 526 square foot garage that exceeds the maximum of 472 square feet at 3936 N. Maple Avenue. The Commission recommended approval of the application with a unanimous vote of 7-0. Background Information Location: 3936 Maple Avenue PINs: 18-03-107-035 Applicant: Tiffany & Andrew Geisert Current Zoning: A1 Single Family Residential District Current Land Use: Single Family Residence The subject property is a single family home site on the east side of Maple Avenue approximately 90 feet north of Windemere Avenue and is improved with a two story single family home. Existing Conditions & Site Context The homesite is an existing non-conforming lot in the A1 Single Family District. Lot is 4,722+ square feet which is below the minimum required lot size in A1 of 6,200 square feet. The lot is improved with a single family home. Images are attached as an Exhibit. Analysis Page 46 of 56 The Petitioner is seeking to erect a 2 ½ car detached garage accessed for the rear alley. The garage as proposed measures 22’ x 24’ for a total of 526 square feet. In the A1 District detached garages are limited to 10% of the lot area. In this case that is 472 square feet. The existing Lot Coverage is 940.95 SQFT, with the proposed garage of 526 SQFT that totals 1,468.95 which is below the maximum of 35% or 1,652.96 SQFT. Similarly, the proposed garage with the variation fall above the Minimum Green Space requirement is 40% or 1889 SQFT. Staff’s calculations, including the existing walks etc. show a green space of 2,950 SQFT. Applicant’s Request 1. Variance from Section 62.17(c) to increase the size of a detached garage above the 10% of lot area maximum of 472 SQFT to allow a garage of 526 SQFT. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS Standards of Review In accordance with Section 62-760 Standards for Variation, the following findings shall be met and proven by the applicant before any positive consideration is to be made in granting of a variation: (b) (1) The hardship alleged as the basis for the variation must be derived from difficulties pertaining to the property itself which prevent full use of the property of the same extent other properties in close proximity within the same zoning district can be used; (2) The hardship alleged as the basis for a variation must not be self-created or self-imposed by the applicant or his agent nor by unauthorized and unpermitted acts of any prior owner; (3) That there is no other means other then the requested variation by which the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of the property; (4) That the variation sought will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property; (5) That the variation sought will not unreasonably diminish the values of adjacent property; (6) That the variation sought will not unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets or otherwise endanger public safety; and (7) That the variation is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. (c) In the absence of evidence being presented as part of the public hearing process to justify the preceding conditions, the planning and zoning commission shall issue a recommendation for denial to the village board. (d) Where evidence is presented to the planning and zoning commission as part of the public hearing process that the preceding conditions have been met, the planning and zoning commission shall, in writing, list their findings of fact and recommend only enough relief from the standards and requirements of this chapter will be allowed to meet the minimum need requested. The board of trustees shall then take appropriate and final action regarding the application for variation. (e) The planning and zoning commission shall make a recommendation and may suggest conditions and limitations and the board of trustees may impose such specific conditions and limitations concerning use, construction, character, location, landscaping, screening and any Page 47 of 56 other matters relating to the purposes and intents of this chapter upon the premises benefited by a variation. Such conditions or limitations shall be made as deemed necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and also be expressly set forth in the ordinance granting the variation. Where the ordinance granting the variation contains conditions or stipulations, such ordinance shall be recorded in the county recorder's office as a covenant upon the property at the expense of the applicant prior to the issuance of any permit to perform work so intended for authorization by the ordinance. (f) Issuance of an ordinance allowing variation does not preclude the responsibility of the applicant from meeting all other applicable codes and ordinances of the village. The issuance of an ordinance allowing a variation does not infer any changes to the text of this chapter or its map, nor does such action confer any rights for similar properties not having been property petitioned for as a variation. (g) A variance shall not be granted where a building or structure was constructed in noncompliance with the building codes of the village in effect at the time of said construction. Recommendation The Commission reviewed the application and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The garage shall be developed in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Blue Sky Builders dated 04.15.25 Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the variation. Attachment Description: Application Attachments: Application Architecture 2 Details Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Page 48 of 56 Page 49 of 56 Page 50 of 56 Page 51 of 56 Page 52 of 56 Page 53 of 56 Page 54 of 56 Page 55 of 56 Page 56 of 56