Plan Commission

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, May 28, 2026 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room Visitors are most welcome to attend all public meetings and can find copies of the Agenda online at www.glenellyn.org prior to the meeting. Any individual with a disability requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Village of Glen Ellyn ADA Coordinator, 630-469-5000, at least five (5) business days in advance of the next scheduled meeting. A. Call to Order B. Public Comment C. Approval of Minutes 1) Review and Approval of the April 23, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes D. New Business 1) Presentation and Review of Zoning Diagnostic Report 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 90  Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 5/28/2026 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: 2026-378 # 2026-378) Review and Approval of the April 23, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the April 23, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Analysis: Review and Approval of the April 23, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the April 23, 2026 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: 1. Draft_Plan_Commission_4_23_26 Minutes Page 2 of 90  DRAFT MINUTES Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, April 23, 2026 at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room A. Call to Order and Roll Call Commissioner Cooper 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, Brown, Cooper, Doughtery, Kreuzer, Pesce and Morrison are present. Commissioner Cooper and Wyant are absent. Also in attendance: Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn, Steve Thompson, Trustee Liaison, Jennifer Henaghan, Community Development, Gabby Brunner, Planning Intern, 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 March 26, 2026, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Brown moved to approve the minutes, Commissioner Pesce seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. Commissioner Brown made a motion to open the public hearing, Commissioner Arango seconded the motion, the motion passed by voice vote. D. New Business 1. Public Hearing - 470 N. Kenilworth Ave. Sworn In, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Village of Glen Ellyn Daniel Harper presented on the new business below: The petitioner, Jeffery Pelot, is requesting two zoning variations to allow the construction of a deck in the side yard with a side yard setback of six feet (6'-0") in the R4 Multi-family District. The property, known as Kenilworth Arms, is a five-story condominium. The petitioner is requesting two zoning variations to allow the construction of a 240 square foot deck located in the north side yard of the property with a side yard setback of six feet (6'-0"). The current non-conforming deck was constructed 8 years ago without a permit, and an additional 8 feet was added to the structure in summer 2025, also without a permit. This construction was discovered by the Village in 2025, and the applicant has submitted a variation request to allow for the existing structure to remain. Village staff reviewed the existing deck construction plans submitted by the applicant and discovered that the deck was not constructed in accordance with the Building Code. The applicant elected to remove the non-conforming deck with proper permitting procedure. The applicant has reported that he will remove the non-conforming deck and is requesting to construct a new deck in the same location that will conform to the Building Code and Village Zoning Code. The property owner is requesting approval of variations from the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code as follows: 1. A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(8) to allow a deck in the side yard setback. 2. A variation from Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(8) to allow a deck to be located six feet (6'-0") from the side property line in lieu of the required setback of twenty-four feet and one inch (24'-1"). Page 3 of 90 The petitioner maintains that the proposed use will not generate any additional noise, odors, glare, fumes, or vibration and that the request aligns well with the neighboring uses. He has reported that the request is to make the property more enjoyable for tenants, as there is limited outdoor space on the property for the residents. Commissioner Questions: The Commissioners all expressed concerns to Mr. Harper that include the following: • How would the new deck be visually different than the existing deck? • Is that a raised deck? • Have staff discussed alternative locations for the deck? • Why is the deck pushed so far North? • Is the current deck in a lawned area? • How many variations did we approve for the Park District maintenance building? Is this property affected by the Parking Act? • In the Park District, we requested not to have an above ground diesel tank. Do you know if it has been installed? • How many of these older apartment buildings do we have in Glen Ellyn? • Is the deck in an area that is generally dry? Mr. Harper responded that they could ask the petitioner about that today. There are some footing issues that were identified, so the property owner has elected to request a variance to build a new deck. The deck is slightly raised, so when the new deck is constructed, staff would want the deck to be constructed to meet accessibility standards so it would have no gradual lip. He said that staff have (discussed alternative locations), but most of the property is for parking. Staff didn’t look into removing any excess parking. It is pushed far North as a request to build a like-for-like as was originally there before, and staff want to allow some space to build a ramp for accommodation. The deck is by the grassy tree area. A residential area is not immediately to the North. (The Parking Act) has no effect on the application. It does not go into effect until June 1st. Staff is unsure how many variances were approved for the Park District maintenance building. There is no specific distance between deck and curb. Mr. Harper has no knowledge of the diesel tank installation. He stated that Glen Ellyn has a handful (of older apartment buildings) that were built in 70’s and 80’s without a lot of outdoor space for residents. He confirms that the area is generally dry. The Plan Commission should consider the petitioner’s request for approval of the zoning variations and make a recommendation to the Village Board for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. In deliberating this recommendation, the Plan Commission should consider the criteria in Section 10-10-12(E) of the Zoning Code. The following attachments were shown to Commissioners: • Aerial Map • Zoning Map • Plat of Survey with the deck’s location Petitioner Jeffrey Pelot was sworn in. Mr. Pelot stated the following: I built that deck about 10 years ago for the tenants. I know I built it without a permit. I did get greedy. I will do anything that you tell me to do to build that deck. No one complained, and we do enjoy the deck. I have an architect to build the deck. On the east side of deck, I did have a deck grill for the people and chairs which I will bring out eventually. Commissioners additionally asked the following questions: 1. Will the deck have built in utilities? 2. How are you related to the owner? 3. Are they condominiums or apartments? 4. Can you confirm that the footprint shown is what you plan to build, and you are not increasing the size? 5. Will you be rebuilding the deck? 6. How many parking spots? 7. Is there a canopy? Mr. Pelot said that no, it’s just a basic deck for the tenants to use. He’s not the owner. Paul hired him back in 2017, and he was the owner. Now, they have his daughter. Paul passed away a year ago. Page 4 of 90 They are known as condominiums, but they rent them as apartments. There is one owner of entire property with tenants. With setback from curb, it will be 12-14 inches from the curb. They want to keep it at 12x20. They can’t go into the south side because it slopes down, and the south side is closer to the street, not increasing the size of the deck. He will be rebuilding the deck himself. They have no residents that are against this deck. They have about 40 people who are in favor of the deck. They all enjoy it very much. Parking spots are numbered, and they have 95. They have tenants with 2 cars, so parking is an issue. Mr. and Mrs. Davis are putting up the cost for the deck, and no canopy will be built. In the front, there are pavers and benches. The front is too close to the apartments, and they don’t want to disturb their neighbors. The only windows on north side of building are for staircases. The signature page was entered into evidence. Public Comment- There were written submitted comments. Sworn in, Daniel Stevens, Michael Morland, Esther Corona, and Tommy Ells. Mr. Stevens, a resident in favor of the deck, stated that the community needs this in their building, and it brings people together. It’s a nice place. It’s a nice addition for going outside and nice to have when people are over. It’s important to have a sense of community for a face-to-face conversation. Mr. Morland said he has lived there for 8 years, and he takes his walks around the building. He has met more people there since they have had that deck. His mom would visit, and she loved the place so much that she too moved in. Mr. Pelot wants the deck to look good but does not want to have it stand out. He wants it to be useful and welcomed by people. Ms. Corona said that the deck is meaningful to many of them, and it’s a place where neighbors connect and get together. Mr. Ells said that as of next month, he would have lived at Kenilworth Arms for 27 years. When Mr. Pelot came onboard, life got better, and he made the community feel more welcoming and warmer. Mr. Pelot made this a community. These are one-bedroom apartments, and to have a place to connect is great. The tenants can sit in their one-bedroom apartment or go to the deck. He is very grateful that tenants have had that deck for as long as they have. Mr. Morgan stated that he had lived at Kenilworth for 14 years, and up until Mr. Pelot came, they were all in their apartments. They never got to meet our neighbors. Mr. Pelot overbuilds everything, and the deck allows us to get out and meet each other and enjoy the company. Ms. Ryan, a tenant for 8 or 9 years, said that Kenilworth is one of the best apartments that she has ever lived in. The amenities are clean, and they are well-kept apartments. The deck was well made. There is a sense of community. Regarding noise, her apartment faces west, and she can hear people on the deck and really likes that. It makes her feel like there is family out there. She mentions that it is not obnoxiously loud. That does not happen there, and people are very respectful. It is a nice place to sit. They have a front porch, but having the deck is a bonus. It adds to their quality of life and quality of the building. Mr. Pelot has really made it nice, and they have never had any accidents back there. Chairperson Loftus asked how the new Park District building is and if they are good neighbors. The Petitioner added that yes, there are no problems at all, whatsoever. He stated that there are tanks on north side. Only employees of the building park on that side. Commissioner Pesce motioned to close the public meeting, and it was seconded by Commissioner Morrison. Deliberation Commissioner Pesce stated that it’s refreshing in this age to see such a sense of community in the Village. It looks like a great space and he will be approving. Commissioner Kreuzer said they were as passionate of a group that they have ever had here, and it was very pleasant to hear such great stories. Commissioner Arango said congratulations to the residents present, who have made that community what it is. Page 5 of 90 Commissioner Morrison said that based on testimony, this is not just about money. He finds that based on testimony, this meets the criteria set out in granting the variance. He appreciated their testimony as residents. Commissioner Brown stated that it was very heartwarming. Commissioner Kreuzer makes a motion to approve the two variance requests: 1. Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(8) to allow a deck in the side yard setback. 2. Section 10-5-5(B)(4)(8) to allow a deck to be located six feet (6'-0") from the side property line in lieu of the required setback of twenty-four feet and one inch (24'-1") from the Zoning Board as presented. Commissioner Kreuzer moved that the petition that was presented by petitioner be submitted as evidence, seconded by Commissioner Brown. The motion passed with a (7) yes to (0) no vote. Commissioner Morrison motioned to approve findings of facts, seconded by Commissioner Brown. E. Trustee Liaison’s Report • Trustee Liaison Thompson stated that a presentation about the Reno Center Public Works Facility project may come before the Plan Commission. Will be improved so that we would have all major vehicles under cover in a garage that extends life of vehicles. Village staff presented a plan that would cost 48 million dollars. The old Reno Center, in interim, would house the Fire Department. He stated that the Plan Commission’s comments and input are needed. • Regarding the north side of the fire station location, all options are on the table. Commissioner Brown asked how much the new maintenance facility was for the Park District. Are there plans to enhance the area around the pond in Pan Fish? Ever since it was improved, the park has always been busy, and it’s great to see. Lots of families are taking advantage of it. Trustee Liaison Thompson stated that he did not remember what the total cost of maintenance facility was but that he could find out. With Pan Fish, he didn’t know if it will be improved, as the Village manages the pond water, but he can look into it. He said regarding e-bikes, they have given more warnings, and they have interacted with schools to remind the children of the rules about e-bikes. The state of IL just came out with new e-bike regulations, so Glen Ellyn has to marry our policy with the state’s. F. Chairperson’s Report • Chairperson Loftus will not be here next month, and Commissioner Pesce will be filling in. G. Staff Report • Glowe Salon was given approval by the Village Board. • 22W Alstrand Rd was denied by the Village Board • 451 Duane is waiting for official submittal. • They are working with Dutch Bros Coffee, 750 Roosevelt Rd, on their application. Tomorrow, necessary revisions should arrive. There is some State approval that will be required from IDOT. A vote can be taken, and then the Plan Commission can wait for IDOT approval. Getting an IDOT permit can take years, and feedback can take months. • A 72-page diagnostic report for Zoning Code Project was received. This will be a topic of discussion for the May Plan Commission Meeting. • Round two of the plans have been resubmitted by the Wedding Suite, and they are working on a 3rd round of revisions. • The Chinese restaurant to west of wedding suite is closed, and the property is up for sale • Work has restarted on the old hotel property to the east, and they are continuing to work under guidance of EPA. Commissioner Brown motioned to close the Plan Commission Meeting, seconded by Commissioner Morrison. H. Other Business Page 6 of 90 I. Adjourn 8:25PM Page 7 of 90  Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 5/28/2026 7:00 PM Commission Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Presentation Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2026-409 # 2026-409) Presentation and Review of Zoning Diagnostic Report Statement of the Issue: ZoneCo has prepared a Zoning Diagnostic Report as part of the diagnostic module of the Village's Zoning Code update. The primary objective of this report was to assess, in detail, how well the current zoning regulations support the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the Village’s future. It identifies the key gaps, conflicts, and implementation issues in the existing code. Those findings will help guide the refinement of use permissions, dimensional standards, procedures, and district structure that will be discussed by the Plan Commission and other Village boards and commissions over the next several months. Analysis:While the Comprehensive Plan provides the overarching roadmap for the Village’s future, the zoning code is a regulatory document that gives that vision legal force. The zoning code translates policy direction into enforceable standards for land use, building form, and development character. This Diagnostic Report serves as a vital link between the high-level vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the day-to-day application of zoning regulations. This report was prepared by a team of planning and zoning professionals through an independent review of Glen Ellyn’s adopted plans, policies, and regulations. The team also drew upon national best practices in zoning reform, local interviews, an open community survey, and extensive professional experience working with peer communities to evaluate the existing zoning code and identify areas for revision, clarification, and modernization. In general, the findings of the report point to a code that is doing too much of its work through complexity, exceptions, and case-specific relief, and not enough through clear, well-structured standards that reflect adopted policy direction. The recommended zoning update therefore focuses on four overarching themes: reorganizing and simplifying the ordinance so it is easier to navigate and apply; restructuring residential and mixed-use districts around housing types and form rather than only lot size; recalibrating dimensional and nonconformity standards to better fit Glen Ellyn’s existing neighborhoods and desired infill patterns; and modernizing commercial, corridor, and campus districts to support reinvestment and mixed-use while providing more predictable, context-sensitive transitions to adjacent residential areas. Next Steps The next phase of the Zoning Code update is the calibration module, in which the consultant team will assist the Village in developing a workable regulatory structure that can be applied clearly and consistently. To accomplish this, the Plan Commission will be discussing the various elements of the Page 8 of 90 Zoning Code in detail over the summer months. Although this timeline is subject to change, we anticipate that the Plan Commission will be discussing the following topics as follows: • June 25: New use terms and definitions, nonconformities, administration, and enforcement regulations • July 23: Use lists, definitions, use standards, and table of use permissions by zoning district • August 27: Revisions to zoning district layouts, use tables, standards, terms, and definitions • September 24: General development standards In addition to the Plan Commission working meetings, certain elements of the Zoning Code will be discussed with Village boards and commissions and external groups that have a particular interest in a topic. Village staff will be working with the following groups to obtain their input, which will be shared with the members of the Plan Commission to help guide their decision-making: • Alliance of Downtown Glen Ellyn: commercial regulations focusing on the C5A and C5B Districts (June 17) • Architectural Appearance Commission: form-based code elements and landscaping (tentatively July 8, August 12) • Community Relations Commission: supportive and affordable housing (June 4, September 3) • Environmental Commission: lighting, stormwater (including green infrastructure), landscaping, and sustainable transportation (tentatively June 16, August 18) • Glen Ellyn Chamber of Commerce: commercial regulations (to be confirmed) • Historic Preservation Commission: nonconforming structures and lots (June 18) • Zoning Board of Appeals: single-family residential regulations (July 14, August 11) The timeline discussed by the Village Board in January anticipates that a public review draft of the new Zoning Code will be available in November in advance of a public open house in December. Following the public review and resulting revisions, the Zoning Code will be presented to the Plan Commission for consideration through the public hearing process with final action by the Village Board in early 2027. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested:Review the attached Zoning Diagnostic Report and provide feedback to ZoneCo and Village staff regarding its findings and conclusions. Staff is seeking the Plan Commission's direction on the following questions: 1. The report finds that the current code relies too heavily on complexity, exceptions, and case- by-case relief. Does the Plan Commission agree with that characterization, or are there areas where you feel that flexibility is working as intended and should be preserved? Page 9 of 90  2. Of the four overarching themes (simplification, restructuring districts around housing form, recalibrating dimensional standards, and modernizing commercial corridors) which does the Plan Commission see as the highest priority? Are there any you'd approach with more caution? 3. The report was informed by community survey results, local interviews, and peer community benchmarking. Are there findings where you feel the community's voice isn't adequately reflected, or where you'd want staff to dig deeper before moving to calibration? 4. The report recommends restructuring residential districts around housing types and form rather than lot size alone. How does the Plan Commission want to balance expanded housing variety with protecting the character of established neighborhoods? 5. As the Zoning Board of Appeals takes up single-family residential regulations this summer, are there specific nonconformity or dimensional issues you'd like flagged for their attention? 6. Transitions between commercial and residential areas are identified as a concern. What does the Plan Commission consider an acceptable level of predictability versus flexibility in how those transitions are regulated? 7. Several external groups are providing input on specific topics. Are there groups or perspectives you feel are missing from that list? 8. The Diagnostic Report is meant to link the Comprehensive Plan's vision to enforceable zoning standards. Are there areas where you feel the Comprehensive Plan itself is unclear or hasn't settled a policy question that the Zoning Code will be asked to resolve? 9. Looking ahead to the public hearing process in early 2027, what would a successful zoning update look like to you? Are there outcomes you'd consider a failure, even if the code is technically improved? Attachments: 1. Zoning Diagnostic Report May 2026 Page 10 of 90 Glen Ellyn, Illinois Zoning Diagnostic Report May 2026 1 of 80 Page 11 of 90 Executive Summary Introduction to a Zoning Diagnostic Report The development of this Diagnostic Report represents the first step in the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code Update project. This report evaluates the Village’s existing zoning code and its effectiveness in achieving the goals and objectives established in the Comprehensive Plan. Glen Ellyn has a strong tradition of community-based planning and proactive policy development. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the consultant team has reviewed several other relevant plans, studies, and initiatives with implications for zoning—such as those addressing housing, downtown development, and sustainability. The primary objective of this Diagnostic Report is to assess, in detail, how well the current zoning regulations support the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for the Village’s future. It is important for the community to understand how this Diagnostic Report differs from the Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan is the product of a broad, community-driven process that establishes a long-range vision for growth, development, and preservation. The goals derived from this process often vary in scale—from broad aspirations such as “Maintain and enhance the character of established neighborhoods” to more specific objectives like “Encourage mixed-use redevelopment in the downtown.” While the Comprehensive Plan provides the overarching roadmap for the Village’s future, the zoning code is a regulatory document that gives that vision legal force. The zoning code translates policy direction into enforceable standards for land use, building form, and development character. This Diagnostic Report serves as a vital link between the high-level vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the day-to-day application of zoning regulations. This report was prepared by a team of planning and zoning professionals through an independent review of Glen Ellyn’s adopted plans, policies, and regulations. The team drew upon the Glen Ellyn Comprehensive Plan, national best practices in zoning reform, and extensive professional experience working with peer communities to evaluate the existing zoning code and identify areas for revision, clarification, and modernization. Methodology This diagnostic assessment was conducted through a multi-step methodology designed to evaluate the effectiveness, clarity, and implementability of the Village’s zoning regulations in relation to adopted plans and policy direction. The consultant team started by reviewing key Village planning documents, including the Comprehensive Plan, Housing Assessment, Active Transportation Plan, Downtown Strategic 2 of 80 Page 12 of 90 Plan, and the Streetscape and Parking Study. This review established the community’s adopted vision, goals, and implementation priorities related to land use, housing, transportation, and economic development. The team conducted a detailed evaluation of the residential standards and zoning districts (RE, R0, R1, R2, R2B, R3, R4, and R5). This included analyzing the purpose and intent of each district, permitted and special uses, dimensional and bulk standards, accessory structure provisions, massing and building form, definitions, and measurement/interpretation rules. The residential analysis specifically considered how well the current regulations support the goals of the Housing Assessment, Comprehensive Plan, related strategic documents, including policies related to housing diversity, accessory dwelling units, and neighborhood character. The team evaluated the commercial and mixed-use zoning districts (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C5A, C5B, C6, I1, and CC). This assessment focused on district purpose, use permissions and mixing of uses, form-based standards, and overall alignment with Comprehensive Plan goals to grow and diversify key commercial districts, enhance physical form and site design, and ensure appropriate transitions to adjacent residential areas. Special attention was given to subareas and key opportunity sites, including Downtown Glen Ellyn, the Roosevelt Road Corridor, Stacy’s Corners, C4 office areas, and areas identified for potential annexation. The organization, clarity, and usability of the zoning ordinance were assessed. This included a review of overall document structure, the consistency and use of terms, cross-references, and the clarity of standards and graphics from the perspective of both administrators and end users. The team evaluated the administration and procedures of the zoning ordinance, including the roles and responsibilities of decision-making bodies, application types and thresholds, review procedures and sequencing, approval criteria and decision standards, timelines and extensions, the allocation of administrative versus discretionary authority, enforcement provisions, planned unit development (PUD) procedures, and the framework for nonconformities and appeals. The zoning code was also compared against results from stakeholder interviews and a community survey. The results of this engagement are described in greater detail in Section 2 of the Zoning Diagnostic Report. Together, these steps provide a comprehensive basis for identifying targeted revisions, structural improvements, and policy updates to better implement the Village’s adopted plans and goals related to housing, land use, and economic development while improving the user experience. Key Findings and Themes The diagnostic confirms that Glen Ellyn’s zoning code broadly supports long‑standing community values but is not well aligned with the Comprehensive Plan’s more contemporary expectations for housing variety, commercial reinvestment, and a clearer, more user‑friendly regulatory framework. Across residential and commercial districts, the code remains heavily oriented toward conventional single‑use zoning, detailed use lists, and lot‑size‑driven districts, rather than a structure organized around housing types, mixed‑use form, and consistent transitions between more intense areas and single‑family neighborhoods. The result is a system 3 of 80 Page 13 of 90 that can preserve character in many locations, but that often makes it unnecessarily difficult to deliver the modest, context‑sensitive infill and mixed‑use projects envisioned in recent plans. On the residential side, the analysis finds that the district framework and dimensional standards are not well calibrated to Glen Ellyn’s current housing needs or existing lot patterns. The code continues to favor detached single‑family development on relatively large lots, even as the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Assessment call for more townhomes, duplexes, small multifamily buildings, and accessory dwelling units in appropriate locations. Minimum lot area and width, side‑yard formulas, lot coverage limits, and height standards in core districts such as R2–R4 tend to push redevelopment toward larger replacement homes while making it harder to maintain and modestly expand smaller, more attainable homes or introduce missing‑middle housing near centers and corridors. Nonconformity rules and the pattern of recent residential variations further demonstrate that many common improvements—additions, garages, porches, and driveways—routinely require relief, indicating that baseline standards are out of step with the built fabric and typical homeowner projects. In the commercial and mixed‑use districts, the code only partially implements the subarea visions for Downtown, Roosevelt Road, Stacy’s Corners, the C4 office areas, and other key corridors. Downtown’s C5/C5A/C5B framework correctly emphasizes a compact, pedestrian‑oriented environment with upper‑story housing and parking credits, but it relies on highly specific use lists, layered special uses, and frequent PUD triggers that make it hard to adapt to evolving business models and to deliver context‑compliant infill without discretionary negotiations. Along Roosevelt Road, Butterfield Road, and in C2–C3 corridor areas, district purposes and standards still tilt toward auto‑oriented patterns, with limited mixed‑use permissions and only general expectations for building placement, access management, and screening at residential edges. Office, industrial, and institutional districts (including C4, I1, and CC) also lack fully articulated form and transition standards, making reinvestment, adaptive reuse, and campus evolution more dependent on case‑by‑case approvals than on clear, predictable rules. The report also identifies organization, terminology, and procedural structure as significant contributors to user frustration and inconsistent administration. The zoning ordinance is lengthy and text‑heavy, with key standards and definitions scattered across chapters, overlapping terminology for similar approvals and use types, and measurement rules that are not always intuitive, even for experienced users. Use permissions are spread through narrative sections rather than consolidated in clear tables; numeric standards are often embedded in paragraphs rather than supported by graphics; and definitions sometimes contain substantive regulations that should appear in operative provisions. On the procedural side, multiple application types, unclear thresholds between administrative and discretionary review, and PUD requirements that are applied to a wide range of projects can make the path to approval slow, uncertain, and highly dependent on interpretation. Taken together, these findings point to a code that is doing too much of its work through complexity, exceptions, and case‑specific relief, and not enough through clear, well‑structured standards that reflect adopted policy direction. The recommended zoning update therefore focuses on four overarching themes: reorganizing and simplifying the ordinance so it is easier to 4 of 80 Page 14 of 90 navigate and apply; restructuring residential and mixed‑use districts around housing types and form rather than only lot size; recalibrating dimensional and nonconformity standards to better fit Glen Ellyn’s existing neighborhoods and desired infill patterns; and modernizing commercial, corridor, and campus districts to support reinvestment and mixed‑use while providing more predictable, context‑sensitive transitions to adjacent residential areas. 5 of 80 Page 15 of 90 REPORT CONTENTS 1. Review of Village Planning Documents ........................................................................................... 8 1.1 Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 Housing Assessment ................................................................................................................ 9 1.3 Active Transportation Plan.....................................................................................................15 1.4 Downtown Strategic Plan .......................................................................................................16 1.5 Streetscape and Parking Study ............................................................................................17 2. Community Input ..............................................................................................................................18 2.1 Stakeholder Group Interviews ...............................................................................................18 2.2 Community Survey .................................................................................................................20 3. Assessment of Residential Zoning Standards ..............................................................................26 3.1 Overview: Review of Residential Zoning Standards...........................................................26 3.2 Reform Framework .................................................................................................................26 3.3 Residential District Structure and Housing Choice ............................................................27 3.4 Code Organization and Administrative Usability ................................................................28 3.5 Common Residential Improvements and Accessory Structures .....................................29 3.6 Driveways, Parking Placement, and Impervious Surface ..................................................31 3.7 Definitions, Terminology, and Measurement Rules ............................................................32 3.8 Lot Size Standards ..................................................................................................................33 3.9 Yard Standards........................................................................................................................34 3.10 Lot Coverage and Height .......................................................................................................36 3.11 Nonconformities and Existing Residential Development ...................................................37 3.12 District-Specific Findings and Reform Direction .................................................................38 3.13 Implementation Priorities .......................................................................................................40 3.14 Recommended Code Reorganization ..................................................................................41 4. Review of Commercial Zoning Districts ........................................................................................41 4.1 Analysis of Commercial Zoning Districts .............................................................................41 4.2 C1 ..............................................................................................................................................42 4.3 C2 Community Commercial District .....................................................................................42 4.4 C3 Service Commercial District ............................................................................................44 6 of 80 Page 16 of 90  4.5 C4 Office District .....................................................................................................................45 4.6 C5 Central Business District ..................................................................................................47 4.7 C5A Central Retail Core Subdistrict .....................................................................................48 4.8 C5B Central Service Subdistrict ...........................................................................................49 4.9 C6 Commercial/Multiuse Planned Development District ..................................................51 4.10 I1 Light Industrial District .......................................................................................................52 4.11 CC Community College District ............................................................................................53 4.12 Use Permissions and Mixing Uses........................................................................................54 4.13 Form-Based Standards ..........................................................................................................55 4.14 Alignment with Long Range Plans ........................................................................................56 5. Assessment of Organization, Clarity, and Style ...........................................................................58 5.1 Document Organization .........................................................................................................58 5.2 Consistency .............................................................................................................................59 5.3 Graphics ...................................................................................................................................63 6. Administration and Procedures ......................................................................................................63 6.1 Overall structure and roles ....................................................................................................64 6.2 Procedures: Clarity and Predictability ..................................................................................64 7. Recommendations Matrix................................................................................................................69 7 of 80 Page 17 of 90 1. Review of Village Planning Documents 1.1 Comprehensive Plan 1.1.1 Overview of the Plan The Glen Ellyn Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2023) – hereby referred to as the “Plan” or the “Comprehensive Plan” - is the Village’s primary long-range policy document guiding land use, development, transportation, community facilities, and investment over the next 10–20 years. It establishes a shared community vision, goals, and objectives, and coordinates the actions of elected officials, boards and commissions, staff, and other stakeholders. Developed through a multi-year, highly participatory process with surveys, workshops, and subarea planning, the plan focuses on reinvestment, redevelopment, and placemaking in a largely built-out community. It is organized into chapters on vision and goals, land use and development, subarea plans (Downtown, Roosevelt Road, Stacy’s Corners), transportation, community facilities, parks and open space, and implementation. The plan is intended as a living document that guides regulatory updates, capital improvements, and intergovernmental coordination. 1.1.2 Land Use & Development Recommendations in the Plan The Land Use & Development chapter defines desired future land use and development character for all areas within the Village limits and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. It aims to preserve Glen Ellyn’s existing neighborhood character while identifying strategic opportunities to maximize development potential through redevelopment, reinvestment, and higher-intensity mixed-use areas. The plan emphasizes building on the strong single-family base while expanding the range of housing types, including attached and multi-family housing in appropriate locations. It also links land use with corridor image, subarea visions, transportation, and parks to support walkability, transit access, and a high-quality public realm. The Future Land Use Plan assigns every parcel to a land use category that is intended to guide zoning, development review, and future zoning code updates. Key land use categories and related recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan: • Single-Family Detached: Maintain this predominant housing type (about 51 percent of the land area is single family lots, and 64 percent of housing units are single-family detached) and continue to preserve neighborhood character and stability. • Single-Family Attached: Expand townhomes and similar attached forms, especially around Downtown, near Roosevelt Road, along Swift Road, and near the College of DuPage, to increase housing diversity and support higher density where appropriate. • Multi-Family: Support apartments and condominiums near Downtown, near COD, along Roosevelt Road, and at the edges of single-family neighborhoods as transitions between commercial and residential uses and to meet downsizing and diverse housing needs. • Neighborhood Commercial: Reinforce Downtown and Stacy’s Corners as neighborhood- serving commercial nodes, with Downtown remaining the core district emphasizing attractive streetscapes and a pedestrian-oriented environment and Stacy’s Corners better serving adjacent neighborhoods. 8 of 80 Page 18 of 90  • Corridor Commercial: Concentrate and intensify larger-scale and auto-oriented commercial uses along Roosevelt Road and Butterfield Road, including reinvestment in centers such as Market Plaza, Pickwick Plaza, and Baker Hill. Key subareas and related recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan: • Downtown Glen Ellyn: Continue to enhance Downtown as a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented district with an active blend of shopping, dining, entertainment, public uses, and a growing supply of upper-story and nearby housing to support a vibrant, transit-served core. • Roosevelt Road Corridor: Pursue reinvestment and redevelopment of underutilized and aging commercial properties along Roosevelt Road, focusing on improved site design, enhanced corridor image, and opportunities for higher-quality, context-sensitive commercial and multi-family development. • Butterfield Road Corridor: Intensify and modernize corridor commercial uses along Butterfield Road, supporting larger-scale retail, service, and mixed commercial development that serves residents, visitors, and passing motorists while improving access, circulation, and appearance. • Stacy’s Corners: Evolve Stacy’s Corners as a mixed-use neighborhood gateway with a historic character, strengthening neighborhood-serving commercial uses and compatible residential development while respecting and enhancing local historic resources. • Areas near College of DuPage and transition edges: Encourage multi-family and attached residential development adjacent to the College of DuPage and at the edges of single-family neighborhoods to provide a wider range of housing options and serve as appropriate transitions between commercial and lower-density residential areas. 1.2 Housing Assessment 1.2.1 Overview The 2023 Glen Ellyn Housing Assessment is a data-driven study intended to help the Village understand current and emerging housing challenges and to inform policy, zoning, and investment decisions. It combines demographic, socioeconomic, and market data with community input from engagement events and a survey to identify unmet housing needs and gaps in the local housing supply. Glen Ellyn is characterized as a predominantly residential “bedroom community,” with stable population and household counts, an aging and increasingly affluent population, and a housing stock dominated by single-family detached homes built largely between the 1950s and 1980s. The assessment documents rising home prices, constrained for-sale supply, especially smaller and more affordable homes, and an older multifamily rental stock concentrated in three main locations. Overall, it concludes that Glen Ellyn needs additional housing across a broader range of price points and housing types to better serve current and future residents. 9 of 80 Page 19 of 90 1.2.2 Housing Assessment Findings and Recommendations with Implications for the Zoning Update (a) Predominantly Single-Family Housing and Constrained For-Sale Supply Glen Ellyn’s housing composition is heavily weighted toward single-family detached homes, which make up about 64 percent of units, with relatively limited attached and multifamily options. The detached for-sale market is highly constrained: prices have risen significantly since 2015, days on market have dropped to roughly two weeks, and smaller, more affordable homes are often demolished and replaced with larger, more expensive houses. The zoning code should respond by creating more pathways for a broader mix of housing types while still respecting established neighborhood character. The issue is not simply that the Village needs more units, but that the code should better accommodate smaller homes (including existing homes), attached homes, low-rise multi-family structures, and modest infill in locations where those forms can provide additional housing choices without overwhelming existing blocks. Zoning recommendations: • Amend district purpose statements and use permissions in the residential and mixed-use districts, including R1-R4, R5, C5, and C6, to recognize a broader range of housing types such as duplexes, single-family attached homes, and low-scale multifamily near centers and corridors. • Add or expand by-right permissions for duplexes and small multi-unit structures, such as 4- to 6-unit buildings, in appropriate R3 and R4 locations. • Clarify and strengthen permissions for upper-story residential and mixed-use residential in C5 and C6 at moderate densities. • Revise minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and FAR standards in R2-R4 to create alternative small-lot, or modest infill options. • Calibrate height and yard standards in R3 and R4 to allow 2- to 3-story missing-middle housing types while maintaining neighborhood-appropriate scale. • Update residential PUD standards to encourage mixes of small-lot single-family, townhomes, and small multifamily on larger infill or redevelopment sites. • Consider density or flexibility incentives for projects that provide a diversity of unit types, smaller units, or attainable price points. (b) Limited Options for Downsizing and Aging in Place The Village has gained nearly 1,000 households headed by someone age 55 or older since 2010, and residents and stakeholders report a shortage of condos, townhomes, and other smaller, low-maintenance homes that would suit empty nesters and seniors who wish to remain in the community. 10 of 80 Page 20 of 90 The zoning code should make it easier to provide smaller, lower-maintenance housing near services, transit, Downtown, and other walkable areas. Downsizing and aging-in-place options are most feasible when the code allows attached housing, small multifamily buildings, elevator- served buildings, and accessible units in locations where residents can remain connected to daily needs and community life. Zoning recommendations: • Broaden by-right or special-use permissions for townhomes, stacked flats, and small elevator-served multifamily in R3 and R4, particularly near Downtown and along transit corridors. • Establish clear form standards for attached and small multifamily housing, including height, massing, façade rhythm, open space, and transitions to adjacent lower-density homes. • Consider adding senior housing or age-restricted housing as a distinct use category so parking, circulation, accessibility, and design standards can be tailored to the use. • Consider use-based standards that encourage step-free entries, visitable ground-floor units, and accessible common areas in multifamily and townhome projects. • Allow modest height, density, or parking flexibility for projects that meet defined accessibility benchmarks, such as a specified share of units meeting enhanced accessibility standards. • Reduce or right-size parking requirements for age-restricted, senior, and small-unit housing within walking distance of Downtown, transit, and services. • Allow shared parking and transportation-demand strategies for senior and downsizing- oriented housing where actual vehicle ownership is likely to be lower. (c) Housing for People with Disabilities and Other Special Needs About 8.5 percent of residents, representing more than 2,350 people, live with a disability. Many need housing that is both affordable and physically accessible, and the assessment notes that these options are limited locally and regionally. The zoning code should clearly accommodate accessible housing, supportive housing, community residences, and group living arrangements in a manner consistent with fair housing principles. The goal should be to treat small community-based residences similarly to comparable household living arrangements while creating clear, objective standards for larger supportive or specialized residential facilities. Zoning recommendations: • Update Chapter 2 definitions to clearly define group home, supportive housing, community residence, and related terms. • Distinguish small community-based homes from larger residential care or supportive facilities based on scale and operational characteristics. 11 of 80 Page 21 of 90  • Identify larger supportive housing or specialized residential facilities as special uses in appropriate residential and mixed-use districts. • Replace ad hoc conditions with clear, objective standards for larger supportive facilities, including scale, access, parking, life-safety, and compatibility criteria. • Add supplementary regulations addressing reasonable occupancy, spacing, and design standards without imposing unnecessary separation requirements. • Align parking requirements for supportive housing with likely vehicle ownership and staffing patterns rather than applying conventional household parking ratios. • Ensure zoning procedures allow reasonable accommodations where needed to comply with fair housing obligations. (d) Workforce Housing and Local Employees More than 10,000 people work in Glen Ellyn but live elsewhere, and average wages in major employment sectors are generally under 60,000 dollars, limiting employees’ ability to live in the Village. The zoning code should support more moderately priced multifamily and mixed-use housing in locations where additional density can be accommodated, particularly near transit, Downtown, Roosevelt Road, and other commercial or employment areas. Workforce housing will be difficult to produce if zoning limits multifamily development to too few sites or requires parking, height, setback, or approval standards that make moderate-density projects infeasible. Zoning recommendations: • Amend commercial district standards, especially C2-C6, to explicitly allow upper-story residential and mixed-use multifamily in appropriate commercial and corridor locations. • Allow mixed-use residential along key corridors, including Roosevelt Road, where redevelopment can add housing while strengthening the commercial environment. • In C5 and C6, refine permissions for standalone multifamily and mixed-use residential. • Provide height and FAR allowances sufficient to produce meaningful numbers of units, such as 4- to 6-story buildings where context-appropriate. • Modify parking requirements to reduce ratios for multifamily and mixed-use projects near transit, Shared Parking Efficiency Downtown, and commercial corridors. CityGate Centre in Naperville • Allow shared parking between commercial and succeeds as a shared parking residential uses in mixed-use buildings and model - it assembled a use planned developments. mix with complementary peak demand periods across a • Streamline approvals for context-sensitive housing single unified campus. projects that meet adopted form, parking, affordability, and transition standards. 12 of 80 Page 22 of 90  (e) Entry-Level For-Sale Housing Shortage There is a limited supply of lower-value for-sale homes. Entry-level buyers often stretch beyond affordability thresholds, and smaller, naturally affordable homes are being lost through teardown and replacement. The average square footage of detached homes sold increased by about 9 percent between 2015 and 2021. The zoning code should address both sides of the entry-level ownership issue: preserving existing smaller homes where appropriate and allowing new smaller ownership options to be built. Bulk standards that unintentionally encourage oversized replacement homes or make modest additions difficult can accelerate the loss of naturally attainable homes. At the same time, the code should create intentional pathways for smaller-scale residential structures. Zoning recommendations: • Revisit bulk standards in R2 and R3, including minimum lot area, lot width, setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and FAR, to better align with the community need for accessible housing formats. • Create calibrated FAR or lot coverage controls that discourage oversized replacement homes while allowing reasonable modernization of existing smaller homes. • Allow modest reductions in minimum lot area or lot width through alternative small-lot standards where block patterns support smaller homes. • Amend compliance and nonconformity provisions so small, older homes on nonconforming lots can be modestly expanded or reconfigured without triggering requirements that make teardown more likely. • Coordinate zoning with subdivision and platting standards so context-sensitive lot splits can create smaller entry-level lots where appropriate. (f) Housing for Lower-Income Renters and Affordability Pressures Approximately 38 percent of renters are cost burdened (defined as spending 30% of its gross income on housing-related costs), with more than 80 percent of those cost-burdened renters earning under 35,000 dollars annually. Median gross rents in Glen Ellyn are somewhat lower than the county median, largely due to an older rental stock, and the supply of deed-restricted affordable housing is limited. The zoning code should increase realistic opportunities for multifamily, mixed-income, and affordable housing in targeted areas. Because land is limited and development costs are high, affordability goals will be difficult to achieve if the code restricts multifamily housing to too few districts, requires excessive parking, or imposes dimensional standards that reduce feasible unit counts. The code should pair broader housing permissions with clear form and transition standards so additional density is predictable and context-sensitive. 13 of 80 Page 23 of 90 Zoning recommendations: • Expand by-right multifamily permissions and increase allowable density in R4 and R5 where additional units can be accommodated. • Use residential PUD standards to support mixed-income housing and a range of unit sizes on larger infill or redevelopment sites. • In C5 and C6, ensure multifamily housing is clearly permitted and that height, FAR, yard, and parking standards allow achievable unit counts. • Reduce minimum parking requirements for affordable, mixed-income, small-unit, and transit-proximate multifamily projects. • Permit smaller unit sizes and flexible open space standards where projects meet adopted building form, common-area, and livability criteria. • Consider incentive-based affordable housing provisions, such as density bonuses, parking reductions, height flexibility, or fee waivers where feasible. • Maintain clear design criteria so affordable and mixed-income housing can be reviewed predictably rather than through discretionary negotiation. (g) Dependence on Limited, Strategic Development Sites The assessment notes that because available land is limited, most new housing will need to come from multifamily development and small-lot or attached infill rather than large-scale greenfield single-family projects. The zoning code should align housing capacity with the Village’s limited opportunity sites. Downtown, Roosevelt Road, areas near I-355, areas near College of DuPage, and other corridor or center locations should have zoning that actually allows the housing types and intensities contemplated by the Housing Assessment and Comprehensive Plan. If the code continues to rely heavily on discretionary PUDs without clear density, form, and approval expectations, strategic sites may underperform or remain underutilized. Zoning recommendations: • Align zoning districts and overlays with the Comprehensive Plan’s subarea and corridor strategies for Downtown, Roosevelt Road, areas near I-355, College of DuPage, and other opportunity sites. • Reassess maximum heights, FARs, densities, and dimensional standards in C5, C6, R4, R5, and nearby transition areas to ensure the code enables the housing capacity expected for strategic sites. • Revise PUD standards to clarify when residential and mixed-use PUDs are appropriate for assembling, intensifying, or redeveloping key opportunity sites. • Establish clearer expectations for minimum density, mix of uses, housing affordability, public benefits, site design, and transition standards in residential and mixed-use PUDs. 14 of 80 Page 24 of 90  • Streamline approval for projects that meet or exceed desired housing-unit yield, affordability, and design criteria. • Allow small-lot, attached, and multifamily infill by clear standards in appropriate locations rather than reserving most new housing capacity for large discretionary projects. • Coordinate height, parking, access, stormwater, open space, and public-realm standards so strategic sites can be redeveloped efficiently and predictably. 1.3 Active Transportation Plan 1.3.1 Overview The Move Glen Ellyn Active Transportation Plan (“Move GE”) is a village-wide strategy to expand safe, functional walking and bicycling options and to integrate them into everyday travel patterns for residents, workers, students, and visitors. It proposes to grow the current 5.5‑mile bike network by about 9.75 miles using a mix of on‑street routes, traditional bike lanes, sidepaths, and connections through parks and regional trails such as the Illinois Prairie Path and Great Western Trail. The plan emphasizes north–south connectivity across the village’s rail and arterial barriers, better access to the Metra station and schools, and safer crossings of major roads like Roosevelt Road and IL‑53. Community input from surveys and an open house strongly shaped the recommendations, highlighting demand for low‑stress routes, improved crossings, and more visible, convenient bike parking. 1.3.2 Zoning-Related Recommendations The plan recommends using zoning and development regulations to institutionalize active transportation infrastructure, especially bike parking, in new private projects. It notes that Glen Ellyn’s current zoning code largely lacks direct bicycle parking requirements (outside of a PUD bonus provision), and calls for adopting explicit minimum bicycle parking standards and incentives for commercial, multifamily, and mixed-use developments. As an example model, the report points to the City of Madison, Wisconsin zoning rewrite, where bicycle parking ratios and design standards were embedded in the ordinance, and suggests adapting a similar approach for Glen Ellyn. The plan also encourages treating bicycle and pedestrian facilities as standard site plan elements, rather than optional amenities, in zoning and subdivision review. This includes requiring multi‑use paths consistent with the village and DuPage County bike plans (as already referenced in local code), and using planned unit development tools to secure internal bike circulation, indoor storage, and connections to regional trails. For downtown and transit‑adjacent areas, the report supports using zoning (and related tools like TIF) to prioritize higher‑quality bicycle facilities—such as covered, long‑term parking near the Metra station and along the Illinois Prairie Path—and to encourage more compact, mixed-use development patterns that make short bike and walk trips more viable. 15 of 80 Page 25 of 90 1.4 Downtown Strategic Plan 1.4.1 Overview The Downtown Strategic Plan is a 20‑year framework to make Downtown Glen Ellyn more economically viable, reduce vacancies, and strengthen its role as the community’s civic and commercial heart. It responds to rising retail vacancies and regional competition by combining community input, expert market analysis, and physical planning into an integrated program for land use, circulation, parking, urban design, and implementation. The plan’s physical vision centers on a greenway “glen” through the downtown valley, a stronger Main Street corridor with two‑ and three‑story mixed‑use buildings, a landmark Metra station, and improved multimodal access and parking north and south of the tracks. A key strategy is to increase the number of residents, office workers, and visitors downtown—via new housing, office and service space, cultural programming, and civic uses—so that daily activity supports a healthier retail and restaurant mix. 1.4.2 Zoning-Related Recommendations People Over Parking Act The plan calls for updating the zoning code so it actively (SB 2112) supports the desired mixed‑use, higher‑intensity The Illinois People Over downtown pattern rather than constraining it. It Parking Act, prohibits local recommends revising district boundaries and use governments from imposing permissions to increase the supply of mixed‑use or enforcing minimum buildings with ground‑floor retail/restaurant and automobile parking upper‑story residential or office, maintain a “no net loss” requirements for qualifying of core retail space, and encourage more office and development projects near service uses at the downtown periphery and above transit. It applies to projects first‑floor retail. The plan specifically urges allowing within one-half mile of a entertainment and cultural uses by right in the downtown public transportation hub or (rather than as special uses) and exploring a form‑based one-eighth mile of a public code to more directly regulate building form, street transportation corridor, with frontage, and historic compatibility while simplifying some exceptions. approvals. Historic preservation is to be reinforced through the Historic Downtown District and zoning/overlay tools that protect contributing buildings, support context‑sensitive infill, and enable use of tax credits and local incentives for rehabilitation. Parking and access policies are to be realigned with downtown objectives by adopting lower, context‑sensitive parking ratios (e.g., 0–3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail, 1 space per 1,000 square feet of office, and 1 space per dwelling unit for new construction), accommodating structured parking with active ground‑floor frontages, and recognizing bicycle facilities and covered bike parking as standard site elements near the train station and Illinois Prairie Path. The plan also recommends zoning support for increased residential density downtown— including at least 450 new dwelling units in mixed‑use and residential buildings—and consideration of accessory dwelling units on single‑family lots in and near the study area to add “gentle” density. Circulation and streetscape recommendations (such as converting key 16 of 80 Page 26 of 90 one‑way streets to two‑way, creating “plaza streets,” and implementing unified streetscape and wayfinding along the full two‑mile Main Street corridor) are intended to be embedded in zoning, subdivision, and design standards so they become routine requirements for public and private projects. Finally, the plan calls for amending sign regulations and appearance review guidelines to align with the desired downtown character and for simplifying and partially “administrativizing” approvals, reducing the perception of government hurdles to business openings and reinvestment. 1.5 Streetscape and Parking Study 1.5.1 Overview The Downtown Streetscape Plan and Parking Study provides a coordinated framework for upgrading streets, sidewalks, public spaces, and parking management in Downtown Glen Ellyn to reinforce its historic character while improving comfort, safety, and access for all users. It inventories existing conditions, defines three streetscape character zones (Urban Core, Urban Transitional, Urban Residential), and proposes a phased, block‑by‑block toolkit of elements including street trees, lighting, crosswalks, parklets, enhanced alleys, and Prairie Path improvements. On the parking side, the study concludes that overall supply is generally adequate but poorly distributed and signed, and it focuses on better management, wayfinding, and selective structured parking opportunities rather than simply adding more surface spaces. Implementation is explicitly intended to be incremental, coordinated with capital projects (e.g., 2015–2016 resurfacing), and sensitive to maintenance, accessibility, and long‑term costs. 1.5.2 Zoning-Related Recommendations While primarily a design and operations document, the plan implies several zoning and development‑code directions that matter for a zoning assessment. First, it establishes clear design expectations for different street types—materials, tree placement, lighting, screening, and pedestrian amenities—that can be translated into zoning-based streetscape standards, corridor overlays, or form‑based regulations for the downtown districts. This includes preferred treatments for intersections, mid‑block crossings, sidewalk widths, outdoor dining platforms in the parking lane, and parking‑lot buffers and rain gardens that zoning and subdivision regulations can require as part of site plan approval. Second, the study recommends strengthening requirements for parking‑lot design and screening, sustainable landscaping, and stormwater practices, which can be incorporated into parking and landscaping sections of the zoning ordinance. Examples include mandatory landscape buffers and low walls along the public realm, tree spacing standards, use of decorative or modular walls where grades require retaining, and support for rain gardens, permeable bases, and “sustainable parking lot prototype” features in public and private lots. The plan also points toward recognizing and encouraging on‑street and shared parking (e.g., with churches and private lots) within parking standards and suggests that any future structured parking be integrated with active ground‑floor uses—something that can be reinforced through district use and frontage requirements. Third, the plan emphasizes consistent downtown wayfinding, gateway treatments, and a coherent family of furnishings and lighting, which can be backed by zoning‑linked design 17 of 80 Page 27 of 90 guidelines or an overlay requiring conformance for new development and substantial façade or site changes. It also supports continued accommodation of bike racks and future bike facilities in the right‑of‑way and near the Metra and Prairie Path, reinforcing the case for explicit bicycle parking and access provisions in downtown zoning. Finally, the parking management principles in the study—tiered time limits, employee parking locations, flexible use of lots, and potential future meter technology—provide a basis for revisiting minimum parking ratios and allowing greater reliance on shared, managed public parking in lieu of traditional on‑site minimums for downtown uses. 2. Community Input Much of the analysis in this report draws on the land use goals from the Comprehensive Plan and the extensive engagement that informed that project. In addition to the goals from the Plan, the project team undertook stakeholder interviews (March 2026) and a community survey (March-April 2026). The results from those efforts are summarized below. 2.1 Stakeholder Group Interviews Three focus groups met over two days as part of the Glen Ellyn zoning code update. On March 18 from 3–4 pm, a Residential Professionals Focus Group convened builders, architects, and long-time practitioners who regularly work with the code. That evening from 6–7 pm, a Residential Focus Group brought together residents, commission members, and a housing advocate to discuss lived experience with the code and housing needs. On March 19 from 3–4 pm, a Commercial & Business Focus Group of downtown business and property owners, a broker, a developer, and a commission chair focused on commercial corridors and the downtown. 2.1.1 Residential Professionals Group The Residential Professionals group emphasized that widespread nonconformities are the central residential challenge, with many existing homes requiring three to five variances just to complete typical remodels or additions. They pointed to frequent Class 1 and 2 alterations and supported allowing existing nonconforming setbacks to be extended with additions, citing peer communities that differentiate one- and two-story additions and permit extension of nonconforming side yards without variances. Participants highlighted that current lot coverage ratios (often in the 20–25 percent range) and restrictive rear yard setbacks significantly constrain reinvestment, and they suggested raising coverage caps or providing tailored allowances for ranch homes and additions. Height and accessory regulations were also a focal point for this group. They explained that current ridge and eave height rules, measured from average grade, make certain historic styles difficult to build and create inconsistency across varied topography, recommending instead a mean and maximum height standard measured from a fixed point like the curb, similar to Burr Ridge, Downers Grove, and La Grange. Detached garage standards—especially percentage- based setbacks tied to lot width and a 660-square-foot size cap—were seen as illogical and misaligned with contemporary needs, with participants preferring larger garages (around 720 square feet) and tiered size allowances based on lot width. They also criticized limits on pergola 18 of 80 Page 28 of 90 height, shed and pool house size, and the treatment of decks over seven feet, and asked for code incentives to encourage permeable surfaces. Finally, the professionals noted that while the administrative variance process generally works, applicants must plan for extended time and cost, and they stressed a strong desire to simplify the zoning code so average residents can understand and use it. They warned that cumbersome regulations, combined with nonconformities, are contributing to teardowns and the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing as owners choose to move rather than seek approvals for renovations. The group also identified inconsistencies such as updated generator setbacks but outdated, more restrictive air conditioning setback standards, suggesting that these mechanical regulations be aligned with peer communities and current technology. 2.1.2 Residential Focus Group The Residential Focus Group underscored how the zoning code disproportionately impacts historic homes and small lots, many of which are already nonconforming. Routine investments in these properties often trigger variances for setbacks, lot coverage, and garages, adding cost and delay for homeowners. Participants stressed the importance of clearly disclosing a property’s nonconforming status at the time of sale so buyers might understand renovation limits and approval requirements, and they praised detached garage bonuses that encourage rear garages and support a more cohesive neighborhood character. Historic preservation and housing diversity were central themes for this group. Members of the Historic Preservation Commission expressed a strong interest in reducing barriers for designated historic properties by minimizing or eliminating variance requirements for additions and renovations, particularly around lot coverage and setbacks, to make preservation more economically viable. On housing types, participants described obstacles facing community- integrated group homes (typically six to eight residents) that require special use permits and advocated for enabling accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and triplexes, along with mixed- income residential projects that combine market-rate and affordable units, citing Wheaton and Hyde Park as peer examples. The group also raised concerns about design, environment, and process. They observed that current height and design-related rules can limit context-sensitive or innovative design and noted that residential parking standards downtown constrain the feasibility of higher-density housing. Environmental recommendations included introducing incentives for permeable surfaces, updating lighting and dark-sky standards, reevaluating asphalt sealants and colors to address heat island effects and runoff, maintaining robust landscaping requirements, and emphasizing preservation of native species such as oak trees. On administration, the group felt that cases driven only by existing nonconformities should qualify for administrative variances, that hardship criteria need clearer definitions and examples, and that guidance on underground encroachments and carports (including enclosure standards) is currently lacking. Some participants also suggested creating an Architectural Review Board for residential projects to help protect the Village’s identity. 19 of 80 Page 29 of 90 2.1.3 Commercial & Business Focus Group The Commercial & Business Focus Group focused on aligning commercial zoning with changing market conditions and strengthening downtown vitality. Participants emphasized the need for more flexibility to allow mixed-use and residential development in selected commercial districts, pointing to a large office property on Roosevelt Road that struggled to sell in a weakened office market and highlighting how lengthy rezoning processes can be a barrier. Downtown stakeholders expressed strong interest in preserving a retail-focused core in the C5A Downtown Business District by prioritizing high-activity uses—retail, boutiques, and restaurants—and discouraging low-traffic service uses that diminish foot traffic. They recommended a more flexible, performance-based use framework rather than long, prescriptive use lists, suggesting, for example, a requirement that a minimum share of floor area be dedicated to active or retail uses. The group noted that property owners and landlords need clearer guidance on permitted uses and procedures and expressed a desire for the Plan Commission to have final decision-making authority in more cases to avoid delays and uncertainty from additional Village Board approvals. They also felt that PUD guidelines are too rigid and not well suited to adaptive reuse or incremental redevelopment, citing parcel consolidation requirements as barriers for sites that are not undergoing full teardown. Process predictability and public realm activation were recurring themes. Participants suggested engaging the Village Board earlier in major projects—such as through an initial workshop—to align expectations and reduce risk, time, and cost for applicants. They pointed to peer communities like Naperville, Elmhurst, and Wheaton, where patio seating and rooftop patios are often allowed with minimal or no additional permitting, as models for supporting vibrant commercial areas, and encouraged Glen Ellyn to revisit its rules accordingly. Finally, they called for updated retail signage, lighting, and landscaping standards that balance aesthetics and safety with business visibility, and for a stronger role for the Architectural Appearance Commission in reviewing development along key corridors such as downtown and Roosevelt Road. 2.2 Community Survey 2.2.1 Overview of Respondents The electronic survey received 377 responses, of which the vast majority reported that they currently live in Glen Ellyn, with only a small share indicating they do not currently live in the village (2%). Nearly half of respondents have lived in Glen Ellyn for more than 20 years (48%), about one‑fifth for 11–20 years (20%), and another fifth for 5–10 years (17%), while roughly one in eight are more recent residents with less than 5 years in the community (13%). Only seven respondents reported that they do not currently live in Glen Ellyn (2%), underscoring that the sample is dominated by people with a long-standing local perspective. In terms of how they interact with zoning, about nine in ten respondents selected “Resident” as a role (90%), with the remaining 10% not selecting a specific interaction role in that field; other roles such as business owner, property owner, architect/engineer, builder/developer, and board/commission member were less represented among survey respondents relative to Village residents. 20 of 80 Page 30 of 90  How long have you lived in Glen Ellyn? In what role have you personally interacted with the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code? Respondents generally report low to moderate familiarity with Glen Ellyn’s zoning code, with only a small share describing themselves as extremely familiar. About one-third rated their familiarity as “2” on the scale (32%), another quarter as “3” (25%), and roughly one quarter explicitly selected “1 (Not at all familiar)” (25%), indicating that more than 80% fall in the lower-to-middle range of familiarity. A smaller group rated their familiarity as “4” (13%), and only about one in twenty chose “5 (Extremely familiar)” (6%), typically those with direct professional or board experience. How familiar are you with the current Zoning Code? 21 of 80 Page 31 of 90 When asked about how easy the zoning regulations were to understand, the largest number of residents (45%) had not needed to look up the zoning regulations. Of the 55% that had looked up the zoning regulations, a larger number (32%) found the zoning regulations “difficult” to understand, while a remaining 23% found them “easy” to understand. If you have ever needed to look up Glen Ellyn's zoning regulations, how easy was it for you to find and understand them? 2.2.2 Perceived Balance of Land Uses Nearly half of respondents say they have no opinion on how well the zoning code balances residential, commercial, and other land uses (45%), reflecting limited familiarity or comfort assessing this question. Among those with an opinion, more people see the code as “Somewhat unbalanced” (24%) than “Balanced” (22%), with smaller groups at the extremes (“Not at all balanced” 7%, “Very balanced” 2%), indicating a modest tilt toward seeing room for improvement rather than clear satisfaction. How well does the current Zoning Code balance residential, commercial, and other land uses? An additional open-ended question was asked as a follow-up, asking “If you responded that the Zoning Code is somewhat unbalanced or not at all balanced, please describe where the balance of land uses could be improved.”Responses split in competing directions. Many want more commercial activity, particularly restaurants and retail downtown and along Roosevelt Road, to broaden the tax base. A significant group opposes large apartment buildings and increased density, while an opposing group wants more diverse and affordable housing (ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, missing middle). Common themes include oversized homes on small lots, insufficient tree protection, burdensome permitting for homeowners, inconsistent variance 22 of 80 Page 32 of 90 practices favoring developers, and concerns that South Glen Ellyn bears a disproportionate share of affordable and multi-family housing. Respondents were asked an open-ended question regarding what land uses, if any, they would like to see more of in Glen Ellyn. The most frequently mentioned desires were more green space/parks, ADUs, restaurants and small retail, and affordable housing options. Respondents wanted to see fewer large apartment/condo buildings, McMansions on small lots, low-income housing (a vocal minority), gas stations, car washes, and chain uses. A notable contingent wants no change at all. Backyard henkeeping appears repeatedly as a specific request. 2.2.3 Housing Type Permissions Opinions on allowing more diverse types of housing are almost evenly split, with a slight edge toward support. Just over two‑fifths say the zoning code should allow more diverse housing such as ADUs, townhomes, and duplexes (Yes 45%), a similar share say it should not (No 43%), and a smaller group are unsure (12%), underscoring a community divided on expanding housing options. Should the Zoning Code allow for more diverse housing types? 2.2.4 Business Friendliness Most respondents rate the business climate created by the zoning code as middling to difficult rather than easy. A majority choose the middle option (3) when asked whether the code makes it easy or difficult for local businesses to operate and grow (57%), while another fifth lean toward difficulty (2 at 20%), and 14% see it as “Very difficult,” compared with only 4% at 4 and 3% at “Very easy.” Does the Zoning Code make it easy or difficult for local businesses to operate and grow? 23 of 80 Page 33 of 90 2.2.5 Environmental and Green Space Protection Residents generally see the code as providing moderate environmental protection, with many wanting stronger measures. About 39% rate environmental protection in the middle (3), 23% say the code does “pretty well” (4), and 12% say it protects the environment “very well” (5), while 15% rate it at 2 and 10% at “1 (Not well at all),” indicating that roughly one quarter think environmental protections are weak. How well does the Zoning Code protect the environment, green space, trees, and natural areas? 2.2.6 Neighborhood Character, Height, and Density A plurality of respondents feel the zoning code adequately protects neighborhood character, but a sizable minority disagree or are unsure. About 43% say the code does protect their neighborhood’s character, while 30% say it does not and 27% are unsure, suggesting mixed confidence in how consistently character is preserved. On height and density regulations specifically, just over half believe current rules are appropriate for their neighborhood (Yes 53%), nearly a third say they are not (No 29%), and 18% are unsure, indicating that concerns about building scale are present but not universal. Does the Zoning Code adequately protect the character and appearance of your neighborhood? 24 of 80 Page 34 of 90  Are the current building height and density regulations appropriate for your neighborhood? 2.2.7 Overall Satisfaction with Zoning Code and Decisions Overall, residents are more neutral or dissatisfied than satisfied with how zoning decisions are made. About two in five respondents choose “Neutral” (40%), while roughly one third say they are “Dissatisfied” (36%) and 9% are “Very dissatisfied,” compared with only 13% “Satisfied” and 3% “Very satisfied,” highlighting a broad desire for improved process, communication, or outcomes. How satisfied are you overall with how zoning decisions are made in Glen Ellyn? When asked about what they liked most about the current zoning code, the most common positive response is that the code preserves Glen Ellyn's residential character, small-town feel, tree-lined streets, and neighborhood identity. Respondents also appreciate separation of residential and commercial uses, setback and lot coverage rules (when enforced), protection of green space, and the variance/hearing process as a check on development. A large share of respondents answered "unsure," "N/A," or "nothing," reflecting limited familiarity with the code. Respondents were asked a final open-ended question asking if there is anything else they would like to share about zoning in Glen Ellyn. The dominant themes are frustration with inconsistent and inequitable enforcement — particularly the perception that developers receive variances easily while homeowners face excessive red tape — and Glen Ellyn's reputation as difficult to work with, driving away contractors and businesses. Many call for greater transparency and meaningful resident input in decisions. Tree loss during teardowns and new construction is a 25 of 80 Page 35 of 90 recurring concern. A vocal group wants the downtown character protected from further large- scale development (citing specific buildings as a cautionary example). A smaller but consistent group urges more density and flexibility to keep the village economically competitive with Wheaton, Elmhurst, and Naperville. 3. Assessment of Residential Zoning Standards 3.1 Overview: Review of Residential Zoning Standards This diagnostic evaluates the residential zoning district structure and related residential regulations that govern how residential properties may be used, maintained, improved, and redeveloped over time. The report focuses on clarity, policy fit, administrative usability, and the extent to which current standards support or constrain practical residential reinvestment and housing choice. The review covers the RE, R0, R1, R2, R2B, R3, R4, and R5 residential districts, together with related provisions in the definitions, supplementary regulations, compliance, and nonconformities. It also draws on the residential variation record from 2019 through 2025, zoning district area data, adopted planning materials, and information regarding conforming and nonconforming residential lots. The findings are organized by topic rather than by code section. That structure is intended to make the report easier to use during policy discussion and future ordinance drafting. Each topic includes the same three sections: an overview of current standards or language, analysis of how those standards function, and recommendations for zoning reform. 3.2 Reform Framework The residential regulations generally reflect a traditional Euclidean district structure, with larger- lot lower-density districts at one end and more flexible or higher-density districts at the other. The main reform need is not simply to change individual numbers; it is to make the residential code easier to read, easier to administer, and better aligned with the Village’s stated needs for housing preservation, reinvestment, housing variety, and sustainable site design. • Consolidate broadly applicable residential standards so they are stated once and cross- referenced only when necessary. • Recalibrate the standards that most often generate relief requests, especially in the R2 district. • Create clearer pathways for maintenance, modest expansion, and reinvestment on smaller or nonconforming residential lots or buildings. • Reduce reliance on historic eligibility tests, repeated exceptions, and technical cross- references that are difficult for homeowners and design professionals to identify at the start of a project. • Use simpler tables, graphics, and measurement rules so the Code explains what is allowed before it explains exceptions. • Make sure to communicate to the community that broader housing variety is targeted to plan‑identified areas and not intended to up‑zone all single‑family blocks. 26 of 80 Page 36 of 90 3.3 Residential District Structure and Housing Choice Reform takeaway: Most residential land is governed by districts that allow detached single- family dwellings by right and provide few by-right options for missing-middle or multifamily housing. 3.3.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language The residential districts cover approximately 3,019 acres, or 67.3 percent of Village land. The R2 district is by far the largest residential district, covering approximately 51.6 percent of Village land. The lower-density districts generally permit detached single-family dwellings by right. The R3 and R4 districts provide the primary conventional zoning path for two-family, attached single- family, and multiple-family housing. The R5 district operates through planned development rather than fixed residential bulk standards. District Share of Primary Role Village Land RE 1.7% Estate-scale detached residential development R0 1.1% Large-lot detached residential development R1 4.6% Lower-density detached residential development R2 51.6% Predominant detached residential district R2B 1.8% Detached residential district with larger lot requirements than R2 R3 2.0% Primary district for two-family and small attached residential forms R4 4.4% Primary conventional district for multifamily development R5 0.07% Planned development district for senior housing/mixed residential forms The table above provides an understanding of the scale of land within the zoning districts and what is permitted in each one, while the table below presents it differently, building an understanding of which housing types are permitted in which zoning districts. Housing Type Current Zoning Path Detached single- Permitted by right in RE, R0, R1, R2, R2B, and R3; special use in R4; family planned development path in R5. Two-family Permitted by right in R3; special use in R4; planned development path in R5. Attached single- Up to 4 units by right in R3; up to 6 units by special use in R3; up to 6 family units by right in R4; planned development path in R5. Multiple-family Permitted by right in R4; not listed as a conventional permitted use in R5 despite related parking references. Group homes and Allowed through varying permitted or special use pathways congregate elderly depending on district and resident count. housing 27 of 80 Page 37 of 90 3.3.2 Analysis Because the R2 district covers just over half of the Village, its standards have an outsized practical effect on residential reinvestment. Any issue embedded in R2, including lot coverage, side-yard standards, height cross-references, and nonconforming-lot rules, affects more properties than a similar issue in any other residential district. The district structure preserves established neighborhood form, but it also concentrates housing choice in a small number of districts. Detached single-family development is widely available by right, while two-family, attached, multifamily, senior, and group living options depend on R3, R4, R5 (collectively, only 7% of the Village), special use review, or planned development. This structure limits the ability of the base zoning map to support a broader range of household needs. 3.3.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Treat R2 as the primary implementation district for residential reform because changes to R2 standards will have the broadest practical effect. • Evaluate whether additional modest housing types should be permitted by right or through a streamlined process in selected locations now limited to detached single-family development. • Clarify the intended role of each residential district so the district lineup reads as a coherent housing policy, not only as a sequence of lot-size categories. • Consider whether R0, R1, R2, and R2B should remain separate districts if their main policy distinction is minimum lot size rather than distinct neighborhood or housing objectives. • Use R3 and R4 as the basis for a clearer missing-middle and multifamily framework, including standards that are organized by dwelling type. 3.4 Code Organization and Administrative Usability Reform takeaway: The substance of many standards can be preserved while making the Code shorter, easier to navigate, and less dependent on repeated district-by-district text. 3.4.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language The residential district sections repeat common language related to applicability, lot coverage, height, accessory structures, porches, detached garages, projections, and measurement rules. Related standards are also split among district regulations, definitions, supplementary regulations, and nonconformity provisions. Several recurring provisions are not inherently district-specific. Instead, they operate as general residential standards that apply across multiple districts but are repeated or cross-referenced in separate district sections. 3.4.2 Analysis The current organization makes routine zoning review more difficult than necessary. A homeowner, architect, contractor, or staff reviewer may need to move between definitions, district text, supplementary tables, notes, exceptions, and nonconformity provisions before determining whether a common improvement is allowed. 28 of 80 Page 38 of 90 Repetition also increases maintenance risk. If the same rule appears in several places, future amendments must be made consistently in each location. If one provision is missed, the Code can develop internal conflicts or unintended distinctions. Current Pattern Practical Effect Reform Direction Repeated district text Adds length without adding State common rules once in a policy distinction. general residential standards section. Cross-referenced height Requires users to leave Either restate the rule in each standards their district section to find a district or create a single core bulk standard. general height section. Supplementary tables for Important rules for porches, Organize common residential common improvements decks, patios, driveways, improvements in one user- and accessory structures facing subsection. are hard to find. Historic eligibility tests Requires ownership and lot Use objective current-lot (narrow residential history information that may standards where feasible. development exceptions that not be readily available. rely on existing neighborhood character, plat history, and surrounding development patterns) 3.4.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Create a general residential standards article or division for provisions that apply across multiple residential districts. • Limit district sections to standards that materially differ by district, such as permitted uses, lot dimensions, yard requirements, height, and lot coverage. • Move generally applicable measurement, interpretation, projection, accessory structure, driveway, parking, and nonconforming-lot rules into a generally applicable development standard section. • Use cross-references sparingly and only after the operative standard is easy to locate from the district page. • Replace long narrative exceptions with concise tables where the table can state the regulated item, allowed location, dimensional limit, and applicable notes. 3.5 Common Residential Improvements and Accessory Structures Reform takeaway: The Code regulates routine improvements, such as porches, decks, dormers, detached garages, and accessory structures, through too many scattered rules and qualifying conditions. 3.5.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language Common residential improvements are addressed in several locations. The Code includes district-specific lot coverage exclusions for detached garages and front porches, supplementary 29 of 80 Page 39 of 90 rules for accessory buildings and structures, yard projection tables, and separate height or measurement standards for certain features. Accessory building standards include a limit of three accessory buildings on a zoning lot and no more than one of each type unless authorized by special use permit. The Code does not clearly explain what counts as a separate accessory building type. 3.5.2 Analysis The current approach is overly technical for improvements that homeowners commonly seek. For example, a front porch may be subject to a definition, a yard projection rule, a lot coverage exclusion, openness requirements, and minimum depth requirements. A detached garage may require review of accessory structure standards, lot coverage exceptions, garage-door orientation rules, and height measurement standards. The standards also use indirect incentives, such as excluding certain porch or garage areas from lot coverage, to encourage design outcomes. Those incentives may support good urban design, but they also add calculations and may conflict with stormwater-management goals if they encourage additional covered or paved area without a coordinated site-design framework. Improvement Current Issue Simpler Code Treatment Type Front porches Defined separately and linked to State allowed encroachment, coverage exclusions, openness minimum depth, optional coverage rules, and yard projection treatment, and enclosure limit in standards. one table row. Detached garages Coverage exclusion, orientation Use a direct detached garage rules, accessory standards, and standard with size, placement, garage height rules are spread height, and coverage treatment across sections. stated together. Dormers and roof Height exceptions are embedded Create a residential height features in district notes and cross- exception table organized by references. feature type. Small accessory Rules depend on definitions, State number, size, setback, and structures accessory structure provisions, coverage treatment in one and coverage thresholds. accessory structure subsection. 3.5.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Create one residential improvements table that identifies common improvements, where they may be located, applicable setbacks, height or size limits, lot coverage treatment, and any design conditions. • Clarify the accessory building type limitation or replace it with a simpler maximum number and/or maximum cumulative area standard. • Move detached garage and front porch lot coverage exceptions into a single lot coverage or residential improvements section. • Replace complex bonus-based rules with direct dimensional standards where feasible, such as a maximum square footage, maximum height, or minimum setback. 30 of 80 Page 40 of 90 • Retain incentives for front porches and rear-lot garages only if the standards are easy to administer and coordinated with stormwater, impervious surface, and site design requirements. 3.6 Driveways, Parking Placement, and Impervious Surface Reform takeaway: The standards for paving, parking, and impervious surface should be consolidated and updated to support clearer review and more sustainable site design. 3.6.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language Driveways, paved parking areas, impervious surface coverage, and impervious surface setbacks are regulated through multiple provisions, including yard coverage limits, parking placement standards, driveway width and material rules, and setback formulas based on lot width. The Code limits impervious surface within required yards. In R0, R1, R2, and R3, up to 50 percent of each required front, corner side, and rear yard may be impervious surface. In R4, up to 35 percent of the front yard may be impervious surface. In the RE district, up to 25 percent of each required front, corner side, and rear yard may be impervious surface. Driveways are required to be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, brick, paver stone, or a similar hard surface material. Enlarged or expanded driveways and properties with principal structure or garage expansions must be brought into compliance with this standard. 3.6.2 Analysis The standards are trying to manage overpaving, parking location, driveway design, and stormwater impacts, but they do so through a fragmented structure. A user must determine yard area coverage, required parking location, driveway width, surface material, and impervious- surface setbacks from separate provisions. The variation record shows that impervious surface setback relief is a recurring issue. From 2019 through 2025, eight approved variations involved impervious surface setbacks, including driveways, walkways, and patios. Half of those lots had nonconforming lot widths, and nearly 40 percent had lot widths under 50 feet. This suggests that the standards are especially difficult to apply on smaller or constrained lots. The hard-surface driveway requirement may discourage lower-impact driveway designs, such as ribbon driveways or split-track systems, even where those designs could reduce impervious coverage and better align with stormwater and green-space objectives. Variation Type Approved Typical Improvement Reform Signal Requests Impervious 8 Driveways, walkways, A recurring relief category tied to surface setbacks patios constrained lots and nonconforming widths. Driveways 5 Driveway location or Driveway standards should be setback relief clearer and more flexible where site constraints exist. 31 of 80 Page 41 of 90  Walkways 3 Walkway placement/ Pedestrian access improvements setback relief should be regulated with proportionate standards. Patios 2 Patio placement/ Rear-yard and side-yard paved setback relief areas should be handled in the same site-design framework. 3.6.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Consolidate driveway, parking placement, paved area, and impervious surface standards into one residential site design subsection. • Clarify how front-yard paving limits, required parking spaces, driveway width, and impervious surface setbacks interact. • Review whether the current mix of yard-area percentages and lot-width setback formulas can be replaced with a simpler and more predictable standard. • Revise the driveway material standard to allow sustainable low-impact driveway designs, including ribbon driveways, split-track systems, permeable pavers, or other approved designs. • Consider eliminating the separate impervious surface setback table and using a more consistent accessory-use setback standard for paved surfaces, with a specific exception for driveways where appropriate. • Use the variation data for lots under 50 feet wide to test any revised paving or setback standard before adoption. 3.7 Definitions, Terminology, and Measurement Rules Reform takeaway: The Code should distinguish definitions from operative standards and move commonly used measurement rules into one central location. 3.7.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language The Code uses overlapping terminology for accessory buildings, accessory structures, buildings, projections, lot measurements, grade, average existing grade, eave height, fence height, detached garage height, and impervious surface setbacks. Several measurement rules are embedded in district standards, definitions, notes, figures, or supplementary regulations. Examples include front yard measurement, lot width and frontage measurement, grade and average existing grade, garage orientation on curved lots, eave height, detached garage height, fence height, and impervious surface setback measurement. 3.7.2 Analysis The current structure makes definitions perform too much work. Definitions should explain terms, while operative standards should tell users what is permitted, prohibited, measured, or required. When substantive standards are embedded in definitions or dispersed notes, users may miss key requirements. Measurement rules are essential to consistent administration, but they are currently too dispersed. Staff and applicants must first identify the applicable standard and then determine 32 of 80 Page 42 of 90 where the Code explains how the standard is measured. This increases the risk of inconsistent interpretation and repeated plan revisions. 3.7.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Create a consolidated “Measurements and Rules of Interpretation” section for residential zoning review. • Move generally applicable measurement rules out of district notes and supplementary tables where feasible. • Use definitions only to define terms; place substantive permissions, prohibitions, and dimensional standards in operative code sections. • Clarify and consolidate accessory building, accessory structure, and accessory use terminology. • Add diagrams for the measurements most likely to cause interpretation issues, including front yard measurement, corner lots, lot width, average grade, height, and impervious surface setback. 3.8 Lot Size Standards Reform takeaway: Lot size standards generally follow a logical density progression, but the R2 variation record shows that smaller and nonconforming lots need a clearer reinvestment path. 3.8.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language The residential districts generally progress from larger-lot lower-density standards in RE, R0, and R1 to smaller-lot and more compact standards in R2, R3, and R4. R2B is an exception because it has larger minimum lot width and area requirements than R2, R3, and R4. For detached single-family dwellings, required minimum lot area ranges from 50,000 square feet in RE to 8,712 square feet in R2, R3, and R4. Minimum lot width ranges from 150 feet in RE to 66 feet for interior lots in R2, R3, and R4. Corner lots typically require additional width. District Interior Lot Width Corner Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area RE 150 ft. 150 ft. 160 ft. 50,000 sq. ft. R0 100 ft. 100 ft. 150 ft. 18,000 sq. ft. R1 90 ft. 108 ft. 130 ft. 14,500 sq. ft. R2 66 ft. 80 ft. 110 ft. 8,712 sq. ft. R2B 75 ft. 90 ft. 110 ft. 10,000 sq. ft. R3 66 ft. 80 ft. 110 ft. 8,712 sq. ft. R4 66 ft. 80 ft. 100 ft. 8,712 sq. ft. 3.8.2 Analysis Minimum lot size standards provide a basic intensity control and help maintain established development patterns. However, they also determine whether existing smaller lots can be used, improved, or reinvested in without relief. 33 of 80 Page 43 of 90 The variation record strongly points to the R2 district. Of 82 residential lots with approved variations from 2019 through 2025, 76 were in R2. Forty-one of the 82 lots were nonconforming, and 40 of those nonconforming lots were in R2. Twenty lots were nonconforming as to both width and area. This pattern does not necessarily mean that all R2 dimensional standards are inappropriate. It does show that R2 contains many older or constrained lots where current dimensional standards and related nonconformity rules regularly interact with routine residential improvements. Variation Finding Count / Share Meaning for Reform Residential lots with approved 76 of 82; R2 should be the main test district for variations in R2 92.7% residential bulk reform. Lots with approved variations 41 of 82; Relief is strongly connected to existing lot that were nonconforming 50.0% constraints. Nonconforming variation lots 40 of 41 The interaction between R2 standards and located in R2 nonconforming-lot rules should be simplified. Lots nonconforming as to 20 of 82; Code amendments should account for lots both width and area 24.4% that cannot realistically meet both current dimensions. 3.8.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Use the variation record as a calibration tool when revising R2 lot standards and related bulk requirements. • Evaluate whether minimum lot area and width standards should be adjusted for existing lots, infill lots, or lots that were lawfully created under prior standards. • Review corner-lot width premiums to determine whether they are necessary in each district or whether they create avoidable nonconformities. • Reevaluate the R2B district’s larger lot requirements and clarify whether the district serves a distinct planning purpose. • Create a clearer by-right path for modest reinvestment on smaller or nonconforming lots where the improvement is compatible with neighborhood character. 3.9 Yard Standards Reform takeaway: Yard standards are central to neighborhood form, but the current side- yard and front-yard rules create recurring pressure points on constrained lots. 3.9.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language Required yards generally decrease as districts move from estate-scale to more compact residential development. Front yard requirements range from 60 feet in RE to 30 feet in R2, R2B, R3, and R4. Rear yard requirements range from 60 feet in RE and R0 to 30 feet in R2B, R3, and R4. 34 of 80 Page 44 of 90 Interior side yards combine fixed minimums and percentage-based standards in most districts. RE requires a 30-foot interior side yard. R0, R1, R2, R2B, R3, and R4 use a base side-yard requirement or a percentage of lot width. District Front Yard Interior Side Yard Rear Yard RE 60 ft. 30 ft. 60 ft. R0 50 ft. 15 ft. or 15% of lot width 60 ft. R1 40 ft. 9 ft. or 10% of lot width 50 ft. R2 30 ft. 6.5 ft. or 10% of lot width 40 ft. R2B 40 ft. 7.5 ft. or 10% of lot width 30 ft. R3 40 ft. 6.6 ft. or 10% of lot width 30 ft. R4 30 ft. 6.6 ft. or 10% of lot width 30 ft. 3.9.2 Analysis Yard standards help maintain spacing, light, air, and neighborhood rhythm. However, they can become difficult to apply on narrow or nonconforming lots, particularly when side-yard formulas are combined with lot coverage, height, porch, garage, or nonconformity rules. The R2 variation record shows recurring pressure around interior side yards and front yards. Interior side yard relief appeared in 18 R2 variation lots, and front yard relief appeared in seven. Several interior side yard requests involved additions, enclosed rooms, porches, decks, dormers, or similar reinvestment projects, suggesting that the issue is tied to ordinary home improvement rather than only unusual development proposals. R2 Yard Variation Approved Common Context Type Lots Interior side yard 17 Additions, enclosed rooms, porches, decks, dormers, and other common improvements. Front yard 7 Projects affected by base front yard requirements or adjacent-structure alignment. Rear yard 7 Additions, rooftop decks, site improvements, and garage-related improvements. 3.9.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Review R2 interior side yard standards against actual lot widths, nonconforming-lot patterns, and typical home improvement projects. • Consider whether side-yard formulas should be simplified or whether a separate standard should apply to legally existing narrow lots. • Clarify front-yard averaging or adjacent-structure alignment rules so they are easier to apply and less likely to trigger relief for compatible additions. • Review corner side yard requirements and nonconforming-lot adjustments to determine whether current standards create avoidable relief requests. • Coordinate yard revisions with lot coverage and height standards so one-dimensional fix does not simply shift the same problem to another relief category. 35 of 80 Page 45 of 90 3.10 Lot Coverage and Height Reform takeaway: Lot coverage and height controls should be retained, but their current organization and bonus structure should be simplified. 3.10.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language For R0, R1, R2, R2B, and R3, the Code repeats lot coverage standards for single-family dwellings and accessory buildings. The standards distinguish between one-story dwellings and dwellings of more than one story, with recurring 35 percent and 20 percent thresholds. The Code also includes repeated lot coverage exclusions or bonuses for detached garages and front porches. Height standards are cross-referenced in several districts, with the R2 height section functioning as the operative single-family height rule for multiple other districts. 3.10.2 Analysis Lot coverage and height standards are appropriate tools for managing building bulk and neighborhood scale. The issue is not the existence of these controls, but their complexity. Repeating the same thresholds in multiple districts, splitting exceptions into separate provisions, and relying on bonuses creates avoidable review steps. The R2 variation record shows lot coverage as the most frequent R2 relief category. Twenty- three R2 lots were approved for lot coverage relief. Interior side yard relief followed with 18 lots. Height relief appeared less often but remains difficult to navigate because the applicable height standards are cross-referenced and include detailed bonus provisions. Bonus-based approaches can support design objectives, such as encouraging front porches or detached garages. However, when the bonus is the main way to achieve a policy goal, users must calculate exceptions rather than apply a direct standard. That is especially burdensome on constrained lots. R2 Relief Category Approved Reform Signal Lots Lot coverage 23 Most frequent R2 relief category; recalibrate or simplify coverage standards and exceptions. Interior side yard 17 Side-yard requirements should be tested against common additions and narrow lots. Front yard 7 Clarify base front-yard and alignment rules. Rear yard 7 Coordinate rear-yard requirements with accessory structures, additions, and site improvements. Height 5 Height rules should be easier to locate and apply, even if numerical limits remain. 3.10.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Move shared lot coverage standards and exceptions into one general residential lot coverage section. • Review whether the distinction between one-story and more-than-one-story dwellings remains necessary or whether a simpler coverage structure would be easier to administer. 36 of 80 Page 46 of 90 • Reevaluate R2 lot coverage thresholds using the recent variation record, especially for lots that are nonconforming as to width, area, or both. • Replace detached garage and front porch bonus rules with direct standards where feasible. • If height standards apply across multiple districts, either state them directly in each district or relocate them to a general residential height section. • Reformat height exceptions for dormers, porches, turrets, and similar architectural features into a concise table organized by feature. 3.11 Nonconformities and Existing Residential Development Reform takeaway: Rules for smaller lots, existing homes, and nonconformities should be easier to find and less dependent on historic facts that are difficult to verify. 3.11.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language Section 10-4-1 and Chapter 10-8 both regulate how existing residential lots and structures may continue, be improved, be rebuilt, or be expanded. Several provisions apply specifically to R2 or to single-family development even though they are located in sections that otherwise apply generally across the Village. The provisions use recurring thresholds, including 50 feet of lot width and 6,534 square feet of lot area, to determine whether certain single-family lots and dwellings may be used, improved, altered, reconstructed, or enlarged. 3.11.2 Analysis The nonconformity framework is one of the most important areas for reform because it affects older homes and smaller lots that are central to housing preservation and neighborhood reinvestment. The current structure is difficult to use because relevant rules are split among general compliance provisions, nonconformity rules, definitions, and R2 district standards. The standards rely on technical classifications and fact-specific eligibility tests, including ownership history, prior lot status, prior variations, and existing nonconforming coverage or setbacks. Those facts may not be known to property owners, designers, or staff at the beginning of a project. The result is a less predictable process for maintaining or modestly expanding older homes. The rules may preserve some opportunity for continued use, but the path is narrow, conditional, and difficult to understand. Current Issue Practical Effect Reform Objective R2 and single-family- Users may not know to look Place these rules where R2 specific provisions are outside the district section. and existing-home users can located in general sections. find them. 50-foot / 6,534-square-foot Creates a repeated but not Organize thresholds as one thresholds recur in multiple clearly explained policy coherent rule and test whether sections. threshold. the numbers remain appropriate. 37 of 80 Page 47 of 90  Eligibility may depend on Difficult to verify early in the Use current objective ownership history or prior design process. standards where feasible. lot status. Nonconforming coverage or Compatible reinvestment may Permit modest improvements setbacks further limit still require relief. when impacts are controlled. improvements. 3.11.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Reorganize smaller-lot, nonconforming-lot, and existing single-family dwelling provisions into one clearly labeled section. • Clarify how Class I, II, and III alteration and addition categories apply without requiring users to rely on definitions alone – assess the use and utility of the alteration categories. • Reevaluate the 50-foot width and 6,534-square-foot area thresholds to determine whether they continue to support housing preservation, reinvestment, and attainable housing goals. • Reduce or eliminate reliance on historical ownership, prior lot configuration, and prior variation history where a current objective standard can be used instead. • Create a clearer by-right path for maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and modest expansion of existing homes on smaller or nonconforming lots, subject to compatibility standards. 3.12 District-Specific Findings and Reform Direction Reform takeaway: Most district-specific reforms should clarify purpose, simplify presentation, and focus substantive recalibration where the standards generate recurring friction. 3.12.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language The residential districts contain a mix of common standards and unique provisions. Some district-specific text reflects legacy conditions, such as annexation agreements or former zoning classifications. Other district differences reflect intended changes in density, housing type, or development review process. The most significant district-specific issue is R2 because it covers the largest share of Village land and accounts for the overwhelming majority of approved residential variations. R5 is also notable because it operates almost entirely through planned development rather than conventional district standards. 3.12.2 Analysis RE, R0, and R1 generally function as larger-lot detached residential districts. Their reform needs are primarily organizational unless the Village chooses to revisit the policy role of large-lot zoning. R2B appears to function similarly to a detached single-family district with larger lot requirements than R2, R3, and R4, so its distinct purpose should be clarified. R3 and R4 carry most of the zoning code’s conventional housing-choice function. R3 permits two-family dwellings and smaller attached residential forms; R4 is the primary conventional multifamily district. Because these districts cover relatively limited land area, their ability to meet 38 of 80 Page 48 of 90 broader housing needs depends on whether the Village is comfortable expanding similar standards, adding transition districts, or allowing more housing types in additional locations. R5 is very limited in geographic application and does not contain fixed lot, yard, height, or coverage standards. That structure provides flexibility but little predictability. The district should either be repurposed with clearer standards or removed/replaced in a way that preserves existing approvals. District Primary Finding Recommended Direction RE Limited estate district with legacy Group legacy provisions and clarify their yard, lot, and height provisions. applicability; simplify height presentation. R0 Large-lot detached district with few Review lot and yard standards with adjacent unique provisions. districts; otherwise rely on common reform topics. R1 Lower-density detached district with Evaluate whether standards remain limited unique issues. calibrated to existing lots and desired reinvestment. R2 Largest district and primary source Make R2 the main recalibration district for of approved residential variations. coverage, yards, height, and nonconformities. R2B Detached district with larger lot Clarify purpose; consider recalibration or requirements than R2/R3/R4. consolidation. R3 Primary district for two-family and Retain housing-choice role and present smaller attached residential forms. standards by dwelling type. R4 Primary conventional multifamily Maintain higher-density role; clarify district. standards and review detached/two-family special use treatment. R5 Planned development district with Retain with clearer purpose and standards, minimal fixed standards and very or remove/replace while preserving existing limited application. approvals. 3.12.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Clarify the policy purpose of each residential district in a short intent statement. • For RE, consolidate date-based legacy provisions and annexation-related exceptions so they are easier to locate and administer. • For R0 and R1, focus on common residential standards and review whether their lot and yard requirements remain appropriate relative to adjacent districts. • For R2, prioritize recalibration of lot coverage, interior side yards, front-yard rules, nonconforming-lot provisions, and height organization. • For R2B, determine whether the district should remain distinct, be recalibrated, or be consolidated with another detached residential district. • For R3 and R4, present dimensional standards by housing type and confirm that use permissions align with the Village’s desired missing-middle and multifamily strategy. • For R5, decide whether to retain the district as a planned development tool, add predictable base standards, or remove the district while preserving existing planned development approvals. 39 of 80 Page 49 of 90 3.13 Implementation Priorities Reform takeaway: The most effective reform sequence is to simplify the residential code structure first, then recalibrate the standards most connected to recurring variation requests. 3.13.1 Overview of Existing Standards/Language The zoning reform recommendations can be implemented in phases. Some reforms are primarily organizational and can be advanced without making major policy changes. Others require policy direction because they may affect housing choice, dimensional flexibility, or development review thresholds. 3.13.2 Analysis A phased approach will help separate readability improvements from substantive policy decisions. The first phase should focus on code architecture: common residential standards, measurement rules, terminology, tables, and district formatting. The second phase should focus on recalibration of the standards that generate recurring relief, especially in R2. The third phase should address broader housing choice, district consolidation, and potential map or use changes. 3.13.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform • Phase 1: Reorganize residential code architecture, including common standards, measurement rules, accessory structures, projections, driveways, parking, and impervious surface. • Phase 2: Recalibrate high-friction R2 standards, including lot coverage, interior side yards, front yards, height organization, and nonconforming-lot rules. • Phase 3: Evaluate district purpose and housing choice, including the role of R2B, R3, R4, and R5 and potential missing-middle housing reforms. • Phase 4: Prepare user-facing tables and diagrams for homeowners, staff, and design professionals. • Phase 5: Test draft standards against recent variation examples before adoption to confirm whether the amendments would reduce unnecessary relief requests while preserving neighborhood compatibility. Priority Action Expected Benefit 1 Create a general residential standards Shorter district sections and easier section. administration. 2 Centralize measurements and Fewer interpretation disputes and clearer definitions. plan review. 3 Rework R2 lot coverage and side-yard Reduced need for routine relief on standards. constrained residential lots. 4 Simplify nonconformity and smaller-lot Clearer reinvestment path for older homes rules. and existing lots. 5 Clarify housing-choice districts and More predictable implementation of long- R5. range housing policy. 40 of 80 Page 50 of 90 3.14 Recommended Code Reorganization The following outline shows one way to reorganize the residential zoning regulations so common rules are easier to find and district sections remain concise. This is not intended as ordinance language; it is a drafting framework for the next phase of zoning reform. Proposed Section Purpose Residential Districts and State the purpose, permitted uses, and district-specific Intent Statements dimensional standards for each residential district. Common Residential Collect generally applicable standards for accessory Standards structures, projections, porches, decks, garages, and similar improvements. Residential Site Design Consolidate driveway, parking placement, paved area, impervious surface, and low-impact design standards. Measurements and Rules of Centralize lot, yard, height, grade, frontage, and impervious Interpretation surface measurement rules. Existing Lots, Existing Provide one coherent framework for maintenance, expansion, Homes, and Nonconformities reconstruction, and reinvestment on smaller and nonconforming lots. Residential Use and Housing Present housing types and review procedures clearly by Type Tables district, including missing-middle and multifamily options. District-Specific Exceptions Retain only those exceptions that are unique, necessary, and easy to administer. This structure would allow the Village to preserve the policy choices that remain important while removing much of the repetition and cross-referencing that currently exist. 4. Review of Commercial Zoning Districts 4.1 Analysis of Commercial Zoning Districts The Village’s commercial zoning districts carry much of the responsibility for implementing the 2023 Comprehensive Plan’s direction on reinvestment, placemaking, housing choice, multimodal access, tax-base diversification, and compatibility with established neighborhoods. The existing district structure contains several useful building blocks, especially the distinction between neighborhood-scale commercial areas, auto-oriented commercial corridors, the downtown core, and institutional/light industrial settings. However, the code also reflects an older regulatory model that relies on long lists of highly specific uses, high parking ratios, planned development requirements for many routine changes, and limited form-based direction. The following analysis reviews each commercial or commercial-adjacent district in terms of its current regulatory role, its alignment with Comprehensive Plan goals, and recommended zoning reforms. The recommendations are intended to make the code clearer, more predictable, and more closely calibrated to the different physical contexts of Glen Ellyn’s commercial areas. 41 of 80 Page 51 of 90 4.2 C1 Community College 4.2.1 Intent and Overview The C1 District is currently reserved and has no active regulatory framework or mapped application. It functions as an unused placeholder in the zoning code. Because the district has no established purpose, use permissions, dimensional standards, or design expectations, it does not currently help implement the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for neighborhood commercial areas, corridor reinvestment, mixed-use development, or transition areas. 4.2.2 Analysis Maintaining a reserved district in the middle of the commercial district sequence adds unnecessary complexity for code users. It also creates a missed opportunity. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Downtown and Stacy’s Corners as neighborhood commercial centers and calls for commercial areas that provide everyday goods and services, attractive streetscapes, pedestrian-oriented environments, and appropriate buffering near residential neighborhoods. A reserved C1 district does not advance those goals. The Village could either eliminate the district or repurpose it to fill a gap in the current district structure. If repurposed, C1 could become a small-scale neighborhood commercial district intended for Stacy’s Corners and similar local-serving nodes where commercial activity should be compatible with surrounding residential character. This would allow the code to distinguish between traditional neighborhood commercial areas, corridor commercial areas, downtown mixed-use areas, and more service-oriented commercial environments. 4.2.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform The C1 District should either be removed from the code or converted into a purposeful district that implements an identified planning objective. • Eliminate C1 if the Village does not need an additional commercial district category. • If retained, repurpose C1 as a “Neighborhood Commercial” or “Legacy Neighborhood Commercial” district for Stacy’s Corners and similar small-scale commercial nodes. • Calibrate the district around small-format retail, restaurant, service, office, civic, and limited mixed-use buildings that can fit comfortably near residential neighborhoods. • Include frontage, entrance, transparency, pedestrian connection, landscape, lighting, and residential-edge transition standards rather than relying only on use permissions. • Avoid importing auto-oriented uses or large-format corridor uses into a future C1 district unless those uses are carefully limited or treated as conditional/special uses. 4.3 C2 Community Commercial District 4.3.1 Intent and Overview The C2 Community Commercial District is intended to provide basic services and convenience shopping for adjacent neighborhoods and the community as a whole. It permits a broad mix of 42 of 80 Page 52 of 90 retail, personal service, restaurant, office, and similar neighborhood-serving uses. The district has relatively modest dimensional standards, including no required front yard, a 10-foot rear yard, no side yard except where adjacent to or across an alley from residential zoning, a 35-foot base height limit, and a general parking ratio of one space per 250 square feet for many uses. 4.3.2 Analysis C2 is generally aligned with the Comprehensive Plan’s concept of neighborhood commercial development, but the current standards do not fully express the form or compatibility expectations that the Plan emphasizes. The use list is broad and includes many older, highly specific use descriptions. Several auto-oriented uses are allowed as special uses, including car washes, automobile repair, automotive sales and service, drive-in commercial facilities, and service stations. These may be appropriate in some locations, but they are not necessarily compatible with all neighborhood commercial settings. The district also lacks a strong set of pedestrian, frontage, and site-design standards. The Comprehensive Plan calls for neighborhood commercial areas that provide day-to-day goods and services while functioning as activity centers, gathering places, and walkable destinations. It also emphasizes buffering, attractive screening, landscaping, and pedestrian infrastructure where commercial areas are embedded in residential contexts. C2’s dimensional standards address basic setbacks and residential-edge yards but do not create a full framework for building orientation, storefront design, internal pedestrian connections, parking placement, or lighting. Parking requirements are another point of tension. A one-space-per-250-square-feet baseline may be higher than needed for smaller mixed-use or neighborhood-serving commercial uses, particularly where shared parking or walkable access is available. Overly rigid parking requirements can make reinvestment harder on constrained sites and can reinforce auto- oriented site layouts. 4.3.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform C2 should be refined into a clear neighborhood- or community-commercial district that supports local services, walkability, and compatibility with adjacent residential areas. • Reframe C2 with a concise purpose statement tied to Stacy’s Corners and similar nodes. • Consolidate the long use list into broader modern use categories such as retail sales, personal services, eating and drinking establishments, office, medical office, indoor recreation, and civic/institutional. • Treat auto-oriented uses, drive-throughs, outdoor storage, and intensive service uses as conditional/special uses subject to location, access, screening, and site-design standards. • Add frontage standards that require buildings to address the street, provide visible entrances, maintain pedestrian connections, and avoid parking-dominated frontages where walkable character is desired. 43 of 80 Page 53 of 90  • Right-size parking minimums and allow shared parking, cross-access, bicycle parking, and EV charging to satisfy modern access needs without overbuilding surface parking. • Strengthen residential-edge standards for landscape buffers, lighting, service-area screening, refuse enclosure placement, noise control, and loading location. 4.4 C3 Service Commercial District 4.4.1 Intent and Overview The C3 Service Commercial District is designed to allow a wide range of retail and service uses, including motorist-oriented and auto-intensive activities that may be incompatible with uses encouraged in other business districts. It accommodates many of the use types typically associated with the Roosevelt Road corridor, including auto sales and service, building material sales, restaurants, offices, clinics, hotels, theaters, animal hospitals, and other retail and service uses. The district requires a 40-foot front yard, a 30-foot rear yard, 10-foot side yards, increased yards near residential districts, a 45-foot base height limit, and a general parking ratio of one space per 250 square feet for many uses. 4.4.2 Analysis C3 is the Village’s main tool for auto-oriented commercial areas, but its standards reinforce the very strip-commercial conditions the Comprehensive Plan seeks to improve over time. The Plan recognizes Roosevelt Road as a major economic engine and regional corridor, but it also calls for reinvestment in aging properties, more efficient use of land, better multimodal access, improved corridor image, consolidated access drives, shared parking, stronger landscaping, and selective multi-family or mixed-use development near commercial amenities. The existing C3 standards still assume deep setbacks, front-loaded parking, and separated single-use development. The 40-foot front yard and parking expectations can make it difficult to bring buildings closer to the street, add liner buildings, create pedestrian-scaled frontages, or redevelop shallow corridor parcels. The district also includes a wide range of auto, storage, contractor, light manufacturing, and other intensive uses, some by right and some by special use. While those uses may be necessary in select locations, a single C3 district may not be refined enough to distinguish between high-visibility redevelopment areas, stable service- commercial areas, and locations where transition to residential or mixed-use development is appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan’s corridor recommendations suggest that C3 should evolve from a permissive service-commercial district into a more context-sensitive corridor framework. Different segments of Roosevelt Road may need different standards for access management, building placement, parking location, landscaping, cross-access, and residential transitions. 4.4.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform C3 should be recalibrated to support corridor reinvestment while still accommodating necessary auto-oriented and service uses in appropriate locations. • Consider splitting C3 into context-specific districts or overlays, such as “Corridor Commercial,” “Corridor Mixed-Use,” and “Auto/Service Commercial.” 44 of 80 Page 54 of 90  • Reduce or make flexible the required front setback where redevelopment can provide improved streetscape, pedestrian access, landscape buffering, and building orientation. • Require or incentivize parking to the side or rear of buildings where feasible, with strong perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping where front parking remains necessary. • Add access-management standards requiring cross-access, shared driveways, consolidated curb cuts, rear access drives where feasible, and recorded easements for multi-parcel redevelopment. • Establish corridor design standards for façade articulation, primary entrances, pedestrian routes through parking lots, screening of loading/service areas, and landscaped street edges. • Limit the most intensive uses, including outdoor storage, vehicle storage, contractor yards, light manufacturing, and payday/check-cashing/currency exchange uses, to locations where they will not undermine reinvestment, corridor image, or adjacent residential compatibility. Explore inclusion of low-impact production, cottage industry production, or maker/flex space. • Allow mixed-use or multi-family development in targeted locations where the Comprehensive Plan identifies transition areas or redevelopment opportunities, while preserving active commercial frontage along Roosevelt Road where appropriate. • Add low-impact development and green infrastructure requirements for major redevelopment, including bioswales, rain gardens, permeable pavement, landscaped medians, and stormwater-integrated parking lot islands. 4.5 C4 Office District 4.5.1 Intent and Overview The C4 Office District is intended primarily to accommodate office buildings, civic and governmental structures, clinics, research laboratories, private schools, studios, broadcasting studios, and limited sales, personal service, or eating establishments within office buildings. The district permits office and related uses by right, while allowing certain residential care, daycare, restaurant, automotive, warehouse, and public uses by special use. The district requires a 40- foot front yard, a 20-foot rear yard, 10-foot side yards, increased yards near residential districts, a 45-foot base height limit, and parking ratios similar to the other commercial districts. 4.5.2 Analysis C4 reflects a conventional single-use office district model. That model is less consistent with current market conditions and the Comprehensive Plan’s direction to consolidate and comprehensively redevelop out-of-date office properties, particularly within Downtown and the Roosevelt Road corridor. The Plan recognizes office uses as part of the Village’s commercial base, but it does not suggest that office-only zoning should be the primary implementation tool. Instead, it encourages reinvestment, mixed-use development, adaptive reuse, and compatibility with nearby neighborhoods. 45 of 80 Page 55 of 90 The limited permitted-use mix may reduce the ability of older office properties to adapt. Where office demand is weak or existing buildings are functionally obsolete, a district that primarily permits office uses may prolong vacancy or underinvestment. The allowance for sales, services, and eating establishments only within office buildings and only up to a portion of the ground floor may also be too restrictive for properties that could support a more flexible mixed-use or neighborhood-serving pattern. The district’s dimensional standards also resemble C3’s suburban commercial model, with a 40- foot front setback and parking-oriented site design. This may be appropriate for some campus- like office properties, but it is less effective for infill, adaptive reuse, or corridor redevelopment where the Village wants better streetscape character, more efficient land use, and improved pedestrian connectivity. 4.5.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform C4 should be reconsidered as part of a broader strategy for obsolete office properties and mixed-use redevelopment. • Evaluate whether the Village still needs a standalone office district or whether existing C4 areas should be folded into corridor, mixed-use, institutional, or neighborhood commercial districts. • If C4 is retained, expand permitted uses to include complementary retail, service, restaurant, medical, flex, co-working, civic, residential, and mixed-use options where context supports them. Explore inclusion of low-impact production, cottage industry production, or maker/flex space. • Allow adaptive reuse and conversion of office buildings to residential, mixed-use, civic, educational, or medical uses through clear standards rather than relying primarily on discretionary relief. • Replace suburban office setback standards with context-sensitive building placement standards that can accommodate both campus-style sites and more urban infill conditions. • Add transition standards for C4 sites near residential neighborhoods, including height stepbacks, landscape buffering, lighting controls, and loading/service placement. • Revisit parking ratios for office and medical office uses, and allow shared parking, demand-based parking studies, transit proximity reductions, and bicycle/EV infrastructure. • Use redevelopment incentives or flexible approval procedures to encourage reinvestment in aging office properties that otherwise may remain vacant or underutilized. 46 of 80 Page 56 of 90 4.6 C5 Central Business District 4.6.1 Intent and Overview The C5 Central Business District is the zoning framework for Glen Ellyn’s historic downtown. It is divided into two subdistricts: C5A Central Retail Core and C5B Central Service. The C5A subdistrict is intended to maintain and protect the primary retail core of Downtown, generally within the compact area bounded by Pennsylvania, Forest, Hillside, and Glenwood. The C5B subdistrict is intended to accommodate service uses, consolidated parking, residential uses in some circumstances, and the gradual expansion of the retail core. The district is explicitly pedestrian-oriented and recognizes Downtown’s historic role as the Village’s central retail, service, entertainment, civic, residential, and transit-oriented focal point. At the same time, many new buildings, unimproved land development, and larger additions in the C5 district must proceed as planned unit developments. 4.6.2 Analysis C5 is conceptually well aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan calls for Downtown to remain the Village’s historic, pedestrian-oriented retail, commercial, service, and entertainment focal point. It also supports mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial and upper- story residential or office uses, adaptive reuse, additional housing near transit, public parking management, public/private partnerships, improved streetscapes, and preservation of the “retail wall” at street level. The district’s primary challenge is not its purpose, but the way the code implements that purpose. The current C5 structure relies heavily on lengthy use lists, use-specific restrictions, and PUD triggers. These tools can protect downtown character, but they can also make routine reinvestment slow, uncertain, and difficult to explain. In a built-out downtown with small parcels, older buildings, changing retail markets, and constrained parking, the code should provide clear standards that distinguish between active street-fronting uses, upper-floor/back-of-building uses, service uses, residential uses, and auto-oriented or low-activity uses. Downtown also faces a practical tension between wanting active storefronts and needing flexibility as retail patterns change. Uses such as offices, health/personal services, clinics, and studios can contribute to occupancy and customer traffic but may weaken storefront vitality if they occupy key display-window frontages without active public-facing design. The code should address this through frontage standards, transparency requirements, storefront activation rules, and location-based use permissions rather than relying only on special use review. 4.6.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform C5 should be retained as the Downtown zoning framework, but rewritten to be more predictable, form-oriented, and supportive of adaptive reuse. • Maintain the distinction between a retail-core area and a surrounding service/mixed-use downtown area, but simplify the district structure and clarify how C5A and C5B relate to one another. 47 of 80 Page 57 of 90  • Replace highly specific use lists with broader modern use categories organized by ground-floor active uses, upper-floor uses, service/support uses, residential uses, civic uses, and restricted auto-oriented uses. • Establish storefront activation standards for key pedestrian streets, including minimum transparency, public entrance spacing, display windows, limits on blank walls, and restrictions on non-active ground-floor frontage. • Allow service and office uses in appropriate locations while requiring an active storefront treatment where they occupy visible ground-floor spaces. Explore inclusion of low- impact production, cottage industry production, or maker/flex space. • Reevaluate PUD triggers so that routine adaptive reuse, small additions, interior conversions, and context-compliant infill can proceed through an administrative or site plan process. • Continue to support upper-story residential and office uses, adaptive reuse, and context- sensitive additions that preserve the historic scale and rhythm of Downtown. • Modernize downtown parking regulations for new construction to reflect transit access, shared public parking, employee parking management, and realistic residential parking demand. 4.7 C5A Central Retail Core Subdistrict 4.7.1 Intent and Overview The C5A Central Retail Core Subdistrict is intended to protect the most pedestrian-oriented retail portion of Downtown. It permits a wide range of traditional retail, restaurant, entertainment, and service uses, allows dwelling units above the ground floor where commercial uses are located on the ground floor, and limits certain office and service uses to upper floors, lower floors, or ground-floor areas set back at least 40 feet from street-facing façades without storefront windows. The district generally requires no front or corner side yard, caps any provided front or corner side setback at five feet, limits height to 45 feet or four stories, and does not require accessory off-street parking within the core retail area. 4.7.2 Analysis C5A is the district most directly aligned with the Comprehensive Plan’s downtown vision. Its zero-setback framework, upper-story residential allowance, and parking exemption all support a compact pedestrian environment. These elements should be preserved and strengthened. The district recognizes that Downtown’s value comes from the continuity of storefronts, pedestrian activity, and historic scale rather than from suburban parking and setback standards. However, the use regulations are detailed and somewhat difficult to administer. They distinguish between many individual retail and service types, some of which are outdated or overly specific. The code’s treatment of non-retail uses reflects a valid concern: the most visible storefronts should remain active and appealing. But the current mechanism can be rigid and may not always match contemporary downtown business models. A modern code should regulate the 48 of 80 Page 58 of 90 storefront outcome more directly: active windows, publicly accessible customer areas, pedestrian entries, hours of activity, and interior layouts that avoid dead frontage. The PUD requirement for unimproved land and larger additions may also be too blunt for the retail core. It can be valuable for major redevelopment, but context-compliant infill should have a clearer path if it meets dimensional, frontage, preservation, parking, and design standards. 4.7.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform C5A should remain the Village’s strongest pedestrian retail district, with more direct form and storefront standards. • Preserve the zero-to-five-foot front setback framework and the exemption from accessory off-street parking in the core retail area. • Convert the detailed use list into a modern table that distinguishes active ground-floor uses from limited-activity uses, upper-floor uses, and conditional/special uses. • Require visible, active storefront design for ground-floor spaces on key streets, including transparency, display area, public entries, and limits on window coverings or opaque interior treatments. • Allow certain office, educational, wellness, studio, and service uses at the ground floor only when they maintain an active customer-facing storefront and do not create long inactive frontages. • Continue to allow upper-story residential and office uses, while ensuring that ground- floor commercial frontage is preserved. • Create an administrative path for small additions, façade changes, tenant changes, and adaptive reuse projects that meet clear downtown standards. • Retain special review for auto-oriented uses, drive-throughs, large-format uses, outdoor storage, and other uses that could disrupt pedestrian character. 4.8 C5B Central Service Subdistrict 4.8.1 Intent and Overview The C5B Central Service Subdistrict surrounds and supports the retail core. It permits a broad range of uses within existing buildings, including retail, restaurants, services, offices, entertainment, and similar downtown uses. It also allows residential uses, including single-family attached, single-family detached, two-family, and multi-family dwellings, as special uses. The district uses different dimensional standards for commercial, mixed-use, multi-family, single- family attached, and single-family detached development. Existing uses receive parking credit, and new parking obligations are generally triggered by changes to different parking-demand categories, major reconstruction, or additions. 4.8.2 Analysis 49 of 80 Page 59 of 90 C5B plays an important transition and support role for Downtown. It provides space for services, parking, residential uses, and mixed-use development outside the tight retail core. This aligns with the Comprehensive Plan’s direction to accommodate Downtown housing, manage parking, support public/private parking partnerships, preserve street-level commercial activity, and use single-family attached and multi-family housing as transitions between Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. The district is also complicated. Its use permissions differ for existing buildings, new construction, residential uses, and special uses. Many permitted uses in existing buildings require planned unit development for new construction or significant additions. Residential forms are allowed, but often through special use or PUD pathways. These layers can make it hard for property owners to understand what is expected and can slow redevelopment of aging or underutilized downtown-edge sites. The C5B parking-credit approach is a useful recognition of existing downtown conditions, but the underlying parking ratios remain high for some uses and may not reflect actual demand in a transit-oriented setting. The Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends reevaluating residential parking requirements in the C5 districts and considering more contemporary ratios for multi-family housing near the Metra station. 4.8.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform C5B should be simplified into a flexible downtown mixed-use and transition district that supports reinvestment while protecting neighborhood edges. • Retain C5B as the district for downtown service, mixed-use, parking, and transition areas, but simplify the use structure so that new development and existing-building reuse are easier to understand. • Permit multi-family, upper-story residential, and mixed-use development by right when projects meet clear form, frontage, parking, and residential-transition standards. • Use special use review for single-purpose residential projects only where the Village wants to ensure that important commercial frontages are not lost. • Modernize the parking-credit system and reduce residential parking requirements near transit based on local demand, shared parking, and public parking availability. • Add clear edge standards where C5B abuts lower-density neighborhoods, including height stepbacks, landscaped buffers, lighting controls, service-area screening, and access management. • Allow adaptive reuse and context-sensitive additions without requiring a PUD when the project meets district standards. • Encourage public/private parking partnerships, shared parking agreements, and structured parking where such facilities support downtown vitality and reduce pressure for surface parking. • Explore adding low-impact production, cottage industry production, or maker/flex space. 50 of 80 Page 60 of 90 4.9 C6 Commercial/Multiuse Planned Development District 4.9.1 Intent and Overview The C6 Commercial/Multiuse Planned Development District is intended to ensure planned and orderly development of mixed-use areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan. All development in the district must occur by planned development and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The district allows a broad range of retail, service, office, auto-oriented, institutional, residential, and outdoor activity uses subject to review and approval of a development plan. Bulk standards, including height and floor area ratio, are determined through the development plan, with standards expected to be consistent with adjacent districts and the Comprehensive Plan. 4.9.2 Analysis C6 appears to have been designed as a flexible planned development tool rather than a conventional zoning district. That flexibility can be useful for large or complex sites, but it also creates uncertainty because basic entitlements, dimensional standards, and design expectations are deferred to the PUD process. In practice, that can make development harder rather than more predictable, particularly for partially built-out sites, shopping centers, or redevelopment areas where property owners need early clarity before investing in detailed plans. The Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed-use development, redevelopment of obsolete commercial properties, larger-scale corridor reinvestment, and creative site and building design solutions. Those goals should not require every project to start from a blank-slate planned development process. A district that has no clear by-right development path may discourage exactly the reinvestment the Village wants to attract. C6 also overlaps conceptually with the potential future role of a corridor mixed-use district. If the Village creates modern form-based or hybrid districts for Roosevelt Road, Downtown-edge areas, and other mixed-use nodes, C6 may become unnecessary. Alternatively, it could be retained only as a large-site planned development overlay for exceptional projects that need negotiated standards. 4.9.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform C6 should either be eliminated or substantially rewritten so it provides predictable standards rather than relying entirely on the PUD process. • Consider eliminating C6 if its mapped areas can be more effectively regulated through updated corridor, mixed-use, downtown, or neighborhood commercial districts. • If retained, convert C6 into a “Mixed-Use Planned Development Overlay” rather than a base district. • Establish baseline permitted uses, conditional/special uses, height ranges, frontage types, parking locations, open space expectations, access standards, and residential- transition standards. • Reserve full PUD review for large, multi-phase, multi-building, or uniquely constrained sites, rather than requiring it for all development. 51 of 80 Page 61 of 90  • Create an optional concept-plan review step that allows developers and decision-makers to discuss feasibility, community priorities, access, parking, and design expectations before significant resources are spent. • Clarify how amendments to approved planned developments will be handled, including a streamlined process for minor changes, tenant changes, façade updates, parking adjustments, and site-plan refinements. • Ensure any retained C6 framework includes clear public-benefit expectations, such as improved streetscape, shared parking, cross-access, affordable or attainable housing, open space, stormwater improvements, or structured parking. 4.10 I1 Light Industrial District 4.10.1 Intent and Overview The I1 Light Industrial District is intended to provide an environment for industrial activities that do not create appreciable nuisance or hazards and that can be located harmoniously with office uses and in relatively close proximity to residential areas. Permitted uses include light manufacturing, contractor offices, building material sales, automobile repair and service, commercial laundry, research laboratories, indoor self-storage, sheet metal shops, medical cannabis dispensaries, and accessory retail associated with another permitted use. Special uses include outdoor storage, contractor yards, cartage and delivery uses, recycling collection centers, warehouses, vehicle storage yards, and similar more intensive uses. The district requires a 30-foot front or corner side yard, 20-foot side and rear yards, a 20,000-square-foot minimum lot area, a 45-foot height limit, and screening where required. 4.10.2 Analysis The Comprehensive Plan identifies light industrial uses as a small but important part of the Village’s land use pattern. It notes that there are relatively few light industrial uses in Glen Ellyn and that the category should be maintained to support the Village’s industrial base while enhancing sites through proper screening from adjacent residential uses. I1 is generally consistent with this policy direction, but the permitted use list is broad and includes several uses with different impact profiles. Some listed uses are low-impact, employment-generating, or compatible with office/flex development. Others, such as automobile repair, commercial laundry, sheet metal shops, contractor yards, vehicle storage, outdoor storage, and warehousing, may generate noise, truck traffic, outdoor activity, or visual impacts. The current district relies on special use review and general screening requirements, but it would benefit from more precise performance standards. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages compatible light industry and high-tech uses in select commercial areas. This suggests that the I1 district should be modernized to accommodate small-scale production, maker spaces, research and development, food and beverage production, and flex industrial uses while better controlling outdoor storage, loading, truck access, and residential-edge impacts. 52 of 80 Page 62 of 90 4.10.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform I1 should be retained but modernized as a low-impact light industrial, maker, and flex employment district. • Update the purpose statement to emphasize low-impact production, maker/flex space, research and development, contractor services, and employment-generating uses compatible with nearby neighborhoods. • Consolidate industrial uses into modern categories and distinguish between indoor low- impact uses, outdoor storage/service uses, vehicle-related uses, and heavy-impact uses that should remain prohibited or conditional. • Establish performance standards for noise, vibration, odor, dust, outdoor activity, hours of operation, truck circulation, loading, and refuse/service areas. • Strengthen buffering and screening requirements for I1 sites near residential, park, or public/semi-public uses. • Require loading areas, outdoor storage, and vehicle storage to be located and screened to minimize visibility from streets and adjacent residential properties. • Consider allowing limited accessory retail, tasting rooms, showrooms, or customer- facing components for maker, food/beverage, and production uses where parking and access can be managed. • Reevaluate parking requirements for industrial/flex uses based on employees, visitors, vehicle fleet needs, and shared parking rather than applying a one-size-fits-all commercial ratio. 4.11 CC Community College District 4.11.1 Intent and Overview The CC Community College District applies to College of DuPage and is intended to recognize the unique role of a public community college as an educational, cultural, economic, and civic asset. The district allows community college uses with a Village Board-reviewed master plan, indoor and outdoor special events with adequate traffic control and on-site parking, open space, public parks, playgrounds, gardens, and parking lots consistent with the master plan or code requirements. Special uses include parking garages not shown on an approved master plan, private daycare or private schools not associated with the college’s educational program, and public utility or public service uses. Development is tied to an approved master plan, with substantial setbacks, parking determined by the master plan, and screening of loading areas from public roads and residential uses. 4.11.2 Analysis The CC district is not a conventional commercial district, but it has a significant relationship to the Village’s commercial, transportation, housing, and economic development goals. The Comprehensive Plan identifies College of DuPage as a major community amenity and economic 53 of 80 Page 63 of 90 development asset. It encourages continued coordination between the Village and COD, stronger town-and-gown relationships, transit connections between COD, Downtown, and the Metra station, student and faculty housing opportunities near campus, campus-edge placemaking, and mutually beneficial amendments to the planned development or master planning framework that guides the campus. The current CC district provides broad flexibility for the college and appropriately relies on a master plan. However, the code could more clearly articulate the Village’s expectations for campus-edge transitions, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, transit integration, event management, signage/wayfinding, lighting, parking demand management, and coordination with nearby commercial areas. The Comprehensive Plan’s emphasis on COD as an economic and cultural partner suggests that the CC district should not only regulate impacts, but also facilitate mutually beneficial campus-community integration. 4.11.3 Recommendations for Zoning Reform The CC district should remain a flexible institutional district, with clearer standards and procedures for campus evolution and Village coordination. • Retain the master plan approach, but clarify the required contents of future master plan updates, including land use, building envelopes, circulation, parking, stormwater, open space, lighting, signage, and campus-edge transitions. • Establish standards for pedestrian and bicycle connections along Lambert Road, Park Boulevard, Fawell Boulevard, and other campus edges. • Coordinate district standards with transit goals, including shuttle or Pace connections between COD, Downtown, Roosevelt Road, and the Metra station. • Clarify when amendments to the COD master plan are major or minor, and create a predictable process for routine campus changes. • Strengthen edge standards for lighting, loading, service areas, event operations, and landscape buffering near residential areas. • Support COD-related economic development by allowing appropriate incubator, innovation, training, arts, cultural, and public event uses when impacts are managed. • Coordinate with nearby zoning districts to support student and faculty housing, mixed- use development, and commercial services near COD without overburdening the campus district itself. 4.12 Use Permissions and Mixing Uses The commercial districts rely on long enumerated use lists that reflect older retail and service classifications. Many use names are highly specific, such as individual retail store types, while newer business models are either absent or awkwardly categorized. This structure can make the code harder to use, harder to update, and more dependent on interpretation. It also makes it difficult for staff, applicants, boards, and the public to understand why similar uses are treated differently. 54 of 80 Page 64 of 90 The Comprehensive Plan supports a more flexible and adaptive commercial environment. It calls for expanding the variety of commercial, retail, and office establishments; encouraging compatible new commercial development; promoting redevelopment of obsolete properties; supporting mixed-use development Downtown and in appropriate transition areas; and introducing compatible light industry and high-tech uses in select locations. The code should therefore move away from an “everything everywhere” approach in some districts and an overly narrow use-by-use approach in others. Recommended use-permission reforms include: • Replace long lists of individual retail and service uses with broader use categories and use-specific standards. • Organize commercial use tables by district context: neighborhood commercial, corridor commercial, downtown retail core, downtown mixed-use/service, office/flex, light industrial, institutional, and mixed-use overlay. • Distinguish between use, form, and operational impacts. For example, medical office, boutique fitness studio, or professional office may be acceptable downtown if it maintains an active storefront, but may be inappropriate if it creates inactive window frontage in the retail core. • Allow mixed-use development by clear standards in appropriate districts rather than relying primarily on PUDs or special uses. • Identify uses that require additional controls because of access, noise, outdoor storage, vehicle queuing, truck movement, hours, or residential-edge impacts. • Treat drive-throughs, vehicle sales/service, outdoor storage, contractor yards, heavy service uses, and similar auto- or impact-oriented uses as conditional/special uses with objective approval criteria. • Clarify the relationship between principal uses, accessory uses, temporary uses, outdoor dining, outdoor display, events, food trucks, and accessory retail. • Include adaptive reuse provisions that allow older office, commercial, and institutional buildings to convert to compatible new uses without unnecessary discretionary approvals. 4.13 Form-Based Standards The current commercial districts regulate use and basic dimensional standards more comprehensively than they regulate physical form. In many locations, this is not enough to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan’s commercial goals repeatedly emphasize physical outcomes: pedestrian-oriented Downtown streets, attractive storefronts, improved corridor image, landscaped parking lots, better screening, reduced curb cuts, cross-access, multimodal connections, residential transitions, low-impact development, and compatibility with historic character. 55 of 80 Page 65 of 90 The code should incorporate form-based or hybrid standards that vary by context. These standards do not need to replace conventional zoning entirely, but they should define the physical elements that matter most in each commercial setting. Recommended form-based reforms include: • Create frontage standards for key street types, including downtown storefront frontages, neighborhood commercial frontages, corridor commercial frontages, and service/industrial frontages. • Establish building orientation standards that require principal entrances to face streets, public sidewalks, parking courts, or internal pedestrian routes. • Require pedestrian routes from public sidewalks to building entrances, transit stops, parking areas, and adjacent sites. • Add parking placement standards that prefer side or rear parking in walkable areas and require strong screening where front parking remains. • Require perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping, parking-lot islands, foundation landscaping, and landscaped medians or pedestrian refuges in larger lots. Focus Group interviews relayed a desire for aesthetic standards related to retail - retail signage, lighting, and landscaping requirements should be reviewed to better balance aesthetics, safety, and business visibility. • Require cross-access and shared access for corridor redevelopment unless infeasible due to site conditions. • Include residential transition standards addressing height, stepbacks, setbacks, landscape buffers, lighting, service areas, refuse, loading, and mechanical equipment. • Add downtown storefront standards for transparency, entrance spacing, display windows, façade rhythm, durable materials, and limits on inactive or blank frontage in a manner than achieves desired results without bogging down investments and improvements within the business district. • Add corridor design standards for façade articulation, pedestrian-scale features, gateway treatments, signage coordination, and streetscape compatibility. • Add low-impact development standards for major redevelopment, especially along Roosevelt Road and in other highly impervious commercial areas. 4.14 Alignment with Long Range Plans 4.14.1 Comprehensive Plan The 2023 Comprehensive Plan provides a clear policy basis for commercial zoning reform. It supports preservation of Glen Ellyn’s established residential and historic character while also encouraging strategic redevelopment, reinvestment, mixed-use development, and tax-base diversification. The commercial zoning districts should be updated so that the code becomes the primary implementation tool for that policy direction. 56 of 80 Page 66 of 90  (a) Grow and Diversify Key Commercial Districts The Plan identifies Downtown, Roosevelt Road, Stacy’s Corners, and areas near College of DuPage as key activity areas. Each needs a different zoning response. Downtown needs a compact, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use framework that protects active ground-floor commercial frontage while allowing upper-story housing and adaptive reuse. Roosevelt Road needs a corridor redevelopment framework that supports reinvestment, lot consolidation, cross- access, shared parking, improved landscaping, and more efficient land use. Stacy’s Corners needs a neighborhood commercial framework that supports local-serving businesses, historic character, and residential compatibility. Areas near COD need a coordinated institutional, housing, transportation, and commercial strategy. The existing district structure partially reflects these distinctions, but not clearly enough. C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, I1, and CC should be modernized so that each district has a distinct purpose, use mix, form expectation, and approval pathway. (b) Enhance Physical Form and Site Design The Plan emphasizes the image and appearance of commercial areas, including buildings, parking lots, signage, public rights-of-way, streetscape, pedestrian infrastructure, and site landscaping. The code should therefore move beyond basic setbacks and parking ratios. It should require or incentivize the physical improvements that the Plan identifies: landscaped parking lots, screened service areas, consolidated access, safe pedestrian routes, active storefronts, compatible building form, dark-sky compliant lighting, bicycle parking, and low- impact stormwater design. For Downtown, this means protecting the retail wall, maintaining zero-lot-line building placement, supporting upper-story housing, and providing flexibility for adaptive reuse. For Roosevelt Road, it means reducing the dominance of front-loaded parking, strengthening the street edge, adding cross-access, improving pedestrian circulation through parking lots, and requiring more robust landscape and stormwater design. For neighborhood commercial areas, it means ensuring that small-scale commercial activity contributes to rather than conflicts with surrounding residential character. (c) Ensure Transition Areas to Residential The Plan repeatedly identifies transition areas as important around Downtown, Roosevelt Road, and Stacy’s Corners. The existing code addresses some residential-edge conditions through setbacks and screening, but these tools are not comprehensive enough. A modern code should use a broader transition toolkit: height stepbacks, building massing limits, landscaped buffers, lighting controls, loading and refuse placement, mechanical screening, fencing, tree preservation, pedestrian connections, and compatible residential or mixed-use building types. Single-family attached and multi-family housing can also serve as transitions between intense commercial areas and lower-density residential neighborhoods. The zoning code should allow those housing types in appropriate locations through clear standards rather than treating them as exceptions to the commercial framework. 57 of 80 Page 67 of 90  (d) Other Plans The commercial zoning update should also be coordinated with other Village planning initiatives, including the Downtown Strategic Plan, Downtown Streetscape Plan and Parking Study, Wayfinding Signage Plan, Move Glen Ellyn Active Transportation Plan, Housing Assessment, environmental and sustainability initiatives, and COD facilities planning. These plans reinforce several common themes: clearer standards, more predictable review, better parking management, stronger pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, preservation of community character, improved commercial image, and reinvestment in aging or underutilized properties. Together, these plans support a zoning framework that is easier to administer, more responsive to market conditions, and more effective at producing the physical outcomes the Village wants. The code update should therefore prioritize clarity, flexibility where appropriate, objective form standards, streamlined approval pathways for compliant projects, and stronger standards for uses or site designs that create identifiable impacts. 5. Assessment of Organization, Clarity, and Style 5.1 Document Organization There is ample opportunity to reorganize code sections and information to provide more clarity to information and make it more accessible. • Table of Contents. Utilize a comprehensive hyperlinked table of contents so that code users can quickly skip to the information/section that is relevant to them. • Hyperlinks. In addition to including hyperlinks in the table of contents, references throughout the code should be hyperlinked for ease of accessing relevant information. • Comprehensive Use Table. Comprehensive use table laying out use permissions for all districts, and consolidate use standards for specific uses in its own section (referenced in the comprehensive use table) • Development Standard Tables. Put numeric development standards in tables accompanied by illustratory graphics to assist with comprehension. • Supplementary Regulations. Parse out supplementary regulations from use standards – uses should have a dedicated chapter including use permissions and use standards. Supplementary regulations should consist of development standards that supplement the district standards across all zones. • Headers and Footers. Add running headers/footers with chapter and current section (e.g., “Title 10 – Zoning | 10-4-17 C5B Central Service Subdistrict”) plus page numbers on every page; this helps when working from printed packets. • “How to use this code”. Create an introductory section that provides novice code users with a visual overview of how to find information within the document. • Glossary. Streamline the document by putting the definitions at the end of the document as a glossary. 58 of 80 Page 68 of 90 5.2 Consistency Within a full comprehensive zoning code update, like this project, there is ample opportunity to utilize consistent language across the zoning code document. Although the list below of inconsistent terms is not exhaustive, it provides an overview of the way terms can be used inconsistently across a document. The zoning code update will employ a style guide that will lay out the standardization of terms, acronyms, and stylistic preferences across the document. Term Terms Used Inconsistency Recommendation “Building and Zoning Same or closely Administrator”; related Define one role “Building Official”; administrative (e.g., “Community “Village’s Building functions assigned Development Director”) as Official”; “Director, to differently named the zoning administrator Department of officials in various and state that references Community sections to Building and Zoning Development”; (interpretation, plan Administrator/Building Zoning “Community review, approvals, Official mean that role. administrator Development Director” enforcement). Normalize throughout. Pick one style (e.g., “Community Development Director”) “Director, Department of and use it consistently. In Community Two forms used definitions, clarify that it is Community Development”; interchangeably the head of the development “Community without a definition Community Development director Development Director” tying them together. Department. Define “Village Code” for Capitalization and the full municipal code and “Village Code”; “Village label vary when “this title” or “Zoning code”; “this code”; “this referring to the Code” for Title 10. Use Municipal code Code”; “This Zoning municipal code vs. “Village Code” and “this reference Code” the zoning title. title” consistently. “planned development”; Districts (R5, C5, “planned unit C6, C2, C3) development”; “large describe required or scale planned residential allowed projects as development, in “planned accordance with the development” or provisions of the planned “commercial unit development planned regulations”; development” while Planned unit development “commercial planned the dedicated (PUD) – with sub-labels development in chapter and “residential PUD” and accordance with the definitions “commercial PUD” only Planned unit provisions of the planned consistently use where needed, but always development as unit development “planned unit built on the same defined a use regulations” development.” PUD term. 59 of 80 Page 69 of 90 Term Terms Used Inconsistency Recommendation “public school, Similar elementary and high, or primary/secondary private school having a school uses are curriculum described in equivalent…”; “nursery, different strings by prekindergarten, district, sometimes Public or private school stand-alone bundling nurseries (elementary/secondary); kindergarten, play, and special schools, nursery/early childhood special and other private while separate school; commercial or school”; “private commercial/ trade school; college or school”; “school, trade/college uses university – each defined School / commercial or trade”; are also labeled once and referenced education “college or university” differently. consistently. Use “special use” for the The object (the use) use and “special use and the instrument permit” for the approving “special use”; “special (the ordinance. For PUDs, use permit”; “special permit/ordinance) standardize on “special use for planned unit are sometimes use permit for a planned development”; “special blurred, and PUDs unit development” or Discretionary use permit for a planned get their own variant “PUD special use permit” use approvals unit development” phrase. and use it uniformly. “planned unit development”; “planned Use “planned unit development”; Multiple names for development (PUD)” “preliminary planned the same consistently. Standardize unit development”; “final conceptual tool and submittals as “preliminary development plan”; its submittals, not PUD plan” and “final PUD Planned “planned unit always used in plan,” and define “PUD development development parallel or defined documents” once if concept documents” distinctly. needed. Pick “Village Board of Trustees” as the defined Different labels used term and state that it is the “Village Board”; “Village for the same body in corporate authorities. Board of Trustees”; intent, procedures, Elsewhere, just use “corporate authorities of and adoption “Village Board of Legislative body the Village” clauses. Trustees.” Define “this title” as the “Glen Ellyn Zoning Code” and then primarily use “this title” in operative “this title”; “this Zoning provisions. Reserve Reference to Code”; “zoning Three terms used “zoning ordinances” for zoning ordinances of the where one defined historical references if regulations Village” label could suffice. needed. 60 of 80 Page 70 of 90 Term Terms Used Inconsistency Recommendation The definition of CHURCH already includes multiple faith traditions and typical incidental Place of worship (church, activities, but use temple, synagogue, “church”; “church or tables vary between mosque, etc.) – defined temple”; “churches and “church,” “church once; treat clubs/lodges temples”; “club or or temple,” and separately only when they Religious lodge, private, fraternal separate “religious are genuinely distinct from assembly or religious” club or lodge.” houses of worship. Define “principal building” once and “principal use” Overlapping once, and remove the definitions and duplicate “structure or usage for principal building, principal” “principal use”; “main or use and principal definition or collapse it into principal use”; “principal structure, with the principal building Principal use vs. building”; “structure or slightly different definition. Use “principal principal building, principal”; phrasing in different use of the zoning lot” building “principal use of the lot” sections. consistently. The text sometimes uses generic “lot,” Use “zoning lot” whenever “parcel,” or applying dimensional, “property” where intensity, or use “zoning lot” is the regulations. Use “lot of more precise record” only where platted defined term, status is legally relevant, “lot”; “zoning lot”; “lot of especially in and avoid record”; “parcel”; standards and “parcel/property” in Lot concepts “property” conditions. operative standards. Clarify in definitions that “setback” means the Definitions required yard depth distinguish yard vs. between a lot line and the setback line, but setback line. Then use narrative provisions “front yard” and “minimum “yard”; “front yard sometimes treat front yard depth” (or setback”; “required front “yard” and similar) consistently rather Yards and yard”; “setback”; “setback” as than alternating with setbacks “setback line” interchangeable. “setback.” 61 of 80 Page 71 of 90 Term Terms Used Inconsistency Recommendation Keep a single global definition of “person” in Chapter 2 and, in the General definition of cannabis article, reference PERSON in Two similar but not that definition rather than interpretation section; identical definitions redefining. If extra detail is separate PERSON of the same term in needed (owners, definition within the the same title, employees, agents), define cannabis definitions without a rule a separate term like “Person” block establishing priority. “responsible party.” Define “applicant” broadly (including owner, contract Different terms purchaser, lessee, or “owner”; “applicant”; describe essentially authorized agent) and then “petitioner”; the same consistently “developer”; “owner procedural actor, use “applicant” in and applicant”; “owner with no hierarchy or procedures. Use “owner” of the property or his cross-definition, and only where fee title status Parties to authorized are mixed within the is uniquely relevant (e.g., applications representative” same sections. consent to conditions). The same basic clinic use is restated “clinic, medical or with slightly different dental”; “medical clinic”; labels in definitions “medical or dental and use lists; clinic”; “hospital”; hospital and nursing Medical or dental clinic; “hospital, nursing home home are hospital; nursing home – and educational, sometimes grouped referenced verbatim Medical and philanthropic or with other throughout all use lists and health facilities religious institution” institutional uses. parking standards. “restaurant and eating Core restaurant use place except drive-in is described with and carryout two or three establishments…”; different phrases “restaurant and eating depending on place, including outdoor district and context; seating…”; “eating or drive-in and Restaurant (sit-down); restaurant drive-through are restaurant, drive-through; establishment” (parking mixed with carry-out restaurant, carry-out – with table); “drive-in terminology in some those labels tied to shared Restaurant and commercial facility”; places and treated supplemental standards drive-through / “drive-through facility” generically in for stacking, access, and carry-out (stacking standards) others. outdoor seating. 62 of 80 Page 72 of 90  Term Terms Used Inconsistency Recommendation Some provisions refer to “this Review and standardize chapter” when they cross-references so that clearly intend references to substantive standards that zoning standards use “this appear elsewhere in title,” and “this Title 10, while chapter/section” is Internal “this chapter”; “this others correctly use reserved for truly local cross-references section”; “this title” “this title.” procedural rules The defined use “indoor amusement” is sometimes complemented or effectively duplicated by Indoor amusement facility “indoor recreational (covering arcades, “indoor amusement” facility” and “indoor billiards, game rooms, (defined); “indoor theater” in district etc.); indoor recreational recreational facility”; use tables, which facility (if broader, defined “indoor theater”; “game can all apply to distinctly); indoor theater – Indoor room, billiard hall, video similar with clear distinctions in entertainment / arcade” (examples in entertainment definitions and consistent recreation definition) businesses. naming in all districts. 5.3 Graphics Incorporating additional illustratory graphics into the zoning code would significantly improve both readability and usability for applicants, staff, and decision‑makers. While Chapter 11 already provides helpful figures for concepts like lot types, required yards, building height, FAR, screening, and dormers, these graphics sit at the back of a very text‑dense document and are not integrated within the document text, which can limit how actively users rely on them during everyday code navigation. Integrating more diagrams and section‑specific visuals, graphic depictions of yard and setback rules alongside the district bulk tables in Chapter 4, or process flowcharts for special uses and planned unit developments in Chapter 10—would help translate long narrative provisions and multi‑part tests into quickly understandable formats. This is especially valuable where the code combines multiple dimensional criteria and cross‑references passages, because co‑locating visuals with the operative text reduces misinterpretation and shortens the learning curve for infrequent users. 6. Administration and Procedures Chapter 10 generally covers the appropriate topics and assigns authority to village bodies, but it could be more predictable, transparent, and efficient with restructuring, clearer standards, and better alignment with how staff and applicants use the code in practice. 63 of 80 Page 73 of 90 6.1 Overall Structure and Roles Chapter 10 does a solid job of identifying the key actors (Department of Community Development, Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Village Board) and assigning high-level responsibilities. 6.1.1 General Observations • Authority is explicitly vested in the Department of Community Development, Plan Commission, ZBA, and Village Board, with a clear statement that the Village Board retains final authority over variations, special uses, amendments, and PUD special uses. • The Department of Community Development’s duties are reasonably comprehensive: zoning and occupancy certificates, driveway approach permits, inspections, records of nonconformities, special uses, variations and amendments, and forwarding applications. • Staff roles are defined using multiple titles (Director of Community Development, Director of the Department of Community Development, Building and Zoning Administrator), which complicates process diagrams and delegations. • Chapter 10 is organized as a long list of procedures (certificates, appeals, variations, amendments, special uses, PUDs, fees, penalties) without a roadmap or visual process summary; stakeholders have explicitly asked for clearer, more concrete directives and removal of ambiguity. 6.2 Procedures: Clarity and Predictability 6.2.1 Zoning/Occupancy Certificates and Driveway Approach Permits The code delegates zoning certificates, occupancy certificates, and driveway approach permits to staff, with duties listed in 10-10-2. (a) Strengths • Clear assignment of routine approvals (certificates and driveway approaches) to staff supports administrative efficiency. (b) Gaps • Procedural steps, submittal requirements, and review timelines are not spelled out in Chapter 10; they are implied rather than explicit. • There is no explicit linkage between bulk/use determinations and nonconformity provisions in Chapter 8, even though staff and stakeholders report nonconformities as a major pain point and a frequent trigger for variation requests. (c) Recommendations • Create short, checklist-style sections for each administrative approval (zoning certificate, occupancy certificate, driveway approach permit) with: who may apply, what must be submitted, the review path, and review/decision timelines. 64 of 80 Page 74 of 90 6.2.2 Appeals The ZBA hears and decides appeals from any final order, requirement, decision or determination by an administrative official enforcing this title. (a) Strengths • Having a single appellate body for administrative decisions is consistent with best practice and aligns with state enabling acts. (b) Gaps • Chapter 10 does not clearly lay out the appeal timeline (e.g., number of days from decision to filing), what constitutes a “final decision,” or what is required in a notice of appeal. • It is not explicit whether the standard of review is de novo or deferential, nor whether new evidence is allowed, which can lead to ad hoc practice. (c) Recommendations • Add a dedicated “Appeals” section with: filing deadline (e.g., 30 days from written decision), contents of appeal, stay of enforcement rules, standard of review, and whether new evidence is permitted. • Require the administrative official to issue decisions in writing (even if brief) so applicants know when the appeal clock starts and what is being appealed. 6.2.3 Variations: Standards and Process Stakeholder comments point directly at the variation system as confusing and burdensome: a two-tier standard, multiple separate standards, and a steady stream of bulk variance approvals that suggest the standards are misaligned with real development patterns. (a) Overview of Current Procedures • Assigns jurisdiction: ZBA for single- and two-family variations; Plan Commission for non-residential and complex matters (e.g., PUD-related variations); Village Board has final decision authority. • Includes procedural provisions for hearings, findings, and recommendations, and general standards for granting variations. (b) Issues Relative to Best Practice • Standards appear in multiple places and are described as a “two tiered system” in practice: public officials report having “two standards we have to meet, and then other 8–9 standards unsure how to consider.” This makes outcomes less predictable and invites selective emphasis. • The code does not distinguish clearly between minor/administrative variations (e.g., inches or a foot of relief) and major legislative relief; yet stakeholders describe many 65 of 80 Page 75 of 90  small, repeated variations (e.g., minor increases in lot coverage, modest rear yard encroachments) that almost always get approved after a four-month process. • The standards focus heavily on hardship and uniqueness without explicit language about repeated patterns of relief that should be addressed by revising the base standards. (c) Recommendations • Collapse the “two-tier” variation standards into a single, clearly enumerated set (e.g., 4–5 criteria) that must be met for all variations, written in plain language and applicable across districts. • Introduce an “administrative adjustment” or “minor variation” tool for small, quantifiable deviations (for example, up to 10% from a bulk standard) that the Community Development Director can approve with clear criteria, while larger requests go to ZBA/Plan Commission. 6.2.4 Special Uses and PUD Special Uses Chapter 10 clusters special uses and PUDs under the same administrative umbrella, with Plan Commission hearings and Village Board final action. (a) Strengths • The requirement for written findings and standards for special uses and PUD special uses is sound and consistent with best practice. • Termination provisions (10-10-16) establish time limits for building permit filing, construction commencement, and occupancy, and outline a process to modify, extend, or terminate approvals. (b) Problems Relative to Your Goals and Stakeholder Feedback • Staff and stakeholders report that the PUD process doesn’t get better results but makes it harder to develop without benefits and that it is written for blank sites, not infill or partial redevelopments. It is also described as inflexible for amendments and changes to original plans. • The special use system is being used to manage uses that are really aesthetic or design issues, which leads to perception that the Village “doesn’t like special uses” more than a clear policy on where certain use types belong. • The code distinguishes “special uses for planned unit developments” but uses inconsistent terms (planned development vs planned unit development), and applies the same heavy process for both minor and major PUD changes. (c) Recommendations • PUD usage should be reserved for complex or master‑planned situations, not to make ordinary, compliant projects feasible. 66 of 80 Page 76 of 90  • Create a formal tiered amendment system for PUDs and special uses (e.g., “minor amendments” that staff or Plan Commission can approve when they stay within certain quantitative thresholds, and “major amendments” that require full hearings), addressing the concern that the current process lacks flexibility for amendments. • Tighten the special use standards so they focus on land-use compatibility, traffic, infrastructure, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and move purely aesthetic conditions for downtown frontage into district- or design-specific standards rather than case-by-case conditions. 6.2.5 Termination, Extensions, Fees, and Enforcement (a) Termination and Extensions • Special uses, variations, map amendments, and PUD special uses become null and void if a building permit is not applied for within 24 months, with a provision allowing the Community Development Director to grant one 12-month extension and subsequent extensions by the Village Board. • If construction does not commence or occupancy does not occur within specified timeframes, the recommending body (Plan Commission or ZBA) may initiate a public hearing to consider extension, modification, termination, or rezoning. (b) Best-Practice Assessment • The presence of explicit timeframes and an extension tool is positive and creates a baseline of predictability. • However, tying initiation of revocation/modification hearings solely to the recommending body rather than allowing the Village Board or staff to trigger a review could limit responsiveness to changing conditions or non-performance. (c) Fees and Deposits • 10-10-17 delegates the fee schedule to the Village Board and establishes a robust deposit mechanism for PUDs, commercial special uses, commercial variations, subdivisions, and development projects over five acres, including monthly invoicing and the right to halt reviews if deposits are not replenished. • Meeting notes show the Village already tracks process timing more effectively thanks to new permitting software and wants clearer, more consistent process language. 6.2.6 Enforcement and Penalties • 10-10-18 sets a petty offense fine structure (up to 500 per week per violation), clarifies that each week or part thereof is a separate offense, and authorizes equitable actions to restrain or abate violations. • Community interviews emphasize a desire for clearer, more consistent code enforcement and process transparency. 67 of 80 Page 77 of 90  (a) Best-Practice Opportunities • Revocation of permits is an enforcement tool already listed in the Zoning Code. Consider adding intermediate enforcement tools, such as administrative citations or stop-work orders with clear criteria, to give staff more flexible, graduated responses short of full prosecution. • Add a cross-reference to Chapter 8 nonconformities and a short policy statement clarifying that enforcement will be proportionate and that lawful nonconformities will not be targeted, to reduce fear around investing in nonconforming properties (a recurring theme in stakeholder comments). 6.2.7 General Recommendations for Chapter • Consolidate staff titles into one or two defined administrative roles (e.g., Community Development Director as Zoning Administrator, with Building Official by reference) and use those consistently throughout Chapter 10. • Add a short “Administration overview” section with a process map (e.g., table or graphic) summarizing, for each procedure (variation, special use, PUD, map amendment, appeal), who is the intake body, who makes the recommendation, who makes the final decision, and typical timelines. • Cross-reference a “How to apply” section or external application guide, to align with the Village’s new electronic permitting platform and the goal of tracking hold-ups. 68 of 80 Page 78 of 90 7. Recommendations Matrix The following matrix combines all recommendations from the report, organized by applicable chapter. Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Title 10, Code- Add a comprehensive hyperlinked table of contents so users can navigate wide / Overall directly to relevant chapters, sections, tables, and standards. Organization Title 10, Code- Add internal hyperlinks throughout the code for cross-references, wide / Overall definitions, district standards, procedures, and supplemental regulations. Organization Title 10, Code- Create a “How to Use This Code” introductory section with a visual wide / Overall overview of how applicants, residents, staff, and decision-makers should Organization navigate the code. Title 10, Code- Use consistent running headers and footers identifying the title, chapter, wide / Overall current section, and page number. Organization Title 10, Code- Reorganize the code, creating a use dedicated chapter, so use permissions wide / Overall and use-specific standards are easier to locate – also include use standards Organization that are currently located in the supplementary regulations chapter. Title 10, Code- Put numeric development standards into tables and pair them with wide / Overall diagrams or illustrations where interpretation may be difficult. Organization Title 10, Code- Reduce long narrative exceptions and technical cross-references by using wide / Overall concise tables, graphics, and plain-language measurement rules. Organization Title 10, Code- Develop and apply a zoning code style guide to standardize terminology, wide / Overall capitalization, defined terms, approval names, cross-references, and Organization drafting conventions throughout the code. Strengthen the introductory provisions so the code clearly implements the Chapter 1: General Comprehensive Plan, housing goals, commercial reinvestment goals, Provisions sustainability objectives, and neighborhood character policies. Clarify interpretation rules so general provisions, definitions, district Chapter 1: General standards, supplemental regulations, procedures, and illustrations work Provisions together without conflicting cross-references. Add or clarify definitions for senior housing, age-restricted housing, Chapter 2: accessible/visitable housing, and related residential use categories if those Definitions uses have additional use-specific standards. 69 of 80 Page 79 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Define one primary zoning administrator role, such as “Community Chapter 2: Development Director” or “Zoning Administrator,” and normalize Definitions references to Building and Zoning Administrator, Building Official, and similar titles. Chapter 2: Define “Village Code,” “this title,” and “Zoning Code” consistently and use Definitions those terms uniformly throughout Title 10. Standardize planned unit development terminology, using “planned unit Chapter 2: development” or “PUD” consistently and defining related submittals such Definitions as preliminary PUD plan, final PUD plan, and PUD documents. Standardize discretionary approval terminology by distinguishing “special Chapter 2: use” from “special use permit” and using a consistent term for PUD special Definitions use approvals. Standardize education-related use categories, such as public/private Chapter 2: school, early childhood school, commercial or trade school, and college or Definitions university. Replace inconsistent religious assembly terminology with a single defined Chapter 2: use, such as “place of worship,” and distinguish religious clubs or lodges Definitions only where they are materially different. Chapter 2: Clarify principal building, principal structure, principal use, and related Definitions terms, and remove duplicative or overlapping definitions. Chapter 2: Clarify lot-related terminology by distinguishing zoning lot, lot of record, Definitions parcel, and property, and use “zoning lot”. Clarify the relationship between yards and setbacks, including front yard, Chapter 2: side yard, rear yard, corner side yard, setback line, and minimum yard Definitions depth. Chapter 2: Retain one global definition of “person” and avoid duplicative definitions in Definitions specialized sections such as cannabis regulations. Chapter 2: Define “applicant” broadly and use it consistently in procedures; reserve Definitions “owner” for situations where ownership status is legally relevant. Chapter 2: Review medical and health facility terms, including medical or dental clinic, Definitions hospital – there is seemingly overlap between medical offices, clinics, etc. Standardize restaurant-related terms, including sit-down restaurant, carry- Chapter 2: out restaurant, drive-through restaurant, and drive-in or drive-through Definitions facility. Chapter 2: Clarify indoor entertainment and recreation use categories (such as indoor Definitions amusement facility, indoor recreational facility, and indoor theater). 70 of 80 Page 80 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Use definitions only to define terms; move substantive permissions, Chapter 2: prohibitions, dimensional limits, and approval standards into the operative Definitions code sections. Clarify and consolidate accessory building, accessory structure, and Chapter 2 / accessory use terminology, and align the definitions with operative Chapter 5 accessory-use standards. Chapter 3: Establishment and Clarify the intended policy role of each zoning district so the district lineup Purpose of reads as a coherent housing, commercial, and mixed-use framework rather Districts and than only a sequence of lot-size or intensity categories. District Boundaries Consider whether R0, R1, R2, and R2B should remain separate districts if Chapter 3 / their main policy distinction is minimum lot size rather than distinct Chapter 4 neighborhood or housing objectives. Chapter 3 / Treat R2 as the primary implementation district for residential reform Chapter 4 because revisions to R2 standards will have the broadest practical effect. Chapter 3 / Use R3 and R4 as the basis for a clearer missing-middle and multifamily Chapter 4 framework. Evaluate whether additional modest housing types should be permitted by Chapter 3 / right or through streamlined review in locations now limited to detached Chapter 4 single-family development. Chapter 4: District Amend residential and mixed-use district purpose statements and use Regulations permissions to better reflect Comprehensive Plan goals. Add or expand by-right permissions for duplexes and small multi-unit Chapter 4: District buildings, including 4- to 6-unit buildings, in appropriate R3 and R4 Regulations locations. Broaden by-right or special-use permissions for townhomes, stacked flats, Chapter 4: District and small elevator-served multifamily in R3 and R4, particularly near Regulations Downtown and transit corridors. Chapter 4: District Expand by-right multifamily permissions and increase allowable density in Regulations R4 and R5 where additional units can be accommodated. Chapter 4: District Clarify and strengthen permissions for upper-story residential and mixed- Regulations use residential in C5 and C6 at moderate densities. 71 of 80 Page 81 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Amend commercial district standards, especially C2-C6, to explicitly allow Chapter 4: District upper-story residential and mixed-use multifamily in appropriate Regulations commercial and corridor locations. Allow mixed-use residential along key corridors, including Roosevelt Road, Chapter 4: District where redevelopment can add housing while strengthening the commercial Regulations environment. Provide height and FAR allowances sufficient to produce meaningful mixed- Chapter 4: District use and multifamily development, including 4- to 6-story buildings where Regulations context-appropriate. Chapter 4: District Revise minimum lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and FAR standards in R2- Regulations R4 to allow alternative small-lot, cottage, and modest infill options. Chapter 4: District Calibrate height and yard standards in R3 and R4 to allow 2- to 3-story Regulations missing-middle housing while maintaining neighborhood-compatible scale. Create calibrated FAR or lot coverage controls that discourage oversized Chapter 4: District replacement homes while allowing reasonable modernization of existing Regulations smaller homes. Allow modest reductions in minimum lot area or lot width through Chapter 4: District alternative small-lot standards where existing block patterns support Regulations smaller homes. Evaluate whether minimum lot area and lot width standards should be Chapter 4: District adjusted for existing lots, infill lots, or lots lawfully created under prior Regulations standards. Use the variation record as a calibration tool when revising R2 lot Chapter 4: District standards, side-yard formulas, lot coverage limits, and related bulk Regulations requirements. Chapter 4: District Consider simplifying side-yard formulas or creating separate standards for Regulations legally existing narrow lots. Chapter 4: District Clarify front-yard averaging and adjacent-structure alignment rules so Regulations compatible additions are less likely to require relief. Permit small group homes and community residences by right wherever Chapter 4: District single-family dwellings are allowed in R1-R4 and R5, subject to the same Regulations bulk and parking standards as comparable dwellings. Add clear form standards for attached and small multifamily housing, Chapter 4: District including height, massing, façade rhythm, open space, and transitions to Regulations lower-density homes. Chapter 4: District Permit smaller unit sizes and flexible open space standards where projects Regulations meet adopted form, common-area, and livability criteria. 72 of 80 Page 82 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Consider density, height, parking, fee, or flexibility incentives for projects Chapter 4: District that provide diverse unit types, smaller units, attainable price points, or Regulations affordable/mixed-income housing. Allow small-lot, attached, and multifamily infill by clear standards in Chapter 4: District appropriate locations rather than reserving most new housing capacity for Regulations large discretionary projects. Calibrate the C2 district around small-format retail, restaurant, service, Chapter 4: District office, civic, and limited mixed-use buildings that fit comfortably near Regulations residential neighborhoods. For C2 and neighborhood commercial areas, treat auto-oriented uses, Chapter 4: District drive-throughs, outdoor storage, and intensive service uses as conditional Regulations or special uses with objective location, access, screening, and design standards. Add frontage standards in neighborhood commercial areas requiring Chapter 4: District buildings to address the street, provide visible entrances, maintain Regulations pedestrian connections, and avoid parking-dominated frontages. Strengthen residential-edge standards for commercial districts, including Chapter 4: District landscape buffers, lighting controls, service-area screening, refuse Regulations placement, noise control, loading location, and access management. Chapter 4: District Consider splitting C3 into context-specific districts or overlays, such as Regulations Corridor Commercial, Corridor Mixed-Use, and Auto/Service Commercial. In C3 corridor areas, reduce or make flexible required front setbacks where Chapter 4: District redevelopment improves streetscape design, pedestrian access, landscape Regulations buffering, and building orientation. Require or incentivize side or rear parking in C3 and other corridor areas, Chapter 4: District with strong perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping where front Regulations parking remains necessary. Add access-management standards for corridor redevelopment, including Chapter 4: District cross-access, shared driveways, consolidated curb cuts, rear access drives Regulations where feasible, and recorded easements. Establish corridor design standards for façade articulation, primary Chapter 4: District entrances, pedestrian routes through parking lots, screening of Regulations loading/service areas, and landscaped street edges. Limit intensive uses such as outdoor storage, vehicle storage, contractor Chapter 4: District yards, light manufacturing, and payday/check-cashing/currency exchange Regulations uses to locations where they will not undermine reinvestment, corridor image, or residential compatibility. 73 of 80 Page 83 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Allow mixed-use or multifamily development in targeted commercial Chapter 4: District locations identified as transition areas or redevelopment opportunities, Regulations while preserving active commercial frontage where appropriate. Evaluate whether the Village still needs a standalone C4 office district or Chapter 4: District whether existing C4 areas should be folded into corridor, mixed-use, Regulations institutional, or neighborhood commercial districts. Allow adaptive reuse and conversion of office buildings to residential, Chapter 4: District mixed-use, civic, educational, or medical uses through clear standards Regulations rather than relying primarily on discretionary relief. Replace suburban office setback standards with context-sensitive building Chapter 4: District placement standards that accommodate both campus-style sites and more Regulations urban infill conditions. Add transition standards for C4 sites near residential neighborhoods, Chapter 4: District including height stepbacks, buffering, lighting controls, and loading/service Regulations placement. Chapter 4: District Use redevelopment incentives or flexible approval procedures to Regulations encourage reinvestment in aging office properties. In C5, replace highly specific use lists with broader modern categories Chapter 4: District organized by ground-floor active uses, upper-floor uses, service/support Regulations uses, residential uses, civic uses, and restricted auto-oriented uses. Establish downtown storefront activation standards for key pedestrian Chapter 4: District streets, including transparency, public entrance spacing, display windows, Regulations limits on blank walls, and restrictions on inactive ground-floor frontage. Allow service and office uses in appropriate downtown locations while Chapter 4: District requiring active storefront treatment where they occupy visible ground-floor Regulations spaces. Chapter 4: District Preserve the zero-to-five-foot front setback framework and accessory off- Regulations street parking exemption in the core retail area. Allow certain office, educational, wellness, studio, and service uses at the Chapter 4: District ground floor only when they maintain active customer-facing storefronts Regulations and do not create long inactive frontages. Chapter 4 / Create an administrative path for small additions, façade changes, tenant Chapter 10 changes, and adaptive reuse projects that meet clear downtown standards. Retain special review for auto-oriented uses, drive-throughs, large-format Chapter 4: District uses, outdoor storage, and other uses that could disrupt downtown Regulations pedestrian character. 74 of 80 Page 84 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Retain C5B as the district for downtown service, mixed-use, parking, and Chapter 4: District transition areas, but simplify the use structure so new development and Regulations reuse are easier to understand. Permit multifamily, upper-story residential, and mixed-use development by Chapter 4: District right in C5B when projects meet clear form, frontage, parking, and Regulations residential-transition standards. Use special use review for single-purpose residential projects in C5B only Chapter 4: District where the Village wants to ensure that important commercial frontages are Regulations not lost. Add clear C5B edge standards where the district abuts lower-density Chapter 4: District neighborhoods, including height stepbacks, landscaped buffers, lighting Regulations controls, service-area screening, and access management. Chapter 4: District Allow adaptive reuse and context-sensitive additions in C5B without Regulations requiring a PUD when the project meets district standards. Consider eliminating C6 if mapped areas can be more effectively regulated Chapter 4: District through updated corridor, mixed-use, downtown, or neighborhood Regulations commercial districts. If C6 is retained, establish baseline permitted uses, special uses, height Chapter 4: District ranges, frontage types, parking locations, open space expectations, access Regulations standards, and residential-transition standards. For C6 or planned-development areas, create an optional concept-plan Chapter 4 / review step so feasibility, community priorities, access, parking, and design Chapter 10 expectations can be discussed before major investment. Clarify how amendments to approved planned developments will be Chapter 4 / handled, including streamlined review for minor changes, tenant changes, Chapter 10 façade updates, parking adjustments, and site-plan refinements. Update the I1 purpose statement to emphasize low-impact production, Chapter 4: District maker/flex space, research and development, contractor services, and Regulations employment-generating uses compatible with nearby neighborhoods. Establish performance standards for I1 and similar uses addressing noise, Chapter 4 / vibration, odor, dust, outdoor activity, hours of operation, truck circulation, Chapter 5 loading, and refuse/service areas. Chapter 4 / Strengthen buffering and screening requirements for I1 sites near Chapter 5 residential, park, or public/semi-public uses. 75 of 80 Page 85 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Require loading areas, outdoor storage, and vehicle storage to be located Chapter 4 / and screened to minimize visibility from streets and adjacent residential Chapter 5 properties. Consider allowing limited accessory retail, tasting rooms, showrooms, or Chapter 4: District customer-facing components for maker, food/beverage, and production Regulations uses where parking and access can be managed. Retain the CC district master plan approach, but clarify required contents Chapter 4: District for future master plan updates, including land use, building envelopes, Regulations circulation, parking, stormwater, open space, lighting, signage, and campus-edge transitions. Establish pedestrian and bicycle connection standards along Lambert Chapter 4 / Road, Park Boulevard, Fawell Boulevard, and other College of DuPage Chapter 5 campus edges. Chapter 4 / Clarify when amendments to the College of DuPage master plan are major Chapter 10 or minor and create a predictable process for routine campus changes. Chapter 4 / Strengthen campus edge standards for lighting, loading, service areas, Chapter 5 event operations, and landscape buffering near residential areas. Chapter 5: Create a general residential standards article or division for provisions that Supplementary apply across multiple residential districts. Regulations Chapter 5: Create one residential improvements table identifying common Supplementary improvements, where they may be located, applicable setbacks, height or Regulations size limits, lot coverage treatment, and design conditions. Chapter 5: Clarify the accessory building type limitation or replace it with a simpler Supplementary maximum number and/or maximum cumulative area standard. Regulations Chapter 5: Replace complex accessory-structure bonus rules with direct dimensional Supplementary standards where feasible, such as maximum square footage, maximum Regulations height, or minimum setback. Chapter 5: Retain incentives for front porches and rear-lot garages only if they are Supplementary easy to administer and coordinated with stormwater, impervious surface, Regulations and site design requirements. Chapter 5: Replace detached garage and front porch bonus rules with direct standards Supplementary where feasible. Regulations 76 of 80 Page 86 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Chapter 5: Clarify how front-yard paving limits, required parking spaces, driveway Supplementary width, and impervious surface setbacks interact. Regulations Chapter 5: Revise driveway material standards to allow sustainable low-impact Supplementary designs, including ribbon driveways, split-track systems, permeable pavers, Regulations and other approved designs. Chapter 5: Consider eliminating the separate impervious surface setback table and Supplementary using a more consistent accessory-use setback standard for paved Regulations surfaces, with a driveway exception where appropriate. Chapter 5: Use variation data for lots under 50 feet wide to test revised paving, Supplementary driveway, and impervious surface setback standards before adoption. Regulations Chapter 5: Add supplementary regulations encouraging step-free entries, visitable Supplementary ground-floor units, and accessible common areas in multifamily and Regulations townhome projects. Chapter 5: Add supplementary standards for larger supportive facilities addressing Supplementary scale, access, parking, life-safety, compatibility, occupancy, spacing, and Regulations design without unnecessary separation requirements. Chapter 5: Replace long lists of individual retail and service uses with broader use Supplementary categories and use-specific standards. Regulations Chapter 5: Clarify the relationship between principal uses, accessory uses, temporary Supplementary uses, outdoor dining, outdoor display, events, food trucks, and accessory Regulations retail. Chapter 5: Create frontage standards for key street types, including downtown Supplementary storefront, neighborhood commercial, corridor commercial, and Regulations service/industrial frontages. Chapter 5: Establish building orientation standards requiring principal entrances to Supplementary face streets, public sidewalks, parking courts, or internal pedestrian routes. Regulations Chapter 5: Require pedestrian routes from public sidewalks to building entrances, Supplementary transit stops, parking areas, and adjacent sites. Regulations Chapter 5: Add parking placement standards that prefer side or rear parking in Supplementary walkable areas and require strong screening where front parking remains. Regulations 77 of 80 Page 87 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Chapter 5: Require perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping, parking-lot islands, Supplementary foundation landscaping, landscaped medians, and pedestrian refuges in Regulations larger parking lots. Chapter 5: Require cross-access and shared access for corridor redevelopment Supplementary unless infeasible due to site conditions. Regulations Chapter 5: Add downtown storefront standards for transparency, entrance spacing, Supplementary display windows, façade rhythm, durable materials, and limits on inactive or Regulations blank frontage. Chapter 5: Add corridor design standards for façade articulation, pedestrian-scale Supplementary features, gateway treatments, signage coordination, and streetscape Regulations compatibility. Chapter 5: Add low-impact development and green infrastructure standards for major Supplementary redevelopment, especially along Roosevelt Road and in highly impervious Regulations commercial areas. Modernize parking regulations for downtown, senior housing, affordable Chapter 5: housing, small-unit housing, mixed-use buildings, and transit-proximate Supplementary development to reflect shared parking, public parking availability, reduced Regulations vehicle ownership, and transportation-demand strategies. Chapter 5: Allow shared parking between commercial and residential uses in mixed- Supplementary use buildings and planned developments. Regulations Chapter 5: Encourage public/private parking partnerships, shared parking agreements, Supplementary and structured parking where they support downtown vitality and reduce Regulations pressure for surface parking. Update residential PUD standards to encourage mixes of small-lot single- Chapter 7: Planned family, townhomes, and small multifamily on larger infill or redevelopment Unit Developments sites. Chapter 7: Planned Add cottage court or small-home cluster options to the residential PUD Unit Developments standards with tailored bulk standards and shared open space. Chapter 7: Planned Use residential PUD standards to support mixed-income housing and a Unit Developments range of unit sizes on larger infill or redevelopment sites. Revise PUD standards to clarify when residential and mixed-use PUDs are Chapter 7: Planned appropriate for assembling, intensifying, or redeveloping key opportunity Unit Developments sites. 78 of 80 Page 88 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Establish clearer PUD expectations for minimum density, mix of uses, Chapter 7: Planned housing affordability, public benefits, site design, open space, connectivity, Unit Developments and transition standards. Clarify when a PUD special use is required and consider eliminating Chapter 7 / minimum acreage so PUDs can be used surgically where they add real Chapter 10 value. Create a formal tiered amendment system for PUDs and special uses, Chapter 7 / distinguishing minor amendments from major amendments requiring full Chapter 10 hearings. Reduce reliance on PUDs and special uses for development that can be Chapter 7 / regulated through clear district, form, frontage, parking, and transition Chapter 10 standards. Amend compliance and nonconformity provisions so small, older homes on Chapter 8: nonconforming lots can be modestly expanded or reconfigured without Nonconformities triggering requirements that make teardown more likely. Chapter 8: Create clearer pathways for maintenance, modest expansion, rehabilitation, Nonconformities reconstruction, and reinvestment on smaller or nonconforming residential lots. Reduce reliance on historic eligibility tests, prior lot configuration, prior Chapter 8: ownership, prior variation history, repeated exceptions, and technical Nonconformities cross-references where current objective standards can be used. Chapter 8: Clarify how Class I, II, and III alteration and addition categories apply Nonconformities without requiring users to rely on definitions alone. Add a cross-reference between enforcement and nonconformities, with a Chapter 8 / policy statement clarifying that enforcement will be proportionate and lawful Chapter 10 nonconformities will not be targeted. Chapter 10: Create short, checklist-style sections for zoning certificates, occupancy Administration and certificates, and driveway approach permits, including who may apply, Enforcement required submittals, review path, and decision timelines. Chapter 10: Require staff to document key interpretations, such as story, height, lot Administration and coverage, and measurement issues, as written policies or an administrative Enforcement interpretations appendix. Chapter 10: Add a dedicated appeals section with filing deadline, appeal contents, stay Administration and of enforcement rules, standard of review, and whether new evidence is Enforcement permitted. Chapter 10: Require administrative officials to issue decisions in writing so applicants Administration and know when the appeal clock starts and what decision is being appealed. Enforcement 79 of 80 Page 89 of 90 Zoning Code Chapter Consolidated Recommendation Chapter 10: Collapse the two-tier variation standards into a single, clearly enumerated Administration and set of plain-language criteria applicable across districts. Enforcement Chapter 10: Introduce an administrative adjustment or minor variation tool for small, Administration and quantifiable deviations that the Community Development Director can Enforcement approve under clear criteria. Chapter 10: Add a policy statement that repeated, similar variation approvals should Administration and trigger code amendments rather than continued case-by-case relief. Enforcement Chapter 10: Tighten special use standards so they focus on land-use compatibility, Administration and traffic, infrastructure, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Enforcement Chapter 10: Move purely aesthetic or frontage-related special use conditions into Administration and district, frontage, or design standards rather than addressing them case by Enforcement case. Chapter 10: Clarify termination, extension, modification, and revocation procedures for Administration and special uses, variations, map amendments, and PUD approvals, including Enforcement who may initiate review. Chapter 10: Consider adding intermediate enforcement tools, such as administrative Administration and citations or stop-work orders, with clear criteria for graduated enforcement. Enforcement Chapter 10: Consolidate staff titles into one or two defined administrative roles and use Administration and those titles consistently throughout Chapter 10. Enforcement Chapter 10: Add an administration overview section with a process map summarizing, Administration and for each procedure, the intake body, recommending body, final decision- Enforcement maker, and typical timeline. Chapter 10: Add process flowcharts for variations, special uses, PUDs, map Administration and amendments, appeals, zoning certificates, and other administrative Enforcement approvals. Chapter 10: Cross-reference a “How to Apply” section or external application guide to Administration and align the zoning code with the Village’s electronic permitting platform and Enforcement process-tracking goals. Chapter 11: Integrate illustrations into the operative code sections instead of leaving Illustrations them only in a standalone chapter at the back of the code. 80 of 80 Page 90 of 90