Plan Commission

MINUTES Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, May 22, 2025, at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room A. Call to Order and Roll Call Chairperson Tim Loftus called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and explained the Plan Commission's function and operating procedure as an advisory body. He described the public hearing protocol including for public comment and announced that comments would be recorded. Roll was called. Chairperson Loftus, Plan Commissioners, Morrison, Brown, Wyant, Kreuzer, Pesce and Dawson were present; Commissioner Arango and Cooper were absent. Also in attendance: Steve Thompson, Village Trustee, Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney, Jennifer Hennigan, Community Development Director, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) There was no off-agenda audience comment. C. Approval of Minutes 1. Review and Approval of the April 24,2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Dawson moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. Motion to open the Public Hearing by Commissioner Brown second by Commissioner Dawson. Motion passed by voice vote. D. New Business 1. Public Hearing-670 Crescent Blvd., Glenbard West High School Addition Sworn in, Daniel Harper Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn presented on the following on 670 Crescent Blvd., Glenbard West High School. Total of 17.93 acers, four existing parcels, zoned R-2 residential district. Glenbard High School District 87 is proposing to construct a 13,800-square-foot classroom wing addition located on the northwest side of the existing school with 7,200-square-foot student commons off the north face. The proposed construction will also include related site improvements to the northwest corner of the current campus. The proposed addition will consist of four (4) levels. The first level would be reserved primarily for storage. The second level would host seven (7) new classrooms and a learning commons area. The third level would host seven (7) new classrooms and a second level of the learning commons. The fourth level would have three (3) new classrooms and a black box theater space. A summary of the project and requested zoning variations by the school district follows: 1. A variation from Section 10-4-8(D)(6) to allow a side yard setback of 16’-3” in lieu of the required 25’-0” setback. 2. A variation from Section 10-4-8(F)(2) to allow the building addition to be approximately 72’-2” in height in lieu of the maximum allowed building height of 45’-0”. 3. A variation from Section 10-4-8(H)(8) to allow for zero (0) new off-street parking spaces to be constructed. 4. A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(35) to allow stairs to be located in the side yard setback. 5. A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(35) to allow stairs greater than 4’ in height to be located 0’-0” from the property line lieu of the required setback of 4’-0”. 6. A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(39) to allow for a retaining wall greater than 3’ in height to be setback 0’-0” from the property line lieu of the required setback of 90.62’ 7. A variation from Section 10-5-5(C) to allow an impervious surface setback of 0’-0” in lieu of the required setback of 43’-3”. 8. A variation from Section 10-5-9(H)(1) to provide two (2) loading spaces in lieu of the three (3) required loading spaces. Slide of construction traffic shown to Commissioners. The traffic plan was presented to commissioners, both morning and afternoon proposals were shown to Commissioners. The driveway between the northside of school and football field will not be useable and they will be occupied by construction staging. The proposal is to close Ellyn Ave, to allow for buses to park during peak hours in addition to allowing for a staging plan for north and south bound buses to be at on the East and West side of school during after school loading. With closures of Ellyn Ave., teachers will be entering through Biester Gym parking lot, using as entrance into Ellyn Ave, electronic pass key to open gate and park in parking lot. Post construction includes two plans as options, post construction option 1 and post construction option 2; both described in the Traffic Impact Plan provided in agenda packet. The main difference is where the buses stack; option 1, considered that if closure of Ellyn Ave during the construction plan is successful, they will maintain that plan, option 2 will have buses loading and offloading to occur on drive between north side of school and football field. Village Staff, Police Dept. and School District worked together to come up with the best solution as part of this all parties are going to ask for a little bit of flexibility as the best traffic solution is crafted. The Village and the School District have a plan moving forward, and we believe that we have a good plan, but it can be tweaked as needed. Mr. Harper stated that the Plan Commission should consider the petitioner’s request for approval of zoning variations and make a recommendation to the Village Board for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. In reviewing the requested zoning variations, the Commission should consider the criteria in Section 10-10-12 of the Zoning Code. The Commission may wish to consider recommending that the following conditions be placed on any approval: 1. The property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site development plans as presented at the May 22, 2025, Plan Commission meeting. 2. The existing lighting identified in the photometric plan as being in non-conformance with the Village's performance standards shall be modified to be brought into conformance as part of the building permit review. Commissioner Questions Chairperson Loftus: What corner of addition is considered Zero Elevation? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- The building height is calculated using the average grade of the lot, we asked the school district to provide that average grade of the property, and they provided the topographic survey and 72’2 was the highest point of the building as a result. Chairperson Loftus: in the presentation, there is a lot of data, a lot plans, a lot of talk of traffic for bringing students to and from school but there is no talk or verbiage about construction. What about the construction, there will be immense truck traffic going in and out of that area plus all the rest of the traffic. With this plan taking two school years, so there will be construction traffic. Construction parking, I did not see any of the construction traffic addressed as part of the package. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – All that was discussed, construction times will be limited to standard construction times. Ellyn Ave. will be subject to closures when they are moving materials back from staging area to the construction area. Parking for construction staff- School District is working with different stakeholders who have parking available to work with them to provide that parking. We have talked about shuttling the workers into the site area and out. The Construction will take place until the students are in the building and construction ceases before students leave the area; avoiding students moving through the site when it is dangerous. Chairperson Loftus-On possibility of changing post construction traffic flow; will they have to come back to the Commission? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn -They will not have to come back, the Village Staff, School District and Police Department put our heads together and come up with the best solution with what we have. Glenbard West being a unique location has a lot of limitations, essentially this is the best solution that we have come to; if changes need to be made, then the Village Staff, Police dept. and School District will work together to come to a solution. Chairperson Loftus- It didn’t mention in staff report about the lighting, one of the requests, was that we change the lighting, are we changing all the lighting on the campus? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - no it was one particular existing light that the District had planned on not changing but the light was non-conforming to the lighting code, an updated photometric plan after packet was published was provided to the District and is conforming to village code. They asked for the conforming photometric plan to be considered at the building permit review stage now that we have there plan in conformance, I would recommend that we still have the condition that I suggested in the staff report so that it is all on record that the photometric plan which was presented is non- conforming and that way when we are going through building permit, we make sure we have the right fixtures installed. Commissioner Dawson- On the pre-app, we had a heads up on the likely variances and lighting is one of them and it’s gone from the packet tonight for the hearing. I know the staff texts regarding the conditions and bringing the existing into conformance; the question I have is, if the gap still remains large from allowed verses what they have, would it potentially for that come back to the Plan Commission or would it be handled administratively by The Village? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn -If they were to submit a plan that was non-conforming to our lighting code, I would not approve the plan until it was conforming to the lighting code unless they requested a lighting variation. As the plan that they submitted after the package is now in conformance, I am not too worried about that. If we do the final inspection and we find that the lighting is not in conformance, we would not have the power to hold the CO but we would be able to compel them to bring the lighting into conformance. Commissioner Dawson- If I understand it correctly, there is a scenario where if they were far apart from the zoning variance with regards to light they could be in a position where they have to come back for a variance? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- If they have fixtures that they say, no way we are not replacing these fixtures, then they could come in for a variation. Commissioner Wyant- Daniel, has the district revealed any future plans for the residential property on the corner of Ellyn and Hawthorn? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- this is a little bit off topic for what we are discussing but I’ll give you what I know, when the building came on the market the school district asked us what the zoning was, R2 zoning and they went ahead and purchased the property. We did have a very brief discussion on what we could possibly do on this structure, and I pointed them to the allowed uses in the R2 zoning district and that is as far as the conversations have gone as far as I know. Commissioner Wyant- The reason it jumps out to me, is that we obviously have a very dense site, we are short on parking, construction is going to be very difficult to contain, two school years I think you suggested, lots of staging and I just wonder if we are setting ourselves up for a request to come and turn that into a staging area or for parking. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn -They have not mentioned any of that in their plans. Commissioner Dawson- I have a process question for you (Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney); It’s in regard to a document that I received from The Village at 7o’clock; I see some differences which I might choose to comment on, it’s in the Findings of Fact area, do I have to wait? Paul Stephanides, Attorney, Village of Glen Ellyn-That would be for your deliberations. Commissioner Kreuzer-If we don’t have additional students why do we have this addition? Has the Village asked for that information? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – yes, the school district has reported to us that the condition inside the building is very crowded, and they want to create a common space area for studying and socializing, to allow for more specialized classrooms and more space for teachers instead of sharing classrooms. A bond proposal was approved by the voters, and the school board feels that they have the backing of the community on a proposal like this. Commissioner Kreuzer-Has school district presented an alternative to this, potentially rehabilitation of the existing space? what is Village doing to consider the light, nuisance that is coming from this area. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Not that I am aware of. Commissioner Kreuzer -Will that accomplish what they have told you they need. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn -I believe that they have plans for interior work and remodeling, on some of the existing building but that is for the school district to decide whether it would meet their needs or not. Commissioner Kreuzer- Do we have the benefit of the updated photometric lighting plan? The High School is already the source of the most significant light pollution in that area; the Village Residents have generally done what they can to reduce the light pollution in that area. We don’t only have light pollution from the school and the exterior, but we also have light pollution from the most recent addition with the school leaving their interior lights on. When will we have the benefit of new updated plan- we don’t have benefit of any specs for light fixtures? I don’t recall seeing them, the kelvin scores if I remember as are as much as 4,000-5,000; I know our outdated ordinance with respect to lighting which is from 1986, does not address LED’s but what if anything is The Village doing to consider the horrific white bright light that the school is proposing be added to the residential area? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- I don’t have it with me on this report, but I can bring it up on my laptop. The specs were included in the packet. We did suggest that the lighting be brought down, it was a concern for some of the neighbors of the public, however The Village is required to uphold what the code requires and with the plan, they, Glenbard West did provide the updated Photometric Plan, it is the last slide. Chairperson Loftus- When we get to that point, when the Petitioner comes up, we can ask them to highlight what fixture they plan to use but whatever is in the code, they are allowed to do. We can suggest something different. Commissioner Kreuzer- I am just asking the question to Mr. Harper, as much as other things we consider as part of this application is the extent to which they are requesting is a nuisance. Commissioner Brown- I believe that what we discussed at the pre-application meeting that the residence Commissioner Wyant referenced was going to be used as their construction office during construction, is that true? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- I would ask the School District that question; I don’t have that answer for that. Commissioner Pesche- One quick question, you mention the Ratio for students and teachers the required parking spaces that are there, does Village review that on ongoing basis if there were to be an increase in students which would require more staff? Do you guys do that on an ongoing basis? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - we would not compel school district to provide numbers regularly, but with any new project, we would want an updated student count and staff count so that we have an understanding of what the parking calculation would be. Commissioner. Pesche- I am going to assume, that those ratio’s do not apply for special events? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - that is correct, it would not be considered for Football games or any special event. Chairperson Loftus-When you did calculation on available number of parking spaces, were the paid for parking spaces included in that? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Not to my knowledge and I asked the school to provide the number of their off-street parking. Commissioner Morrison- Daniel, I did not see what the new proposed entrance of the athletic building would look like, do you have that? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – When we did the pre-application meeting, we discussed the school wing addition we are discussing tonight and the Biester Gym front remodel addition at the same time, as we got further into the construction plans and timelines, the school district said that they would be doing the Biester Gym a couple of years later. That is a separate application as it would be a separate planned unit development, and we are focusing on the immediate project now and Biester will be a few years later. Commissioner Morrison-on the landscape plan, am I accurate that only one existing tree is to remain? There are a lot of trees there now, did an arborist come and do any kind of grading of those trees? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - I can’t answer that off that top of my head and don’t know if there is one or multiple trees to remain, but I do know that they are replacing almost kind for kind that trees that are being removed. We do have a grading of those trees that were provided by the school district, all were in fair condition; we don’t. have anything in our code that prevents the removal of these trees, what we require is a tree survey as part of submittal package. Commissioner Dawson- Were in a quasi-legal hearing and our primary function is to assess land use, in fact fair land use. On the meeting notice, there are a number of PINS, those PINS have serious ambiguity, I’ll give you the examples; one or two of them are DuPage recorder PINS with instruments behind them, that means they have legal weight on land, land use, consolidation, easement etc. Two of them are not present on DuPage recorders portal, that means they are likely assessor based or County Clark based PINS of convenience for a tax parcel, they do not define the land of which we are asked to examine tonight. The meeting notice references 17.93 acres, I would also note that the Petitioners application to The Village in the area set aside for PINS is blank, it could be argued that legal descriptions are sufficient, however this area of land to be taken as a whole does have some complete additions to Glen Ellyn but it also has part additions and the only way the part can be answered is by reviewing the Deed. Thus, the two part question is this, on your slide can you outline for me the 17.93 acres area in the form of a boundary and I think I know it but I would like for you to communicate it to me, second part of the question is, can you give me a definitive list of PINS based on instrument from the DuPage recorder that do constitute the application today? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - Referencing the Parcel slide, which was presented, Daniel stated that generally there’s 4 parcels of the different parcels that make up Glenbard West property. Mr. Harper traced parcels for Commissioners on the slide. Indicated that Parcel maps on website are not clean and that part of where it switches, it goes around Lake Ellyn. He did not include that part where it switches in the description of the notice. Commissioner Dawson- Can I just clarify what you just drew? I think you included the two-toned beige area with the line share of the school and then went into the CR districts some distance to answer my question of how you got to 17.93 acres, is that correct? The beige area you outlined for me is approximately 12.5 acres possibly 14, I still don’t know where the other acres are and then the second part of the question which is to provide the PINS. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - Yes that is correct, that is the area I used to answer question regarding the 17.93 acres. I used the PINS provided by the DuPage County Parcel Map and so the PINS that are provided on the notice are the four PINS of the Parcels. Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- I can answer that question. The PINS are controlled by the parcel map, and the county clerk’s assignment of those PINS to these parcels. PINS as you stated do not necessarily control what needs to be in the notice, it is the legal description. As long as the property which is the subject of this hearing is included in the legal description it is sufficient, so if it is more that the described 14 acres, that is a sufficient notice and notice also had the property address as well. So, it is irrelevant if it’s more and those are the PINS assigned to this parcel is considered as one zoning lot and that is pursuant to the Village code as well 10-4-1 and 10-2-2 which defines a zoning lot. Commissioner Dawson- with respect, the most recent Village ordinance covering Glenbard West High School- the variance ordinance is correct, and those PINS don’t match these PINS we have been given for this package. Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- that is what I am saying, PINS don’t necessarily control, it’s the legal description and you do have a legal description that is larger than the legal description you are talking about, the 14 acres verses the 17 acres, so its sufficient from a legal standpoint. Commissioner Dawson- It’s not just a case of size here, the PINS in this legal notice and the petitioner provided none on their application. The tax only refers to parcels are included which is not sufficient for land use. That is my position on it. Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- It is under the applicable case law and statutes and The Village Code, because you are raising a legal argument, so I feel I must address it, it’s a sufficient notice. Commissioner Dawson- In the absence of any lot coverage ratio in the meeting notice, this packet this evening I know you have a final bullet point, that all said, has the Village calculated the lot coverage ratio for this addition? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- lot coverage ratio is approximately 36%. Chairperson Loftus– that would only be a point of information because for nonresidential use in the R2 there is no restriction. It should not be used in the determination of whether the variation approved, denied or approved with conditions. It does not apply to this application Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- from a legal standpoint, it’s irrelevant. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – just a point of information, the existing lot coverage, taking the parcel that I outlined which goes along the shore of Lake Ellyn, lot coverage ratio is 23.1% Commissioner Dawson- Thank you, can you point me to a section of zoning code of R2 that exempts school from the application of lot coverage ratio Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Yes in the chapter four, Section 10.4.8 E- it describes more than one story, lot coverage ratio, single family dwellings, more than one story and other accessory buildings 20% of the lot. When we are reviewing that, it specifically mentions this is for single family dwellings, it does not mention what a lot coverage ratio would be for a school, or any other building and it was not considered during our review for lot coverage ratio. Commissioner Dawson- so you can’t point me to section that says that schools are explicitly exempt from a lot coverage ratio would not be needed to be calculated, another is that schools are not subject only single-family homes. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- If its silent on it then it’s not regulated. Commissioner Dawson- I have two separate communications from the Village on this subject, one verbal, one written and they are contradictory so I would like you to clarify which is the Villages position. Once is a lot coverage ratio is not needed to be calculated because of the area included the other answer is that basically what you just said that schools are not subject to lot coverage ratio, just single-family homes. So, which is it? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – I would say that the Lot coverage ratio in the R2 zoning district would only apply to single family homes. Commissioner Dawson- given that zoning lot coverage ratios are only given by bulk, by bulk I mean size density protection of the neighborhood for the look and feel, if I take the position that you state and has been stated by people in this night so far, is this logic though, if I am a school in R2, can I build up to 25ft of every lot line without needing a variance for the massive size of my building? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – They would be limited to storm water and engineering constraints, but theoretically that could be considered. Commissioner Dawson- a building of that magnitude, the defined area would be 60, 70,80 percent lot coverage area ratio; I know it’s not the topic of this hearing tonight but if lot on corner on Hawthorn, is built to those constraints on a school platform, we are talking about a density of lot coverage ratio of 60,70, 80 percent; next question, under Illinois state law and DuPage County zoning, it has been ruled that schools irrespective of zoning language that can be massaged are subject to lot coverage ratio- my comments about bulk, I strongly believe that schools should be subject to lot coverage ratio in any district but particularly R2. We have zoning districts which do not have lot coverage ratios, and each one of them, well I can’t say for sure for all of them, the central business district might be exception but the zoning variance is where dwellings exist we do not have a lot coverage ratio, have something called the floor area ratio, that is not present in R2, and that itself is a protection from bulk mass density impacts on the surrounding residential areas; do you have a comment on that, will you make a comment on that? Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- Before Mr. Harper does, I want to talk about two things that you have made from a legal perspective in your statement. I think what you are essentially asking for is text amendments to the Zoning Code that maybe or not appropriate as part of the Zoning Code but that is the relief that would be needed implicit from your question; You did state that State Law and DuPage County Zoning law require a lot coverage ratio, well DuPage County zoning does not apply to The Village of Glen Ellyn, the Village of Glen Ellyn is a home rule unit lot coverage ratio if The Village chose to apply to schools it can do so or not do so, it has home rule authority, I actually argued the case in the Illinois Supreme Court on this issue Schuster Holmes vs. City of Naperville and the Supreme Court upheld that if a home rule unit does take on a zoning issue and defers from state law, it can do so. I want to preface Mr. Harpers comment with the legal basis. Commissioner Dawson- Should I answer that? Chairman Loftus- I think you are trying to debate things that are not in the code. Commissioner Dawson- the case I am referring to, the municipality involved was ruled to not be absolved from adherence because of home rule but that is not a question. In the application of lot coverage ratio in the context we have discussed so far, do you think the Village is being fair across R2 with regards to homeowners, institutions, churches, do you think the Village is being fair? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- I don’t think that is an appropriate question for what we are asking tonight. Commissioner Dawson- In a Village code, where lots are side by side, homeowners are compelled, in fact required to consolidate lots if they wish to enjoy the relief of the extra square footage for a lot coverage ratio build. They are compelled to consolidate lots. There are currently at least two in progress and the scores I have reviewed there is no exception to the homeowner in that case. Has consideration been given to in this case which even in the beige area there are numerous lots. Was consideration given to consolidate the lots? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – When we were discussing this with the school district, my suggestion was to consolidate the parcels that are considered the zoning lot for the school district campus. Same with the PUD side, the Biester Gym and the School District Administration building- as we got further along, the School District requested that we treat it as one zoning lot as it was done in the past in the 2015 zoning case that ended up being the 2016 addition because there are conditions in code that would consider this for the zoning lot, that was the route that we took Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- I can answer from the legal perspective, they are not compelled to consolidate the lots under the zoning lot ordinance 10-2-2 and 10-4-1 definition. Commissioner Dawson- I stated that they weren’t compelled legally, with regards to the variance on impervious area, I know there was a small change, can you clarify whether it was a measuring error in terms of the calculation of the average width of the irregular shaped lot or whether, so was it a simple measuring area? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - Are you talking about the impervious surface for the parking lot? Commissioner Dawson- It’s Item number 7 Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – The impervious surface is the western parking lot that will be used for mini bus and ADA Spaces, located on the property, they will do some work to re-shore parking area, bring to it update and make it a better structure because it is a nonconforming structure on the property line, they have to request a variation for that. For any non-conforming structure, we would want that structure to be brought into conformance and so that is the variation that they are requesting. Commissioner Kreuzer-A point of clarification on the Photometric plan, does the photometric plan measure the light emitted from interior of the building? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - not from the interior of the building, it’s just the fixtures that they are proposing and those that exist. But if you look at the photometric plan, it's capturing the ambient lights from the streetlights as well, so I don’t know if it’s capturing the lights turned on inside but those lights inside are variable whether they are on, or off or which ones are on. Commissioner Kreuzer- For some reason the Architect has decided that we want to have a glass staircase which I presume would be lighted all night and presumably with very bright light, for a few reasons. I don’t know why we have decided to make that architectural statement for our residents, but I guess what you are telling me is that the Code does not require us to measure light that is emitted and its effect on what would otherwise be a photometric plan. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- They provided a photometric plan based on the fixtures that they are proposing, and it’s certified by a lighting engineer, and it meets our code. Commissioner Kreuzer- But were only measuring the exterior fixtures Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn -If it causes a nuisance, we can go out there with a light meter and measure. If it calls for enforcement, we can do an enforcement action. Chairperson Loftus- In our code, we measure light at the lot line. It measures the light whether its 50 feet at the lot line. Commissioner Kreuzer- What I think I am hearing is that the photometric plan has been submitted but we don’t have is not including what would be light omitted from the interior including the corner stairway. We would only look at what is being emitted after the light has been installed and then presumably, we do something. Chairperson Loftus- The Stairwell is close to the sidewalk. You are right 100% right. Commissioner Kreuzer- I would assume that it is 5000 kelvin very bright white light; on all night, might be a condition that we want to think about. Chairperson Loftus- I would ask the petitioner how it was calculated on that. Commissioner Brown-Is it state law that these would have to use light harvesting so they wouldn’t be on all night? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- I don’t know, I don’t have any knowledge to comment on that. Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- it would only be Village code that would apply, there is no State law Commissioner Morrison- On the proposed retaining wall- is that all brand-new retaining wall or are they demoing some of the railroad ties that are currently existing and replacing those? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn - My understanding is that we are replacing those, we can ask the applicant for more details on that, but that is my understanding. Commissioner Morrison-I walk past those railroad ties and I know a lot of them are not in the best shape so I would be curious to hear from them how many of the railroad ties are going to be replaced and what is the plan for future replacement or if the structural engineer has evaluated those recently. Petitioner Sworn In Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers- Jocelyn described that the Project born out of preplanning and referendum efforts for the district; every school in district is getting improvements as part of referendum ask and approved vote a lot was done in preplanning understanding capacity of the building- not because of growth in population but does allow for better implementation of curriculum for their portrait of a graduate that requires specialized spaces, social emotional learning spaces as well as making equitable opportunities throughout the district. Particularly at Glenbard West, you’ll notice we got a black box theatre that is to supplement some of the other schools in the district having a secondary theatre space that Glenbard West does not have. Really just providing a more equitable curriculum environment. Glenbard West, it was asked was there any consideration for interior renovation and in fact that is the scope that we are working through. Currently the school is sitting at 90% utilization ratio, most high schools sit at 75%-80%; when you look at scheduling it allows for student movement, study halls, and maintaining an appropriate class size. With this addition it would allow it to bring it to a more appropriate ratio so that they are not maxing out every classroom, every class period. We have looked at the addition and have had community involvement, the referendum had its own patch of community forums and engagement. There have been 16 different forms of communication, forums, presentations. The district and school have been active in being good stewards to neighbors as much as possible. Showed new addition location to Commissioners via slide We did identify as best as possibly to limit impact to that hill especially as related to the mature vegetation. We will be preserving as many of the mature trees as possible. The proposed wing is a classroom wing, the core portion near the center is the learning commons. The 100 level is maintenance and storage space, that is to keep all mechanical off the roof, keeping it out of view. The learning commons (orange area) is an expansion of cafeteria, creating a social area. Green and blue blocks are where we are renovating the space; security is a huge part of the referendum; main office and secure vestibule will be created. Maintaining door 1 as signature/main entrance and will have secondary entrance to the back. Black box theatre on the 4 th floor, with views to lake Ellyn and courtyard we are maintaining. She moved on to describe landscape plan, we will be replacing the Shakespeare Garden, maintaining some of the Japanese Zen and water feature that exists back there. Request to add a native plant area that is area A on plan. Garden intent is to have students interact with the hill even more as that is special to this campus, replacing all the trees 1 for 1adding ornamental plants; elevations looking at scale, the drop off to hill is necessitating the 72’ height, where hill starts to drop off is an emergency exit point to avoid dead end for those classroom spaces, not intended to be an exit or entrance for stairwell. Preserving significance and height of tower. Materials were also shared, keeping in theme of the site, keeping integrity. Arched windows are Black box, architecture was taken from trying to absorb the different features along the existing building, trying to make sure it feels cohesive and respecting original building. Controlled staff entrance was showed in addition to parking lot, ADA accessible parking. The presenter made a note that she would not speak in depth about construction and noted that Jeremy could answer any questions pertaining to that. Moved ahead to show the proposed staging for construction, fencing locations with a dual layer fence, to protect around building and keep staging off mature vegetation, what we are trying to preserve on hill. Repairs and replacements will occur over the summer on stairs, bulk of what is happening long term is happening at that addition. Commissioner Morrison- on the new stairwell that goes from front of building down to Crescent- right now at bottom it goes into a “V” but I don’t see that other “V”; is that being removed? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -Yes currently there is a cow path along auditorium going up from street, we are creating a formal path, taking that entry that goes into a “V” and widening that stairwell so that it is more useable for more people, pretty disrepair so we are taking opportunity to repair. Secondary connection, cow path connects to door 2 and would lead straight up to circle drive. Chairperson Loftus- following up on lighting; if we make a condition that a new photometric plan be submitted with effective interior lighting on lot line, is that something you can perform prior to that to get the effect? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -Yes absolutely, as part of permit process we can start to pull that together, we can certainly do that and submit before this goes to Village Board. Typically, we just do exterior, but I understand why that corner is of concern. Commissioner Kreuzer- to follow up on that, why do we have the glass curtain wall for the stairway? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -It is something we studied because it is an exterior stairwell, but because of proximity of street we had it as solid at one point- it felt overwhelming from a human scale when walking past building it felt like a large mass, both from not wanting a darkening closed stairwell from security standpoint on the interior and not wanting it to feel over whelming at the street level. Commissioner Kreuzer-Why not smaller windows consistent with existent building? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -we did look at some of those as opportunities and with general scale of that location because it go lower to the street, the scale felt foreign, it actually created more of an emphasis on stairwell that we were trying to blend in to everything. Commissioner Kreuzer-Neighbors will find it to be very obtrusive with respect to their enjoyment of the night, I think small windows would be consistent with the current building in its castle like appearance, just something I would think about if the opportunity for change exists, might resolve any problems you may have with lighting and photometric plan. Chairperson Loftus- you did go before the architecture appearance with this plan already, haven’t you? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – because this plan is an addition and not new construction of a principal building, it did not go to the architectural appearance commission Commissioner Kreuzer- has this gone before the Environmental Commission? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – I believe it was introduced to the Environmental Commission as an introduction, but I don’t think there was a formal agenda item. Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -We connected with the Environmental Commission, and it was determined that we didn’t need a formal or process but they are aware of this. Commissioner Morrison- In application in the standards, the application states, in order to follow the strict rule of the zoning code, the district would need to place less importance of the historical and cultural significance in order to achieve the necessary building square footage for the classroom spaces; it sounds to me like the school code follow more of zoning code than the current plan but due to the historic cultural significance of the site, you are asking for these variations? Can you explain a little bit more in detail? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers – Sure I think where that relates most is with the parking. To add level of parking that would be needed; we would have to level parts of the existing building, because we are not adding population, it is not something we are making worse. The other piece is making sure we are maintaining and preserving as much of that courtyard we are creating, the hill. In dome of the feedback sessions, we were asked if there was a way to tilt the building and we would get less trees and that was taken into consideration. Balancing some of the needs from community members gets us the corner at 16 feet, seems like a minor design influence but it was done with significant community impact and that is why really the request. Commissioner Morrison-Can you explain more on what a Learning Commons is and how it would be used throughout the school day not just during cafeteria hours? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers – especially for West their current cafeteria is not sized to accommodate student body, school has intended use for before and after school for students to come in and use for group projects, creating a more collegiate space for student to work through their day. With Glenbard hour there is flexibility in their school day for students to go and work on their project, or work on independent study. It creates a different environment for them. Some of the design impacts are having small huddle rooms similar to library for any underclassmen that cannot go off campus, creating some of those social and collaborative environments to allow for the school to deliver a curriculum in alignment with portrait of a graduate. Commissioner Brown- You are saying that the utilization rate is about 90%; can you tell me what the other Glenbard School utilization rate is? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -They vary, I know that East is around 80- 83%, South is closer to somewhere between 60-70%, and north 75%- allowing flexibility on their renovations to be more renovation based and less addition based. Sworn in Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87- We did a demographic study two and half years ago. West in particular is the most stable of all our environments, we have not seen a lot of variation in the last years and don’t anticipate a lot of variation the future. Most of our classroom spaces are exceptionally tight, they were not built to house people of our size and at times the desk spaces are very close together. As part of the addition space and part of renovation space we are getting more room to have instructional spaces to fit the size and needs of today and so we do have some boundary areas that have some things that we are not seeing at West. We are seeing a decline in population in Glenbard North, East is stable, and South is stable after dropping for years and years. Ultimately, the addition and the need for it, argue to the fact that we just don’t have spaces. The conversation about the Commons, having a place where kids can come in the morning where they will land and have conversations and get ready for the day or do a group assignment in a space that is comfortable and when a student’s day ends, and they have time in between an athletic event or after that activity they can do projects as well, I think it’s crucial. Commissioner Wyant- I don’t recall the specific details of the referendum, but did it contemplate for Glenbard West expanding the footprint of the building? That was disclosed in ballot initiative? Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87- Yes sir. Yes, it was. If, you don’t mind there were a couple of questions brought up earlier that I can address. The 580 Ellyn Ave. property, when we purchased that property we went into closed session so I cannot share the details but what I can tell you is that there are no additional plans, however one of the things that we want to look at with that property, knowing that we potentially might be having some construction in the future, it will save us several thousand dollars in having to put on any kind of trailers or any kind of property for that. So, we felt like that was a good investment, the board has not yet contemplated any additional purposes for that space at this time. I would imagine as construction ends; we will probably have those conversations again. Commissioner Wyant- I think if I am following Commissioner Dawson’s commentary, you can put a massive structure on that lot coverage ratios. Is that accurate? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn – because it would be a school building it would be a 25 ft side yard setback, it would be limited pretty good but that is all that I can say right now as the code stands right now. Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87-In terms of the Railroad ties, yes there is a plan to work our way down and replace those; much like you I walk down that way regularly and it bothers me that those will fade and deteriorate. Investing back in the wood means we will have to replace it all back all over again so we are looking to much like you see on Crescent when the roundabout was put in, looking to expand that process, as much as the budget can allow. Commissioner Brown- before you sit down Mr. Chapman, can I ask you one other question? When you were here for the preapplication I had asked about boundary changes and you said that was a potential for the district, and when I am looking at the concerns from the community, People are concerned about the number of cars that are parking people and essentially how many people are coming from far away places to drive to our school that might not be in the closest proximity to this school as compared to the other schools in the district and especially during the construction and busing and everything. Is that still something that the district is considering. Also, that is why I asked about the utilization at other schools. Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87-We just seated our new board, we have a new Superintendent starting July 1, so we put a pause on all those conversations, it would not at all surprise me if 6 months or in one year that conversation resurfaces but at this time, we are not having any active discussions. Commissioner Morrison- We talked about the last big addition to West in 2016, and here we are ten years later doing another big addition, but we are also being told that the student size is static, what is being built in this new addition that could make it so that we are not here in ten years with another addition? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -I don’t have all the context around the 2016 addition but I can say that part of the limitation is what is available on the site. Understanding constructability concerns and any ability to expand we are close to reaching that. It’s not something that I can obviously see twenty years down the road, but the hope and goal is that this is providing long term improvement for curriculum, 2016 was for a very specific Science Classroom addition and so it has its own needs, but it has its own limitations as well. This is providing that flexibility, general classroom environment to allow that flexibility within the building and were other locations for addition contemplated in time of referendum planning but they just don’t make feasible sense from a cost and from an impact total site and neighbors standpoint so from my perspective we are close on pushing the limit on anything major for that building. Commissioner Dawson- In terms of design choices, certain choices would lose much more of green space, please elaborate on alternatives that would lead to more lose of green space? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -Parking would be something that would lose green space, if you bring current building with or without the addition up to code today, you would max out impervious space on site. With the feasibility on it being on a hill that has its own limitations. For any of the other variations, a lot of it is just trying to respect some of the existing conditions happening on the site and understanding that we are trying to get to street level on a safe manner. The biggest green space is obviously parking variation we are requesting. Commissioner Dawson- On that question, you are asked as a petitioner to iterate through a process of reducing your variations, can you expand on how you did that, you are asked to provide evidence on that. Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -I may rely on Daniel if I am speaking out of term on any of that. Some of the locations that we are looking at going closer to street or carrying on to that impervious area up to the lot line have been reduced, looked at minimizing looked at it from a maintenance standpoint instead of creating new standpoint, especially the lighting is something that we looked at making it safe and secure but also respecting the lot boundary, even where we are up against Crescent and not around neighbors we are really sure we are adhering to that. Commissioner Kreuzer-what are your concerns with safety with respect to lighting? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers- there are code standards to have just the doorways lit but for the school standard because it is a unique site, making sure the primary pathways have appropriate lighting, understanding that teachers are coming and out of the building in the winter, all days of the week in the winter so making sure that footpaths are appropriately lighted, making sure that there is enough lighting so that anyone hanging out or loitering at an off hour can be picked up by a security camera. Keeping it very minimal as much as possibly but just understanding that we want to highlight more than a doorway because we are 50 feet in the air as you get to that front door on the first level there. Making sure we have adequate coverage, to avoid any loitering any graffiti anything like that. Commissioner Kreuzer- Is the Learning Commons a 2-level space? Is it more of an atrium? Is it just a nice lounge is that essentially what this is? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers – It is 3 levels, the desire behind that is to preserve the façade from the inside, making sure that we are capturing up to that 400 level. Not obscuring the view, it is obscured from the outside. It is there is presentation space, so we have what we call a learning stair, it’s an informal 60-100 presentation space, extension of guidance suite, college and career center as part of that so that students a have a more accessible space to talk about careers and school impacts, and then there is a little bit of that social space extension of the cafeteria but that is the broader use but its zoned in a couple of different ways to allow for banquets and presentations, guest speakers things like that. Commissioner Kreuzer- Did anyone try to assess how many classrooms could have been in there in lieu of this nice atrium/lounge? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -We did, part of the challenge is where you would put a classroom a budding that then this allows light to filter into now what our administration space is, so on the 200 level its huddle rooms similar to the library for students to use for studying , 300 level it is admin space so it’s your student services, your principle, your deans are all along that so that they have casual supervision and they allow daylight, on 400 level it allows for those classroom’s to maintain some of filtered daylight without blocking. Chairperson Loftus- Question for Seth, is there any intention on utilizing this space to outside interest other than Glenbard West Students? Which would open this up to different than school hour usage of the facility. Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87- Certainly a possibility, I think when we are looking at all our building, we are not just looking at how we can make these places for instruction but also these are community assets that during non-school use we could have community involvement in those spaces, I think that would be great. Commissioner Kreuzer- what is the current grade point average for that school population? To what extent do you think this addition is going to improve the grade point average? Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87- I wish Mr. Peter Sellers was here, he is at graduation, I don’t know that off the top of my head. It would be an anecdotal guess at best, if I were to guess that I will tell you I think that when you are in an environment that you feel is reflective of today’s standards and reflective of diverse studies, I think that would absolutely improve outcomes for our students. Commissioner Kreuzer- What studies can you cite to us? You are telling us that the reason which could form a basis for the need and the hardship is to improve grade outcomes, correct? Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87- No sir, I did not say that. I think that we are looking to improve a student experience, and I think there is data that will demonstrate that the work we are doing here will do that. I think it would be hazardous for me to say that it would improve student grades. Commissioner Kreuzer- I am still puzzled about the reason of this addition, but I’m sure a pleasant place for 14,15and 16-year- olds. Commissioner Morrison- going back to idea of this is our 2nd addition in 10 years, if you find that in another 10 years we need more classroom space, could the learning commons upper atrium rights space be re-utilized as something else, is this being built as a flexible expansive space. If you need three more classrooms in ten years, will you guy’s, be back here? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -I think that is hard to speculate on, the structure of that atrium is not currently built to adapt to 3 more classrooms, but I think it is also something that as we are looking at this, part of the challenge of the interior space is that current classroom sit anywhere from 650 square feet 750 square feet and a typical new school would be 850-900 square feet. If you have 31 students in section, you will need larger square footage. So, we are able to expand some of the interior classroom spaces to fit that where they may not be able to utilize some of that space now. It is something that we are looking at holistically as whole building not just the building. For the big picture to understand that improvements are being made throughout the school for accessibility, security and that classroom size to help avoid that scenario in the future. Chairperson Loftus- part of what we are here for tonight is to try and understand what the hardship is involved to. Some of these questions may not be pertinent to what the variation is but what’s the hardship behind it, what’s the hardship if you can’t modify the space and then you’re coming back in ten years, is that really a hardship? Or are you just building because you like to. Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers – I think that is absolutely a fair question. It was not context that I thought to provide so understanding of the interior of the space in particular where you see in that upper right corner- we are reintegrating some of the special education rooms into the full building classroom count to account for some of that utilization, everything being done in the addition is not the only thing being done to improve utilization in the building but it allows for classrooms that are too small to hold a typical class size of 31 student section to be re-integrated into the whole building, so that is 3 additional classroom spaces and we are able to account for and provide a better learning environment for special education students. Starting to look at things like better use of proportion of space for a classroom instead of a department office, a lot of those changes are happening within the building to maximize the number of classrooms we are getting. This is a net gain of 10 or 11 classrooms because some of them we are taking a small what is considered a classroom of 600 sq feet or 650 sq feet classroom and making into closer to that 800sq feet, and making sure we have the right mix of spaces so when all this is said and done, the administration is not looking at an existing space and saying well I can’t use that as a classroom because it does not fit 31 students. So, this has been a holistic effort to make sure that scheduling is improved as part of this and that we have the right number as part of that addition. The target for long term, looking at target of, the student population is not 2500 students but anticipating, there was a boom in a surprise year of 2500, we are not cresting at 85% at that point and will be workable. To your point, ideally, we are not coming back in ten years for three more classrooms because we are trying to account for that right now. Public Comment Received from Mr. Kevin Williams, read by Daniel Harper and placed into record. To summarize the email received, Mr. Williams is in favor of Glenbard West getting a much-needed addition but opposed to this project as the hill will be removed. Overall, Mr. Williams stated he was venting, he wants an addition just not in this location. Sworn in Jill Paulis, Glen Ellyn Resident- you mentioned Environmental commission- what was their response? I just couldn’t hear you. Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -We did reach out to environmental commission as part of the tree tag, tree survey, we have the conditions noted and they are ok to remove, and they stated that we do not have to go through a formal process with them. Jill Paulis, Glen Ellyn Resident- Did they say why? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -We provided information that they needed at this time. Commissioner Morrison- Follow up question to public comment provided by Kevin Williams; he mentioned that other locations were discussed for this addition? This is a big addition, what that discussed in front of this board? What locations for this addition were proposed or discussed and why they were rejected? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -There were a couple of locations, especially as we were looking at the referendum planning- I think there was an earlier question about was the public aware of the addition, this is in keeping with the location and general scale of the addition that the public saw at time of the vote, but at the time of understanding budget, scope, will or will it not meet the ask of the referendum, we looked at things like a sky bridge from Biester to Main building to address some of the security concerns, proposal from a student to add classrooms to north side of Biester that we took a look at to understand what merits it had and what our opportunities were there, I think the biggest thing to understand about the total building and total site planning is some of the organization of the building and the delivery of the curriculum is dependent on proximity so moving a whole curriculum or department out to Biester isolates that a little bit more, crossing over Ellyn was a large endeavor for, you could not get as many classrooms as needed for utilization for a pretty high cost. As you are looking at for a community referendum, really does start to have an impact. Looking at some of the other locations on site, they are really constrained to existing utilities, existing loading conditions so we are just making sure we are being good stewards of what already exists on the site. That being just the best available space for having curriculum grouped in the proper location and making sure that we could fit the number of classrooms that we had. So, there were several explorations pre-referendum, but this is something that was presented to the public a year, more than a year ago at this point. Commissioner Pesche- This is just a comment, you guys made references to this being more of a collegiate feel, collegiate education but when you go to any college, the site it is spread out, you kind of contradict that by saying let’s not spread it out. Seth, do you have the ability to rezone if South is at 60% capacity, could you put students there? Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87-The board would have the ability to do that, yes. Commissioner Kreuzer- The classroom space, what is actual percentage of classroom space when compared to what else you are planning here? What’s square footage of classroom compared to lounge and second theatre? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers -I will not make an answer on the spot, the addition is primarily classrooms, I don’t have answer off hand but we can provide in the future. Seth Chapman, Assistant Superintendent, Glenbard District 87- outside of classroom spaces, a lot of our related services spaces are crucial, it will be a hub for students who don’t feel they have enough time or the effort to walk all the way over. Commissioner Morrison- how many of the Glenbard High Schools have or will have after this referendum is all spent, how many of them will have a learning commons? Are they all 3 stories? Jocelyn Kelly, Educational Planner & Architect, Wold Architecture and Engineers All of them will have a learning commons, they vary in where they will be located in the building, but they will all have 2-3 story volume. Chairperson Loftus requested for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Kreuzer motioned to close the public hearing, Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. DELIBERATION- Commissioner Morrison- I did read traffic report, it was great, I like the proposed changes. I prefer not having the bus staging areas divided because I can just see a 14-year-old kid go to the bus on one side of the school when his bus is on the other side and not making it home but that was my only concern. I like that it looks like the changes that you are making will improve traffic around the area, I appreciate that, it speaks to the effort you have put into that which we have not been talking about because traffic around that school at pick up and drop off is horrendous. Chairperson Loftus- not increasing headcount of teachers or staff, no matter what building on Main Street, downtown there are always inconveniences of traffic flow during construction. Once construction is over, things go back to normal. It’s unfortunate that there is no space to add on, I don’t see the need for the space, we have not heard really hardships, which for every petition that are presented are not really hardship in my opinion to go to school. The other option could be imminent domain on private housing in the area to create expanded learning space, I’m glad to see that they didn’t take that tack. It’s ashame that the bell gets moved, heritage trees get destroyed, even though they are replacing the trees, some are original to the hill, Honeysuckle Hill back a hundred years ago. Commissioner Kreuzer- we already destroyed a lot of trees with the 2016 addition, and the couple that were saved and there were efforts, are dying. I have a general concern which needs to be said, we still don’t have a tree ordinance in this Village that could address the wholesale remove of our canopy on lake Ellyn, right now the only entity that has been removing that canopy is the school district and I think at times somewhat cavalierly. It should be a concern that this Village has, I don’t know that we are going to replace the canopy with a couple shade trees, that I saw in this plan, but I don’t think it’s an issue that we have been asked to address and I am not going to consider it when asked to decide with respect to this petition. Commissioner Wyant-it just seems like a nice to do, not a have to do. There are no hardships as you referenced a moment ago. This will create tremendous disruption to the homeowners in this area for two years with no upside in academics or curriculum, we are not addressing a shortage or an over population of student body for the foreseeable future. This is a referendum that barely passed, I think that we are looking for ways to spend the money, and it just doesn’t seem justifiable, I would have loved to have heard some hard facts as why this must be done. This school will always be a tight site, that is the charm of Glen Ellyn, its dense, it’s tight in size and there are a lot of successful academic institutions that are land locked and tight and it’s not going to undermine their ability to deliver a great education. This is an elite High School, I think everyone who lives in the community and who sent kids here knows it’s an elite high school but this just seems like a nice to do and not a need to do and I that have not heard anything that suggests that this is something we have to do to maintain the elite status of the High School. Yet it’s spending a lot of the taxpayer money and I am greatly concerned about that and the disruption of all of those homes along the west for two years of disruption. I see no reason to facilitate this by granting all these variances. Commissioner Kreuzer- It’s a permanent potential nuisance. Commissioner Dawson- I see no hardship, I am greatly concerned of the land use coverage here, in terms of definition of the land. I believe that I am on strong legal footing as to the application of any township with bulk regulations, bulk meaning size density impact on residential neighborhood. It worries me greatly that we are embarking, if we send a recommendation of approval for this, the notion that an R2 a school or institution can build up to 25 feet of a lot line to any density without needing a variance– in my opinion in the absence of a regulation given to schools does not equal exemption. The absence of an express exemption in a zoning code, the code applies. There is no floor area coverage protection in R2, which is a further protection against density massing and bulk. I’ll give you some more examples, on special cases the schools have a 25ft requirement, it’s explicit, it’s pulled out in R2. Churches have another specific exemption and we are in the territory of the thing that applies to churches, a church can go up to 75ft, for a spire or bell tower but there is a very important section in that which protects residences, for 72 feet which is the school proposal in lieu of the 45 sin order to build to that height, the school would be required to have a 54 foot setback where they are currently proposing 16 feet. For my major concerns, I will also add that I think, I said, I don’t see hardship, I am not convinced of the petitioner’s fair land use to reduce variances, that is not how the process is supposed to work. That is my opinion and my concerns. Chairperson Loftus- I hear everybody’s comments so far. If there were no variation requests, they would not be here, they would be building by now. I hear what you are saying as far as it’s a want and not a hardship. If it was not for setbacks, we would be talking about signage at this point instead of setback variations. They could build whatever they wanted on their property, personally I support what the addition is. Commissioner Dawson- I support the improvement of education for this age group. I think it’s got wonderful aspects, but we are here to examine the land use and against the zoning standards at a quasi -legal hearing. Commissioner Kreuzer- They must ask for variances, they can’t build what they want without the variances which could arguably be a country club for 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds. Commissioner Dawson- we will probably see some more confusion in a few moments when we get to the findings of the fact. There is no way you can draw 17.9 acres or 14.9 acres without going from R2 into CR. The context of this application from a pre-application to public notice, until this document is written in terms of R2 only, in context of lot consolidation, I have calculated lot coverage ratio. I allowed for consolidation but I did not allow for consolidation of CR into R2 which is on the table tonight as a recommendation, I concur with the staff comment about we will be in the larger area of land whether it’s 17.8 or 13.7 but in terms of how I look at this from a neighborhood impact, a residential aspect, and the application for bulk zoning requirements to control that, the score is already over, my calculations show between 28 up to 31with this new addition in lieu of of the allowed 20% and we are crossing the zoning district. Chairperson Loftus-The history of Lake Ellyn and School has always been a question of how many acres there are from the whole park and the school since the day Lake Ellyn was done. I think it’s proven that the Village cannot come up with a viable number to delineate what is school and what is not school acreage and from my knowledge of the history of that area since it was dug in the 1800’s and given to the school there is always a question of how many acres are there. Commissioner Dawson- my comment to you on that would be, I understand what you are saying but I will tell you from my other activities and research it is derivable, I don’t believe that it can’t be derived. Commissioner Brown- my concerns are mostly with traffic and the fact that this school like commissioner Wyant said is an elite school that attracts families to move to this town, and if we do all of these amazing improvements to the school, you could argue that that would attract more families to move to Glen Ellyn and surrounding areas that go to District 41, District 87, I am sorry. If the school is at 90% capacity and we have an influx of new families that move here because it’s an even better school, I have concerns that we will have more issues with parking, reading the packet, the current zoning requires the school district to provide 740 parking spaces and the proposal has zero; that to me is a glaring issue and the second thing is that comprehensively speaking, I have acquaintances that live next to the home that you purchased on Ellyn and its concerning to them and some of their neighbors that there is no plan for that property, it would be nice to have a little bit more visibility on the potential plan for that property given the potential parking problems. Also, The Village is potentially embarking in a new Train Station, and this could overlap with this construction. I know that these are different projects, but I think that we are going to be hard pressed to find a clear route through town when we have major construction projects happening in the central business district. Commissioner Pesche- This is to encourage us to support investment the future our education of our Village, this is not a decision of five years from now but multiple decades from now and there could be consequences to it. Whether I agree or not with the space, I think denying that such investment is a poor decision. Commissioner Wyant- I think that is a great point, but they have not made that case., they have not made that point, I think if there was an abundance of evidence suggesting an enrollment crisis, or a curriculum or academic deficiency that would relate to what you are saying. Commissioner Pesche- there is a space issue that they are having, being at the highest percentage of capacity. I think that there is going to have to be a discussion about rezoning that is going to be forced upon them in the next five to ten years which may not impact any of you sitting here, may or may not impact my family but I think there will be decisions made. I do have a question; I don’t know if anyone at that board can answer this, but does it just go on reserve the funds? Because I think that they are on a time deadline right, with this referendum? What happens to the funds that they are trying to utilize for this project? Does anyone know the answer? We were trying to get it in this date because of the time constraint, right? That is my understanding from the last meeting so I don’t know if that could be revisited if the Board disagrees with the outline or plan itself. Chairperson Loftus- Unfortunately that is The Village board decision, here to vote on land use and variations, and the final decision is Village Board and their feelings on what is best overall for the Village. They are tasked with making final decision, so they can overturn us, they can agree with us, they can make changes with whatever we come up with. I would like to move this forward so that we can give some feedback to Village board so that they can move forward and do their job. Commissioner Morrison- Is it my understanding that we can’t ask them to come back, I mean we could ask them to come back with more testimony but were trying not too, were trying to make a final decision tonight? Chairperson Loftus- We can table it to a future date and come back with more information if someone makes that motion that is allowable. We have closed the public hearing but that is an option. Commissioner Morrison- So were not saying based on the funding timeline, this must move forward or the whole thing is off? Chairperson Loftus- no, I would just like to make a decision to hand to Village Board, a recommendation. Commissioner Wyant made the Motion to Deny the request Seconded by Commissioner Dawson. The motion failed with five (4) votes no (3) yes. Motion does not pass Deliberation Chairman Loftus- In staff report there a few conditions provided that we could include in the approval below: 1.The property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site development plans as presented at the May 22, 2025, Plan Commission meeting. 2. The existing lighting identified in the photometric plan as being in non-conformance with the Village's performance standards shall be modified to be brought into conformance as part of the building permit review. My opinion would be to include those two and part of condition number two that they come back with a photometric plan reflecting all sources of light from inside of the building plus outside lighting as a condition to be in conformance at all times of the day. Commissioner Kreuzer- In conformance at all times of the day because right now, that school is the source of the light polution at Lake Ellyn and what you are suggesting is to increase it dramatically with the reduction of the canopy that would otherwise help to mitigate it. Commissioner Pesce- how often you bring up Lake Ellyn and you are talking about how many homes around that property; there are thousands of families that are influenced by this decision, and we constantly bring up the homes around Lake Ellyn which baffles me sometimes. Commissioner Kreuzer- It’s the jewel in some respects. Commissioner Pesce- so is the high school. Commissioner Brown- I think we always try with every application to consider the surrounding areas. Commissioner Kreuzer- Potentially we are voting yes on this project, but some may question if they presented a hardship. Chairperson Loftus- other than two conditions stated in staff report, what if any other conditions would you like to add? Commissioner Brown- I have a question about conditions, I don’t know about this; if the project for the train station and the project for Glenbard West happen in tandem, would a traffic study be applicable to factor in, is there a precedent for that? My concern is that some of the commuter parking is going to be going away, and a lot of the commuter parking is utilized by students so that is where I feel like it’s important that we keep that in mind Chairperson Loftus- no, in my opinion no, they are two separate projects, we are not increasing traffic per say. To my knowledge the commuter parking is not part of the school per say, whoever parks in the train station lot or Montclair lot, they are paying out of pocket for some other entity other than what the school is. So holistically in the entire Village it’s true but the parameters for required parking on school property has already been set and if you are not changing the population of students or teachers there is not a requirement to grant a variation. You are correct it will be a mess with these projects going on at the same time just like the mess for downtown was in the last two years, but you must look at them as separate projects, separate business items. If train station project goes through, that is a Village issue. Commissioner Brown- I just feel like we must be mindful of the project, because of the residents in that area not just Lake Ellyn, all around are face with more traffic because so much parking is disrupted that is usually used by students. I feel like this is a problem that happens time and again in Glen Ellyn and then Village people who have not paid attention start to pay attention and come to us and say, how do you. Guys let this happen at the same time, why did you not have a plan for parking? Chairperson Loftus- to be honest how many residents to we have out here tonight, two to three. If no one comes and says something, we must make the decision. That is the sad part with regards to the process here, if no one speaks up, we ae the decision makers as to what recommendation we give to the Village. Commissioner Kreuzer- I do think that we carry the burden to take a leap and assume how the constituents see how we respond, I think that there is going to be a great deal of frustration with what is going on. I do believe with what I said earlier, we are spending tax payer dollar, we are creating this massive disruption, we are not going to address enrollment, how would you vote to raise your tax dollars now, I think it would lose 90-10, so I think we can sit here tonight, we have heard no justification for this expenditure that is going to be a massive inconvenience for a couple of years. I believe if we could survey all these residents just to the West and to the North, I think it’s a safe assumption that they will not be happy with this. Chairperson Loftus-That other side of the coin is that we must make a decision based on the evidence but there is no evidence from people on the other side that they think it’s a bad idea. Commissioner Kreuzer- there is no evidence either way. Commissioner Brown- here is an idea, what if we say, add something to this saying we would like to see a solution for the disruption that is going to be cause in terms of parking, maybe there could be an agreement with offsite parking at Ackerman and a bus shuttle going back and forth or something. We are advisory but I think we need to get it on the radar of the Village Board that there are concerns about traffic. Chairperson Loftus- I think that was addressed, I heard that they are talking with other parking lot owners for finding space for construction parking. Commissioner Brown- I thought that was project related and not student related. Chairperson Loftus- well it is project related, because after the project is done, if there is no increase in student population, no increase in teacher population we are back where we are today. Commissioner Dawson- seems to me that the suggestion is to give the Village Board a heads-up communication regarding two potential project concerns, it’s sensible to suggest. We are advisory; I will say, the Village has done a great job in recent years over coordinating projects we had a ten-year project over the west and east of village, we have current projects on hillside and Bryant Street where they are scheduling work, Just to clarify, we are advisory it goes to The Board they make additions, changes, the Board cannot add variance, we cannot add variances tonight, they change to lesser but cannot add new constraints to that it has to come back to the Plan Commission. They can go lesser or equal, but they cannot increase variances. Chairperson Loftus- we are not adding, we can recommend or add a condition. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- Regarding the timing of train station. The train station does come to the Plan Commission at some point, when it is submitted for its zoning entitlement process, so this can be a discussion that we can have at that time as well. Because the train station is a Village project, it will be within control of Village to coordinate traffic management and how that is done. Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- based on what Mr. Harper is saying, if I could recommend to you that if you have any ideas of conditions based upon the future project, you take it up at that time because right now it’s nebulous at best because there is not even a project before you yet. The project could go one way, or it could go another way. Commissioner Brown- can I make a condition that the School District provide more details on their plans for parking during the construction? Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney- something about parking could be part of this sure. Chairperson Loftus- they did mention that they were working with other entities to try to get more parking that is part of the evidence that has been presented tonight, so yes that could be a condition. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- a parking plan to address offsite parking. Sworn In Jennifer Hennigan, Director Community Development, Village of Glen Ellyn-we can’t introduce new evidence at the Village Board meeting so if there is additional documentation of information that you want to see it would need to come back to the Plan Commission we can’t add a condition asking them to produce additional information and then present that at the Village Board because the public meeting would have been closed at that point. Commissioners discussed which information and conditions to bring back and reopen public hearing. Commissioner Morrison made a motion ask the petitioner to come back on June 26, 2025, and provide the following information: 1. Photometric plan that considers interior light as well exterior light on a 24/7 basis 2. more information for hardship for variances pertaining to learning commons 3. more evidence regarding how school will handle remote parking during construction 4. evidence regarding forward looking enrollment projections at Glenbard West High School for a ten-year period Commissioner Wyant seconded the motion. Motion to table the public hearing was passed with a vote of (5) yes and (2) no. The petitioner is being asked to come back on June 26, 2025. Motion to open the Public Hearing by Commissioner Pesche second by Commissioner Dawson. Motion passed by voice vote. 2. Public Hearing - 818 N. Main Street, Five Corners Cleaners Sign Variation Sworn In Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- presented 5 Corners Cleaners requesting variations from 1. A variation from 4-5-4(R)3 to allow for a zero (0) foot setback for a freestanding sign in lieu of the required five (5) foot setback from all lot lines. 2. A variation from Section 4-5-4(R)8 to allow relief from landscaping requirements in lieu of the requirement to include a landscaped area in a 2:1 ratio to sign area. The proposed sign plan requests zero (0) square feet of landscaping in lieu of the required 64 square feet of landscaping. Property in question is zoned C2 and is surrounded by C2- Stacy’s Tavern is to the rear, sign updated last in 2014, The petitioner is proposing the installation of a 32-square-foot monument sign at the same location as their existing, legal nonconforming pole sign. The Village Sign Code prevents any alteration or adaptation to extend the life of any pole sign, and the existing sign also does not conform to setback and landscaping requirements. The petitioner is requesting Sign Code variations for approval to erect a freestanding monument sign with zip letter rails and LED lighting, with a total height of 7 feet, using the existing 8-foot steel post from the currently installed pole sign for structural support. The sign plan indicates that the proposed monument sign will be in the same location as the existing pole sign. The proposed sign would have a 0-foot setback from the north property line where a 5-foot setback from all property lines is required. Additionally, the Sign Code now requires landscaping for any freestanding sign at a ratio of 2:1, so for a 32-square-foot sign, 64 square feet of landscaping would be required. Due to the orientation of the existing conditions on the lot of Five Corners Cleaners, including the utilization of a drive-thru for operations, it is not feasible for Five Corners Cleaners to relocate this freestanding sign to a conforming location, or provide the required landscaping area, without reducing the operational capacity of the business. Slide of sign plan shown 32 square feet of sign area. Plans to reuse existing post. Asking tonight to consider petitioners request for the sign pole. Commissioner Morrison- I am concerned about the site lines, looks like the parking for this property goes right up to the sidewalk then goes right into the street so when somebody is backing up the pole sign does not obstruct their view of people coming south on Main Street, but a monument sign with a full base would more obstruct their view, I would like some evidence from the staff or the petitioner about how do people back out, do they back out on to Main street or do they pull out into the sidewalk, turn around before pulling out on Main St. Chairperson Loftus- my comment from observation because I spent time on that History Park, yes people are pulling out in all kinds of different configurations, they pull out, they back out, they drive the sidewalk it’s all kinds of different tactics, depends on who is driving. Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- Often when we are dealing with visibility issues on a staff level it’s with a corner lot, that’s when your measuring visibility triangles and certain blockages of site line. Anecdotally from when I visited the site, the drive through lane there gives you buffer from signage, and you have a wide sidewalk. I am not saying it’s a perfect situation, it’s an awkward pull out, certainly driver should be careful in that instance, no staff review in visibility explicitly. Commissioner Morrison- Is this application driven by sign code that is requiring a removal of all Pole Signs or is the applicant wanting a new sign? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn – If you were to do any kind of alteration to this pole sign, change the copy, a pole sign if you make any kind of alteration, it must come out. So, when the petitioner first contacted staff and asked to shorten the pole sign, I said no, you can’t have a pole sign anymore, then when he presented a free-standing sign, it was a design that would be allowable in the contemporary Village code. Commissioner Kreuzer- The Village basically compelled him to have a monument sign? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- So this sign can be maintained, but to be changed or altered in anyway would require a variation. Commissioner Pesche- If they wanted to leave the pole they could and alter it slightly? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- The proposed new sign was for a monument style. Commissioner Wyant-but the petitioner initially asked for just a new sign on an existing pole? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- no they asked for a monument. Commissioner Kreuzer- To clarify what you said, if they want to make any change to the existing pole sign, it must then comply to current code? If they just want to change the “C” from upper case to the lower case, the whole thing goes back? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- If they were changing the permanent copy of the sign, then that would not be allowed it would require a variation. Chairperson Loftus- just for background that is what they wanted to do on Roosevelt Rd. to change the lens but by doing so it required to meet current codes. Wyant- Commissioner Morrison makes a good point, if you are walking south bound and you’re backing up, it’s a fair concern, I think the top of monument is about 7feet, the bottom is 3 feet, that would tower over everyone in this committee. Commissioner Brown- Why did the Village decide to eliminate this type of sign? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- I was not part of the Village Staff at the time, that happened slightly a decade ago. Sworn in Petitioner Lee Turley- We have very limited people coming in because we do pickup and delivery so it’s very not busy, when they do come in, they do pull in and 99% of the time they back up on to the sidewalk or median space, were talking 12 plus feet that they back up to. I have never seen anyone drive back onto the sidewalk or median. The visibility is open even if we were to lower the sign. The reason is because of code, if I could fix the sign as is, I would, when Village put park there, they added trees, trees have grown, that sign has been illuminated since 1976. I will do whatever, I will keep sign as is. The paneling is cracking, its fading, trying to update, going eco-friendly, will save power; the lighting in there now is 5000k, the wattage is 80watts, 8 fluorescent bulbs in there. The new direct wire LED’sI can reduce wattage to bring the lumens down. At the end of the day the monument sign, I was told I had to abide by existing code. I Commissioner Kreuzer-LED is brighter and more intense, light pollution issue. Commissioner Kreuzer- I don’t know that you need to address that so far as a variance here, I don’t know if we thought about what the foot candles need to be here, this is commercial not residential. It’s a different beast we were just addressing. Chairperson Loftus- have you gone to Historical Society and ask if they would trim the trees? Petitioner Lee Turley- they already did, someone did last fall. They were literally covering all the sidewalk, Commissioner Wyant- I realize it would be more expensive setting that aside for the moment; would it be possible to put on south portion of the lot. Petitioner Lee Turley- that is the Chamber side, I will place it where you allow me to but that poses more of a danger, police officers go in there, parking for the chamber. Chairperson Loftus- I am the president of the Historical Society and along the chamber building and their lot line, they bud up against each other. He would have to eliminate his drive thru on that side, to put the sign there. Commissioner Pesche- the building has been here obviously longer than the tree has so that tree was without concern potentially planted there that in some future would block this business owners sign, correct? Chairperson Loftus- when Historical society received funding to create history park, they had funding to create what was on the corner. Planted trees to try to make it look nice, use to be two story brick building. Pulling out of the parking space, does cause concern. You can get to a point where then you can see cars coming south on Main Street. It’s really only the first two spots. Petitioner Lee Turley- rarely do they back up. Chairperson Loftus- Sign is 8ft wide, existing sign is a bit smaller Petitioner Lee Turley- I think it’s 8x8. I was going to reduce the size. Chairperson- You have 3ft high 5ft wide skirt on bottom there any possibility to make the sign narrower than 8ft, I don’t perceive an issue with the skirt. Petitioner Lee Turley I just can’t put any landscaping, is here any chance to reduce size of skirt, I would rather have more surface area, I would have smaller skirt area. Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- The skirt is conforming. Petitioner Lee Turley- Can it be less than 5ft high? Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn-yes, 100% Chairperson Loftus- you have sign centered on post, metal frame with lens on it, to offset the sign top the west, leave post where it is and shift the sign over. I know trees are blocking, and we would like to keep you in town. Commissioner Brown- Did we get the question answered as why do we not allow Pole Signs? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- I can’t speak to the specifics of Glen Ellyn but I know that there was a general design taste where pole signs were not seen as desirable anymore and that type of signage was phased out, our code identifies that if you have a pole sign you are allowed to keep that pole sign so long as you do nothing to alter it or change it, anything beyond repair has to be removed and brought to code. Petitioner Lee Turley-Would it be considered that if my panels are cracked and broken, that that would be a repair? Respectfully that is what I am looking to do. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Glen Ellyn Village- it specifies copy as well so if you are changing the logo and things like that then yes. Petitioner Lee Turley- Technically it is a repair, but I do want to lower the sign, so. Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- it would have to be a reproduction of this copy of this logo to be considered a repair. Chairman Loftus asked Village Staff had received any comments from the public regarding the application. Letter submitted- written note, Mr. Lee Marks Daniel Harper read to commissioners; he is a current customer and stated his concern with cars blowing through the intersection trying to make the light. Some tree pruning could alleviate the sign blockage. Commissioner Kreuzer- how tall is the sign currently sitting on the pole? Chairperson Loftus- It’s about 8feet Commissioner Kreuzer -So if you drop it down to 4 feet you would still get good clearance, why can’t we keep it on a pole, why do we have to get a skirt? Chairperson Loftus- I have no problem leaving the sign on a pole, we just approved one on Roosevelt Rd. Petitioner Lee Turley- before those trees were trimmed, there was more blockage, 6ft of trees hanging over. It never seemed to be a problem, sign really does not block view if we lowered it. Chairperson Loftus- Jordan if I heard you correctly, 5ft on skirt is maximum. Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Village of Glen Ellyn- Yes. Commissioner Kreuzer- I think what he is requesting would not prohibit the condition of keeping it on the poll Petitioner Lee Turley -There is about a 2ft set back from edge of the sign, there is a lot of view when backing out Commissioner Kreuzer- A motion to approve with conditions, that the board evaluate how best to maintain what would be the site line for traffic using the parking lot to the cleaner Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- I don’t know if I quite understand what the condition is. Chairperson Loftus- I think we could be more specific with dimensions, the height of the sign or bringing it down Commissioner Dawson- skirts can be up to five feet? How narrow can it be? What’s wrong with the pole? Petitioner Lee Turley- I would like it as big as it can be. Commissioner Kreuzer- Chairmen Loftus idea that the pole is off centered, you just pointed out that the eastern side is 2 feet off the side walk, maybe you make it 3 feet off the side walk? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- so the Pole is non-conforming sign and was not part of the request. Commissioner Kreuzer- The pole is going to stay because it is now going to be embedded in the box sign. Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- there will be some monument sign element to it. Petitioner Lee Turley- the sign will still be visible, pole will be the same, the sign will be off centered. Commissioner Kreuzer- why is it too vague to ask that the condition be to evaluate how best to maintain visibility? Chairperson Loftus- and who is responsible for evaluating? The Village Board? Commissioner Kreuzer- Presumably staff to look at it and evaluate and determine pedestrian safety. Commissioner Morrison- I thought a condition was a condition on the property owner not the Village Board Commissioner Kreuzer- condition would be to approve with the idea that you are approving what would ultimately be the best option to maintain good visibility for persons parking at the cleaner knowing that they will be backing into the pedestrian sidewalk otherwise aren’t we then just dealing with minutia. Chairperson Loftus- we are dealing with the perceived problem and to try to come up with a solution. Petitioner Lee Turley- There really is no concern with visibility. Commissioner Kreuzer- the condition I suggested is to approve with the condition that the petitioner and staff evaluate how best to maintain visibility. Commissioner Brown- I feel like if we are concerned with visibility, it’s not the cleaner’s fault with visibility, it’s the Historical Society. Chairperson Loftus-it’s the Villages fault, the Village owns the property. Petitioner Lee Turley- It’ not all the trees, its one. Commissioner Pesce-You came because you wanted a new sign. Chairperson Loftus requested for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pesce motioned to close the public hearing, Commissioner Dawson seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. Commissioner Morrison- I came in with visibility concerns, the petitioner has stated that the actual conditions of the site are not accurately reflected in the documents that we have and that the actual conditions on the site have sufficient visibility, so my concern has been alleviated due to testimony of petitioner. Commissioner Brown- Can we make a condition that he does not have to do a skirt? Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- The bottom portion is required, to make it a free-standing sign per our code, the application and notification did not specify to keep the pole sign. Chairperson Loftus-Application was for a monument sign; to make monument sign you must have a skirt around the pole. Commissioner Pesche made the Motion to approve the requested sign variations as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Dawson. The motion passed by a roll call vote with all commissioners present voting “Yes”. The motion passed with seven (7) votes yes unanimously. Motion to open the Public Hearing by Commissioner Dawson second by Commissioner Wyant. Motion passed by voice vote. 3. Public Hearing - 55 N. Park Boulevard, Glen House Food Pantry Sign Variation Jordan Frahm, Village- Presented on the Glen House Food Pantry, previously approved variation with conditions did not get approved at Village. Unique condition is that there are two, R2 Zoning lot, R4 multifamily directly to west, sited in total 3.3 acres at 55 N. Park Boulevard. Pursuant to Ord. No. 6855, Glen House Food Pantry and Faith Lutheran Church both occupy one zoning lot as principal structures. At its December 12, 2024 meeting, the Plan Commission meeting recommended that the Village Board approve the petitioner's request to add one additional wall sign. At its February 10, 2025 meeting, the Village Board denied this request for variation and recommended that Glen House Food Pantry resubmit a sign variation application requesting a second freestanding sign on the property. The variation in question is 4-5-8 A1; sign shown to Commissioners, a non-residential building would be allowed to have both but because of unique property of lot shared with Faith Lutheran; planned commission action is to consider request for sign variation and make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions or not approve. Petitioner Paula Nuegent- When we had gone to the trustees, they felt having a sign on building would be too commercial, they really wanted a monument sign near the driveway. We originally were an independent property, Villag asked us to consolidate lots and when we did, we lost the ability to have a free -standing sign. The difficulty we are having is that is that if your familiar with Faith, there is an “in” and “out” driveway for the property, when you are coming North on Park you see the sign on the building, when people are coming South on Park, they drive just past it because it looks like a house and they pull in the “out” exit driveway. Sign is smaller than what Is allowed for a monument sign. Chairperson Loftus- better solution than when you came to us the first time. Petitioner Paula Nuegent -We are just trying to make accommodations since we were not allowed the monument sign. Roberts Parvin Calus Sign Co.- Fortunately, I realized we could have gone bigger but when I proposed this to Paula, she said let’s keep this relatively smaller. This will be visible enough for traffic on the roadway but not obnoxious in size whatsoever. It’s a simple fully aluminum post and panel sign that will also go with landscaping plan Commissioner Brown- When I sat on this commission four years ago my understanding was lots had to be consolidated because you were using Faith parking lot. Is that correct. Petitioner Paula Nugent- I believe that is correct. Because Faith still owns the lots, all parking were individual lots and they asked to consolidate. Pantry paid to have consolidated into one single lot. Commissioner Brown- When I sat on this commission four years ago the food pantry said we will never have sign up front because we want to honor the neighbors and the commitment to making sure this always maintains the looks of a parsonage for the benefit of the next-door neighbors and now, they are asking for a sign and I understand and I think it’s something we should discuss. I love the Glen house food pantry. Written comment: No comments Chairperson Loftus requested for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Kreuzer motioned to close the public hearing, Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. Deliberation Commissioner Brown- I understand that they received funding and there are a lot of steps that led to this change it’s a beautiful sign, I am going to vote no, I just I don’t know. Commissioner Morrison- I agree with the petitioner that the building does need more way finding capability, visibility from the south, a matter for safety, in the history that we were given. It sounds like the Village Board would rather have this than a wall sign which would have done the same way finding function. I am ok with monument sign. Commissioner Dawson-my feedback is the same, we have come a long way here. I am grateful petitioner stayed with this. I think this is a great way finding sign, I will be voting for supporting this. Commissioner Wyant- Clarification, I believe there are is a wall sign on the property? Petitioner Paula Nugent- We with this approval there will be two signs, we had asked for two signs, approved for one which is wall sign by entrance Commissioner Wyant- With this approval there will be two signs? Chairperson Loftus- Yes, wall sign is across from entrance to the church to make it less obtrusive in a residential neighborhood. Village Board sent this back to us because they did not like wall sign on west side of building. We take for granted because we drive by there a lot but there are new people in town that come that need the service Commissioner Dawson- from my recollection on this subject, I think there were two issues with the west side, one was sign making a residential building look commercial but also the West facing door is not an entrance to the building (it’s an emergency exit) but this changes that picture from my perspective in a good way. Motion to approve the application as presented by Commissioner Dawson. Second by Commissioner Morrison. Motion passed by six (6) yes and one (1) no. Motion to adopt the findings of fact Commissioner Dawson second by Commissioner Kreuzer. The motion passed by a roll call vote with all commissioners present voting “Yes”. The motion passed with five (6) votes yes, one (1) no. E. Trustee Thompson Report Trustee Thompson addressed the Board and stated that they are making this process hard for themselves. Recommended that all Commission members have their questions emailed to Daniel prior to the Meeting so that they could have clarity on cases being presented prior to the meeting. This would ensure Commission members would be ready prior to meeting. Staff will respond to the questions and all Commission Board members will have the answer. Questions will come into Daniel and Daniel will answer and include all Commission Members on response. Should be quicker, faster, better in meetings, this meeting was way too long. Chairperson Loftus- does that constitute any violation of the open meeting act? Village Trustee Thompson- No, it does not. You can ask questions, they can be answered by staff, staff can push information out to you. F. Chairperson’s Report None. G. Staff Report Planning Manager Daniel- discussed the following items: 1. Building Permit for Full Circle Project submitted and is under review. 2. Lennox Garden Plot site started Building permit. 3. Starbucks site on Roosevelt started Building Permit process. 4. Expansion of salon space into a previous retail space. 5. 2-3 people interested in indoor golf simulator concepts, requires special use permit for indoor recreation, indoor golf simulators possibly in July/August public hearing. 6. Plan Commission Training with Village Attorney Paul, July 14th or July 21st and with Village Board. Proposed Rules and Procedures Discussion for Commission. H. Other Business No other business I. Adjournment Member Pesce made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Wyant seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote at 10:55 PM Respectfully submitted, Adriana Ohl-Zamora