Plan Commission
Regular MeetingGlen Ellyn, IL · July 24, 2025
Minutes
MINUTES
Village of Glen Ellyn
Plan Commission Meeting
Thursday, July 24, 2025
7:00 PM
Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room
A. Call to Order 7:00 p.m.
Upon roll call, Chairman Loftus and Commissioners Arango, Cooper, Dawson, Kreuzer,
Morrison, Pesce, and Wyant were present. Commissioner Brown and Trustee Laison
Steve Thompson were absent.
Also, in attendance were Planning Manager Daniel Harper, Associate Planner Jordan
Frahm, Community Development Director Jennifer Henaghan, and Acting Recording
Secretary Laura Musgraves. Trustee Steve Symanski attended in the absence of Trustee
Thompson.
B. Public Comment
There was no off-agenda public comment.
C. Approval of Minutes
The meeting Minutes of June 26, 2025, meeting of the Plan Commission was presented
for approval. Chairman Loftus asked for any comments, revisions, or changes.
Commissioner Wyant said he found information after the meeting that Village of Glen
Ellyn residents did not vote in a majority to approve of the Glenbard West Addition
referendum, and although the Village Board approved the variations for the project, the
Village residents voted no. Wyant said the yes votes were 3,608 and the no votes were
3,786 and wanted this information added to the June meeting Minutes.
Commissioner Cooper said he supported Wyant’s sentiments, but the Plan Commission
cannot amend the commission’s minutes to reflect what was presented to the Village
Board. Harper said that meeting Minutes must reflect the actual discussion, and we
cannot change the substance of the discussion editorially. Chairman Loftus said we can
state the fact that the public voted against the referendum in this meeting’s Minutes, but it
cannot be added to the June meeting Minutes.
Chairman Loftus said that a member of the public stated at the June meeting that the
residents did not support the referendum, which is reflected in the Minutes.
Commissioner Wyant agreed.
Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other comments about the Minutes.
Commissioner Wyant said at the June meeting, staff outlined four items for discussion
1
about the Glenbard West Addition, but more questions emerged. Going forward, is the Plan
Commission expected to address only the specific items presented? Chairman Loftus said the
Plan Commission is asked to focus on specific items, not to rehash prior information.
Commissioner Wyant asked, then, is the Plan Commission not able to address additional
questions? Loftus answered no, but if it is new information, then yes. If it is old information
already discussed at a prior meeting, we cannot address it.
Commissioner Dawson commented it applies equally to members of the public when they come
to meetings in cross-examination. Chairman Loftus said if the information that a member of the
public wants to address in cross-examination is new, it is permissible, but if it rehashes
information from a past meeting, then the cross-examination is not allowed.
Chairman Loftus commented that the Plan Commission meeting Minutes have become more
expansive and anyone who reads the Minutes would know of the Commission’s detailed
discussions. He said this is sufficient to inform the public and for the Plan Commission to move
forward. He asked if there were any other items to discuss.
Commissioner Dawson referenced page 4 of the Minutes where it stated, “Chairman Loftus
asked for a motion to declare a recess.” Commissioner Dawson said it is inaccurate and should
be revised to say that Chairman Loftus sought a motion to go into recess followed by Loftus
declaring a 10-minute recess.
Commissioner Dawson cited page 5 of the Minutes regarding the motion to approve the Finding
of Facts. He wanted the voting language to be revised to say that the vote was 6 to 1 with
Commissioner Dawson in dissent.
Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to approve the Minutes as amended. Daniel Harper
summarized the proposed revisions for the June Minutes as follows:
• Page 4 - include revised wording regarding the recess.
• Page 5 - the vote passed 6 to 1, Commissioner Dawson in dissent.
Commissioner Dawson said that Commissioner Wyant’s comments about the Minutes should be
included. Chairman Loftus clarified that items discussed in a meeting can be included, but
anything discussed after a meeting is hearsay.
Commissioner Dawson made a motion to approve the June meeting Minutes as amended.
Commissioner Kreuzer seconded. The motion carried; all voted in favor.
D. New Business
1. Public Hearing, 680 Roosevelt Road, Special Use Permit for Outdoor Storage at
Trader Joe’s.
Associate Planner Frahm was sworn in. He said Trader Joe’s petition for Outdoor Storage began
when they approached the Village to apply for a building permit to allow for the expansion
awning on the east side of the building. In researching the existing condition of the awning,
2
Village Staff discovered that the existing canopy was being used for outdoor storage. In
researching past zoning actions on the property, Trader Joe’s was approved outdoor storage at
the front of the store for merchandise display, and in 2016, the canopy on the east side of the
store. Staff determined that a special use permit to allow the canopy expansion on the east side of
the store would be required to allow the canopy to be used as outdoor storage by Trader Joe’s.
Frahm showed a visual of the proposed plans which included a concrete pad screen, and on the
other side of the lot, an unscreened area for “go back” items. “Go back” items are defined by
Trader Joe’s as empty pallets and containers that must be loaded to go back to the distributor.
Chairman Loftus asked about the screen. Frahm answered that Village code applies to trash
dumpster screening. Building material must be the same as screening for trash receptacles and
we cannot necessarily apply that to other outdoor storage.
Chairman Loftus said he brought up that question because of recycling. Frahm explained that
Trader Joe’s flattens cardboard boxes, and they are bundled and placed in the “go-back area”;
these bundles go back to the distributor along with the empty pallets every day. Mr. Harper
clarified that Village code addresses screens as they relate to containers, however, this is a
Special Use Permit request. The Plan Commission can put conditions on the request and
screening may be part of that.
Chairman Loftus asked if the Trader Joe’s storage site will be permanent. Frahm said that go-
back items are supposed to be picked up in the morning hours and cannot sit overnight.
Commissioner Wyant asked if Trader Joe’s had a license agreement or a lease with the property
owner. Chaiman Loftus said that is a question for the petitioner.
Commissioner Kreuzer asked Frahm to describe the go-back items and what he saw on the site
visit; Frahm answered.
Commissioner Cooper asked what Trader Joe’s was going to store under the canopy. Frahm said
it was a staging area and may include incidental cart storage. He deferred to the store manager to
discuss further.
Commissioner Cooper asked if there are other properties in Glen Ellyn that have similar go-back
needs or a similar area. Harper said that the Jewel grocery store on Roosevelt Road has an
approved storage area for carts on the west side of their building. Trash and other items are
located behind the building to the south and are generally out of view of the right of way.
Commissioner Kreuzer asked if the go-back area was structural. Frahm answered no, it is just a
use of space in the paved parking area. Commissioner Kreuzer asked Frahm if the village had
any issues with appearance. Frahm said the Village has no records of comments or complaints.
Commissioner Kreuzer asked if fencing could be used so that neighbors wouldn’t have to see the
back. Frahm said staff’s discussion with the property owners about fencing raised concerns about
access. Also, space in the loading areas is limited so fencing the go-back area may not be
feasible.
3
Commissioner Kreuzer asked if a fence was needed between the neighbors on the east side.
Frahm said that it backs into a natural area near a senior adult community, so he didn’t anticipate
issues that would cause complaints for visual distaste.
Commissioner Morrison asked about boundaries or markers that delineate the go-back area.
Frahm answered that the SUP defines the boundaries, and his only experience was with Jewel
having some outdoor displays that were spilling into the sidewalk. Jewel was out of compliance
with their SUP, and it was remedied by Jewel making an amendment to their SUP. For any
business that falls out of compliance with an SUP as written, staff would review it again.
Commissioner Morrsion asked who chose the location of the go-back area to be separate from
the canopy area. Frahm answered when staff was on site, that area was identified as being used
for that purpose.
Commissioner Arango suggested a line of demarcation to curb overflow and to avoid compliance
issues. Frahm asked if it’s possible to require periodic inspections by Village staff. Harper
answered yes, you can build that into the SUP, or you could amend the dimensions to be more
specific. Chairman Loftus suggested painting a visual area, similar to a “no parking zone.”
Commissioner Wyant commented that the question of a license agreement or a lease must be
answered before we have further discussion.
Representatives of the petitioner were sworn in:
• James Cox, Property Owner’s Representative
• Ali Bennouna, Store Manager
The petitioners addressed the Plan Commission. James Cox said the space is utilized every
morning to take the go-backs. This is scheduled between 5-10 a.m., and two trucks come in to
take materials away.
Commissioner Wyant asked Cox if he had an agreement with the landlord such as a lease or
license agreement. Cox answered there is neither lease nor a license agreement. He said the
business operators were concerned about fencing the go-back area because it would limit access
by semi tractor trailers. Cox said he represents the shopping center, and Trader Joe’s works well
with other tenants in the shopping center. He said if the Commission has an issue with a
handshake agreement, he will bring the concerns to ownership.
Chairman Loftus said that many projects come to the Plan Commission’s review without the
knowledge of nor the blessing of the owners, which is why we suggest communication with
property owners. Cox said that it would not be difficult to present anything to the owners.
Commissioner Morrison asked about having the go-back area on the other side of the drive aisle.
Ali Bennouna responded it was an area that was not used, and it became the space to put the go-
backs.
Chairman Loftus asked if the go-back space was against the side of the business, would it effect
parking. Cox answered yes and said we can’t afford to lose parking spaces.
4
Commissioner Pesce pointed out that parking involves 1 or 2 spaces, and the drawing does not
accurately reflect the parking. He asked the petitioners if they were already utilizing the space.
They answered yes.
Commissioner Kreuzer asked if the owner would object to striping the area. Cox replied no.
Commissioner Dawson asked if they planned to use the area for seasonal displays. Cox replied
no, it’s just operational. All displays are at the front of the store.
Commissioner Dawson brought up screening, pointing out that it can be negative and create an
environment for hiding or nefarious activity. Cox said they have not considered screening
because it is hard to manage a property that is screened off.
Commissioner Cooper asked about storage areas. Bennouna explained that the area is for
temporary use and will not be used for overnight storage. The go-back areas are cleared by early
morning. The tenants have shipping agreements so that trucks don’t arrive at the same time.
Chairman Loftus thanked the petitioners. He asked staff if they had received public comments,
and Frahm answered there were none.
Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other comments from the floor, or final questions for
staff or for the petitioner.
Commissioner Morrsion asked staff if they had any issues with the actual applicant not being at
the meeting. Harper answered there were none.
Commissioner Cooper motioned to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dawson seconded.
All voted in favor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Morrison said she would like to add a condition that the go-back area be easily
identified as an enforcement precaution and to prevent parking there.
There was discussion about having a requirement regarding what may be stored in the back area,
including consumables. Harper suggested the word “merchandise.” Commissioner Wyant
suggested adding a condition that there be no storage of food products. Commissioner Kreuzer
preferred the word “merchandise” to encompass anything that is sold.
Commissioners Wyant and Kreuzer supported Commissioner Morrsion’s recommendation.
Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to approve the Special Use Permit application as amended.
Commissioner Kreuzer motioned. Commissioner Dawson seconded. The motion carried; all
voted in favor.
Chairman Loftus requested a motion on the Findings of Facts. Commissioner Pesce read the
Finding of Facts and the three recommendations. The Commission voted in favor 5 to 1.
Commissioner Morrsion had a question about changing a word and after it was clarified she
changed her vote to yes. The motion carried with a vote of 6-0.
2. Public Hearing, 293 Roosevelt Road, Special Use Permit for Drive-In Commercial
Facility at Chicken Salad Chick.
5
Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Commissioner Dawson
motioned; Commissioner Kreuzer seconded. All voted in favor. The public hearing was open.
Frahm said the petitioner is Big Sky Construction and that owners of the Chicken Salad Chick
franchise were present at the meeting. The former retail space at 293 Roosevelt Road was a dry
cleaner and Ordinance 6090 (11-26-2012) stated that if it were to become a restaurant it would
be required to have a traffic study. Frahm presented the commercial district and zoning district
facts. The Plan Commission was supplied with the traffic study prior to the meeting, and Frahm
summarized the findings and comparisons of the study with visual tables.
Frahm reviewed the comparison tables for peak hours, dry cleaning vs. restaurant. The traffic
study findings indicated minimal impact on the roadways and minimal drive-through stacking
concerns. The site plan was displayed and Frahm pointed out that the drive-through traffic
pattern created a cross-over of potential traffic. The study proposed a stop sign to mitigate that
issue.
The proposal included no structural changes to the building other than windows, changing the
door, and signage. The Development Committee (including staff of Administration, Community
Development, Police, Fire, and Public Works) reviewed the plan and recommended two stop
signs to mitigate the cross-over traffic concerns. Frahm reviewed the parking conditions and
number of parking spaces as outlined in Ord. 6090, which are all compliant with current tenants
of the shopping center. Frahm concluded his presentation.
Commissioner Dawson asked for clarification of the entrance to the drive-through, and that
drivers must go through the parking lot to exit. Frahm confirmed. Commissioner Dawson asked
about stacking in the drive-through and expressed concern about vehicles backing up onto
Roosevelt Road. Harper reiterated the traffic study concluded that it would be very unlikely for
that issue to occur.
Commissioner Pesce asked if the drive-through is just one lane. Frahm said yes and reviewed the
lane configuration on the visual.
Chairman Loftus asked how many of the strip mall tenants would be affected by the drive-
through. Frahm answered it only applies to the former dry-cleaning space. Chairman Loftus
asked about the structural changes to doors and windows. Frahm explained that one door will be
blocked off, and one door will be replaced with a window for drive-through service.
Commissioner Arango asked about exits and entrances to the site and Harper answered. Arrango
said if drivers are passing cars stacked in the drive-through lane to get back to Roosevelt Road,
she was concerned with traffic coming in and going out. Frahm explained the fluidity of the
traffic because drivers spend less time sitting in the queue because they are not waiting for food
to be prepared. Frahm said Chicken Salad Chick does not anticipate overflow stacking and they
do not experience it at their other locations.
Harper suggested that if we were to anticipate such a large influx of customers with an additional
6-8 cars arriving at one time, drivers would have the option to exit the lane and exit through the
6
western exit. Commissioner Kreuzer pointed out that space is adequately deep to handle more
cars.
Commissioner Cooper asked what the function of the second stop sign was. Harper answered to
control the eastbound traffic, and concern about incoming traffic as drivers were exiting the
drive-through. Chairman Loftus explained the traffic flow related to the second stop sign.
Commissioner Kreuzer commented about the entrance flow from Roosevelt Road, saying that a
left-hand turn is prohibited from the east side but there is no sign saying No Left Turn. Harper
replied that that the egress/ingress construction of the exit (a concrete island) prevents a left turn,
so it is not necessary.
Commissioner Morrison commented that she didn’t think a No Left Turn sign was necessary.
Commissioner Kreuzer said he was more concerned about people exiting in the ingress-only
lane.
Chairman Loftus said the onus for signage should be on the site planner and not on the applicant.
Commissioner Wyant said the onus should be on the property owner. Commissioner Kreuzer
agreed.
Commissioner Pesce said other retailers have similar issues with the ingress/egress and the
landlord shouldn’t have a problem with adding a sign.
Chairman Loftus explained that staff suggested two stop signs to encourage safety and to
mitigate traffic problems. He noted the applicant has acknowledged this and is agreeable to
making it part of the application.
Commissioner Dawson said the egress/ingress entrance should be clear to drivers, but he still
doesn’t understand why the second stop sign was proposed. Frahm said the Development
Committee’s discussion centered upon two vehicles meeting at the same time and the question
would be who would have the right of way? The sign would make it clear that they should stop.
Frahm reiterated that the traffic study recommended only one stop sign and the Plan Commission
can decide either way.
Commissioner Dawson said he was still confused. Harper said the suggestion to have second
stop sign was because the traffic could conceivably cross at that one spot. Chairman Loftus asked
about recorded accidents in that parking lot. Harper said there was none for the dry cleaner.
Commissioner Pesce asked if garbage pick-up would have to go through the drive-through lane.
Harper said that was not the case with the dry cleaner, and the restaurant would have to
coordinate garbage pick-up to occur during non-business hours.
Commissioner Morrsion asked if KLOA (the author of the traffic study) had any comments on
the staff’s proposal to add a stop sign. Harper replied that KLOA was not consulted.
Petitioners Kimberly and Garrett Seaman, Chicken Salad Chick franchisees and current owners
of the location in Batavia, IL, were sworn in. Ms. Seaman gave a visual presentation of the
proposal including minimal structural changes to the building and the garbage pick-up schedule.
7
She showed tables comparing traffic stacking patterns during peak business hours, and their
average drive-through wait time is 2-3 minutes. She described the restaurant as fast, casual,
southern dining. One third of customers are drive-through, one third are dine-in, and one third
are carry-out. They will have pre-order menu boards to help drive-through traffic move along.
Chairman Loftus asked if the menu board will have audio. Ms. Seaman replied no, it will show
the menu, how to order, and the customer will order at the next the board. Mr. Seaman said the
restaurant will be open Monday through Saturday, and their peak business time is at lunch for
take-out and delivery.
Commissioner Arango asked about outdoor seating. The petitioner said possibly later, and the
plans show two tables for outdoor seating. Harper clarified the tables appear in the building
permit, not in the SUP application.
Ms. Seaman continued her overview of the traffic facts and tables comparing drive-through times
with other restaurants.
Commissioner Arango asked about stacking cars near the pick-up window. Ms. Seaman replied
that there is a parking area where they can ask customers to pull over to the side when needed,
and their order will be brought out to them
Commissioner Wyant commented that this is a healthy, high-quality food option that residents in
Glen Ellyn are clamoring for and thanked the franchisees for their investment.
Chairman Loftus thanked the petitioners and asked staff if any public comments had been
received. Frahm said there were none.
Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dawson moved;
Commissioner Cooper seconded. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Morrison said she preferred to listen to experts and proposed to accept KLOA’s
recommendation for only one stop sign.
Commissioner Kreuzer liked the idea of fewer signs and would prefer to have striping or an
arrow indicating no left turn onto Roosevelt Road.
Commissioner Pesce commented that signage should be left to the discretion of the landlord.
Commissioner Kreuzer said one stop sign was adequate signage, but there should be an arrow on
the exit showing Right Turn Only.
There was further discussion on signage. Commissioner Morrison pointed out that the owner is
not here to answer the signage issue and it’s not fair to the petitioner to make this a requirement
of SUP. Commissioner Wyant agreed.
Chairman Loftus said the landlord had already approved the second stop sign, and that other
businesses on Roosevelt Road who have the ingress/egress island do not have traffic problems
with wrong turns.
8
Commissioner Cooper agreed with Morrison about less signage; however he anticipated drivers
coming into the parking lot in a hurry (such as Door Dash drivers) and not paying attention to
drivers exiting the drive-through. Cooper said the second stop sign is needed.
Commissioner Wyant said that’s a good point, but this strip-mall will have less traffic and there
were no problems when Fresh Thyme market was a tenant.
Commissioner Arango commented that drivers heading west on Roosevelt cannot turn in and the
entrance is at the other end of the parking lot.
Chairman Loftus agreed with Commissioner Cooper’s point about Door Dash drivers being in a
hurry, but we can’t regulate bad drivers. He said he used the dry-cleaning facility for years and
there were no issues. Chairman Loftus said if we’re going to put all these conditions on it, I
would vote no.
Commissioner Dawson said he agreed with Commissioner Morrison, and he thanked the
petitioners for the quality of their application. He said he will vote yes either way, but he doesn’t
recommend two stop signs.
Commissioner Morrsion made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for the Chicken Salad
Chick drive-through with a condition that the applicant be required to have one stop sign as
proposed by the original traffic study. Seconded by Commissioner Dawson. The motion carried
with a vote of 5 – 1.
Commissioner Cooper motioned to the approve the Finding of Facts as presented. Second, by
Commissioner Pesce. The motion carried with a vote of 5 – 1.
E. Trustee Liaison’s Report
Trustee Steve Szymanski addressed the Plan Commission. The Village Board recently approved
the zoning referendum for the Glenbard West High School Addition and other projects such as
replacing lead line water services. The Board is also reviewing the train station proposal and
ways to reduce costs.
Commissioner Wyant asked Szymanksi if he was aware of the votes on the high school
referendum that he brought up earlier. Szymanski said he was not aware.
Considering the new regulations for e-bikes and scooters, Commissioner Wyant asked if the
police department had issued any violations. Szymanski said not to his knowledge, and our first
job is to educate residents on the new rules. Commissioner Wyant suggested that the Village
should examine headwear requirements. Szymanksi replied that even though the state of Illinois
does not require helmets for bike riders, he agreed the Village Board should look further into it.
Commissioner Cooper asked about road construction, specifically that the Village passed a
referendum 25 years ago to improve roads with concrete instead of bituminous materials, but the
Village does not seem to be using concrete. Szymanski did not know and said he would find out.
Commissioner Pesce asked about the status of the demolition of the hotel properties on Taft
Avenue. Jennifer Henaghan provided an update, saying that further demolition is on hold
9
pending the results of an environmental assessment currently being conducted by DuPage
County.
Trustee Szymanski concluded his comments.
Chairman Loftus noted that it was the end of Commissioner Dawson’s term, and he thanked him
for his service to the Plan Commission. The Commission members applauded. Commissioner
Dawson thanked Chairman Loftus for his comments and said he enjoyed his time with the Plan
Commission.
F. Staff Report
Mr. Harper reported that MK Steakhouse may have a sign variation request on the August
agenda of the Plan Commission, depending on timely receipt of the application. The Glen Ellyn
Park District accepted all the Commission’s recommendations for Ackerman Park. The Park
District recently applied for a demolition permit for the US Bank site. The Special Use Permit
for Insula Aesthetics will be reviewed by the Village Board next week.
Commissioner Pesce asked about the fall meeting schedule, as Plan Commission meetings were
typically moved up one week due to holidays. Harper confirmed the November and December
meeting dates.
Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other comments or questions. Seeing none,
Commissioner Arango motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Dawson seconded. The motion
carried with a vote of 6-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
10
Agenda
Agenda
Village of Glen Ellyn
Plan Commission Meeting
Thursday, July 24, 2025
7:00 PM
Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room
Visitors are most welcome to attend all public meetings and can find copies of the Agenda online at www.glenellyn.org
prior to the meeting. Any individual with a disability requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a
meeting should contact the Village of Glen Ellyn ADA Coordinator, 630-469-5000, at least five (5) business days
in advance of the next scheduled meeting.
A. Call to Order
B. Public Comment
C. Approval of Minutes
1) Review and Approval of the Minutes of the June 26, 2025, Plan Commission
Meeting.
D. New Business
1) Public Hearing - 680 Roosevelt Road - Special Use Permit for Outdoor Storage at
Trader Joe's
2) Public Hearing - 293 Roosevelt Road - Special Use Permit for Drive-In
Commercial Facility at Chicken Salad Chick
E. Trustee Liaison's Report
F. Chairman's Report
G. Staff Report
H. Other Business
I. Adjourn
Village of Glen Ellyn
Packet
Agenda
Village of Glen Ellyn
Plan Commission Meeting
Thursday, July 24, 2025
7:00 PM
Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room
Visitors are most welcome to attend all public meetings and can find copies of the Agenda online at www.glenellyn.org
prior to the meeting. Any individual with a disability requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a
meeting should contact the Village of Glen Ellyn ADA Coordinator, 630-469-5000, at least five (5) business days
in advance of the next scheduled meeting.
A. Call to Order
B. Public Comment
C. Approval of Minutes
1) Review and Approval of the Minutes of the June 26, 2025, Plan Commission
Meeting.
D. New Business
1) Public Hearing - 680 Roosevelt Road - Special Use Permit for Outdoor Storage at
Trader Joe's
2) Public Hearing - 293 Roosevelt Road - Special Use Permit for Drive-In
Commercial Facility at Chicken Salad Chick
E. Trustee Liaison's Report
F. Chairman's Report
G. Staff Report
H. Other Business
I. Adjourn
Village of Glen Ellyn
Page 1 of 57
Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 7/24/2025 7:00 PM
Commission Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Minutes
Prepared By: Daniel Harper
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-614
# 2025-614)
Review and Approval of the Minutes of the June 26, 2025, Plan
Commission Meeting.
Statement of the Issue:
Review and Approval of the Minutes of the June 26, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting.
Analysis:
Review and Approval of the Minutes of the June 26, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting.
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
Review and Approval of the Minutes of the June 26, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting.
Attachments:
1. DRAFT_Plan_Commission_6.26.25 Minutes
Page 2 of 57
DRAFT MINUTES
Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting
Thursday, June 26, 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, Arango, Wyant, Kreuzer, Cooper and Dawson were
present; Commissioners Brown and Pesce were absent.
Also in attendance: Steve Thompson, Village Trustee, Paul Stephanides, Village Attorney, Jennifer Hennigan, Community
Development Director, and Daniel Harper, Planning Manager.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to move the new business item (511 Duane Street, Insula Aesthetics Special Use Permit)
to be before the old business item (670 Crescent Blvd., Glenbard West High School Addition) in the order of consideration for
the meetings proceedings. Motion was seconded by Dawson. Motion passed by voice vote.
B. Public Comment (non-agenda items)
There was no off-agenda audience comment.
C. Approval of Minutes
1. Review and Approval of the May 22,2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Kreuzer moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and the motion
passed by voice vote.
D. New Business
1. Public Hearing – 511 Duane Street, Insula Aesthetics Special Use Permit
Motion to open the Public Hearing by Commissioner Cooper second by Commissioner Arango. Motion passed by voice
vote.
Sworn In Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn- presented staff report. Mr. Harper reported that Insula
Aesthetics is applying for a special use permit to expand their existing health spa to the neighboring commercial space as it is
now vacant.
Sworn in. the Petitioner, Ashley Herman, described their services offered and the need for expansion.
Chairman Loftus: will there being any significant change in the retail square footage of the space?
Ms. Herman: The retail space will not expand significantly as our products are small, but we can expand to accommodate more
demand.
Chairman Loftus: What types of exterior work are you proposing for the new space?
Ms. Herman: No significant changes beside windows or doors upgrades.
Chairman Loftus asked Mr. Harper if there would be two wall signs allowed.
Mr. Harper responded that wall signs are limited store fronts, so one sign would be allowed but they could do another window
sign.
Commissioner Dawson asked the applicant about retail growth and if she had projections for sales growth?
Ms. Herman: Retail sales was 6% of our business and is now 15% and rising.
Page 3 of 57
Commissioner Dawson: Will the floor plan presented be significant enough for your retail needs?
Ms. Herman: Yes, our products are small, and the inventory is stored away out of sight.
Commissioner Morrison: What will be your training hours be?
Ms. Herman: We are flexible but were anticipating Friday afternoons from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. and Saturday mornings.
Commissioner Wyant: Are you able to track what percentage of customers reside in Glen Ellyn?
Ms. Herman: 80% from Glen Ellyn. More people are coming from out of town for the increased training opportunities.
Commissioner Morrison: Question for Village Attorney - Do we have regulations for operating hours in the downtown?
Mr. Stephanides: Only for liquor licenses.
Chairman Loftus asked Village Staff had received any comments from the public regarding the application.
Mr. Harper: No public comment was received for this request.
Commissioner Kreuzer: Is this entire block all service-based uses?
Mr. Harper: Yes, the block consists of the vision center, Insula Aesthetics, an insurance office, a physical therapist and the tailor.
Commissioner Arango asked Mr. Harper about parking regulations or concerns.
Mr. Harper responded that additional off-street parking was not required in the C5A zoning district and that existing on-street and
off-street parking areas were adequate to meet any new demand.
Chairperson Loftus requested for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Wyant motioned to close the public
hearing, Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote.
Commissioner Kreuzer made the Motion to approve the requested Special Use Permit 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.
Commissioner Dawson made motion to approve the findings of fact as written. Commissioner Kreuzer Second. Motion
passes unanimously.
2. Continuation Public Hearing-670 Crescent Blvd., Glenbard West High School Addition
Motion to re-open the Public Hearing by Commissioner Dawson second by Commissioner Arango. Motion passed by
voice vote.
Sworn in, Daniel Harper Planning Manager for the Village of Glen Ellyn presented the requested variations and the four items of
requested information that was requested by the Plan Commission at their May 22, 2025, meeting. The four items to be discussed
upon the reopening of the public hearing were:
1. A photometric plan that includes interior light as well exterior light on a 24/7 basis.
2. Additional information pertaining to need of the Learning Commons area of the proposed addition.
3. Information regarding how the School District will handle remote parking during construction.
4. Information regarding forward looking enrollment projections at Glenbard West High School for a ten-year period.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Wyant: Can we discuss the public comments that were submitted?
Mr. Harper: You can ask the school district questions brought forth in the public comments.
Page 4 of 57
Commissioner Cooper: Are we prevented from asking questions of the application that are not included in the four items listed?
Mr. Stephanides: Requested that all Commissioners that were not present at the May 22, 2025, meeting state on their record that
they have reviewed the evidence from the May 22, 2025, meeting and that they are ready to participate in deliberation and vote
on a recommendation for the application.
Commissioners Cooper and Arango stated that they reviewed the documentation from the May 22, 2025, meeting and were ready
to vote on a recommendation for the application.
Mr. Stephanides: If items are not included in the four questions listed but a germane to the four items, the Chairperson can allow
them on a case-by-case basis.
There were questions from Commissioners Cooper and Kreuzer regarding the public notice procedure for the public hearings and
for the continuation of public hearings.
Commissioner Morrison asked for clarification regarding the standards for consideration of a variation.
Petitioners Dan Kritta, Brenden May, Mark Zaprzalka, Seth Chapman, Jeremy Roling, Craig Lamp, Jessica Santee, Jessalyn
Kelly introduced themselves. Ms. Kelly gave a presentation summarizing their responses to last month's questions. Mr. Chapman
discussed the district’s enrollment projections, which was last done in 2022 and will be done again this fall. In 2021, they were at
1,906, this year were at 2,330. This is the only school in the district that is projected to maintain (not lose) enrollment.
Commissioner Wyant: What is the origin of the best practice suggested classroom size?
Ms. Kelly: 850 to 900 sqft is the accepted best practice for classroom size and is also impacted by labor contract conditions.
Ms. Kelly continued her presentation and explained that the proposed lighting plan would be following village code and lighting
would be reduced to the minimum required standard for lighting for accessibility standards. Ms. Kelly presented the site logistics
plan to address parking concerns during the proposed construction. Ms. Kelly explained that the maximum needed capacity
would be during the summer and that the Village administration, and the construction team are working towards solutions for
construction parking during the school year.
Chairman Loftus: Could you describe what the enrollment boundaries are for West high school?
Mr. Chapman: Provided the boundaries for the area zoned for students who would attend Glenbard West High School
Commissioner Wyant clarified that although the district is projected to lose enrollment, Glenbard West is projected to maintain
enrollment. Commissioner Wyant asked about referendum language.
Commissioner Cooper: What is the hardship being requested as part of the learning commons?
Commissioner Kreuzer: What is a definition of learning common?
Mr. Kritta: Learning commons can come in different forms. The purpose of this commons space is to support the cafeteria
functions and to allow for more student autonomy.
Commissioner Cooper: Expressed that the learning commons explanation does pertain to the hardship of the variations being
requested.
Ms. Kelly explained that it was included because the district had committed to provide a learning common as part of their
proposal to the community during the referendum.
Commissioner Kreuzer: Is the expansion being proposed larger than what was originally presented as part of the referendum?
Mr. Kritta: Yes, we had to address the short comings of the existing building which necessitated the larger footprint. The addition
portion is larger, but the footprint learning commons remains the same.
Mr. Chapman: The angle of the addition was modified because of community input to preserve as much as the hill as possible.
Commissioner Wyant asked Mr. Kritta to describe the proposed modification to Biester Gym. Mr. Kritta explained that the
Biester addition is designed for security purposes. The Biester addition would be part of a future project and is not included in the
Plan Commission application.
Page 5 of 57
Chairman Loftus stated that the Plan Commission was not here to relitigate the referendum. The Plan Commission are here to
make a recommendation as the Commission on this application.
Commissioner Kreuzer: My question is why is the addition larger than what was originally proposed? This would presumably
reduce the scope of the requested variations.
Chairman Loftus: Stated that the Plan Commission are here to make a recommendation on what is being proposed.
Commissioner Dawson: The original design would have required less variations.
Chairman Loftus: It’s not in our purview to redesign the building.
Mr. Chapman: These changes were made in response to the desire of the community to preserve the top of the hill.
Commissioner Arango: Were the changes made after the referendum was approved?
Mr. Chapman: Yes. The original concept was modified after the referendum based on community input.
Commissioner Cooper: What is the difference in area from the original conceptual design to the proposed design tonight?
Mr. Kritta: We do not have the difference in area based on the initial concept and what is being proposed now.
Commissioner Cooper: Asked for a clarification on the language and intent of the referendum.
Trustee Thompson requested a 10-minute recess from the Plan Commission.
The Plan Commission granted the recess at 8: 20 p.m.
The public hearing resumed at 8:30 p.m.
Commissioner Morrison: The lighting in the building when it is not occupied would be reduced to 50%?
Ms. Kelly: Only in emergency pathways. Classrooms would be reduced to zero.
Kreuzer: Why were glass curtain walls chosen for the stairwell?
Chairman Loftus: It’s not in our purview to redesign the building.
Mr. Kritta: The light would meet the village standards as the light inside the stairwell would be limited to 0.5-foot candle and
would follow the village code.
Cooper: Why 0.5-foot candle and not a lesser amount?
Applicant: 0.5-foot candle is a code minimum for visibility in required emergency egress.
Public Comment Received from, read by Daniel Harper and placed into record. The received comments are attached.
Mark Frigo – I have a kid who graduated from west. I am member of the environmental commission. I have a question as to why
this was not formally brought to the Environmental Commission. Mr. Frigo expressed concern regarding the proposed trees to be
removed and the location of equipment and laydown yards. Mr. Frigo expressed concerns that the trees to preserved will die
during the construction. Mr. Frigo expressed a need to have a village arborist to review the tree removal plan. Mr. Frigo
expressed concerns for stormwater management, shade loss from tree removal, and the windows causing bird mortality.
Marty Boyd – Ms. Boyd expressed concerned about the limitation of the items of the continuation. Ms. Boyd expressed her
believe that the petitioners have not presented a hardship.
Chairperson Loftus requested for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Kreuzer motioned to close the
public hearing, Commissioner Dawson seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote.
Page 6 of 57
DELIBERATION-
Morrison expressed support of the application.
Wyant expressed that he would not support the application as the variations are extensive and the applicant did not present a
convincing rationale.
Kreuzer: I don’t know if the school district has presented a convincing request in variations and hardship.
Cooper: I will be voting in support of the application.
Dawson: I do not see a hardship shown. In my opinion, the village is side stepping lot coverage requirements in the R2 residential
district.
Loftus: The referendum should have no bearing on the application tonight. We are to look at what the variation requests are. I
would support the application.
Arango: I have big concerns about the application and what the struggles we as a community will face because of this addition. I
don’t know if we have been presented hardships regarding the school’s application. I am going to trust that the school district will
come through for Glen Ellyn and our children’s future.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve the application. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion.
Motion to was passed with a vote of (5) yes and (2) no. Commissioners Wyant and Dawson voting in the dissent.
Kreuzer made motion to approve the findings of fact as written. Seconded by Cooper. Motion passes 6-1.
E. Trustee Thompson Report
Chair Loftus asked about Route 53 work.
Chair Loftus asked about the status of the new Starbucks.
Commissioner Arango said the PGS sign looks pretty good.
Trustee Thompson thanked the Commissioners for their careful consideration of the Glenbard West project.
Commissioner Arango asked about the management of Lake Ellyn Park and complained about the tall, overgrown weeds.
F. Chairperson’s Report
None.
G. Staff Report
Mr. Harper gave a description on the permitting and application statuses of previous Plan Commission items.
H. Other Business
No other business
I. Adjournment
Member Arango made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Member Kreuzer seconded the motion, and the motion passed by
voice vote at 9:33PM
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Harper, Planning Manager
Page 7 of 57
Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 7/24/2025 7:00 PM
Commission Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing
Prepared By: Jordan Frahm
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-610
# 2025-610)
Public Hearing - 680 Roosevelt Road - Special Use Permit for
Outdoor Storage at Trader Joe's
Statement of the Issue:
The petitioner, Trader Joe's, is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for outdoor storage for
operational purposes on the eastern wall of the building and on the northeast portion of the lot. 680
Roosevelt is in the C3-Service commercial zoning district.
Analysis:
PUBLIC HEARING: A notice of public hearing for the requested approvals was published in the
July 3, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald. Property owners within 350 feet of the property were
notified by mail of the public hearing and placard signs were placed on the site.
SITE CONDITIONS: The subject lot is approximately 4.23 acres and is part of a multi-
establishment commercial development.
BACKGROUND: Trader Joe's was previously approved for outdoor storage and merchandising at
the front of the store at 680 Roosevelt Road in 2010. In 2016, the existing canopy structure above
the loading bay was permitted for construction.
SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: Zoning in the surrounding area is C3 Service Commercial
Zoning District. Specifically, the surrounding land uses are as follows:
Location and Use Zoning District
North: Single Family Attached and Brookdale R3 – Multi-family Residential; C6 –
Senior Living Commercial/Multi-use
East: Commercial C3 – Service Commercial
South: Commercial C3 – Service Commercial
West: Commercial and Institutional (Faith R2 – Single Family Residential; C3 – Service
Lutheran Church) Commercial
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Trader Joe’s was granted a special use permit for outdoor storage and merchandising in front of the
store entrance in 2010, and a canopy structure was permitted to be constructed in 2016 to allow for
cover during deliveries. The current proposal would allow for storage of merchandise and
Page 8 of 57
operational materials beneath the awning and to the immediate south of the loading bay entrance
with an extension of the awning structure and additional screened storage area abutting the building.
An area designated for the temporary staging of “go-back” materials (empty pallets and recyclable
materials that are returned by the store to their distributors) is also proposed directly west of the
fence line at the northeast corner of the lot.
The petitioner maintains that the proposed outdoor storage at Trader Joe's will not be hazardous or
disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses by being in compliance with building & safety
codes, maintaining neighborhood character and aesthetic harmony, ensuring accessibility and
visibility and by preventing encroachment on public right of way. The proposed location and scale
of the outdoor storage will not interfere with vehicular approaches to the property or create undue
traffic, and any structures will maintain clear visibility for both drivers and pedestrians. The
proposed outdoor storage will not require additional infrastructure such as new driveways, will not
alter existing traffic patterns, nor cause interference on surrounding public streets and roads.
The existing awning and loading dock, an area under a proposed permanent canopy extension, and
an additional 16-foot by 10-foot area typically used for incidental storage of carts and equipment are
proposed on the easternmost wall of the building. The “go-back” staging area is approximately 30-
feet by 10-feet. Due to the temporary and operational nature of this usage, in addition to this
portion of the lot being visibly shielded from the public right-of-way, this area of the lot is proposed
to be unscreened.
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
The Plan Commission should consider the petitioner’s request for approval of a Special Use Permit
and make a recommendation to the Village Board for approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
Attachments:
1. Application - Special Use Permit
2. Plat of Survey
3. 680 Roosevelt Road Aerial Map
4. 680 Roosevelt Road Zoning Map
5. 680 Roosevelt Notice Map
6. Trader Joe's Outdoor Storage Site Plan
7. Floor Plan
8. Go-back area
9. Loading dock
10. 2010 Outdoor Storage Site Plan
11. 2010 Outdoor Storage Site Plan 2
Page 9 of 57
VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN
Special Use Permit
Application Packet
Community Development Department
535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370
Page 10 of 57
Page 11 of 57
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Date Filed: 5/30/2025 Application No: 2025-0013
Name of Applicant: Calvin Chang
Address of Applicant: 93 Berkshire Dr Ste D Crystal Lake, IL 60014
Phone: (224) 515-0325
Email: cacommercialawning@gmail.com
Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Representative
Name of Owner: Madison Corp Group
Address of Owner: PO Box 617 Winnetka, IL 60093
Phone:
Email:
Contacts:
Type Name Address Phone Email
93 Berkshire Dr Ste D cacommercialaw
Petitioner Calvin Chang Crystal Lake, IL 60014 (224) 515-0325 ning@gmail.com
93 Berkshire Dr Ste D cacommercialaw
Web Administrator Calvin Chang Crystal Lake, IL 60014 (224) 515-0325 ning@gmail.com
Madison Corp PO Box 617 Winnetka, IL
Parcel Owner Group 60093
Property Address: 680 Roosevelt Rd
Project Name: Web Project
Project Description: Extension of canopy
Legal Description of Property:
see attached deed.
Zoning: C3,R2
Lot Dimensions: 116,610
Lot Area:
Permanent Index No. (PIN): 05144200540000
Present Use:
Retail
Requested Use/Construction:
Outdoor Canopy for loading area
Page 12 of 57
Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 7/1/2025
Name(s), Address(es) and Phone No(s). of Experts (architects, engineers, etc.):
Applican Calvi 93 Crysta 224515032 CACOMMERCIALAWNING@GMAIL.CO
t n Berkshir l Lake 5 M
Chan e Dr Ste
g D
Narrative Statement:
Trader Joe's is requesting an update to its special use permit Ordinance
No. 5898 adopted November 8, 2010. The request is for a canopy covered
outdoor storage on the Northeast corner of their occupied space
Describe How the Special Use:
1. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives, or within a
specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or this Zoning Code:
By installing an awning, Trader Joe's can create inviting outdoor spaces, potentially
attracting more customers and contributing to the economic vibrancy of the area.
This enhancement supports property values and aligns with the Zoning Code's
objectives
2. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area:
The awning and outdoor storage at Trader Joe's will be thoughtfully designed compliant
with Glen Ellyn's Zoning Code and Appearance Review Guidelines and will enhance their
property's functionality and aesthetic appeal, supporting the broader objectives of the
village's Comprehensive Plan.
3. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses:
Outdoor storage at Trader Joe's will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighborhood uses by being within compliance of building & safety codes, avoiding light
and noise pollution, maintaining neighborhood character and aesthetic harmony, ensuring
accessibility and visibility and by preventing encroachment on public right of way.
4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewers and
schools, or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed
use shall be able to provide adequately any such services:
Page 13 of 57
Outdoor storage and the proposed awning at Trader Joe's will be adequately served by
essential public facilities and services, as it is a non-intensive addition to a building that
does not significantly increase the demand for infrastructure.
5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the Village:
Outdoor storage at Trader Joe's will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services, nor will it be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the Village.
6. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and/or conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason
of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors:
The use of outdoor storage will not be detrimental to persons, property or general welfare
due to the fact that an awing is a stationary architectural feature that does not generate
additional traffic, does not produce noise as they are passive structures, does not emit
smoke, fumes or odors, is designed to reduce glare by providing shade and minimizing
direct sunlight exposure and enhances safety by providing shelter from inclement weather.
7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which shall be so designed as not to create
an undue interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads:
Outdoor storage will not interfere with vehicular approaches to the property or create undue
traffic interference on surrounding public streets or roads due to the following reasons.
Reasons being that the awning is fixed and non-obstructive design, will be installed at a
height that maintains, will maintain clear visibility for both drivers and pedestrains, will
not require additional infrastructure such as new driveways or entry points and will not not
alter existing traffic patterns.
8. Will not increase the potential for flood damage to adjacent property or require additional
public expense for flood protection, rescue or relief:
Outdoor storage will have no negative impact on flood risks or public resources, as it does
not alter land elevations, drainage systems, or impervious surface coverage in a way that
could lead to increased flooding or associated costs.
9. Will not result in destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of major
importance to the community:
Outdoor storage will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or
historic features of major importance to the community and will be implemented
thoughtfully and in compliance with local regulations, ensuring that it does not harm the
town's natural beauty, historic landmarks, or overall scenic charm.
Page 14 of 57
OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST
Date: 5/30/2025
Address: 680 Roosevelt Rd
Legal Description:
see attached deed.
TRUSTEE: TRUST NO.:
Address:
LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES:
Page 15 of 57
OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION
Date: 5/30/2025
Address: 680 Roosevelt Rd
Legal Description:
see attached deed.
LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST
OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK):
Page 16 of 57
Page 17 of 57
680 Roosevelt Road Aerial Map
0 500 1000 Print Date: 7/7/2025 Notes
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 18 of 57
680 Roosevelt Road Zoning Map
Legend
Zoning and Development
Zoning
C3: Service Commercial District
C6: Commerical/Multi-Use Planned
Development District
R2: Single Family Residential District
R3: Multi-Family Residential District
R4: Multi-Family Residential District
0 300 600 Print Date: 7/7/2025 Notes
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 19 of 57
680 Roosevelt Road Notice Map
0 1000 2000 Print Date: 7/7/2025 Notes
ft 350-ft Radius
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 20 of 57
Proposed Outdoor Storage Site Plan Exhibit
Page 21 of 57
680 Glen Ellyn
Store Remodel + Refrigeration
Replacement
10x30 area for
go-backs. this area is
not visible from the
public right-of-way.
Existing loading
Fence in additional
with fence and
16x10 area
awning
6' LT
6' LT
Senior Director of Construction: Executive Vice President: \\Users_east\users\meaton\_00 Matt\Trader_Joe's_Logo.png
PM# 500460
Store Voltage:
PM# 500460
Page 22 of 57
10x30 area designated
for go-backs. This area
is not visible from
public right-of way.
Page 23 of 57
10
'-4
13
/16
" "
-7 3/8
16'
Fence in this concrete pad,
approx. 16'-7" x 10'-4"
Page 24 of 57
Page 25 of 57
Page 26 of 57
Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 7/24/2025 7:00 PM
Commission Department: Community Development
535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing
Prepared By: Jordan Frahm
AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-611
# 2025-611)
Public Hearing - 293 Roosevelt Road - Special Use Permit for Drive-
In Commercial Facility at Chicken Salad Chick
Statement of the Issue:
The Petitioner, Big Sky Construction Group, LLC, is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for
the operation of a drive-through commercial facility at 293 Roosevelt Road.
Analysis:
PUBLIC HEARING: A notice of public hearing for the requested approvals was published in the
July 3, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald. Property owners within 350 feet of the property were
notified by mail of the public hearing and placard signs were placed on the site.
SITE CONDITIONS: The subject lot is approximately 2.53 acres and is part of a multi-
establishment commercial development.
SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: Zoning in the surrounding area is C3 – Service Commercial
Zoning District. Specifically, the surrounding land uses are as follows:
Location and Use Zoning District
North: Commercial C3 – Service Commercial
East: Commercial C3 – Service Commercial
South: Lambert Lake, Village Green ParkCR – Conservation Recreation
West: City of Wheaton City of Wheaton
BACKGROUND: Originally approved under a Planned Unit Development by Ordinance No.
6090 as a part of the Glen Ellyn Market PUD – 293 Roosevelt Road was formerly operated as a
Tide Dry Cleaners. The dry-cleaning business operated a commercial drive-in service as approved by
Ord. 6090. However, as a condition of the approval of the PUD, any future restaurant utilizing the
“drive-thru” on the east end of the building was required to have a traffic study submitted to Village
Staff. Additionally, any prospective restaurant would be required to seek approval for a Special Use
Permit at Staff discretion.
PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant, Big Sky Construction Group, LLC, is requesting a
recommendation for approval for a Special Use Permit for a drive-in commercial facility per Section
10-4-15(B)9 of the Village Zoning Code. The proposed project involves the interior build out of an
Page 27 of 57
existing commercial structure for a new Chicken Salad Chick restaurant, a fast-casual dining
establishment specializing in chicken salad and related menu items. The tenant space, located at 293
Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL, 60137, was previously occupied by a dry cleaner facility that
featured an operational drive-thru window. The proposed use will continue to utilize the existing
drive-thru infrastructure with a service window being added.
The applicant states that the proposed business reactivates a previously unoccupied storefront, and
maintains that lot improvements like landscaping will continue to provide economic vitality while
making minimal changes to the footprint of the lot. The applicant notes that the nature of the
business is a low-impact, fast-casual restaurant without late-night operating hours and no alcohol
service. The applicant has provided a traffic study as required that suggests the drive-thru may be
operated safely without creating additional congestion or hazards. This traffic study, completed by
the firm KLOA, Inc., concludes that the proposed restaurant would generate “approximately one
net additional trip every minute during the weekday midday peak hour and one net additional trip
every ten minutes during the weekday evening peak hour” when compared to the previous occupant
of the tenant space, Tide Dry Cleaners. This increase in traffic is deemed to have minimal impact on
the existing area roadways, and KLOA states that the existing access system will accommodate the
projected traffic generated by the restaurant. The KLOA report recommends that outbound
movements from the drive-thru should be controlled via a stop sign positioned at the exit lane. The
traffic study determined that vehicle stacking will be adequate to meet the demand of the
restaurant’s drive-thru operations.
At the July 2, 2025, Development Committee Meeting, Village Staff discussed the proposal and
recommended additional stop signs both at the inbound traffic lane (southbound traffic) and cross-
traffic lane (eastbound traffic). No other recommendations were offered by the Glen Ellyn
Development Committee as no concerns regarding vehicle stacking or roadway impacts were
raised.
Budget Impact:
Contribution to Strategic Plan
Action Requested:
The Plan Commission should consider the petitioner’s request for approval of a Special Use Permit
and make a recommendation to the Village Board for approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Attachment B - Supplemental Application for Special Use Permit
3. Plat of Survey
4. Aerial Map
5. Zoning Map
6. Notification Map
7. Attachment A - Narrative Statement - 293 Roosevelt Road
8. Attachment C - Traffic Study - 293 Roosevelt Road
Page 28 of 57
9. Drive Thru Site Plan
10. Drive Thru Site Plan Staff Markup
11. Drive-Through Stacking Exhibit
Page 29 of 57
VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN
Special Use Permit
Application Packet
Community Development Department
535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370
Page 30 of 57
Page 31 of 57
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Date Filed: 5/30/2025 Application No: 2025-0014
Name of Applicant: Big Sky Construction Group, LLC
Address of Applicant: 7829 Meadow Chase Drive Sunbury, OH 43074
Phone: (614) 344-8335
Email: brandon@bigsky-llc.com
Property Interest of Applicant: Tenant
Name of Owner: RCG Glen Ellyn PM LLC
Address of Owner: 3060 Peachtree Rd NW Ste 400 Atlanta GA, IL 30305-2239
Phone:
Email:
Contacts:
Type Name Address Phone Email
Big Sky
Construction Group, 7829 Meadow Chase Drive brandon@bigsky-
Petitioner LLC Sunbury, OH 43074 (614) 344-8335 llc.com
Big Sky
Construction Group, 7829 Meadow Chase Drive brandon@bigsky-
Web Administrator LLC Sunbury, OH 43074 (614) 344-8335 llc.com
3060 Peachtree Rd NW Ste
RCG Glen Ellyn PM 400 Atlanta GA, IL 30305-
Parcel Owner LLC 2239
Property Address: 293 Roosevelt Rd
Project Name: Web Project
Project Description: The proposed project involves the interior buildout of an existing
commercial structure for a new Chicken Salad Chick restaurant, a fast-casual dining
establishment specializing in chicken salad and related menu items. The tenant space, located at
293 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL, 60137, was previously occupied by a Tide Cleaners facility
that featured an operational drive-thru window. The proposed use will continue to utilize the
existing drive-thru infrastructure with no exterior structural modifications required.
Legal Description of Property:
Page 32 of 57
Legal 1: FRESH MARKET EAST
Legal 2: CONSOLIDATION
Legal 3: ALL
Please reference the Attachment D - Special Warranty Deed attachment for the property for full
Legal
Description.
Zoning: C3
Lot Dimensions: 259' x 426.01'
Lot Area:
Permanent Index No. (PIN): 05222010370000
Present Use:
Previous / existing use was Tide Dry Cleaning with drive-thru. Property Use Code: 60 -
Commercial Improvements & Class: COM - Commercial.
Requested Use/Construction:
Tenant buildout for the fast casual restaurant, Chicken Salad Chick, that will continue to use the
existing drive through infrastructure. Construction Type II-B. Property Use Code to remain the
same.
Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: 6/30/2025
Name(s), Address(es) and Phone No(s). of Experts (architects, engineers, etc.):
Applicant Brandon 7829 Meadow Sunbury, OH 7405077359 brandon@bigsky-
Pitrone Chase Drive 43074 llc.com
Narrative Statement:
Please see Attachment A - Narrative Statement
Describe How the Special Use:
1. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives, or within a
specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or this Zoning Code:
Please see Attachment B - Application for Special Use Permit
Page 33 of 57
2. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area:
Please see Attachment B - Application for Special Use Permit
3. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses:
Please see Attachment B - Application for Special Use Permit
4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewers and
schools, or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed
use shall be able to provide adequately any such services:
Please see Attachment B - Application for Special Use Permit
5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the Village:
Please see Attachment B - Application for Special Use Permit
6. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and/or conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason
of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors:
Please see Attachment B - Application for Special Use Permit
7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which shall be so designed as not to create
an undue interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads:
Please see Attachment B - Application for Special Use Permit
Page 34 of 57
8. Will not increase the potential for flood damage to adjacent property or require additional
public expense for flood protection, rescue or relief:
Please see Attachment C - Traffic Study
9. Will not result in destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of major
importance to the community:
Please see Attachment B - Application for Special Use Permit
Page 35 of 57
OWNERSHIP BY LAND TRUST
Date: 5/30/2025
Address: 293 Roosevelt Rd
Legal Description:
Legal 1: FRESH MARKET EAST
Legal 2: CONSOLIDATION
Legal 3: ALL
Please reference the Attachment D - Special Warranty Deed attachment for the property for full
Legal
Description.
TRUSTEE: TRUST NO.:
Address:
LIST ALL BENEFICIARIES:
Page 36 of 57
OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION
Date: 5/30/2025
Address: 293 Roosevelt Rd
Legal Description:
Legal 1: FRESH MARKET EAST
Legal 2: CONSOLIDATION
Legal 3: ALL
Please reference the Attachment D - Special Warranty Deed attachment for the property for full
Legal
Description.
LIST ALL SHAREHOLDERS AND OFFICERS/DIRECTORS (AND % OF INTEREST
OWNED IN EXCESS OF 5% OF STOCK):
Page 37 of 57
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT CLEAR PAGES
The undersigned petitions the President and Village Board of Trustees of the Village of Glen
Ellyn, Illinois, to consider the Special Use described in this application.
',& '&)'),
Date Filed: _____________________ Application No: _____________________
Name of Applicant: 9J N RV DNJVJW
Address of Applicant: 'H/(. 8 a 5 NNT 6 R N D 5 J UN -'(.,
Business Phone: Fax:
Home Phone: Mobile Phone: )(. ) - , /
Email: 9 HV DNJVJW29VJRU L V
Property Interest of Applicant: B N b ENWJW
(Owner, Contract Purchaser, Owner Representative)
Name of Owner: C59 9UNW 7UUbW B 5 L& C59 GNW N 5
Address of Owner: '-' BNJL NN C JM @H D R N ''
Business Phone: ' --, ((( Fax:
Home Phone: Mobile Phone:
Email: JVRN52 LP NW N L V
Property Address: )/, C N NU C JM 9UNW 7UUbW -'( . D JLN )0 C N NU CM
Legal Description of Property:
NPJU (1 8C7D: 3C 7E 73DE
NPJU )1 5A@DA 63E A@
NPJU 1 3
BUNJ N NON NWLN N D NLRJU HJ JW b 6NNM J JL VNW O N N bO O UU NPJU
6N L R R W
Permanent Index No. (PIN): ', )) )'( ' . Zoning: 5 d DN RLN 5 VVN LRJU 6R RL
Lot Dimensions: ),0 a )- '( Lot Area: ((0 - , .,
Present Use:
BN R & NaR RWP N J ERMN 6 b 5UNJWRWP R MR N
Requested Use/Construction:
ENWJW K RUM O 5 RLTNW DJUJM 5 RLT N J JW J RUU L W RW N N N NaR RWP M R N P RWO J L N
Estimated Date to Begin New Use/Construction: -& '&)'),
X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Special Use Permit Packet FILLABLE 101823.docx
Page 38 of 57
Name(s), Address(es) and Phone No(s). of Experts (architects, engineers, etc.):
7B 7WPRWNN 1 DH D N C UU DN RLN ,/)/ IJ UNb D D R N 3 @N 3UKJWb A: ',
JWM -( ,' ) )
3 L R NL 1 C 9J b 9U NLT .0. C JM @J RUUN @5 )./,- JWM ),) ,) '''
9NWN JU 5 W JL 1 4RP DTb 5 W LR W9 5 ./)0 NJM 5 J N 6 R N D WK b A:
'. JWM -( / ,
Narrative Statement evaluating the economic effects on adjoining property, the effect of such
elements as noise, glare, odor, fumes and vibration on adjoining property, a discussion of the general
compatibility with the adjacent and other properties in the district, the effect of traffic, and the
relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan, and how it fulfills the requirements of
paragraph (E) of Section 10-10-14 of the Zoning Code:
BUNJ N NN J JL VNW 3
Describe How the Special Use:
1. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives, or within a
specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or this Zoning Code:
E N NM D NLRJU F N O 5 RLTNW DJUJM 5 RLT R L W R NW R N KSNL R N O N GRUUJPN O 9UNW 7UUbW 5 V N NW R N BUJW JWM I WRWP 5 MN Kb
RWP JMJ R N N N O JW NaR RWP L VVN LRJU N b NWL JPRWP NL W VRL MN NU VNW JWM NW JWLRWP WNRP K M N RWP N JRU E N SNL
N R JURcN J O VN M b LUNJWRWP N JKUR VNW R J M R N Kb RW M LRWP J O N OJ LJ JU MRWRWP R W J JURPW R N NaR RWP L VVN LRJU
L J JL N O N J NJ 4b VJRW JRWRWP JWM RURcRWP NaR RWP R N RWO J L N RWLU MRWP N M R N N SNL V N NOORLRNW UJWM N JWM VRWRVRcN
NW R WVNW JU RV JL E R N J RK JW NMN RJW JWM N RLUN JLLN RKUN L RM JWM L W RK N N L VV WR be P JU O OON RWP MR N N
JLLN RKUN JWM JRWJKUN L VVN LRJU JVNWR RN
2. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
that such use will not change the essential character of the same area:
E N NM 5 RLTNW DJUJM 5 RLT RUU KN MN RPWNM JWM L W L NM JURPW R N NaR RWP J L R NL JU L J JL N JWM LJUN O N WMRWP L VVN LRJU
J NJ R Na N R RV NVNW JWM RPWJPN J VNN JUU GRUUJPN MN RPW JWMJ M E N NWJW K RUM RUU NW JWLN N JN N RL Z JUR b O N NaR RWP
L N RUN N N RWP R RPRWJU O RW NW RWP L W RW R b R WNJ Kb MN NU VNW A N J R W RUU KN U RV JL O L NM W MRWN RW JTN JWM
MR N N RLN RL R L W R NW R N K RUMRWPe O VN N JWM L V J RKUN R JMSJLNW K RWN N E N R N RUU KN NUU VJRW JRWNM UJWM LJ NM JWM
VJWJPNM UM J LUNJW NUL VRWP J NJ JWLN NW RWP J N SNL NVJRW J V WR R N WMRWP J NJ JWM M N W JU N R N NW RJU
L J JL N
3. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses:
5 RLTNW DJUJM 5 RLT R J U RV JL OJ LJ JU N J JW R W UJ N WRP W JUL U N RLN JWM VRWRVJU W R N M RK J R W E N N O N
NaR RWP M R N J JURMJ NM Kb J JOORL Mb NW N R O WL R W JONUb JWM NOORLRNW Ub R L NJ RWP L WPN R W JcJ M
X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Special Use Permit Packet FILLABLE 101823.docx
Page 39 of 57
4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewers and
schools, or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed
use shall be able to provide adequately any such services:
E N NM 5 RLTNW DJUJM 5 RLT RUU KN JMNZ J NUb N NM Kb NaR RWP KURL RWO J L N JWM N RLN RWLU MRWP JLLN O V N JKUR NM JM Jb URLN
JWM OR N NL R W J N JWM N N RUR RN JWM NO N MR JU b NV JU NJMb RW UJLN J N R N 3 J NWJW K RUM R RW J N R Ub LL RNM
L VVN LRJU L N W JMMR R WJU JRW RUU KN UJLNM W KURL N RLN OJLRUR RN E N N M N W RV JL U LJU L U JWM RUU N J N R RW N
LJ JLR b O L NW V WRLR JU b NV 3UU WNLN J b N VR RUU KN NL NM JWM N N J RUU NW N L V URJWLN R U LJU L MN JWM L MRWJ R W R
NUN JW JPNWLRN VJRW JRW WP RWP N RLN JMNZ JLb
5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the Village:
E N NM D NLRJU F N RUU W L NJ N NaLN R N JMMR R WJU NZ R NVNW J KURL L J R RURcN JW NaR RWP L VVN LRJU L N R N JKUR NM
JLLN RUR RN JM JWM NVN PNWLb N RLN @ WN RWO J L N R NZ R NM JWM N M R N RUU N J N R RW NaR RWP L WMR R W J N N JURMJ NM
Kb J JOORL Mb NW RWP W WNNM O OO R N RV NVNW E N SNL NW JWLN N NL W VRL NUOJ N O N GRUUJPN Kb NJL R J RWP J JLJW N b
PNWN J RWP WN S K RWL NJ RWP JUN Ja N NW N JWM L W RK RWP N RK JWLb O N L VVN LRJU MR RL 3 J NUU NPJ MNM WJ R WJU K JWM 5 RLTNW DJUJM
5 RLT RUU J JL L W R NW L VN JOORL RWP K N R N JWM WMRWP K RWN N R UJLRWP WM N ORWJWLRJU N J R WJU K MNW W N
GRUUJPN
6. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and/or conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors:
E N NM D NLRJU F N M N W RW U N JWb JL R R RN VJ N RJU NJR W J UM KN MN RVNW JU N W N b N PNWN JU NUOJ N 3 J
OJ LJ JU N J JW R URVR NM JWM W JUL U N RLN 5 RLTNW DJUJM 5 RLT PNWN J N VRWRVJU W R N PUJ N M KNb WM b RLJU O M N J J R W
3UU N J R W RUU L V Ub R NJU JON b JWM K RUMRWP L MN JWM N N O J M R N RUU KN NM Kb J JOORL Mb NW N R M N W N U RW
NaLN R N JOORL L WPN R W @ V TN O VN RUU KN M LNM KNb WM JWMJ M TR L NW NW RUJ R W b NV JWM J N RUU KN N Ub VJWJPNM JWM
MR NM O N NW W R JWLN A N JUU N K RWN RUU N J N RW J LUNJW Z RN JWM MN Ub VJWWN J R O UUb L V J RKUN R N WMRWP J NJ
7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which shall be so designed as not to
create an undue interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads:
BUNJ N NN J JL NM JOORL Mb
8. Will not increase the potential for flood damage to adjacent property or require additional
public expense for flood protection, rescue or relief:
3UU NaR RWP M JRWJPN b NV RUU NVJRW RW UJLN JWM O WL R WJU JWM W JU N J R W J N NM J UM RV JL V J N OU RWL NJ N RV N R
OJLN 3 L N SNL N W JMMR R WJU R T WNJ Kb N RN JWM M N W WNLN R J N WN Na JWMNM OU M L W U VNJ N
9. Will not result in destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of
major importance to the community:
E N NM D NLRJU F N RUU W N U RW N MN LR W U MJVJPN O JWb WJ JU LNWRL R RL ONJ N O RV JWLN N L VV WR b E N
SNL R URVR NM JW RW N R NWJW K RUM O JW NaR RWP L VVN LRJU K RUMRWP W J MN NU NM R N R W Na N R JU N J R W J UM JOONL N
WMRWP NW R WVNW JWb ONJ N O R RLJU L U JU RPWRORLJWLN 3UU T RUU KN L V UN NM RW JLL MJWLN R U LJU N N J R W JWM NW R WVNW JU
P RMNURWN NW RWP N L J JL N JWM RW NP R b O N J NJ J N O UUb VJRW JRWNM
X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Special Use Permit Packet FILLABLE 101823.docx
Page 40 of 57
I (We) certify that all of the statements and documents submitted as part of this application are
true to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief.
I (We) consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any
authorized official of the Village of Glen Ellyn for the purpose of inspection.
I (We) consent to pay the Village of Glen Ellyn all costs incurred for transcribing the public
hearing on this application.
I (We) understand that no final action shall be taken by the Village Board subsequent to the
public hearing until and upon payment of transcribing fees.
5/30/25 Garrett W. Seaman
Date Print Name Signature of Applicant
5/30/25 Kim V. Seaman
Date Print Name Signature of Applicant
Date Print Name Signature of Applicant
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE APPLICANT WILL BE SERVED
BY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION IN DETAIL
X:\Plandev\PLANNING\FORMS\Special Use Permit Packet FILLABLE 101823.docx
Page 41 of 57
PARCEL 1:
LOT 1 IN FRESH MARKET EAST PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION OF PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST
1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 19, 2013 AS DOCUMENT R2013-041557, IN DU
PAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
PARCEL 2:
LOT 1 IN FRESH MARKET WEST PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST
1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 18, 2013 AS DOCUMENT R2013-040569, IN DU
PAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
PARCEL 3:
EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 AS CREATED BY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
{DEVELOPMENT} MADE BY AND BETWEEN OPUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., AND CHICAGO TITLE
LAND TRUST COMPANY, NOT PERSONALLY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
JUNE 17, 1974, AND KNOWN AS TRUST NO. 1997, RECORDED MAY 28, 2013 AS DOCUMENT R2013076188
FOR PURPOSES OF INSTALLING, CONSTRUCTING, UTILIZING, OPERATING, MAINTAINING, REPAIRING,
RESTORING, RECONSTRUCTING, REMOVING, REPLACING, AND RENEWING BUILDING AND RELATED SITE
AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS OVER, ACROSS, UPON, UNDER AND THROUGH LOT 2 IN FRESH
MARKET WEST PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION AFORESAID.
PARCEL 4:
NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 AS CREATED BY EASEMENT
AGREEMENT {ACCESS, PARKING AND LIGHTING} MADE BY AND BETWEEN OPUS DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, L.L.C., AND CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST COMPANY, NOT PERSONALLY, BUT SOLELY AS
TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 17, 1974, AND KNOWN AS TRUST NO. 1997, RECORDED
MAY 28, 2013 AS DOCUMENT R2013076189 FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, LIGHTING AND PARKING OVER,
ACROSS AND UPON TRACT 2, AS DESCRIBED THEREIN ON EXHIBIT A.
PARCEL 5:
TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 AS CREATED BY EASEMENT
AGREEMENT {OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS} MADE BY AND BETWEEN CHICAGO TITLE LAND
TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 1972 AND KNOWN AS
TRUST NUMBER 1688 AND OPUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY L.L.C., RECORDED MAY 28, 2013 AS
DOCUMENT NUMBER R2013076191, UPON, OVER, ACROSS, THROUGH AND UNDER THE "EASEMENT
AREA", AS DEFINED THEREIN, TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, RENEW AND REPLACE THE
OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF ACCESS.
PARCEL 6:
EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 AS CREATED BY THE DECLARATION OF
EASEMENT PARKING MADE BY AND BETWEEN OPUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C. AND CHICAGO
TITLE LAND TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 17, 1974 KNOWN AS
ROOSEVELT ROAD TRUST NUMBER 1997, RECORDED MAY 28, 2013 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER R2013076190, OVER, ACROSS
AND UPON THE PARKING AREAS WITHIN TRACT 2, AS DEFINED THEREIN, FOR PARKING.
ACCESS
Set Iron
Rod ACCESS
Set Iron
Rod
Found Iron
Rod
OUS
US MIN
NO BITU
BITUMI
OUS
MIN
SARC IL BITU
LLC
T1 US
T3 T2 LO MIN
O
LO LO BITU
OUS
MIN
OPUS BITU
Wall
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY LLC
PUROLL &
g
rhan BALLOID
Ove
ENTER II
g
rhan
PARCEL 3 Ove
PARCEL 1
285 ROOSEVELT ROAD
LOT 2
Set HEIGHT: 33.3'
Nail Wall
Centerline of
LOT 1 Ove
rhan
g
Set Vacated
Nail 4
1830 T2 Ott Avenue
LO
E ROOSEVELT RD
LLC OUS
2 23 MIN 1 STORY BRICK
2 T BITU
LOT LO
32,161 S.F.
4 PARCEL 2 #285
BITU
MIN
OUS
PARCEL
LOT 1 OUS
MIN
BITU
Trench
S Drain
MINOU Found Iron
BITU Metal Pipe
Stairs
5
PARCEL
P.O.B.
Parcel 4
Found Iron
TAFT AVENUE
Rod
SURVEYED BY:
JLH LAND
SURVEYING INC.
©
T:\2021_PROJECTS\21-511-107.2\dwg\21-511-107.2.dwg, 1/4/2022 7:44:36 AM
Page 42 of 57
293 Roosevelt Road - Aerial Map
0 1000 2000 Print Date: 7/17/2025 Notes
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 43 of 57
293 Roosevelt Road - Zoning Map
Legend
Zoning and Development
Zoning
C3: Service Commercial District
CR: Conservation/Recreation
District
R2: Single Family Residential District
R3: Multi-Family Residential District
0 500 1000 Print Date: 7/17/2025 Notes
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 44 of 57
293 Roosevelt Road - Notification Map
0 1000 2000 Print Date: 7/17/2025 Notes
ft 350 ft. Radius
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may
exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Page 45 of 57
Attachment A
Narrative Statement
293 Roosevelt Road - Special Use Permit Application
The proposed project involves the interior buildout of an existing commercial structure for a new
Chicken Salad Chick restaurant, a fast-casual dining establishment specializing in chicken salad
and related menu items. The tenant space, located at 293 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL,
60137, was previously occupied by a Tide Cleaners facility that featured an operational
drive-thru window. The proposed use will continue to utilize the existing drive-thru infrastructure
with no exterior structural modifications required.
The land and structure are currently zoned for commercial use, and the introduction of a
restaurant represents a compatible continuation of the site's hospitality function. No change in
the footprint of the building or significant site work is proposed. The project qualifies as a tenant
buildout, with improvements occurring entirely within the existing building envelope.
A traffic study has been provided to support the continued operation of the drive-thru window.
This study confirms that the existing drive-thru conditions can accommodate anticipated traffic
volumes without adverse effects on site circulation or neighboring properties.
The proposed use is expected to have minimal impact on the surrounding area. Chicken Salad
Chick does not produce excessive noise, glare, odors, fumes, or vibrations beyond those typical
of a small restaurant. All food preparation occurs indoors, and the nature of the operation does
not involve heavy cooking or frying, thereby reducing concerns related to emissions or smell.
Economically, this project supports local revitalization by reactivating a currently vacant
commercial space and introducing a nationally recognized brand that attracts steady customer
traffic. It is anticipated that this use will contribute positively to local employment and sales tax
revenue.
This project aligns with the recommendations of the Village of Glen Ellyn Comprehensive Plan,
which encourages the reuse of underutilized commercial spaces and supports reinvestment in
existing infrastructure. The proposed use is consistent with nearby commercial operations and
complements the character of the surrounding business district.
Page 46 of 57
9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 400 | Rosemont, Illinois 60018
p: 847-518-9990 | f: 847-518-9987
MEMORANDUM TO: Garett Seaman
Chicken Salad Chick
FROM: Javier Millan
Principal
Luay Aboona, PE, PTOE
Principal
DATE: May 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Site Traffic Evaluation
Proposed Chicken Salad Chick Restaurant
Glen Ellyn, Illinois
This memorandum summarizes the results of a site traffic evaluation conducted by Kenig,
Lindgren, O’Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) in connection with the proposed Chicken Salad
Chick drive-through restaurant occupying the former Tide Dry Cleaners within the Glen Ellyn
Plaza in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. As proposed, the storefront will be repurposed with an approximately
2,700 square-foot restaurant with a drive-through facility. Access to the site will be provided via
the two existing access drives off Roosevelt Road (one full and one right-in/right-out access drive)
and the existing full access drive off Taft Avenue.
The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the impact of the proposed restaurant on the area
roadway system and evaluate its on-site circulation and drive-through utilization.
Site Location
The development site is located on the east end of the existing Glen Ellyn Plaza in Glen Ellyn,
Illinois.
Figure 1 shows the site location on an aerial with respect to the surrounding roadway system.
KLOA, Inc. Transportation and Parking Planning Consultants
Page 47 of 57
SITE
Aerial View of Site Figure 1
2
Page 48 of 57
Existing Roadway Characteristics
The characteristics of the existing roadways that surround the proposed restaurant are described
below.
Roosevelt Road (IL 38) is an east-west arterial roadway that in the vicinity of the site provides two
through lanes in each direction with sidewalks and curb/gutter on both sides of the roadway and a
continuous center two-way left-turn lane to accommodate left-turn movements. Roosevelt Road
has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph), and parking is restricted on both sides of the
roadway. PACE Bus Route 301 traverses Roosevelt Road and has bus stops (sign only) for both
directions of travel in the vicinity of the site. Roosevelt Road is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT), is designated as a Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA), and
carries an annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume of 32,400 vehicles (Year 2023).
Taft Avenue is an east-west, two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph in the vicinity
of the site. A sidewalk is provided on the north side of the road and on both sides of the road west
of the full access drives. Taft Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Glen Ellyn.
Proposed Site Plan
As proposed, the former Tide Dry Cleaners space will be occupied with a Chicken Salad Chick
restaurant with a drive-through system. It is our understanding that the hours of operation will be
from 10:30 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.
Access to the site will be provided off Roosevelt Road via the two existing curb cuts serving the
overall development and via an existing full access drive off Taft Avenue. The westerly access
drive off Roosevelt Road provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes striped for an exclusive
left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. Outbound movements are under stop sign control.
The easterly access drive is physically restricted to right-in/right-out movements with outbound
movements under stop sign control. The access drive off Taft Avenue provides one inbound lane
and two outbound lanes striped for an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane with
outbound movements under stop sign control.
The restaurant will utilize the existing drive-through facility. The drive-through entrance is located
in the northeast corner of the site with vehicles traveling southbound and turning counterclockwise
to enter the two drive-through lanes. The drive-through exit will be under stop sign control.
Parking will be provided via the existing parking spaces serving the Glen Ellyn Plaza.
3
Page 49 of 57
Trip Generation Estimates
The trip generation estimates for the proposed restaurant were based on sales data of an existing
Chicken Salad Chick restaurant in the Chicagoland area with a drive-through lane. The collected
data breaks down the trip generation by dine-in (inclusive of take-out and Door Dash) and drive-
through orders. Based on the sales data, the following is a breakdown of the trip generation
characteristics:
• Approximately 67 percent of the trips generated by the restaurant are either dine-in or take-
out/3rd party (Door Dash) orders.
• Approximately 33 percent of the trips generated by the restaurant are drive-through orders.
• Typical dine-in/take-out traffic generation (in and out) during the weekday midday peak
hour (lunch period) is approximately 68 vehicles.
• The drive-through generation (in and out) during the weekday midday peak hour is
approximately 34 vehicles.
• Typical dine-in/take-out traffic generation (in and out) during the weekday evening peak
hour (dinner period) is approximately 36 vehicles.
• The drive-through generation (in and out) during the weekday evening peak hour is
approximately 18 vehicles.
• The daily (in and out) trip generation is approximately 570 trips.
It is important to note that surveys conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
have shown that approximately 55 percent of trips made to fast food restaurants are diverted from
the existing traffic on the roadway system. This is particularly true during the weekday midday
and evening peak hours when traffic is diverted from the home-to-work and work-to-home trips.
Such diverted trips are referred to as pass-by traffic. To conduct a conservative evaluation, the
pass-by reductions were not applied to the trips estimated to be generated by the proposed
restaurant.
Table 1 summarizes the trips projected to be generated by the proposed restaurant. Table 2 shows
the estimated trips generated utilizing vehicle trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation
Manual, 11th Edition, published by the ITE. The Land Use Code 934 (Fast Food Restaurant with
Drive-Through) rates were utilized.
4
Page 50 of 57
Table 1
ESTIMATED RESTAURANT-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES – WEEKDAY
(BASED ON SALES DATA OF A COMPARABLE STORE IN THE CHICAGOLAND AREA)
Weekday Midday Weekday Evening
Daily
Type/Size Peak Hour Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Chicken Salad Chick (±2,700 s.f.)1
Dine-In/Take-Out/Door
34 34 68 18 18 36 189 189 378
Dash
Drive-Through Lane 17 17 34 9 9 18 95 95 190
Total Trips 51 51 102 27 27 54 284 284 568
1 – Trip generation based on sales data of a comparable store in the Chicagoland area with a drive-through lane
Table 2
ESTIMATED RESTAURANT-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES – WEEKDAY
(BASED ON ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES)
Weekday Midday Weekday Evening
Daily
Type/Size Peak Hour Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive-Through 75 76 151 46 43 89 631 631 1,262
(±2,700 s.f.)1
1 – Trip generation based on ITE Land Use Code 934 (Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through) rates
As can be seen, the data from an existing Chicken Salad Chick restaurant indicates that they
generate less traffic than your typical fast-food restaurant with drive-through when compared to
the ITE trip generation rates.
5
Page 51 of 57
Previous Land Use Trip Generation Comparison
As indicated earlier, the site was previously occupied by a Tide Dry Cleaners with drive-through
lanes. Based on a survey of an existing Tide Dry Cleaners location in Naperville, Table 3 shows
the trips previously generated by Tide Dry Cleaners compared to the estimated trips that will be
generated by the proposed restaurant with drive-through.
As can be seen from Table 3, the proposed restaurant will have a net increase in traffic that will
amount to 54 additional total (in and out) trips during the weekday midday peak hour and six
additional total (in and out) trips during the weekday evening peak hour. This translates into
approximately one additional trip every minute during the midday peak hour and one additional
trip every 10 minutes during the evening peak hour. Given the Glen Ellyn Plaza is served by three
access drives, this additional traffic will not have a negative impact on the operations of the
adjacent roads or the access drives serving the Glen Ellyn Plaza.
Table 3
TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Weekday Midday Weekday Evening
Type/Size Peak Hour Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Chicken Salad Chick (±2,700 s.f.)1
Dine-In/Take-Out/Door
34 34 68 18 18 36
Dash
Drive-Through Lane 17 17 34 9 9 18
Total Trips 51 51 102 27 27 54
Tide Dry Cleaners2
Parking 8 8 16 5 5 10
Drive-Through 16 16 32 19 19 38
Total 24 24 48 24 24 48
Difference +27 +27 +54 +3 +3 +6
1 – Trip generation based on sales data of a comparable store in the Chicagoland area with drive-through lanes
2 – Trip generation based on surveys of the existing Tide Dry Cleaner in Naperville
6
Page 52 of 57
Traffic Evaluation
The traffic that is estimated to be generated by the proposed restaurant will mainly utilize
Roosevelt Road to access the site, given that the majority of the traffic is located along Roosevelt
Road. When the daily traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by the proposed restaurant are
compared to the daily traffic volumes along Roosevelt Road, the proposed restaurant traffic will
amount to approximately two percent. However, when factoring in the pass-by reduction of
vehicles that are already in the traffic stream or the net increase when compared to the previous
use on site, the restaurant will only result in a daily increase of traffic on Roosevelt Road of one
percent.
Access Evaluation
As previously mentioned, access will be provided off Roosevelt Road via the two existing full
access drives and via an existing full access drive off Taft Avenue. The westerly access drive off
Roosevelt Road provides one inbound lane and two outbound lanes striped for an exclusive left-
turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane with outbound movements under stop sign control. The
easterly access drive is physically restricted to right-in/right-out movements with outbound
movements under stop sign control. The access drive off Taft Avenue provides one inbound lane
and one outbound lane with outbound movements under stop sign control. Based on our
observations, given the existence of a two-way left-turn lane on Roosevelt Road coupled with the
traffic signals to the east at Lambert Road and to the west at Lorraine Road, vehicles are able to
turn in and out of the access drives with relative ease. Additionally, based on our observations, the
eastbound and westbound queues did not extend to the access drives. As such, the access drives
will operate efficiently and no additional geometric or traffic control improvements will be
necessary in conjunction with the proposed restaurant.
On-Site Circulation
As proposed, vehicles will enter the drive-through lane at the northeast corner of the building and
travel around in a counterclockwise fashion towards the two drive-through lanes.
A review of the area indicates that approximately 13 vehicles can stack from the pick-up window
to the entrance of the drive-through lane. Further, additional vehicles can stack within the site
before reaching the access drives off Roosevelt Road.
This is the typical drive-through stacking provided at most fast-food restaurants and given the
projected demand of 17 vehicles utilizing the drive-through lane during the weekday midday peak
hour, the existing drive-through design with a stacking of approximately 13 vehicles can
accommodate the average and peak demand of the drive-through operation without impacting
traffic flow within the site.
7
Page 53 of 57
In order to provide efficient and orderly internal traffic flow, the following is recommended:
• Wayfinding signs directing traffic to the drive-through lane should be provided within the
site, primarily on the east side of the site facing west opposite the southern parking drive
aisle directing traffic to the entrance of the drive-through lane.
• A stop sign facing south should be posted at the exit of the drive-through lane.
Conclusion
Based on the proposed plan and the preceding evaluation, the following is concluded:
• The trips estimated to be generated by the proposed restaurant will be reduced due to the
pass-by trips.
• The proposed restaurant is estimated to generate approximately one net additional trip
every minute during the weekday midday peak hour and approximately one net additional
trip every ten minutes during the weekday evening peak hour when compared to the trips
generated by the Tide Dry Cleaners when it was fully operational.
• This small increase in traffic can easily be accommodated by the existing area roadways.
• The existing access system will be adequate in accommodating the traffic projected to be
generated by the proposed restaurant with limited impact on the adjacent roadway network.
• Outbound movements from the drive-through exit lane should be under stop sign control.
• The drive-through lane will provide adequate stacking to accommodate the demand of the
drive-through operations.
8
Page 54 of 57
Page 55 of 57
Stop sign proposed
by the applicant
Village Staff
recommends
additional stop signs
in the parking lot drive
aisles to mitigate
collisions and
encourage safe traffic
flow per discussion at
the July 2, 2025
Development
Committee Meeting
Page 56 of 57
Drive-Thru Stacking Exhibit
Page 57 of 57