Plan Commission

Regular Meeting

Glen Ellyn, IL · December 11, 2025

Minutes

MINUTES Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, Dec. 11, 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 7:02 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, Arango, Brown, Cooper, Wyant, Kreuzer, Pesce. Commissioners Dougherty and Morrison were absent. Also in attendance: Steve Thompson, Village Trustee, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Jennifer Henaghan, Community Development Director, and Laura Musgraves, Acting Recording Secretary. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) There was no off-agenda audience comment. C. Approval of Minutes 1. Review and Approval of the November 13, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Kreuzer moved to approve the minutes, Commissioner Arango seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. D. New Business 1. Public Hearing: Sign Variations - 486 Pennsylvania Avenue, Maplewood Brewery & Distillery Commissioner Brown made a motion to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Sworn in Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, presented on the agenda item below: Mr. Harper provided background information regarding the new tenant at 486 Pennsylvania Avenue, Maplewood Brewery and Distillery, which will modify the space occupied by former tenant Two-Hound Red Brewery and Restaurant. The exterior modifications to the building were reviewed by the Architectural Appearance Commission and approved by the Village Board at their meeting on November 10, 2025. Mr. Harper gave an overview of the four (4) Sign Variations requested by the petitioner as follows: 1. A variation from Section 4-5-11(A) to allow five (5) signs for the establishment in lieu of the maximum of one (1) sign per establishment. 2. A variation from Section 4-5-6(C) to allow an awning valance sign to have a maximum height of ten inches (0’-10”) in lieu of the maximum allowed awning valance sign height of six inches (0’-6”). 3. A variation from Section 4-5-4(R)(3) to allow a freestanding sign to be setback six inches (0’-6”) from the property line in lieu of the minimum setback of five feet (5’-0”). 4. A variation from Section 4-5-4(R)(6) to allow the material of the support structure of the sign to not match the primary material of the front building façade. Regarding the wall signs, one wall sign located on the south wall of the building facing Pennsylvania Avenue has already been approved. The applicant is seeking additional wall signs located on the East and West walls of the building. On the West wall, the petitioner proposed a 9’ sign of painted acrylic letters to be lighted with either LED lighting behind it or can-lights located above it. On the East wall sign, the petitioner proposed two options. Option 1 is a logo of Maplewood Brewery located in the center above the main entrance door, illuminated by existing can-lights. Option 2 is the whole word “Maplewood” spelled out in the same manner as the proposed West sign. Mr. Harper stated the proposed signs meet the existing code requirements for size of the signs, reiterating it is the number of signs that deviate from code and that is the variance being sought. Regarding the awning sign, Mr. Harper explained that the petitioner’s proposal does not meet the code requirements of a valance sign and their request is classified as an awning sign. Village Code allows for signs on valances that hang from an awning, but they are restricted to 6” of text height. The applicant proposes larger size, 10”, because of the larger valance. The fifth sign proposed is a free-standing monument sign in the southernmost island of the parking lot. The sign is 8 square feet on a metal pedestal and non-illuminated. Two variations are needed. One for the setback to be 6” from the property line in lieu of the minimum setback of 5 feet. The second variation is for a metal support structure instead of a masonry support structure. Per Code, freestanding signs must match the same material as the building, and the petitioner is seeking a different material (metal.) Their rationale is that they have experienced parking issues and they want to clarify that the parking belongs to Maplewood Brewery. In summary, the petitioner seeks four (4) signs through variations, as the first sign has already been approved. Commissioner Cooper asked if the building structure located at 478 Pennsylvania Avenue is a commercial structure. Mr. Harper answered yes. Chairman Loftus asked if the proposed repeated wording on the east side of the awning valence is allowed per Village Code. Mr. Harper answered that, in relation to the awning, it is not in number of words on the valence, but the height of the words that is the variation they are requesting. Mr. Harper clarified the sign dimensions. Commissioner Arango asked about the wording on the east side of the awning, and was that considered a valance? Mr. Harper answered yes. Commissioner Arango asked if it met with the code for size. Mr. Harper answered no, the proposed wording is 10” and the Code allowable size is 6” maximum. Commissioner Brown suggested that the landscape island where proposed monument sign would be made higher, and she thought it would be worth consideration by the petitioner. Commissioner Arango asked if the monument sign was lit. Mr. Harper answered no. Commissioner Pesce asked for clarification of the East and West signs. If they are painted acrylic on the wall and the petitioner is proposing to illuminate the sign with a LED light behind it, would the sign be painted on another material and affixed to the wall? Mr. Harper answered that if it was a painted sign, the same variations would be required. Chairperson Loftus asked about the proposed lighting of the West wall sign, would it include LED backlighting and can-light illumination from above? Mr. Harper answered no, it would be one or the other. Commissioner Arango asked if can-lighting on the proposed East sign already exists. Mr. Harper answered yes. Commissioner Pesce asked if the Commission was being asked to approve the two options presented, or to make a suggestion? Harper answered that whatever the Commission approves, they may put conditions on it such as the number of signs, the size of the signs, and the illumination requirements. Commissioner Brown asked about setting precedents for other downtown properties to request sign variations. Harper answered it is the Commission’s responsibility to make that determination. Subsequent cases would be subject to the same conditions in a matter by matter basis. Sworn in: Adam Cieslak, representative of Maplewood Brewery & Distillery Mr. Cieslak addressed the Commission by thanking them for their consideration. He said the company was happy to entertain suggestions. The previous tenant of the property noted a lack of identity of the restaurant from the east and west sides of the building, and that was part of Maplewood’s rationale to appeal for more signage. Another issue raised by the previous tenant was the limited size of the parking lot and that it was often used for parking by surrounding businesses. Regarding the awning, the existing awning is weathered and tattered, so Maplewood wishes to replace it with a new, fresh awning that is tasteful in appearance. They are requesting a size variation to not only fit the dimensions the awning, but they also wish to provide identity to the restaurant. Maplewood’s intent is for the signage to fit the character and feel of Glen Ellyn. Chairman Loftus asked the Commission if they had any questions for the petitioner. Commissioner Wyant thanked Cieslak for choosing Glen Ellyn as the location of their new restaurant. He commented that Maplewood’s website marketing and branding focuses on the brewery and distillery aspects of the business, but it is not reflected in the signage requests. Cieslak answered that their initial business identity online focused on the distillery, but Maplewood has opened a successful lounge and restaurant in Chicago that is gaining attention. They want to embrace their identity in dining and not just be known as a brewery and distillery. He said that is the intent by using their logo in one of the sign proposals. Chairperson Loftus asked about dimensions of the sign lettering above the entrance door. Mr. Harper confirmed the allowable dimensions are 16 inches in height. Mr. Cieslak reiterated that Maplewood is amendable to using the Maplewood logo above the door instead of the name. Commissioner Cooper asked about the purpose of the monument sign. Is it to identify that the parking lot belongs to Maplewood? Cieslak answered yes. Chairperson Loftus asked if there are other signs in the parking lot such as “customers only” and towing notices. Mr. Harper answered that those signs do not count as signage according to Village Code. Mr. Cieslak said they want to make sure there is adequate parking for their customers. Commissioner Cooper said there is anecdotal information that customers don’t always identify the parking as belonging to Two Hound Red. If the petitioner is concerned about this and anticipating an influx of customers from out of town, he doesn’t think a monument sign is going to discourage people from parking there if they are not customers. Mr. Cieslak disagreed, saying there is already confusion about where to park and the restaurant isn’t open yet. Commissioner Arango asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Cieslak answered they are still working it out, but they are considering being open at brunch and lunch on weekends, possibly opening on weekdays starting at 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. Ideally, they would like to be open for lunch and coffee, then grow into that schedule. Chairman Loftus mentioned that, historically, two businesses Barone’s and Glen Oak Café had issues with a shared parking lot, and they managed it with chains blocking access points during peak traffic hours. He asked if this was by agreement with the Village and did staff have any knowledge of it. Mr. Harper said he could not speak to how Glen Oaks Café managed their parking. Commissioner Kreuzer asked Cieslak if they expected a lot of out-of-town visitors. Mr. Cieslak answered yes, from Chicago and from out of the state based on his experience at their Chicago location. Chairman Loftus said he mentioned the chain issue as an alternative to managing parking issues instead of having a monument sign. He said parking is only a problem during times when the restaurant is open and an additional sign unnecessary. Commissioner Kreuzer said this restaurant may distinguish Glen Ellyn from other cities and we want to pull customers from other areas. Great branding and great signage are key to that goal, so he was supportive of the monument sign. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Cieslak if they would consider altering their business hours, as having regular hours may solve the parking problem. Mr. Cieslak answered he would have to discuss it with his partners. Their goal is to keep the branding consistent. He added that Maplewood plans to landscape the area of the proposed monument sign to make it more visually appealing. The Commission observed a scruffy concrete wall in the photo exhibit and asked staff who was responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Harper said he would have to check, but he believed it belonged to the property to the east. Mr. Cieslak made a point about the signs, saying Maplewood advocates for themselves and spends a lot of effort on making exteriors look good. The finished product will look better than the photoshopped exhibit. Regarding the monument sign area, they intend to kill the weeds and make a nice landscape. They do not wish to put up a sign that is an eyesore. Commissioner Arango asked about their landscape plans. Mr. Cieslak answered they wished to clear the weeds and perhaps plant hedges that look nice and have clean lines. Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Chairman Loftus asked staff if Community Development had received any emails or written comments from the public. Mr. Harper answered no. Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pesce motioned. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Cooper expressed concern about the monument sign because it is located on the edge of the property and he did not like the precedence of allowing monuments signs near the lot line. He thought the current confusion of people parking there is because there is no active business there now. Cooper said he is supportive of the business itself, but not the monument sign. He said he will vote to approve the other variations. Commissioner Kreuzer said he is in favor of all the variations. Maplewood is investing a lot in this venture, and we should support it. He added that he prefers Option 1 of the West sign proposal, which is can-lighting above the sign. He favored that option because it is consistent with the lighting of the other sign, and he did not like the idea of LED lighting with light emitting out. Commissioner Kreuzer said the petitioner is open to suggestions and if the Commission is being asked to make a condition on the variation, that would be his condition. He added he is not concerned about the variations because they are not ostentatious and the petitioner has shown the need for them. If they were lighted signs and bothersome to neighbors, he would be concerned about the number of signs requested but that is not the case. Commissioner Arango said she was agreeable to the number of signs. She said they are tasteful in appearance and with the expected traffic to the restaurant, the signs make sense. She said the proposal was well-thought out. Chairman Loftus said he disagreed with Commissioner Cooper on the condition, and he is okay with the monument sign. He said he agreed with Commissioner Kreuzer’s opinion of can-lighting the West sign, and overall agreeable to the variations they are requesting. Loftus added that the monument sign could be effective considering the shared parking problems between Glen Oak Café and Barone’s. Commissioner Brown thanked the petitioner for coming to Glen Ellyn. She was concerned about the monument sign because any business could make the same argument about parking problems. She suggested not having the monument sign, and if Maplewood decided they needed it, they could come back with a variation request later. Commissioner Pesce said he was excited about Maplewood and it will complement other restaurants. Although the proposed monument sign looked professional, he foresaw the location close to the street being an issue. He agreed with Krezuer’s can-light suggestion on the West sign. Commissioner Cooper asked the Commission if they had an opinion of sign over the entrance being the logo or the name? Commissioner Kreuzer said the logo is aesthetically pleasing and Maplewood should go with that. Commissioner Arango agreed with Kreuzer. She shared her concern about setting a precedent by approving the monument sign variation, and Chairman Loftus said it is not a precedence. Any and each request for a variation must be considered on its own merits and it does not necessarily set a precedence. Commissioner Cooper said he preferred Option 1 over Option 2 for the West wall sign, but that should not be a condition of approval. Let Maplewood make the decision. Mr. Cooper said he did not think he had the votes to support omitting the monument sign, so he would amend his recommendation to omit it. Commissioner Kreuzer motioned to approve the petitioner’s request for all the sign variations, including the number of signs, with the one condition that the sign on the West side of the building have can-lighting and not LED lighting. Commissioner Wyant seconded. All voted in favor of the motion. Chairman Loftus requested a motion to accept the Finding of Facts document in the agenda materials. Commissioner Kreuzer motioned to accept with the conditions already agreed to. Commissioner Wyant seconded. All voted in favor of the motion. Chairperson Loftus requested a motion to recommend approval of the the variations, Commissioner Kreuzer made motion to approve the requested variations with the following condition: 1. The sign located on West side of the building be illuminated with can-lighting and not LED lighting. Commissioner Wyant seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote Yes (7) No (0). Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Commissioner Kruezer, Seconded by Commissioner Wyant, Motion passed by voice vote Yes (7), No (0). 2. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - 499 Anthony Street, Single-Family Detached Home. Commissioner Cooper made a motion to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Arango Sworn in Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, presented on the agenda item below: Mr. Frahm presented an overview the Special Use Permit (SUP) application for 499 Anthony Steet. It is in the C5B residential district, and he showed the zoning area in a visual rendering. The petitioner wishes to convert a commercial portion of the single- family residence. Mr. Frahm reported that the building is currently occupied as the Mansio Center, a therapy office, located at the site that also includes an upper-story residential apartment unit. In order for the building to be used entirely as a single-family detached home, a Special Use Permit is required per Section 10-4-17-2 of the Village Zoning Code. There are no proposed exterior alterations to the building. Mr. Frahm stated that staff analysis of the property indicates that the lot is nonconforming due to the total area of the property and the building is nonconforming due to its rear yard setback. Per Section 10-4-17-2(D)5(e) of the Village Code, lots being used as a single-family detached home are required to have a minimum area of 8,712 square feet. 499 Anthony Street is 6,970 square feet in area per County records. Section 10-4-17-2(D)5(c) requires single-family detached residential use lots to have a minimum rear-yard setback of 30 feet (30'-0"). The existing rear yard setback for the principal structure at 499 Anthony Street is approximately eight feet (8'-0"). The applicant has acknowledged that upon the granting of the special use permit, the business signage would be removed and that professional activity would be limited to what is permissible for home occupations in the Village Code. The property has a driveway in the front yard of the property that is currently used as off-street parking for office and residential use. The property meets the required minimum of two (2) off- street parking spaces for residential use, but the property does not have a garage on the site. If, at some point in the future, the property owner wishes to construct a garage accessory structure or addition to the home, the proposed garage will be required to be in conformance with either Sections 10-4-17-2 or 10-5-4 of the Village Code. The applicant describes the purpose of the change of use as to, "preserve and enhance the character of the property while maintaining its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and commercial district." Dr. Arute cites a reduction of traffic to the property, reduced density, and improved long-term maintenance and stewardship of the property has positive impacts of the proposal. No exterior structural changes are proposed, and the applicant maintains that any modifications will be consistent with the Village's building and zoning standards and receive all required permitting. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if the upper portion of the home (the commercial part being vacated) was going to be rented. Mr. Frahm answered it will be a single-family home, not a rental property. Chairman Loftus asked staff to clarify the requirements to run a business out of a home. Mr. Frahm explained the Home Occupation requirements. Chairman Loftus asked if we approve it as a single-family home, they can still run a business if it meets those requirements? Frahm answered yes. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if parking located to the west of 499 Anthony Street was public parking. Mr. Frahm answered yes. Commissioner Cooper asked if, historically, the building had been a single-family residence. Frahm answered yes that it had been in the past. In 2017, it was approved to have a business located on the first floor and a residence on the second floor. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if the Village ever considered the property for public parking. He asked if the owner could potentially sell the property as a residential property, have it demolished, and build a structure significantly bigger. Mr. Frahm answered it could not be bigger because of the lot coverage. Some dimensions would be limited to the useable area of the lot. They do have a considerable lot width, but it would require repositioning on the lot. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if it could be residential and allow for multi-family use. Frahm answered yes, but they would have to apply for a SUP. Commissioner Brown referenced an historical SUP in which a business on Duane Street was converted to residential and asked if the owners would be able to sell it unless this SUP was approved. Mr. Frahm answered they have the option to be residential with the SUP. Mr. Harper explained that the SUP would stay in effect unless the use changed after (a minimum of) 6 months in which case it converts back to the allowed uses in the zoning district. Commissioner Brown clarified that her question related to the owner listing it as residential and only living on the first floor of the house. Harper said that would be an ethical issue for the realtor to address. Chairman Loftus asked if there were other questions for staff. Commissioner Arango asked if we approved of the SUP as a residential property and because of the zoning, can they run a business? Mr. Frahm answered that Home Occupation businesses are permissible anywhere in the Village and not constrained by zoning. Commissioner Wyant asked about the usage of the neighboring public parking lot in staff’s estimation. Mr. Frahm answered that he had no traffic analysis. Wyant said parking is very busy there at weekends. Commissioner Brown added there is a parking lot close to the home and it is not available for public parking. Chairman Loftus asked about public parking near the church. Mr. Harper googled the sign which read it was for permit-parking only. Commissioner Wyant said there is a need for parking in Downtown Glen Ellyn, and he thinks the best use of this space is not a single-family home. His concern is the overall future of land use in Glen Ellyn related to master planning, and less about what the petitioner is seeking. Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other questions for staff. There were none. The petitioners, David and Iryna Arute, were sworn in. Mr. Arute said it has been an honor to serve Glen Ellyn as a business, and we have decided to transition our business from the current location. We consider the house in Glen Ellyn as home, and we do not wish to move from Glen Ellyn. He said they do not wish to change the outside or do construction on it. The practice will be dissolved. Chairman Loftus asked if the Commission had questions for the petitioners. There were none. Chairman Loftus asked staff if Community Development received any public emails or written comments. Mr. Harper answered no. Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pesce motioned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bromann-Brown. All voted in favor to close the public hearing. Chairman Loftus said he had no issues with the SUP request. Commissioner Pesce said because it’s an existing use and it goes along with the layout of Glen Ellyn; he would support the application. Commissioner Kreuzer said he didn’t have any concerns about development of the space and the limitations are there for future use. He had no issues with the application. Commissioner Brown said she agreed with Commissioner Kreuzer and it is difficult to buy a home in Glen Ellyn, so she supports this. Commissioner Kreuzer commented on the black-top pavement in the front yard and asked if there were expectations to change it. Mr. Frahm answered there are no restrictions on impervious surfaces in single-family homes. Chairman Loftus clarified that this question should have been directed to staff and not to the petitioner. Chairperson Loftus requested a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit, Commissioner Brown made motion to approve the requested special use permit. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote Yes (7) No (0). Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Commissioner Cooper, Seconded by Commissioner Pesce, Motion passed by voice vote Yes (7), No (0). E. Trustee Liaison’s Report Village Trustee Steve Thompson reported on the following items: • The Taft Avenue demolition was proceeding, and DuPage County recently approved demolition of the building on the east parcel. • Construction of Starbucks at 405 Roosevelt Road was proceeding. • The Village Board approved variations for parking requested by the Legacy Shops at 1184 Roosevelt Road. • The Village Board approved the Historical Preservation Commission’s Pilot Incentive Program. Trustee Thompson welcomed questions. Commissioner Cooper commented that many merchants are selling goods outside of the store, and he was concerned about icy sidewalks and the safety of pedestrians. Of particular concern were merchants on Roosevelt Road and a large Christmas tree on the sidewalk near Pete’s Market. This led to a discussion of flashing lights, LED lights, and non-approved lighting in businesses along Roosevelt Road. Mr. Harper said vape shops, smoke shops, and some other shops are continually cited for these violations, but they eventually put up the lights again anyway. Commissioner Wyant asked if any modifications had been made regarding the Glenbard West High School Addition project. Thompson answered not that he was aware of and encouraged those who are interested in the project to attend District 41 Board meetings. Commissioner Brown asked if the construction office was permitted by the Village. Village Staff were unaware of a construction office being set-up. Commissioner Brown commented that there is limited parking in Glen Ellyn and the Village should support businesses in their efforts to alleviate problems. Trustee Thompson reminded the Commission that grant monies are available for businesses to spearhead projects and they may apply every three years. Trustee Thompson said he would like the Village Board to support higher fees for demolition projects in the Village, and there was a brief discussion of this. Trustee Thompson concluded his remarks. F. Chairman’s Report- None G. Staff Report MR. Harper reported that the Community Development Department recently requested RFPs for consultants to assist in updating the Village Zoning Code. The department’s selection was discussed with Village Manager, Mark Franz, and he agreed with the recommendation. The consultant will be announced in January, and the project will begin in February. Mr. Harper said the project will include focus groups, including input from the various Village Commissions. Chairman Loftus asked if this input will be conducted during regular meetings of the Plan Commission, and Mr. Harper answered and that it may require special meetings outside of regular PC meetings. Mr. Harper reported on the Village Board approval of the Legacy Shop’s parking variations, and a Village code amendment to allow restaurants in the C4 office district. He reported that the Architectural Appearance Commission approved exterior modifications to the property located at 505 Pennsylvania Avenue. Chairman Loftus asked if there would be agenda items for consideration by the Plan Commission at their January 2026 meeting. Mr. Harper said some projects were in development, but he could not say with certainty that documents would be ready for the Commission’s review in January. Mr. Harper said the public notification deadline is January 7, 2026, and if the required documents are received by the deadline the items would be pushed to the February Plan Commission meeting. H. Other Business - None Seeing no further discussion, Chairman Loftus requested a Motion to Adjourn. Commissioner Pesce motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cooper. All voted in favor of the motion. I. Adjourn 8:17PM

Agenda

Packet

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, December 11, 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 November 13, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting. D. New Business 1) Sign Variations — 486 Pennsylvania Avenue, Maplewood Brewery & Distillery 2) Special Use Permit — 499 Anthony Street, Single-Family Detached Home E. Trustee Liaison's Report F. Chairman's Report G. Staff Report H. Other Business I. Adjourn Civility Pledge - In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others, acknowledging that we are striving to support and improve our community, and understanding that we each may have different ideas for achieving that objective. Page 1 of 24 DRAFT MINUTES Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, Nov. 13, 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, Arango, Brown, Cooper, Doughtery, Kreuzer, Morrison. Commissioner Pesce and Wyant are absent. Also in attendance: Steve Thompson, Village Trustee., Jennifer Henaghan, Community Development Director., and Adriana Ohl Zamora, Recording Secretary. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) There was no off-agenda audience comment. C. Approval of Minutes 1. Review and Approval of the October 23,2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Morrison moved to approve the minutes, Commissioner Kreuzer seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. D. New Business 1. Public Hearing: 1184 W. Roosevelt Road (Legacy Shops of Glen Ellyn) Sworn in Jennifer Henaghan, Community Development Director presented on the agenda item below: The petitioner, Dominick Canata on behalf of the property owner Legacy Shops of Glen Ellyn, LLC has submitted a petition to consider zoning variations related to a renovation of an existing commercial retail center located at 1182-1184 Roosevelt Road, the “Legacy Shops of Glen Ellyn.” The subject property is a 2-acre parcel that has been vacant and zoned C3 Service Commercial District. The proposed development will keep building as is, extending sidewalks for ADA compliance, repairing signs, painting existing brick and front, replace existing windows, with outdoor dining and new canopy. The rear will have new paint, siding; existing signs will be repaired and repainted, landscaping will be adding 22 new trees, shade trees, ornamental trees, shrubs. The petitioner requests zoning variations to allow for proposed renovations of the existing multi-tenant commercial center located at 1184 Roosevelt Road to be known as the Legacy Shops of Glen Ellyn. Their plans include significant façade alteration and conversion of the existing retail space into two restaurants and various retail and service uses. The Petitioner seeks the following variations from the Village’s Zoning Code and Sign Code: 1. A variation from Section 10-4-15(G) to allow 73 parking spaces on site in lieu of the 83 spaces required. 2. A variation from Section 10-5-8(H) to not provide landscape islands at the end of every row of parking stalls. 3. A variation from Section 10-5-8(F) to allow parking spaces to be 18' in length in lieu of 19'. 4. A variation from Section 10-5-8(I) to allow a minimum drive-aisle width of 21'-1" in lieu of the required 25' width. 5. A variation from Section 10-5-9(H) to allow one loading space in lieu of the required two. 6. A variation from Section 10-4-15(G)(1)(a) to allow a vehicle parking setback 4’ rather than 10’. 7. A variation from Section 10-5-5(C)(1) to allow an impervious surface setback of 3’-9" in lieu of 14.87'. 8. A variation from Section 4-5-18(I) to allow for the reestablishment of an existing non- conforming freestanding sign and to allow for alteration in copy of the sign faces Commissioner Kreuzer- Will new sign be illuminated? As far as you know? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director- It is my understanding that it will be illuminated. Page 2 of 24 Commissioner Kreuzer-I didn’t see anything in the presentation as far as illumination. To what extend has the Village considered this? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -If it is installed so that it is unshielded, they would be required to make it to code. Commissioner Kreuzer-Why not asked for fixed mount fixture to ultimately shine out? Do we know where it will be installed? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -You could do so; I will have petitioner explain that. Commissioner Morrison- when I was reading the Village Item report, is at the edge, a condo to north is in Glen Ellyn, is that property within Lombard? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -That is to the property to the south. Commissioner Morrison-The 8-ft wide parking spaces, are those in existence anywhere else in the Village? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -I know Village has granted parking variations for residential but not commercial. Chairperson Loftus- were 8-ft parking spaces code in Glen Ellyn at one point? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -I didn’t see any previous zoning relief for property, not sure if that changed at some time. Commissioner Brown- glad to see drive through no longer a factor, my question is Five corners came and presented to us, can you refresh my memory on that? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director – This property is multi-tenant and has different zoning. Commissioner Cooper- 8-ft width on parking spots. Would the width require a variation? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -Variation for parking space depth, yes variation required for width. Commissioner Cooper- if we grant these, it will not include the 8-ft width. Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director - Correct. Commissioner Cooper- parking spots in rear of property are intended for employees, front for customers. Is there anything in code that address parking spots for general public, customer? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -No the code does not distinguish between the both. Commissioner Morrison- can we clarify this, please? At the bottom of page two it does state width, can we clarify? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -No it is not included in the request. Commissioner Doughtery- the drive aisle width, variation is based on minimum width, could you walk us through the drive width? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -Eastern side of property is the narrowest, it does widen to about 23 feet in the middle, Employee area is below 25ft. Western side is 24ft. 21-ft is the smallest, part of that is due to expansion of sidewalks. Chairperson Loftus- if the variations are not granted for number spaces, will property be able to be used as shopping area? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -It would affect the usage of the property, would not be able to have both restaurants. Commissioner Cooper- The building immediately to east of this, is that operational? Page 3 of 24 Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director -It is currently vacant, I don’t think they have gotten permits for anything. Petitioner Sworn in- Andrew Balzer Petitioner Andrew Balzer- There has been a lot of effort between my group and your group to try to compromise and get this project going. Commissioner Morrison- what is your relationship to applicant? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - I work for Brookline Real Estate LLC. Commissioner Kreuzer- what is Brookline’s relationship here? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - Brookline Real Estate LLC is the owner. Commissioner Kreuzer- where is there office? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - it is in Chicago. Commissioner Morrison- are you looking for 8-ft wide parking variance? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - If that is what is needed, yes, we will be asking for it. Jennifer Henniger, Village Community Development Director- looking at site plan, it appears that every parking spot is 9ft wide. Commissioner Cooper- for clarification, the number of parking spots that are sot now, those would be 9ft wide? Jennifer Henniger, Village Community Development Director -Correct. Commissioner Cooper- thank you very much, we are excited to have this property reinvigorated; my concerns are parking, and loading area. Parking, you anticipate that customers would be parking on the southern side of the site? Do we really have sufficient parking for customers? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - we are comfortable with parking. Commissioner Cooper- how many stalls will be at this salon? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - I am not sure if I have the actual number, I don’t have that detail. Commissioner Cooper- I can imagine on a Saturday afternoon, that the 42 parking spots in front might be challenging. Any concerns with no handicap parking near the restaurant? Petitioner Andrew Balzer -I don’t know if that is for me to answer. Jennifer Henniger, Village Community Development Director - when engineering does their review, if we need to move parking spots that is when we do it. Commissioner Cooper- do I understand that it will also serve as commissary? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - No not correct, cooking would be onsite and catering only. I would say that is a comment from the history of this project, I would say that is not correct. Commissioner Cooper- I just want to clarify, as this will only have one loading zone, and you are representing that you will not use as commissary? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - One restaurant is committed, the second is speculated. Tenants to the left are secure, if the rest can’t meet what a tenant needs, then we will need to come back here to meet what the tenants need. Chairperson Loftus- if end unit becomes retail how many parking spaces would be deducted for that verses the restaurant, if it becomes retail. Page 4 of 24 Jennifer Henniger, Village Community Development Director -It would be reduced by 5 spaces. Commissioner Kreuzer- wall mount exterior fixtures that are adjustable, meaning adjusted at any angle. Do you know if the developer is willing to change that? Petitioner Andrew Balzer - I would say anything that we do would need to be code compliant, I don’t know if fixture type was looked at. Commissioner Kreuzer- your Lumens are sky high, and very bright. Idea of keeping fixtures shielded is important. Adjustable wall mounts could affect that. Sounds like you are flexible to that? Petitioner Andrew Balzer -Yes, to the extent that we meet code, and try to beautify the current sign along with landscaping. Commissioner Kreuzer- do you know what this pure edge lighting is and where it will be installed? Do you know what color? Petitioner Andrew Balzer -I do not know to that degree. I do not. Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director- black or white brick and siding will be brown. Commissioner Brown- There are renderings on the Brookline website Commissioner Cooper- Jennifer, if in fact this facility will be used as a commissary, is that a permitted use in the C3 zoning district? Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director- If it were a standalone use, no it would be permitted, but due to size and its use within a restaurant, we see it as being acceptable. Commissioner Brown- do you anticipate any Uber Eats or Doordash, and if so do you have designated parking spots? Petitioner Andrew Balzer -We do not have any designated spots, I do know it is nice to have dedicated spots but I don’t know if we have the luxury for that here. Commissioner Arango- it has not been determined that the western most lease space would be a restaurant? Petitioner Andrew Balzer -We are planning for it to be a restaurant, but we have no commitment yet, no signed lease yet. Commissioner Doughtery- in staff report they talk about drive by on western side, there is a curve on western side which is continuous, is that a concern? Petitioner Andrew Balzer -The concern on the report has been addressed in our plans, so that was addressed. Commissioner Doughtery- if you are looking for a parking spot and none are available, so if you did want to park in the back you would have to leave the property and re-enter. Jennifer Henaghan, Village Community Development Director-Yes that is correct. The space is not perfect. Commissioner Kreuzer- Fry the Coup is going in? Petitioner Andrew Balzer -Yes correct. Commissioner Brown- Could you potentially flip the one way to avoid any back up if the restaurant does not go in? Petitioner Andrew Balzer -I guess it is something that we could look at, not sure if I can address the geometry of how it plays out. The way it was drawn was driven by staff recommendations and us trying to comply. Commissioner Cooper- in looking at this, I want to know more about Fry the Coop- he’s about to open his 10th location and talked about opening his 11th which included a commissary. I am going to discuss that and consider that. Motion to Close Public Hearing by Commissioner Kreuzer, Seconded by Commissioner Arango. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Page 5 of 24 Public Hearing Closed Deliberation- Commissioner Kreuzer- Peter, I would like to know a little more about your concerns about the Commissary. Commissioner Cooper- The concern is that if it is indeed going to be a commissary, it would have insufficient loading and it would affect the parking and increase traffic. Looking at site plan, just north- there is something that says loading space 12’x15’. Commissioner Kreuzer- So could it accommodate that space? Commissioner Cooper- Potentially. Commissioner Kreuzer- I do have concerns about lighting, my impression is that there is a lot of hardship with this case, with exception of other Commissioner concerns, I like what I see and am prepared to vote yes. I would like condition that lighting will be shielded, and wall mount adjustable lights. Commissioner Brown- Will architectural review be reviewing this? Commissioner Kreuzer- It does not qualify for architectural review. Commissioner Brown- On page 4, exterior improvements, it discusses why it does not qualify. Chairperson Loftus requested for a motion to accept the variation as presented, Commissioner Brown made motion to approve the requested variations as presented, Commissioner Doughtery seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote Yes (6) No (1). Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Commissioner Morrison, Seconded by Commissioner Brown, Motion passed by voice vote Yes (7), No (0). E. Trustee Liaison’s Report • Have been working on Budget, about 90 million, operational and capital. • Approval of the demolition of Taft hotel site, western part has been approved, asbestos work starting next week. • On the Eastern side, plan approved by Illinois EPA to complete demolition. • Starbucks moving along. • Chicken Salad Chicken- opening next week on Wednesday. • New Indian restaurant just opened, east of old US Bank site. • Still budget for Engineering for the train, when that is complete, it will go to grants. • C-4 zoning district text amendment approved by Village board as voted on by Plan Commission. • Zoning Code Update, going out to RFP looking for Zoning Code consultant- entire comprehensive plan approach. F. Chairman’s Report- None G. Staff Report • Text amendment of C-4 zoning district was approved by Village Board. • December we have 2 Items, presented December 11: o Signage variation by Maplewood Brewery. o 499 Anthony building that has a therapy office, residential on 2nd floor- variation to make single family home. H. Other Business I. Adjourn 8:17PM Page 6 of 24 Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 12/11/2025 7:00 PM Commission Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-1012 # 2025-1012) Sign Variations — 486 Pennsylvania Avenue, Maplewood Brewery & Distillery Statement of the Issue: The petitioner, Maplewood Brewery & Distillery, has submitted a petition to consider sign variations related to a renovation of the existing building to be operated by Maplewood Brewery and Distillery. Analysis: REQUEST: The Petitioner seeks the following variations from the Village’s Sign Code: 1. A variation from Section 4-5-11(A) to allow five (5) signs for the establishment in lieu of the maximum of one (1) sign per establishment. 2. A variation from Section 4-5-6(C) to allow an awning valance sign to have a maximum height of ten inches (0’-10”) in lieu of the maximum allowed awning valance sign height of six inches (0’-6”). 3. A variation from Section 4-5-4(R)(3) to allow a freestanding sign to be setback six inches (0’-6”) from the property line in lieu of the minimum setback of five feet (5’-0”). 4. A variation from Section 4-5-4(R)(6) to allow the material of the support structure of the sign to not match the primary material of the front building façade. BACKGROUND: The building is located downtown in the C5B Commercial Zoning District. The building is approximately 7,800 square feet in size and was most recently occupied as Two-Hound Red Brewery and Restaurant. The new tenent will be transitioning the building to be operated by Maplewood Brewery and Distillery. The applicant is proposing to modify the interior of the building for the new occupant and is also proposing exterior modifications to expand the functionality of the space for the new occupant. The proposed exterior modifications for the building have been reviewed by the Architectural Appearance Commission and were approved by the Village Board of Trustees at their November 10th meeting. As part of the transition to the Maplewood Brewery, the applicant is proposing a variety of sign variations that will allow for a total of five (5) signs for the establishment as well as awning valance signs that exceed the allowed height restriction. Page 7 of 24 SURROUNDING USES: Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding Zoning North: Single-Family Residential C5B Central Business District South: Restaurant and Medical Office C5A and C5B Central Business District East: Office C5B Central Business District West: Office C5B Central Business District PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the November 21, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald. SIGN VARIATIONS SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing a variety of variations from the Village's Sign Code to accommodate multiple signs on the property for the new tenent of Maplewood Brewery and Distillery. The first variation request is from Section 4-5-11(A) to allow five (5) signs for the establishment in lieu of the maximum of one (1) sign per establishment. Per the Village's Sign Code, an establishment may only have one sign. The type of sign can be a wall sign, awning sign, marquee sign, projecting sign or freestanding sign. Wall Signs: The applicant is requesting three (3) wall signs, a freestanding sign and an awning sign for the property. One (1) wall sign, located on the south wall of the building that faces Pennsylvania Avenue, has already been applied for and approved by Village staff. The applicant is applying for variations that would allow an additional wall sign located on the west and east walls of the building as well. Both west and east wall signs are proposed to be manufactured of painted acrylic letters that would be fastened to the wall. The applicant is proposing LED lighting behind the sign or can lights above the signs to illuminate them. Both of the additional proposed wall signs are proposed to be approximately 9 sqft in area. Awning Sign and Valance Sign: The applicant is requesting a 6.5 square foot awning sign to be located on the southern drop down portion of the awning covering the outdoor dining area. Because this sign is not located on the valance of the awning, it has been classified as an awning sign per Village review. The applicant is also requesting a variation to allow for the awning valance signs to be ten inches (0'-10") in height in lieu of the maximally allowed six inches (0'-6"). The applicant is claiming that the awning valance is eleven inches (0'-11") in height and that they would like to exceed the maximally allowed six inches so that the type on the valance is in proportion to the valance surface area. Awning valance signs are exempt from permitting per the Village's sign code and do not qualify as an additional sign. Parking Lot Free Standing Sign: The fifth sign that is being proposed by the applicant is for a monument sign located on the southeast landscaping island of the parking lot entrance to the site. The proposed sign would be 16 square feet in area and on a metal pedestal and is non-illuminated. The metal pedestal base of the monument sign requires a variation from Section 4-5-4(R)(6) to allow the material of the support structure of the sign to not match the primary material of the front building façade. The proposed location of the sign would require a variation from Section 4-5- 4(R)(3) to allow a freestanding sign to be setback six inches (0’-6”) from the property line in lieu of the minimum setback of five feet (5’-0”). Page 8 of 24 Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The Plan Commission should consider the petitioner’s request for approval of sign variations and make a recommendation to the Village Board for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. In reviewing the requested variations, the Commission should consider the criteria in Section 4-5-2 of the Sign Code. Attachments: 1. Aerial Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Application - Sign Variation 4. Maplewood Proposed Sign Variation Plans Page 9 of 24 Aerial Map - 486 Pennsylvania Avenue Legend Subject Property 0 50 100 Print Date: 10/21/2025 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 10 of 24 Zoning Map - 486 Pennsylvania Avenue Legend Zoning and Development Zoning C5A: Central Business District (Retail Core) Subject Property C5B: Central Business District (Service) 0 50 100 Print Date: 10/21/2025 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 11 of 24 VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN Sign Variation Application Packet Community Development Department 535 Duane Street – Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 – Telephone 630.547.5250 – Fax 630.547.5370 Page 12 of 24 APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIATION Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Application No: 2025-0051 Name of Applicant: Maplewood Brewery & Distillery Address of Applicant: 486 Pennsylvania Ave Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Interest of Applicant: Owner Name of Owner: Jon With Address of Owner: 486 Pennsylvania Ave Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Contacts: Type Name Address Phone Email Maplewood Brewery & 486 Pennsylvania Ave Glen Petitioner Distillery Ellyn, IL 60137 Maplewood Brewery & 486 Pennsylvania Ave Glen Web Administrator Distillery Ellyn, IL 60137 486 Pennsylvania Ave Glen Parcel Owner Jon With Ellyn, IL 60137 Property Address: 486 Pennsylvania Ave Project Name: Web Project Project Description: Hello, Maplewood Brewery & Distillery recently purchased this building and is intending on rebranding from Two Hound Red. Based on feedback of customers, neighbors, and other businesses; the building's outside lacks identity and street presence. This is especially true when it is dark outside. In addition to the swapping of the existing sign to our similar sized sign, we are requesting placement of three additional signs. This will allow us to have better street presence for the East and West Traveler. Additionally adding a freestanding sign to the parking lot entrance will show that this lot is for our customers and not an open lot, a common problem identified by the previous owner. Legal Description of Property: Page 13 of 24 A 7,850 brewpub with a parking lot. Zoning: C5B, Central Business District (Service) Lot Dimensions: 112.25' X 164.41' Lot Area: 18331 : 05113100500000 Present Use: Brew Pub Narrative Statement: We are looking to add a sign to the west wall above the window, a sign above the double-door entrance, and a free-standing sign at the entrance to the parking lot to mark the lot as ours. EVIDENCE RELATING TO SIGN CODE STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: 1. Provide evidence that due to the characteristics of the property in question, there are practical difficulties or particular hardship for the applicant/owner in carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Code: The current location of the sign is not visible from East & West drivers, which is about 90% of the drivers on the street. 2. Indicate how you believe the requested variation(s) complies with the Statement of Purpose in Section 4-5-2 of the Sign Code: These signs requested are very in line with many of the businesses in town and directly at our intersection. Examples include Glen Oaks Cafe and Compass. All are within normal sizes of the village. 3. Provide evidence that the practical difficulties or hardship in complying with the Sign Code is based on unique circumstances due to an unusual physical limitation of the property that is peculiar to the subject property or establishment. Also share how the conditions upon which the request is based are not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. 1) The main sign is on Pennsylvania Avenue. This misses East/West Drivers. 2) Placing a sign above the main doors on the east side and also sign above the window on the west side allows people to see it while driving past. 3) The parking lot currently has many non- customers using the space. We would like to make this lot more obvious that it is ours. 4. Provide evidence that the practical difficulties or hardship in complying with the Sign Code is based on unique circumstances due to an unusual physical limitation, such as an irregular lot shape, substantial lot depth, unusual geographic location, exceptional topographic feature, or other condition, that is peculiar to the subject property or establishment. Page 14 of 24 Same comments as above, we want to ensure that this building’s signage is visible to people driving east and west on the street. 5. Provide evidence that the variation(s), if granted, would have no adverse impact on property values in the surrounding area or be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. No, these signs are very much in line with other businesses. 6. Provide evidence that the variation(s), if granted, would have no adverse impact on the existing or desired character of the surrounding area: No, these signs are very much in line with other businesses. 7. Provide evidence that the variation(s), if granted, would not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare: No concerns. Two signs would be fastened to the wall, and one is free standing in grass surrounded by curb. 8. Provide evidence that the purpose of the variation(s) is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property: No, these signs are very much in line with other businesses. 9. Provide evidence that the alleged difficulty or particular hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property or by the applicant: No, these signs are very much in line with other businesses. 10. Provide evidence that the requested variation(s) is/are the minimum variation(s) necessary: These signs are all proportionally tasteful sizes in order to mark the property and create awareness. 11. Provide evidence that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located: Based on feedback from customers, neighbors, and other businesses; the buildings outside lacks identity and street presence. This is especially true when it is dark outside 12. Please add any comments which may assist the commission in reviewing this application. We are hopeful these requests are reasonable. Our size and design parameters are based on us walking through the downtown area and being in line with other neighboring businesses. Page 15 of 24 WEST WALL: For reference the window in this photo is 39” tall by 99” wide. There is an existing electrical outlet in the wall directly behind where the ‘E’ is. OPTION 1 – Painted acrylic letters fastened to wall. With an LED strip behind it or can lights above. Proposed sign would be 72” wide with letter size as, The M with Chevron is 20.6211", The W (which can be used for the other standard letterforms) is 17.0287". OPTION 2 – A 48X24 lightbox style sign affixed to the wall directly above the window in the same size above. Example is shown here: https://lightboxshop.com/outdoor-lightbox-sign-24x48-single-faced Page 16 of 24 EAST WALL - MAIN ENTRANCE OPTION 1 - For reference the top Glass pane is 70.5 inches wide. With the metal frame perimeter, it expands to 75”. The black trim expands the width to 95”. The White strip on the left is 10” while the white strip on the right is 30.25”. The brick to the right before the white line is 44.5”. Painted acrylic "M" logo or "Maplewood Logo" fastened above center of door. Illuminated by existing can lights. OPTION 2- Painted acrylic letters fastened to wall. Illuminated by existing can lights. Proposed sign would be 72” wide with letter size as, The M with Chevron is 20.6211", The W (which can be used for the other standard letterforms) is 17.0287". Page 17 of 24 PENNSYLVANIA PARKING LOT ENTRANCE Add a freestanding non-powered sign to the grass area right at the sidewalk. 48” wide by 24”. The proposed sign would be constructed of wood or metal. This is being requested specifically to deter non-customers from parking in the parking lot. The previous tenant expressed that this was an issue during their operation. For reference, widest part of curb to sidewalk is 71”, while shortest curb to sidewalk is 56”. The sidewalk size length is 208” while the parking lot side is 192” AWNING SIGN We are requesting an additional sign variation to the existing awning. We plan to use the same frame and switch from the old/dirty red awning to a new black awning with our logo on the valance. The current code says that lettering and logos located on the valance of an awning provided the valance does not exceed eight inches in height and no lettering or logos exceed six inches in height. The issue we have is that the existing awning has a valance of 11” and we would like the lettering to not exceed 10” for the East Side. On the South Side the valance tapers down to 11” so if we center, we would like the letters to not exceed 16” in height by 60" wide. The below two images depict the new view of the location with this change. Page 18 of 24 Page 19 of 24 Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 12/11/2025 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: 2025-1019 # 2025-1019) Special Use Permit — 499 Anthony Street, Single-Family Detached Home Statement of the Issue: The petitioner is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit to convert the existing building from the current commercial use with upper-story residential to a single-family detached residential use in the C5B — Central Business District (Service) zoning district. Analysis: PUBLIC HEARING: A notice of public hearing for the requested approvals was published in the November 21, 2025, edition of the Daily Herald. Property owners within 250 feet of the property were notified by mail of the public hearing and placard signs were placed on the site. SITE CONDITIONS: The subject property is approximately 6,098 square feet in area and is currently used as an office-commercial property with an upper-story residential unit in the C5B zoning district. SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: Zoning in the surrounding area is zoned C5B – Central Business District (Service) to the East, South and West; the properties across Anthony Street to the immediate North of the subject property are zone R2 – Single-Family Residential District. Location Zoning/Use North R2 — Single Family Residential East C5B — Central Business District (Service) South C5B — Central Business District (Service) West C5B — Central Business District (Service) PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant and owner of the property, Iryna Arute, has proposed a change to the use of the property at 499 Anthony Street. Currently, the Mansio Center, a therapy office, is located at the site that also includes an upper-story residential apartment unit. In order for the building to be used entirely as a single-family detached home, a Special Use Permit is required per Section 10-4-17-2 of the Village Zoning Code. There are no proposed exterior alterations to the building. However, staff analysis of the property indicates that the lot is nonconforming due to the Page 20 of 24 total area of the property and the building is nonconforming due to its rear yard setback. Per Section 10-4-17-2(D)5(e) of the Village Code, lots being used as a single-family detached home are required to have a minimum area of 8,712 square feet. 499 Anthony Street is 6,970 square feet in area per County records. Section 10-4-17-2(D)5(c) requires single-family detached residential use lots to have a minimum rear-yard setback of 30 feet (30'-0"). The existing rear yard setback for the principal structure at 499 Anthony Street is approximately eight feet (8'-0"). The applicant has acknowledged that upon the granting of the special use permit, the business signage would be removed and that professional activity would be limited to what is permissible for home occupations in the Village Code. The property has a driveway in the front yard of the property that is currently used as off-street parking for office and residential use. The property meets the required minimum of two (2) off- street parking spaces for residential uses, but the property does not have a garage on the site. If, at some point in the future, the property owner wishes to construct a garage accessory structure or addition to the home, the proposed garage will be required to be in conformance with either Sections 10-4-17-2 or 10-5-4 of the Village Code. The applicant describes the purpose of the change of use as to, "preserve and enhance the character of the property while maintaining its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and commercial district." Dr. Arute cites a reduction of traffic to the property, reduced density, and improved long-term maintenance and stewardship of the property has positive impacts of the proposal. No exterior structural changes are proposed, and the applicant maintains that any modifications will be consistent with the Village's building and zoning standards and receive all required permitting. 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. In reviewing the requested variations, the Commission should consider the criteria in Section 10-10- 14 of the Zoning Code. Attachments: 1. Aerial Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Plat of Survey Page 21 of 24 Aerial Map - 499 Anthony Street SUP 0 500 1000 Print Date: 11/21/2025 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 22 of 24 Zoning Map - 499 Anthony Street SUP Legend Zoning and Development Zoning C5A: Central Business District (Retail Core) C5B: Central Business District (Service) R2: Single Family Residential District R4: Multi-Family Residential District 0 300 600 Print Date: 11/21/2025 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 23 of 24 Page 24 of 24