Planning and Zoning Commission

Village of Brookfield Agenda Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, May 22, 2025 @ 7:00 PM Edward Barcal Hall 8820 Brookfield Avenue Brookfield, IL 60513 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of the minutes of the January 23,2025 Regular Meeting 01.23.25 PZC Minutes 2. Approval of the Minutes of the April 10, 2025, Special Meeting. 04.10.25 PZC Minutes Speical Meeting IV. Public Comment V. Old Business 1. PZC Case #25-01 9000 Ogden Avenue Request for Sign Variations Section 42-86 Permanent Sign Regulations -22 May 2025 - Pdf VI. New Business 1. PZC Case #25-05 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 -22 May 2025 - Pdf 2. PZC Case#25-06 Request for a Variation from Section 62.290 Required Parking to reduce the number of required parking spaces at 9211 Broadway Avenue -22 May 2025 - Pdf 3. PZC Case#25-07 Request for a Special Use Permit, Section 62.30 to allow a dog grooming establishment at 9448 W. 47th Street -22 May 2025 - Pdf 4. PZC 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 -22 May 2025 - Pdf 5. PZC Case#25-09 Request for a Special Use Permit Section 62.30 to allow a coffee roasting facility at 9525 Southview Avenue -22 May 2025 - Pdf VII. Other Business VIII. Adjournment Page 1 of 87  Individuals with a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in any meeting should contact the Village of Brookfield (708)485- 7344 prior to the meeting. Wheelchair access may be gained through the front (South) entrance of the Village Hall. Individuals with a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in any meeting should contact the Village of Brookfield (708)485-7344 prior to the meeting. Wheelchair access may be gained through the police department (East) entrance of the Village Hall. Page 2 of 87 PZC MEETING MINUTES Meeting started at 7:00 PM January 23.2025 Attendance: Present: Evans, Sabourin, Svoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund Absent: Miller Motion to approve September 26,2024 meeting minutes: Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Sabourin. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Present at Meeting: Trustee Hendricks, Community Development Director Libby Popovic and Interim Planner, Scott Viger. Public Comment: No public comment New Business - Chair Grund entertained a Motion to take the agenda out of order, moving Case#25-02 a Text Amendment to after Case 25-03. Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. 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 Sabourin and seconded by Commissioner Evans. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Chairperson Grund swore in Paul Castelbuono and Paul Castelbuono Jr. Staff report presented by Interim Planner Scott Viger. He noted that the property has been an automotive use for many years and Castle Motors has occupied the space since 2020. The applicant had a sign contractor apply for a wall sign permit, which was not issued, and the contractor erected the sign without an approved permit. Upon a staff site visit we discovered the awning sign that likewise did not have a permit. Wall sign requires variations for height, size and number of signs the awning sign requires variations for size and the number of lines of text. We published for a variation for the awning sign clearance, but it has been determined that the sign does in fact meet the minimum clearance requirements so that variation is not needed. S. Viger reviewed the site for the commission. Property is zoned C1 commercial district. There are two existing wall signs on the east façade. The new wall sign on the southern/front façade is 102 square feet while only 100 square feet is permitted. The sign is also 5’ in height while the Code maximum is 4’ and lastly the sign is mounted at a height of 16’ 8” while the Code maximum height is 15’. Page 3 of 87 The sign variation standards of Section 42-206 were reviewed. Staff respectfully recommend approval of the variations. The Commission reviewed the timeline of which signs were erected first. P. Castelbuono reviewed the various signs. He stated the signs have helped his business and that his 23 year old son P. Castlebuono Jr. is now in the business with him. Commission discussion and questions on the various signs, the requested variations and permit processes. P. Castelbuono stated he believed his sign contractor was a reputable contractor as they had done work in nearby communities. Discussion included the window signs. P. Castelbuono reviewed his business history and stated he is investing in his property and business. He feels the signage has increased his walk – in traffic. He cannot address the lack of appropriate procedure by his sign contractor. His business generates sales tax for the Village. P. Castelbuono Jr. reviewed the building location close to the street creating difficulty for signage location. Commissioner Evana spoke of the well known need for permits and that the onus is ultimately on the property owner. P. Castelbuono Jr. stated he had paid the contractor for a permit. P. Castelbuono stated he felt the signs were attractive and projected his firm’s image well. There was no one from the public present requesting to be heard. Chair Grund entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Svoboda and seconded by Commissioner Sabourin. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Commission discussion, wall sign is not a standard internally illuminated cabinet/box sign that would light up the neighborhood. Wall sign is a bit too large but it is attractive. The height is a problem, could the outline of the car be eliminated? General discussion on possible alterations to the wall sign. Commissioner Evans discussed the need for a new sign ordinance and the ease of seeking forgiveness rather than permission. Struggles setting a precedent. As this sign seems to be in violation of the new Sign Ordinance currently being developed by staff and a consultant. Commissioner Straka agreed, however this isn’t necessarily about the attractiveness of the sign, the sign is just too big. Chair Grund reviewed specific verbiage in the Sign Code and the work of the Planning & Zoning Commission’s efforts to upgrade the Village. And going from two signs to five is a big ask and the disregard for the Code processes and believes the Standards for Review are not met, nor is it a reasonable request. Chair Grund suggested allowing the south façade wall and one other and allowing the petitioner to decide which other sign they wish to retain. Commissioner Weber raised a concern about the construction integrity of the installation. Page 4 of 87 A continuance was suggested to allow the petitioner to work with the Village on possible alternatives. Chair Grund entertained a motion to continue the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Straka. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Chair Grund instructed the petitioner to work with staff and felt a workable solution could be found. Case # 25-03 Application for a Special Use Permit to allow a “Massage Establishment” at 3745 Grand Boulevard (Luxxe Honor) Chair Grund entertained a Motion to open the public hearing for Case#25-03 a Special Use Permit to allow a Massage Establishment at 3745 Grand Boulevard. Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Cahir Grund swore in Jennifer Del Guidice. S. Viger reviewed the proposal and presented a PowerPoint presentation. Zoning, site context and Luxxe Honor’s business history and their desire to relocate to Brookfield. Luxxe Honor is primarily a retail business and wishes to use the massage therapy to supplement their retail sales. Staff also reviewed the history of how the Code handled massage establishments and that Brennan Massage is located on Grand Boulevard. Staff believes that massage use is ancillary to the retail function of the store. Staff believes the request meets the standards found in the Zoning Ordinance and that the massage therapists are all licensed by the State of Illinois. No public comments were received by staff. Commissioner Straka inquired about parking. Staff responded that there is not a Code related parking issue. J. Del Guidice addressed the Commission. She is a registered nurse, certified oncology esthetician and certified in aromatherapy started Luxxe Honor in 2014 has been located in Hinsdale and La Grange and now is looking relocate to downtown Brookfield. She uses her services, esthetician and massage therapy to enhance her retail sales. Luxxe Honor offers wellness memberships. She creates natural healthy products. Commissioner Svoboda asked about the difference in services offered in LaGrange and Brookfield. J. Del Guidice stated that in La Grange they have a studio for yoga and four treatment rooms, here they propose two treatment rooms and will not have a studio for yoga. Chair Grund asked “Why Brookfield?” The petitioner stated that LaGrange was costly and that her manager lives here in Brookfield and suggested she look here as it is five minutes away from their current location and she felt this was perfect. Village Board Liaison Henricks asked that the petitioner walk the Commission through the floor plan. The treatment rooms are located to the rear as required by Code. Most of Page 5 of 87 the space (60%) is devoted to retail sale of products and 20% is used to compounding and creating products. Commissioner Svoboda asked if the glass storefront would remain. They will. It is possible that both treatment rooms could be used by estheticians or massage therapists. There was no one from the public present requesting to be heard. Chair Grund entertained a Motion to close the public hearing for Case#25-03. Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Commissioner Evans commented that the massage therapy is clearly ancillary to the retail use and fits well into the district that continues to improve. Commissioner Weber spoke to the retail use with a bonus of massage therapy that will augment the dining uses downtown. Commissioner Straka felt the mix of retail and service is ideal. Commissioner Svoboda agrees. Chair Grund entertained a Motion to approve the Special Use Permit with Conditions limiting the treatment rooms to two and as found in the Staff Report for Case#25-03. Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Svoboda. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Case # 25-02 Application for a Text Amendment to Section 62.217 Station Area Districts Chair Grund entertained a Motion to open the public hearing for Case#25-02 a Text Amendment to Section 62-217 Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Chair Grund recused himself. Commissioner Evans moved to appoint Commissioner Straka as Chair Pro Temp for this Case. Commissioner Sabourin seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Chair Pro Temp Straka asked staff for a presentation. S. Viger reviewed the Code provisions for use of materials and the requirement for a “rain screen” in certain instances. The amendment would allow fiber cement board, commonly referred to by the brand name HardieBoard, as a primary material. There was a discussion about the thickness of the panel. Staff felt that would be handled by the Building Code not the Zoning Ordinance. Split faced block was discussed, which is not part of this request. Charles Grund added that the staff should look into expanding the materials usable in the downtown in the Zoning Ordinance rewrite. Chair Pro Temp Straka agreed. There was no one from the public present requesting to be heard. Page 6 of 87 Chair Pro Temp Straka entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Sabourin. Motion passed unanimously 5-0. Chair Pro Temp Straka entertained a motion to approve the Text Amendment as proposed. Motion made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Sabourin. Motion passed unanimously 5-0. Mr. Grund returned. Commissioner Evans moved and Commissioner Straka seconded to reinstate C. Grund as Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Motion passed unanimously 5- 0. Chair Grund asked for a report from the staff. Director Popovic asked if there was any desire to alter the meeting date and / or time. Chair Grund asked for a printed yearly schedule. Staff will send out the schedule that indicates the November and December meetings to be changed to the third Thursday to accommodate the holidays. Director Popovic reviewed the progress on the Zoning Ordinance update. Chair Grund entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Sabourin moved, and Commissioner Evans seconded. The motion passed unanimously 6 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 pm. Page 7 of 87 PZC Special MEETING MINUTES Meeting started at 7:00 PM April 10.2025 Attendance: Present: Miller, Sabourin, Svoboda, Straka, Weber, Grund Absent: Evans Present at Meeting: Trustee Hendricks, Community Development Director Libby Popovic and Interim Planner, Scott Viger. Public Comment: No public comment New Business - Case # 25-04 Application for a Preliminary Planned Development at 8921 and 8947 Fairview Avenue Chair Grund entertained a Motion to open the public hearing for Case#25-04 for Preliminary Planned Development at 8921 & 8947 Fairview Avenue Moved by Commissioner Straka and seconded by Commissioner Sabourin. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Interim Planner Scott Viger presented the staff report using a PowerPoint presentation. The request is for a Preliminary Planned Development for a mixed use commercial and residential building proposed to be located ta 8921 and 8947 Fairview Avenue. The petitioner is Griffin & Gallagher LLC, the attorneys for Connemara Holding LLC. Connemara Holdings LLC is the owner of 8921 Fairview Avenue and the Contract Purchaser of 8947 Fairview Avenue. This is a Panned Development, a tool that has been around since the 1970s but we don’t see them a lot here in Brookfield. The Planned Development is used for unique situations where the conventional standards of the Zoning Ordinance may not be appropriate or may inhibit or cause difficulty developing unique or troublesome properties. S. Viger reviewed the site’s location and zoning as well as the zoning and uses surrounding the subject property. The most recent Comprehensive Plan for the Village from 2018 shows the subject property as a Mixed Use Redevelopment site. The site is key to the continued enhancement of the downtown and therefore the overall well being of the Village. The site is a keystone property to the downtown, it’s a gateway and is highly visible. The site is bordered by two “primary streets” Brookfield on the south and Fairview on the north. Sunnyside to the west is the side yard. The building is four stories tall, the Code allows five and a half. The first floor has 7248 square feet of commercial space fronting on Brookfield Avenue and two residential units at the building’s northwest corner, each if the upper three floors has nine dwelling units each for a total of 29 units in the building. The first floor also has 1 Page 8 of 87 15 garage parking spaces. The Station Area Districts have aspects pf a form-based code which talks about a significant base and a significant top or cornice and differentiating the floors in between. We believe this building does that. It is fresh, it’s attractive, it’s contemporary in its style and we think it’s an enhancement to the area. The site plan was explained and reviewed with the setback of the upper three floors from the base or ground floor. These setbacks are contemplated in the zoning ordinance, and they also provide for the unique feature of rooftop terraces for the second floor units. The building is to be constructed in two phases, the first being the eastern, larger portion of the building and the second smaller phase to the west. The developer has indicated that the site work will be done simultaneously while the vertical construction would be segregated in those two phases. The elevations were presented and reviewed. The building is “four-sided” meaning there is no back or rear. The floor plans were presented and reviewed. The first floor has three commercial spaces of 1,859 2,574 and 2,815 square feet, the 15 indoor parking spaces and the two dwelling units. Indoor bicycle storage is also included. The upper floor plans indicating nine units each with the rooftop terraces on the second floor were reviewed. The dwelling units are primarily two bedroom two bath units. Ranging from 1,120 to 1,360 square feet. 22 of the 29 units are two bedroom and two bath with only seven units being one bedroom one bath, these units range from 878 to 881 square feet. The engineering plan is included in the packet. The Planned Development procedure includes a preliminary engineering plan to determine that the plan “works” and if approved could move ahead to final and permit engineering without significant changes to the site plan presented at the Preliminary Planned Development stage. Hancock Engineering, our Village Engineers have reviewed the preliminary engineering and has found that the plan does “work” and sees no issues that would cause a change to the site plan if it moves to final engineering and construction. The planned development requires submission of a landscape plan. The property is ringed with street tress and the Village had asked for a high visual impact landscape on the eastern end of the property near Grand Boulevard. The plan does indicate that. The village does own the very point of the property. The planned development includes departures form the code, unlike a standard zoning entitlement case where the Commission is charged with going through each individual variation and recommending approval or denial of each, a planned development has departures not variations. The planned development process is used for unique properties, such as this triangular site with two primary frontages which create a lot of “paper problems” with the strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance. That is what the planned development is for. The departures were reviewed. Eight of the 15 enumerated departures are directly related to the site’s triangular shape which drops the number to 2 Page 9 of 87 seven. Two of the seven deal with parking, which don’t really apply, and we will get to that a bit later. And three deal with the architecture, two are architectural design and one is the primary material. A departure from the required parking was included in the application, but it doesn’t really apply. They have 15 spaces on site and the zoning ordinance allows for off site parking. In this case the required parking for the residential units is 37. Recall that there is not a parking requirement for non-residential uses. The building includes indoor bicycle storage which creates a credit of two spaces, resulting in a need for 20 spaces. The village will provide these 20 spaces in a location within the required distance from the site. The building’s primary material is Nichilia (similar to a Hardie Board product) which isn’t listed as an acceptable primary material in our code. There are samples of the material for Commission inspection. The Standards of Review for the departures are different from what the Commission is used to with variations. They include the uses compatibility with the intent of the zoning district, and its compatibility with existing uses in the vicinity. The Standards of Review also lists nine additional items; compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, high standards of design, a safe and desirable environment, adequate open space for recreation, creative and workable approach to land development, compatibility with adjacent uses, it justifies the departures form the strict interpretation of the code, and offers proper safeguarding to allow the proposal to meet the intents, purposes and standards of the district. Staff believe the proposal meets these standards. The planned development process was recapped. It includes two parts, preliminary and final. Preliminary allows the developer to review the proposal’s concept. If approved the developer’s rights are vested, meaning that the Village agrees that the developer has the right to move ahead to expending large amounts of time and incurring a large cost preparing final architectural and engineering plans. The staff believes the proposed Planned Development meets the criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore respectfully recommends approval of the Preliminary Panned Development. Planning and Zoning Commission questions of staff. Mr. Weber asked about parking. S. Viger, L. Popovic and Village Manager Wiberg all discussed Transit Oriented Design the Village’s desire to accommodate additional parking for this proposal as well as future ones and have recently engaged KLOA to perform a downtown parking study to identify useable parking spaces for new developments. Village staff is comfortable that there is ample parking for this property in the nearby area. Chairperson Grund inquired about open space and if the open space at the eastern point of the property would be open to the public. S. Viger stated that at this time, the bulk of the open space is a privately owned amenity. 3 Page 10 of 87 Commissioner Miller asked about the tenancy of the residential units, condominiums or rental and for clarification on the refuse area’s location. Currently the units are designated as rental. And Commissioner Sabourin commented on the building’s materials. Staff responded that Hardie board is limited to a percentage of the façade. Planning and Zoning Commission questions were completed and Chairperson Grund swore in the petitioner and members of the public desiring to be heard. Andrea Crowley, an attorney with the law firm Griffin and Gallagher, the petitioner addressed the Commission. The development team has spent a year and a half meeting and speaking with the Village. They believe this is a great project and that there are a lot of variances to the Code. With parking there are many spaces in the area and the developer is open to a sticker program or something similar is doable. Martin McDonagh from Connemara Holding and Alex Kozionnyi with A Studio Architects are here. Ms. Crowley said the developer is willing to work with the Village on the eastern point of the property and including it in their landscape plan. We are here to answer any question and wanted to thank the village staff, as they have been fantastic to work with and responsive to us. The architect, A. Kozionnyi reviewed the building’s architecture, the lack of roof top HVAC units as a combination of heating and cooling units will be in each unit and the use of Nichilia as a material. Samples of the Nichilia were passed to the Commission. General discussion of the samples ensued. Chairperson Grund asked for clarification on the materials textures. There will be a difference in texture between the white and brown panels. Commissioner Miller asked about the long term durability of the materials. Technical specifications of the material were submitted to the village. Public Comment John Scaletta owns 8922 and 8928 Fairview directly north of the property. He stated that he wasn’t expecting this to be so beautiful and he is in 100% support of this project. The property has been vacant for along time, we need more boots on the ground here in Brookfield. On parking, there is street cleaning on Fairview so there is no parking until 4:00PM. The street cleaner comes through at 8:00 or by 9:00 AM at the latest, then the street could be open for parking. Robert Rackuzius 8940 Fairview is concerned with parking. Understands that it is within Code but there will be visitors and customers of the commercial uses. On any given day, especially the weekend after 6:00 PM it is difficult to find a parking spot on the street. The two new residential buildings, one Fairview and one on Sunnyside, Sunnyside are narrow, it fills up and cannot accommodate the traffic. If approved there would be 55 new units within a block from our home. The new residents are delightful, 4 Page 11 of 87 and some are friends of ours. Fear that this building will exacerbate the problem. Sunnyside and Sheridan are not wide, semi-trucks use the streets for deliveries to the Grand Boulevard businesses. Colby Mecher 3715 Sunnyside since 2019 just across the alley form the 17 units apartment building. We love that Brookfield is growing and like the foot traffic in front of our home. With better planning we can better accommodate these new units. Stop signs and crosswalks on Sunnyside and Sheridan, at least one spot per unit should be included in the rent of the unit, 3600 & 3700 blocks should be one way like the 3800 block or widened. All new residents seem to have at least one car. Our family welcomes all new neighbors with a smile but ask the village to make the necessary accommodations to allow our block to welcome them in a safe way. Seeing no members of the public desiring to be heard and with no additional comments from the developer Chair Grund entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Svoboda and seconded by Commissioner Sabourin. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:05 PM. Commission discussion, Commissioner Straka mentioned parking, we discussed parking for the residents in the Station Area Districts, there is parking issue village-wide the church near his home has no parking lot, we have to deal with it. Commissioner Miller appreciates the site’s unique shape and size to develop. Also because of the location the building will be seen by thousands and thousands of commuters every day. The aesthetics of the building must be positive and good, for that I will defer to the architects on the commission. The building is attractive, but I think the roof overhang is a negative. We should not charge the residents for parking in the garage. I always want to encourage native plantings anywhere in the Village. Commissioner Svoboda, overall, I like the project. Like the bottom portion, it’s linear and the upper portion undulates. The bottom is almost too linear, couple hundred feet of linear roof. The terraces could have planters and the north elevation with a continuous garages and curbcut could be a safety issue. Are there any accessible units? And how many? Commissioner Sabourin supports the project but thinks it looks a bit like a Hampton Inn & Suites hotel. It is boxy and linear, there is not a lot of articulation in the façade. With the number of departures perhaps more attention to the design, this will be the showpiece for downtown. Commissioner Straka felt the change of fenestration or color of the façade could provide more variety. It might not be as appealing as what is proposed 5 Page 12 of 87 Commissioner Weber agreed that the parking spot should be part of the units’ rent not offered at an additional cost. This will keep folks from parking in the neighborhood. Chairperson Grund was worried about the Nichilia but now I am comfortable with the product. Standards 8 and 9 were not answered properly by the developer. The granting of variations gives a lot to the developer so the village should get something back. The park at the eastern end should be public, that would be a give back. Parking costs $360 to lease a commuter space so we should ask for more than that. Hinsdale has a charge per space not provided of $20,000. If the balcony overhang is broken up a bit that could help. That’s our opinion. The upper floors are spectacular. Could it be better, absolutely, but it is what it is. Petitioner Crowley stated that they will not charge additional costs for parking. We will make the east end a community amenity. There is no intention of fencing the point. Commissioner Miller asked for street furniture on the eastern point. Commissioner Svoboda mentioned the north – south sidewalk but there is no crosswalk. And asked about the building signage. It is part of the Planned Development but will meet the Code. Chairperson Grund asked about the conditions of approval being approved and they will be taken into account when this comes back at Final Planned Development. Chairperson Grund made a motion to approve Case # 2504 a Preliminary Planned Development for 8921 and 8947 Fairview Avenue with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial compliance with the following plans: a. Architectural Plans prepared by A Studio Architects PLLC dated 11.29.24 last revised 04.03.25 b. Preliminary Engineering Improvement Plans for Luxury Residences of Brookfield prepared by Landmark Engineering LLC dated 01.10.25 c. Planting Plan for the Luxury Residences of Brookfield prepared by Gregory M. Piercaell dated 02.24.25 2. The developer shall prepare a Plat of Consolidation to consolidate the property into one Lot. (Section 62.21) 3. An agreement shall be reached with the Village regarding the off-site parking for 20 parking spaces. 4. The Final Planned Development application must be submitted within 12 months of the President and Village Board of Trustees approval of the Preliminary Planned Development. (Section 62.822) 6 Page 13 of 87 Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. The Motion passed unanimously 6-0. L. Popovic anticipates that this petition would be on the Village Board’s May 14, 2025, agenda. Seeing no other business, Chair Grund entertained a motion to adjourn the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Svoboda moved, and Commissioner Straka seconded. The motion passed unanimously 6 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 pm. 7 Page 14 of 87  Meeting Date: May 22, 2025 Staff Contact: Scott Viger, Planner Department: Community Development Subject: PZC Case #25-01 9000 Ogden Avenue Request for Sign Variations Section 42-86 Permanent Sign Regulations Background Information: This item originally appeared on the January 23, 2025 PZC agenda. At that time the matter was continued to allow time to seek a compromise signage proposal. Staff has reached out on several occasions over the intervening time. Staff further spoke to petitioner's counsel on two occasions to discuss. No new material or compromise proposal has been submitted nor discussed. The original staff report outlining the sign variations is attached. Financial Impact: None. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the variation of the wall sign and denial of the awning sign and other variations. Attachment Description: Application Staff Report from Jan 23, 2025 Attachments: Application and Plans Wall sign plan sketch Committee Item Memo-23 Jan 2025 No. 1 9000 Ogden Page 15 of 87 Page 16 of 87 Page 17 of 87 Page 18 of 87 Page 19 of 87 Page 20 of 87 Page 21 of 87 Page 22 of 87 Page 23 of 87 Page 24 of 87  Committee Item Memo Meeting Date: January 23, 2025 Staff Contact: Scott Viger, Planner Department: Planning and Zoning Commission Subject: Case No. 25-01 Request for Sign Variations from Section 42.86 Permanent Sign Regulations in order to allow a third wall sign on the property that exceeds the maximum height and sign area and an awning sign that is mounted below the minimum clearance, exceeds the 30% coverage and two lines of text maximums for property located at 9000 Ogden Avenue. Background Information: Castle Motors has been at 9000 Ogden Avenue since 2020. They offer auto repair and sales of cars, trucks and trailers. In 2024 Castle Motors applied for an awning sign permit that was not issued. Later it was discovered that the awning sign as well as a wall sign were erected without a permit. Staff notified the applicant to apply for the wall sign permit and it was discovered that the erected sign was not Code compliant. This triggered the Variance application. Existing Conditions & Site Context The subject site is 21,038+ square feet and is improved with a one-story commercial building with parking lots on both the east and west side of the building. The adjacent zoning and land uses to the East, West and South are C1 General Service District. To the north across the alley is A1 Single Family. Subject property 2023 Streetview Image Analysis The Sign Regulations limit each property to two permanent signs. There are two permanent wall signs on the eastern (Sunnyside Avenue) façade of the building. The first requested variance request is to Page 25 of 87  surpass the maximum number of signs to allow four rather than two with an awning sign on the western faced and a wall sign upon the south facade. As noted above, the two signs in question, the Awning sign on the western façade and large wall sign on the south (Ogden Avenue) façade were both erected without a permit. The staff has a record of an application being sought for the awning sign that was not approved. No permit was sought for the wall sign. Awning signs are limited to 30% of the awning size. The requested awning far exceeds that maximum allowable coverage. Additionally, the awning is to have seven-foot clearance from the ground level. Staff has measured the awning clearance at 7’-4” and an overall height of 11’-2”. Two existing wall signs on the Eastern (Sunnyside Avenue) facade. The wall sign is limited to 100 square feet while the requested variance is to allow 122.46 square feet. The maximum vertical dimension of a wall sign is 4’ while the requested sign exceeds that maximum and has a height of 5’. The sign also exceeds the overall maximum height of 15’ extending upwards to 16’8”. Non permitted Awning Sign Non permitted Wall Sign Applicant’s Request 1. Variance for the number of signs on a property from two to four. 2. Variance for the size of a wall sign from 100 square feet to 122.46 square feet. 3. Variance for the height of a wall sign from 4’ to 5’ 4. Variance for the overall height of the wall sign from 15’ to 16’ – 8”. 5. Variance for the size of an awning sign to exceed 30% of thew awning size. In Page 26 of 87 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. Dates of Authorization Application Filed November 26, 2024 Date of Mailed Legal Notice January 4, 2005 Date of Legal Notice of Public Hearing sign posted January 8, 2025 Date of Landmark Publication of Legal Notice January 8, 2025 Date of Public Hearing January 23, 2025 Recommendation(s): Recommendation The staff has reviewed the application and the property’s environs and believe that the request meets the above standards. And therefore, staff respectfully recommends approval of Case Number 25-01 Sign Variations under Section 42.86 to allow an additional wall sign on the south (front) façade measuring 122.46 square feet that exceed the maximum size of 100 square feet and has a sign height of 5’ exceeding the Code maximum of 4’ as well as an overall height of 16’ – 8” exceeding the maximum height upon the wall of 15’ and an awning sign on the west side façade that exceeds the maximum size of 30% of the awning at 9000 Ogden Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. Both signs shall obtain a permit from the Community Development Department and all required inspections be conducted and approved. Attachment Description: Attachments Variance Application Plat of Survey Image of Awning Sign Plan & Image of Wall Sign Image of other existing signs on the property Affidavit of Public Notice Page 27 of 87 Riverside Brookfield Landmark Publication of Legal Notice Attachments: Committee Item Memo-23 Jan 2025 No.1 Page 28 of 87  Committee Item Memo Meeting Date: January 23, 2025 Staff Contact: Scott Viger, Planner Department: Planning and Zoning Commission Subject: Case No. 25-01 Request for Sign Variations from Section 42.86 Permanent Sign Regulations in order to allow a third wall sign on the property that exceeds the maximum height and sign area and an awning sign that is mounted below the minimum clearance, exceeds the 30% coverage and two lines of text maximums for property located at 9000 Ogden Avenue. Background Information: Castle Motors has been at 9000 Ogden Avenue since 2020. They offer auto repair and sales of cars, trucks and trailers. In 2024 Castle Motors applied for an awning sign permit that was not issued. Later it was discovered that the awning sign as well as a wall sign were erected without a permit. Staff notified the applicant to apply for the wall sign permit and it was discovered that the erected sign was not Code compliant. This triggered the Variance application. Existing Conditions & Site Context The subject site is 21,038+ square feet and is improved with a one-story commercial building with parking lots on both the east and west side of the building. The adjacent zoning and land uses to the East, West and South are C1 General Service District. To the north across the alley is A1 Single Family. Subject property 2023 Streetview Image Analysis The Sign Regulations limit each property to two permanent signs. There are two permanent wall signs on the eastern (Sunnyside Avenue) façade of the building. The first requested variance request is to surpass the maximum number of signs to allow four rather than two with an awning sign on the western faced and a wall sign upon the south facade. As noted above, the two signs in question, the Awning sign on the western façade and large wall sign on the south (Ogden Avenue) façade were both erected without a permit. The staff has a record of an application being sought for the awning sign that was not approved. No permit was sought for the wall sign. Awning signs are limited to 30% of the awning size. The requested awning far exceeds that maximum allowable coverage. Additionally, the awning is to have seven-foot clearance from the ground level. Staff has measured the awning clearance at 7’-4” and an overall height of 11’-2”. Page 29 of 87  Two existing wall signs on the Eastern (Sunnyside Avenue) facade. The wall sign is limited to 100 square feet while the requested variance is to allow 122.46 square feet. The maximum vertical dimension of a wall sign is 4’ while the requested sign exceeds that maximum and has a height of 5’. The sign also exceeds the overall maximum height of 15’ extending upwards to 16’8”. Non permitted Awning Sign Non permitted Wall Sign Applicant’s Request 1. Variance for the number of signs on a property from two to four. 2. Variance for the size of a wall sign from 100 square feet to 122.46 square feet. 3. Variance for the height of a wall sign from 4’ to 5’ 4. Variance for the overall height of the wall sign from 15’ to 16’ – 8”. 5. Variance for the size of an awning sign to exceed 30% of thew awning size. In 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. Dates of Authorization Application Filed November 26, 2024 Date of Mailed Legal Notice January 4, 2005 Date of Legal Notice of Public Hearing sign posted January 8, 2025 Date of Landmark Publication of Legal Notice January 8, 2025 Date of Public Hearing January 23, 2025 Page 30 of 87 Recommendation(s): Recommendation The staff has reviewed the application and the property’s environs and believe that the request meets the above standards. And therefore, staff respectfully recommends approval of Case Number 25-01 Sign Variations under Section 42.86 to allow an additional wall sign on the south (front) façade measuring 122.46 square feet that exceed the maximum size of 100 square feet and has a sign height of 5’ exceeding the Code maximum of 4’ as well as an overall height of 16’ – 8” exceeding the maximum height upon the wall of 15’ and an awning sign on the west side façade that exceeds the maximum size of 30% of the awning at 9000 Ogden Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. Both signs shall obtain a permit from the Community Development Department and all required inspections be conducted and approved. Attachment Description: Attachments Variance Application Plat of Survey Image of Awning Sign Plan & Image of Wall Sign Image of other existing signs on the property Affidavit of Public Notice Riverside Brookfield Landmark Publication of Legal Notice Page 31 of 87  Meeting Date: May 22, 2025 Staff Contact: Scott Viger, Planner Department: Community Development Subject: PZC Case #25-05 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: 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 Background Information 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 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 Page 32 of 87 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. 2. All signs shall obtain a permit from the Community Development Department and all required inspections be conducted and approved. Attachments Variance Application Plat of Survey Image of Awning Sign Plan & Image of Wall Sign Image of other existing signs on the property Affidavit of Public Notice Page 33 of 87 Riverside Brookfield Landmark Publication of Legal Notice Dates of Authorization Application Filed 03.26.25 Date of Mailed Legal Notice 05.06.25 Date of Legal Notice of Public Hearing sign posted 05.07.25 Date of Landmark Publication of Legal Notice 05.07.25 Date of Public Hearing 05.22.25 Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the two sign variations. Attachment Description: Application Exhibits Attachments: 03.26.25 Application packet 8819 Ogden Staff Report Images Page 34 of 87 Page 35 of 87 Page 36 of 87 Page 37 of 87 Page 38 of 87 Page 39 of 87 Page 40 of 87 Page 41 of 87 Page 42 of 87 Page 43 of 87 Page 44 of 87 Page 45 of 87 PZC Case#25-05 Staff Report Images Subject Property 2024 Streetview Image Zoning Map Page 46 of 87  Code Compliant Solid Blue Awning Proposed Striped Awning Example, Bill’s Place Existing Awning in LaGrange Park Page 47 of 87  Monumnet Sign 4x 6 = 24 SQFT Wall Sign 4’ Diameter 16 SQFT Page 48 of 87  Meeting Date: May 22, 2025 Staff Contact: Scott Viger, Planner Department: Community Development Subject: PZC Case#25-06 Request for a Variation from Section 62.290 Required Parking to reduce the number of required parking spaces at 9211 Broadway Avenue 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 Background Information 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 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 Page 49 of 87 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; (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 Page 50 of 87 (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. Attachments Variance Application Plat of Survey Floor Plan Affidavit of Public Notice Riverside Brookfield Landmark Publication of Legal Notice Dates of Authorization Application Filed April 8, 2025 Date of Mailed Legal Notice May 7, 2025 Date of Legal Notice of Public Hearing sign posted May 7, 2025 Date of Landmark Publication of Legal Notice May 7, 2025 Date of Public Hearing May 22, 2025 Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval parking variation Attachment Description: Application Exhibits Attachments: 9211 Broadway Staff Report Images Variance Form Page 51 of 87 PZC Case#25-06 9211 Broadway Avenue Staff Report Exhibits Subject Property Zoning Map Streetview Plat of Survey Page 52 of 87 Floor Plan Page 53 of 87  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 54 of 87  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 55 of 87  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 56 of 87  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 57 of 87  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 58 of 87  Meeting Date: May 22, 2025 Staff Contact: Scott Viger, Planner Department: Planning and Zoning Commission Subject: PZC 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: 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 Background Information 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 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 West I 1 General Light Light Industrial Commercial Page 59 of 87  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 Saturday9:00 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 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. Recommendation Page 60 of 87 The staff has reviewed the application and the property’s environs and believe that the request meets the above standards. And therefore, staff respectfully recommends the approval of Case Number 25-07 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. Attachments Special Use Permit Application Plat of Survey Proposed Floor Plan Affidavit of Public Notice Riverside Brookfield Landmark Publication of Legal Notice Dates of Authorization Application Filed April 10, 2025 Date of Mailed Legal Notice May 6, 2025 Date of Legal Notice of Public Hearing sign posted May 7, 2025 Date of Landmark Publication of Legal Notice May 7, 2025 Date of Public Hearing May 22, 2025 Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the special use permit. Attachment Description: Application Exhibits Attachments: 9448 W 47th St Application 9448 W 47th Exhibit Images Page 61 of 87 Page 62 of 87 Page 63 of 87 Page 64 of 87 PZC Case#25-07 Staff Report Images Aerial Photograph Zoning Map Street View Page 65 of 87 Floor Plan Page 66 of 87  Meeting Date: May 22, 2025 Staff Contact: Scott Viger, Planner Department: Community Development Subject: PZC 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: 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 Background Information 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 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. Page 67 of 87 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 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. Page 68 of 87 (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 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 Sign Variations under Section 62.17(c) to allow a detached garage of 528 square feet in lieu of the maximum of 472 SQFT 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 Attachments Variance Application Plat of Survey Plan of proposed garage Affidavit of Public Notice Riverside Brookfield Landmark Publication of Legal Notice Dates of Authorization Application Filed April 23, 2025 Date of Mailed Legal Notice May 5, 2025 Date of Legal Notice of Public Hearing sign posted May 7, 2025 Date of Landmark Publication of Legal Notice May 7, 2025 Date of Public Hearing May 22, 2025 Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the variation. Attachment Description: Application Exhibits Attachments: Page 69 of 87 Application 3936 N Maple Exhibit Images Page 70 of 87 Page 71 of 87 Page 72 of 87 Page 73 of 87 Page 74 of 87 Page 75 of 87 PZC Case#25-08 Staff Report Images Subject Property Zoning Map Street View View from rear Alley Page 76 of 87 Plat of Survey Site Plan Page 77 of 87 Plans Page 78 of 87  Meeting Date: May 22, 2025 Staff Contact: Scott Viger, Planner Department: Community Development Subject: PZC Case#25-09 Request for a Special Use Permit Section 62.30 to allow a coffee roasting facility at 9525 Southview Avenue Background Information: Location: 9525 Southview Avenue PINs: 18-03-100-006-0000 Applicant: Dan Schovain Current Zoning: I2 Restricted Light Industrial District Current Land Use: Industrial Background Information Daydream Coffee and Opry Provisions is located in Western Springs and is looking o move their coffee roasting operation to Brookfield. Existing Conditions & Site Context The subject site is 38,000+ square feet square feet and is improved with a somewhat unique building. There is a brick two story former residential structure in front and a large steel frame industrial structure attached to the rear. There is parking to the west of the building. It appears that Hortons of La Grange utilizes the warehouse in the rear and that Lofton landscaping uses a portion of the building for an office space. Surrounding Zoning and Uses Property Zoning Comprehensive Plan Current Land Use Subject Property I2 Light Industrial Industrial Single Family Single family North A Detached Residential South I2 Light Industrial Industrial East I2 Light Industrial Industrial West LaGrange I1 Light Industrial Industrial Analysis Page 79 of 87 The I-2 Restricted Light Industrial District provides a location which affords both truck and rail transportation access. This location is not intended to provide for those types of industrial and manufacturing uses which are intended to attract frequent vehicular traffic by consumers. Applicant’s Request The applicant is opening a coffee roasting facility. No structural building changes are envisioned, only interior modifications to accommodate the new use. A small industrial user there is no additional parking required on the site. Although staff believes that the parking area near the front should be striped to identify the parking spaces. There is an area for five parking spaces behind the building setback from Southview. A double-loaded parking module seems appropriate as well. The roster can accommodate up to 15 pounds of coffee per batch. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS 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 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. Recommendation The staff has reviewed the application and the property’s environs and believe that the request meets the above standards. And therefore, staff respectfully recommends the approval of Case Number 25-09 Special Use Permit under Section 62.25 to allow a Coffee Roasting establishment at 9525 Southview Avenue 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. Attachments Special Use Permit Application Plat of Survey Proposed Floor Plan Affidavit of Public Notice Riverside Brookfield Landmark Publication of Legal Notice Page 80 of 87 Dates of Authorization Application Filed May 1, 2025 Date of Mailed Legal Notice May 6, 2025 Date of Legal Notice of Public Hearing sign posted May 7, 2025 Date of Landmark Publication of Legal Notice May 7, 2025 Date of Public Hearing May 22, 2025 Financial Impact: None Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of the special use permit. Attachment Description: Application Exhibits Attachments: 9525 Southview Application 9525 Southview Image page Page 81 of 87 Page 82 of 87 Page 83 of 87 Page 84 of 87 Page 85 of 87 PZC Case#25-09 9525 Southview Avenue Staff Report Exhibits Subject Property Zoning Map Streetview Page 86 of 87 Plans Page 87 of 87