Architectural Appearance Commission

Regular Meeting

Glen Ellyn, IL · January 14, 2026

Minutes

MINUTES Glen Ellyn Architectural Appearance Commission Wednesday, January 14, 2026 at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room 535 Duane Street A. Call to Order and Roll Call Acting Chairperson Albrecht called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and explained the Architectural Appearance Commission’s function and procedures as an advisory body. Roll was called. Present: Commissioners Albrecht, Mees, Schlembach, and Smith Absent: Chairperson Jacobson, Commissioner Goranov, and Commissioner Rahn Also in attendance: Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Trustee Sonia Desai Bhagwakar and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. B. Approval of the Minutes Commissioner Mees made a motion to approve the draft minutes of the December 10, 2025 meeting. Commissioner Schlembach seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote. C. Old Business None to report D. New Business 1. Discussion regarding the Intent and Purpose and Duties of the Commission Staff Presentation Jordan Presented to the Commissioners the Intent and Purpose and Duties of the Commission which includes the History of Architectural Review. ARC dissolved in 2017, AAC was started in 2022; main difference between the both is that the ARC looked at all Village owned properties on public grounds, new construction; ARC reviews all re modeling and additions where AAC reviews C5A and C5B zoned area. ARC dissolved in 2017 was to “provide transparency and clarity to business, developers, contractors and residents” and to also limit review time. In 2022, Village Board established the AAC and the duties within the code similar to the intent and purpose of the ARC but with a focus on the character and architecture in buildings in downtown area. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Mees- Stated that there should be more of a say on the remodels and additions of the community since at times the remodels do not include an architect. Concerned with some stuff that might sneak through without having an architect. Commissioner Albrecht- Would like to have the commission to have a say so with every new commercial building and remodel that is done within Glen Ellyn. Commitment to city should be to all city not just the historic section of town. Commissioner Mees- Other areas in Glen Ellyn, not just the historic side are also worthy of being overseen by this commission. Commissioner Schlembach- Noted that under intent and purpose, section 2-8-2, chapter 8 would like to see last 11 words deleted and delete paragraph B in its entirety. Mr. Frahm - This is definitely something that can be requested; you can start the conversation. Commissioner Schlembach- No reference to significant facade renovation, this should be included. It can be defined in different ways, in monetary or in percentage of building. Terminology needs to be defined. What is significant facade renovation, as is what is a principal building. Mr. Frahm – You can suggest the inclusion of significant facade renovation, and you can define what significant facade is and have a clear scope of project. Mr. Frahm - Any building in Glen Ellyn that has a shed should have a main building. Commissioner Schlembach- If ARC was removed due to slow process, we need to have good representation for petitioner, this should be required in all cases. We should allow petitions via Zoom, I don’t know why we couldn’t go back to using Zoom. Petitioner is slowing process by not paying for architect’s time. Commissioner Mees- This would be so that the architect could speak with us at the meeting and answer our questions. Mr. Frahm - If people are coming into meetings unprepared and petitioners are not being prepared, that is a good point and I do agree as that being something that can help in improving the process. Commissioner Smith- I agree with how the code is currently written; the landscape between Roosevelt Road and downtown Glen Ellyn are two different types of areas, and length of time, I have been on the other side and we came before the board twice and presented, both times was approved. That process added months, for a small business owner in Glen Ellyn, that is significant. That is a factor in looking at where our reach should be. Commission should not be here to provide free advice, that should not be our intent and purpose. Commissioner Schlembach- There are items that could be administratively approved, and report back to Commissioner what was approved. That would mean Mr. Harper, Planning Manager, speaking with Susan and getting that approved through the Administrative Process. Commissioner Smith- I don’t think we are allowed to have Administrative approved changes on the side; I think we have to follow the open meetings act. Mr. Frahm - We would have to come up with parameters of what you are discussing in the various zones of Glen Ellyn first. Commissioner Albrecht- The guidelines and stipulation that we can use have not been looked at or upgraded since 2006, it’s an entire can of worms; there are some nice tweaks and things we can do to make it Glen Ellyn, workshops would be great. Commissioner Mees- If we have an opportunity to update guidelines, maybe that would streamline the process? Mr. Frahm - Having a staff review, from a policy-making standpoint that is not the best practice, just something to think about. Commissioner Albrecht- iI was mainly materials that were frowned upon, maybe just take a look at guidelines. Public Comment Anne Gould- Points to consider and discuss; geographically expand the prevue without completely slowing it down. The sign code at some points were moved to Plan Commission, I think it should come back to AAC. Update guidelines; we have 3 architects on the board, consider amending it to 4 architects. Include buildings over 50 years old for review criteria. We saw a little breakdown, perhaps because it was a historic building and I think that the process for how historic buildings are reviewed should be modified. Commissioner Schlembach- Would it be possible to consolidate Historic preservation and AAC since there is overlap? Mr. Frahm- Consolidating may not be the solution. Mees-Perhaps consolidating if the case involves two commissions Jordan- We have had special joint meetings like that in the past, it has been done and we would be amendable. Trustee Bhagwakar- We have pressing items before us at the moment but, I have brought this up with staff a couple of times. Mr. Frahm - The top items to follow up on are: expanding geographic scope, defining significant facade, changing review process, allowing architect or professional to attend via Zoom, upgrading review guidelines. Commissioner Albrecht- Do we need to have support from Village board, to put some of these ideas together to be presented to Board. Trustee Bhagwakar - I will take this back and we will talk about it. Commissioner Albrecht- Very common for us to go a few months without having an item to review; we are open and available to work on this while we are not reviewing projects on agenda. E. Chairman’s Report Nothing to report F. Trustee Liaison Report No updates with regards to train project; given the climate with the federal government we want to ensure we have the funding before moving forward. Taft- the demolition was done which was held up by government shut down. Downtown Park is moving forward. Strategic Planning has been started, a consultant and brainstorming sessions to forecast what we want to see the Village do and look like in the future. Approved consultant for updating the Zoning code. Looking at E-bikes. G. Staff Report I will be leading these meetings now and we are starting the Zoning code re-write. H. Adjournment Member Schlembach made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote at 8:00pm Respectfully submitted, Adriana Ohl-Zamora

Agenda

Packet

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Architectural Appearance Commission Meeting Wednesday, January 14, 2026 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room Visitors are most welcome to attend all public meetings and can find copies of the Agenda online at www.glenellyn.org prior to the meeting. Any individual with a disability requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Village of Glen Ellyn ADA Coordinator, 630-469-5000, at least five (5) business days in advance of the next scheduled meeting. A. Call to Order B. Approval of the Minutes 1) Review and Approval of the Minutes of the December 10, 2025, Architectural Apperance Commission Meeting. C. New Business 1) Discussion regarding the Intent and Purpose, and Duties of the Commission D. Chairman's Report E. Trustee Liaison's Report F. Staff Report Civility Pledge - In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others, acknowledging that we are striving to support and improve our community, and understanding that we each may have different ideas for achieving that objective. Page 1 of 28 Glen Ellyn Meeting 1/14/2026 7:00 PM 535 Duane Street Department: Community Development Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Category: Minutes Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM DOC ID: 2025-1042 (ID # 2025-1042) Review and Approval of the Minutes of the December 10, 2025, Architectural Apperance Commission Meeting. Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the Minutes of the December 10, 2025, Architectural Apperance Commission Meeting. Analysis: Review and Approval of the Minutes of the December 10, 2025, Architectural Apperance Commission Meeting. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the Minutes of the December 10, 2025, Architectural Apperance Commission Meeting. Attachments: 1. DRAFT Minutes - Glen Ellyn Architectural Appearance Commission 12-10-25 Page 2 of 28 Draft Minutes Glen Ellyn Architectural Appearance Commission Wednesday, December 10, 2025, at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room 535 Duane Street, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 A. Call to Order and Roll Call Chairperson Jacobson called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM and explained the Architectural Appearance Commission’s function and procedures as an advisory body. Roll was called. Present: Chairperson Jacobson and Commissioners Albrecht, Goranov, Mees, Rahn. Absent: Commissioners Schlembach and Smith and Village Trustee Sonya Bhagwaker. Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, and Laura Musgraves, Acting Recording Secretary B. Approval of the Minutes Commissioner Albrecht made a motion to approve the draft minutes of the October 25, 2025, meeting. Commissioner Goranov seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote. C. Old Business None to report. D. New Business 1. Exterior Appearance Review — 505 Pennsylvania Avenue. Planning Manager Daniel Harper gave a brief overview of the Exterior Appearance Application submitted by the petitioner, Trans Holding Corporation, represented at the meeting by its representative, Mr. Kane Tran. The applicant requests exterior approval for an alteration of the property located at 505 Pennsylvania Avenue. The property is located in the C5A Central Retail Core Zoning District, comprising two lease spaces for 505 and 507 Pennsylvania Avenue, both owned by the petitioner. The applicant seeks to modify the exterior of 505 Pennsylvania Avenue to match the lease space of 507 Pennsylvania Avenue currently occupied by lessee Eli Tea. The proposal includes increasing the storefront window size by removing existing wood panels and replacing them with glazing to the commercial façade of the budling. The windows are Page 3 of 28 proposed to be framed with aluminum, and although the Commission historically discourages metal framing, the proposed framing would match the existing framing of the window at 507 Pennsylvania Avenue. The applicant proposes to replace the failing masonry wall of the building with new red brick that is the closest best match to the existing brick at 507 Pennsylvania Avenue. Harper summarized the Architectural Appearance Guidelines that are relevant to the application, including Section 3.3.3 (windows and doors), Section 3.3.4 (building materials) and Section 3.3.11 (compatibility with original structures.) Mr. Harper gave background information on past approvals of exterior alterations to 505 and 507 Pennsylvania Avenue. Staff made an Administrative Approval when the former Architectural Review Commission (ARC) transitioned to the Architectural Appearance Commission (AAC) and no committee was established to review the application at that time. Mr. Harper described significant structures in the downtown area that complement the proposed style. Although metal trim around windows is generally discouraged, the applicant wishes to preserve the historical character of the facade. Commissioner Albrecht asked for a photo of brick on the building next door to the property, and Harper pointed out a portion of the building that is visible in the photo exhibit. Chairperson Jacobson asked if the brick had to be refurbished. The petitioner, Mr. Kane Tran, answered yes because the existing brick is failing. Commissioner Mees asked about the detail along the top of the windows. Mr. Tran described the proposed change, adding that the change would make the window a bit higher. Commissioner Mees asked if it would be the same size as the window at Eli Tea, and Mr. Tran answered yes. Mr. Tran added that he does not want to alter the façade other than making it match the other lease space. Chairperson Jacobson asked about lighting, and Mr. Tran answered that he would keep it the same as it exists now. Chairperson Jacobson commented that she thought the changes would be an improvement and asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Goranov asked about changes to any other aspects of the building besides the front. Mr. Tran answered there would be no changes to the side of the building unless anything needed repair or painting. He was undecided about the color of paint and was considering white with lighting to light up the alley. The Commission had a brief discussion of color, adding that lighting was not necessary in the alley and it would require a separate permit. Commissioner Albrecht spoke in support of light paint color and added that she appreciated the applicant’s attention to the original detail of the building. Page 4 of 28 Motion to approve as presented by Chairperson Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Motion was approved unanimously with five (5) yes and zero (0) no. Mr. Harper described the next steps for the petitioner, including approval by the Village Board at the meeting on January 5, 2026. The Commission’s approval of the application will be on the consent agenda, so the petitioner is not required to appear. Tran confirmed that no work on the façade will take place until after Board approval is received. Mr. Tran questioned staff about a financial scam involving his contractor, which was perpetrated outside of the Village, but the scammer used publicly available information about the AAC application to initiate the scam. Mr. Harper explained that this is a common occurrence not only in Glen Ellyn, but with other municipalities in the suburban area. This particular incident was addressed in Village protocols, and internal procedures have been changed to prevent future occurrences. Mr. Harper said to Mr. Tran that the Village would provide assistance to the contractor to dispute the charges, if needed. Commissioner Albrecht asked Mr. Tran what business venture would be in the vacant space, and Mr. Tran answered possibly an ice cream shop. E. Chairman’s Report- Nothing to report. F. Trustee Liaison Report- No Report. G. Staff Report- Daniel Harper. Mr. Harper provided an update to the Maplewood Brewery project that was considered by the Commission at their October meeting. The application was approved by the Village Board, and the permit has been issued. Harper recently spoke with the petitioner regarding the door design, which he wants to flip-flop the single door and double door from the original proposal, but this change is not significant enough to warrant AAC approval a second time. The Commission agreed. Harper reported that Maplewood Brewery will present its Sign Variation application to the Plan Commission at their meeting tomorrow, December 11, 2025. Mr. Harper reported that the Village Board approved, at their meeting on Monday, December 8, 2025, several variations relating to surfacing and parking at the Legacy Shops property at 1184 Roosevelt Road. The petitioner’s request not to build a sidewalk adjacent to the property was denied. Also at the December 8, 2025, meeting, the Village Board approved a variation for a deck being constructed at 167 Forest Avenue. At the Village Board meeting on November 10, 2025, the Board approved a text amendment for the C4 office district where restaurants were not allowed. The text amendment allows for consideration of restaurants via approval of a Special Use Permit, and petitioners must go through the zoning entitlement process to be approved for restaurant use. Chairman Jacobson asked if there were any questions regarding the staff report. Page 5 of 28 Commissioner Albrecht asked if Maplewood Brewery had a target date for opening. Harper answered possibly in spring 2026, but they have an extensive approval process because of the construction of a distillery. Chairman Jacobson complimented Mr. Harper’s email communication regarding examining the scope of the Commission. In a brief discussion, the Commission agreed that many of the AAC’s responsibilities and guidelines have not changed since 2006 and perhaps a comprehensive review of the scope of the Commission should be considered. Mr. Harper asked the Commission if they wished to do a blanket review of the text on their own, or have staff make edits to present for their review. The Commission chose the latter to be considered at their next meeting in January 2026. Mr. Harper provided one final project update. In 2026, the Community Development Department will review the Village’s Zoning Code and recently completed an RFP process for bids. Four (4) proposals were received, and CD staff will meet with Village Administration to select a vendor. The project may start as early as February 2026, and the Commission may be asked to participate with other Village commissions in roundtable discussions or focus groups. Commissioner Goranov asked if AI was considered. Harper answered yes, possibly in research analysis some of the vendors they are considering may use AI capabilities. Seeing no other questions, Chairperson Jacobson asked for Motion to Adjourn. Commissioner Albrecht motioned; Commissioner Goranov seconded. All voted in favor of the motion. I. Adjournment- 7:39 PM Page 6 of 28 Glen Ellyn Meeting 1/14/2026 7:00 PM 535 Duane Street Department: Community Development Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Category: Discussion Item Prepared By: Jordan Frahm AGENDA ITEM DOC ID: 2026-2 (ID # 2026-2) Discussion regarding the Intent and Purpose, and Duties of the Commission Statement of the Issue: Village Staff has created this agenda item for the discussion of the current and historical role of the Architectural Appearance Commission (whose duties were previously observed by the Architectural Review Commission before its dissolution in 2017). AAC members and Village staff shall discuss possible amendments to the "Intent and Purpose" and "Duties" sections of Village Code as they pertain to the AAC in Title 2 Chapter 8. Analysis: Between 1975 and July 2017, the Village of Glen Ellyn, under the power of State statute, created and maintained an Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Originally called the Arts and Preservation Commission and formed by Ordinance No. 1925-VC in 1975, the Architectural Review Commission was officially renamed by Ordinance No. 2650-VC in 1981. The original intent and purpose of the commission was to "encourage and promote acceptable, attractive, cohesive and compatible new buildings, structures, remodeling and additions, so as to maintain and improve the established standards within the multiple dwelling, business, commercial, planned development, and public land uses of said Village" and to "protect and to stabilize the general appearance of buildings, structures, and landscaping, in the multiple dwelling, business, commercial, planned development, and public land uses of Glen Ellyn." Prescribed duties of the ARC included cooperation with the Planning Commission, review of any construction or remodeling on land owned by the Village or any public grounds under the jurisdiction of the Village, and the review and recommendation regarding the exterior appearance and landscape plans for "any proposed new construction or remodeling or additions in the multiple dwelling, business, commercial, planned development and public buildings". The ARC utilized the Architectural Appearance Guidelines passed by Village Ordinance most recently in 2006, which the AAC continues to use to this day. The ARC was dissolved by Ordinance No. 6519 as part of the Village's continuous effort to increase efficiency in development review and to "provide transparency and clarity to businesses, developers, contractors, and residents" throughout the development review process. Numerous factors are outlined in the Ordinance as a rationale for eliminating the ARC. These include but are not limited to: Page 7 of 28 • Reducing the length of time needed for a project to reach Village Board action • Lessening the amount of unnecessary costs for developers • Transferring duties of the ARC (Exterior Appearance/Sign Code variation review) to the Plan Commission • Transferring reviews to Village Staff when reviews are ultimately approved or rejected by the Village Board • Promoting efficiencies in the conduct of Commission meetings by reducing the number of meetings required for petitioners • Promoting efficiencies and cost economies involving the use of staff time to prepare for Commission meetings • Eliminating potential confusion of the public and petitioners in holding multiple reviews In February 2022, the Village of Glen Ellyn used the same power granted by the State of Illinois to compose a new panel, the Architectural Appearance Commission, by Ordinance No. 6941. The AAC was created by the Village Board to "improve the appearance and character of new principal buildings, principal building additions, and associated landscaping for non-residential, multi-family residential and attached single-family residential properties throughout the Village". The AAC is to have specific expertise related to architecture or landscape architecture to assist in "maintaining the character of the Village". In the creation of the AAC, "certain Exterior Appearance requests" were transferred from the responsibility of the Plan Commission to the Architectural Appearance Commission. In practice, this has been the exterior appearance review of all new construction commercial, multi-family, and single-family attached developments throughout the Village. The duties of the current AAC contrast with the former ARC as the current role of the Architectural Appearance Commission does not include review for remodeling projects. See the relevant sections of the Village Code below for review. 2-8-2. - Intent and purpose. It shall be the intent and purpose of the Architectural Appearance Commission to: (A) Encourage and promote acceptable, attractive, cohesive and compatible significant façade renovations, new principal buildings, principal building additions that require Planned Unit Development Approval, and the associated landscaping for non- residential, multi-family residential, and attached single family residential properties in the downtown Central Business District C5A and C5B zoning designations. (B) To maintain and improve the general appearance and character of new principal buildings and associated landscaping for non-residential, multi-family residential, and attached single family residential properties throughout the Village. 2-8-5. - Duties. (A) To review and make recommendations regarding the exterior architectural design drawings, materials, and landscape plans for the following: 1. Exterior appearance reviews in the downtown C5A and C5B zoning districts: (a) New non-residential, multi-family, and attached single-family principal building construction. (b) Non-residential, multi-family, and attached single-family principal building additions that require Planned Unit Development Approval. (c) Significant exterior façade remodeling. Page 8 of 28 2. Exterior appearance reviews throughout the remainder of the Village: (a) New non-residential, multi-family, and attached single-family principal building construction. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Discuss the current and future role of the Architectural Appearance Commission in the review of development projects in the Village of Glen Ellyn. Attachments: 1. Ord 1925 - Creation of the A&P Commission 2. Ord 2650 - Renaming of the A&P Commission 3. Ord. 6519 - Dissolution of the ARC 4. Ord. 6941 - Creation of the AAC Page 9 of 28 Page 10 of 28 Page 11 of 28 Page 12 of 28 Page 13 of 28 Village Of Glen Ellyn Ordinance No. 6519-VC_ An Ordinance to Amend Various Sections of the Village Code Of the Village of Glen Ellyn to Dissolve the Architectural Review Commission Adopted by the President and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Glen Ellyn DuPage County, Illinois This 2 Day of Jery,20/7. Published in pamphlet form by the authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Glen Ellyn, DuPage County, Illinois, this 75 day of July 20.17 PREPARED BY AND MAIL TO: VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN ATTN: VILLAGE CLERK 535 DUANE STREET GLEN ELLYN, IL 60137 Page 14 of 28 Ordinance No. 6519 -VC An Ordinance to Amend Various Sections of the Village Code Of the Village of Glen Ellyn to Dissolve the Architectural Review Commission Whereas, pursuant to Section 5/11-13-1 of Chapter 65 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Village of Glen Ellyn has the statutory authority by general ordinance to establish an Architectural Review Commission, and did so in 1975; and Whereas, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Glen Ellyn deem it to be in the best interest of the Village to periodically review and improve the functionality and status of its various advisory commissions, including the Architectural Review Commission and the Plan Commission, and the exercise of the powers conferred to the Commissions by Ordinance or Resolution; and Whereas, the Village Board continually evaluates the Village's development review process increase its efficiency and provide transparency and clarity to businesses, developers, contractors, to and residents throughout this process; and Whereas, the Village Board seeks to reduce the length of time needed for a project to to reach the Village Board for action and to lessen the amount of unnecessary costs for developers; and Whereas, the Village Board finds that the Plan Commission can competently perform certain current functions of the Architectural Review Commission and that internal staff can competently perform certain reviews which ultimately will be approved or rejected by the Village Board, that the reduction of the number of meetings required of petitioners for development of private and commercial properties will serve to promote efficiencies in the conduct of commission meetings and promote efficiencies and cost economies involving the use of staff time to prepare for Commission meetings; and Whereas, the Village Board finds that the changes under consideration for improvement of the development review processes, the potential for confusion to the public and petitioners in Page 15 of 28 Page 16 of 28 Page 17 of 28 Page 18 of 28 Page 19 of 28 Page 20 of 28 Page 21 of 28 Page 22 of 28 Page 23 of 28 Page 24 of 28 Page 25 of 28 Page 26 of 28 Page 27 of 28 Page 28 of 28