Plan Commission

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, October 23, 2025 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room Visitors are most welcome to attend all public meetings and can find copies of the Agenda online at www.glenellyn.org prior to the meeting. Any individual with a disability requiring reasonable accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Village of Glen Ellyn ADA Coordinator, 630-469-5000, at least five (5) business days in advance of the next scheduled meeting. A. Call to Order B. Public Comment C. Approval of Minutes 1) Review and Approval of the Minutes of the July 24, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting. D. New Business 1) Review and Adoption of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Plan Commission. 2) Public Hearing — Proposed Text Amendments to Title 10 (“Zoning Code”), Chapter 4 (“District Regulations”) of the Village’s Zoning Code 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 23  Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 10/23/2025 7:00 PM Commission Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Minutes Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-856 # 2025-856) Review and Approval of the Minutes of the July 24, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting. Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the Minutes of the July 24, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting. Analysis: Review and Approval of the Minutes of the July 24, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the Minutes of the July 24, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting. Attachments: 1. Plan Commission Meeting_Draft Minutes 7-24-25 Page 2 of 23  DRAFT MINUTES Village of Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2025 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center, Galligan Board Room A. Call to Order 7:00 p.m. Upon roll call, Chairman Loftus and Commissioners Arango, Cooper, Dawson, Kreuzer, Morrison, Pesce, and Wyant were present. Commissioner Brown and Trustee Laison Steve Thompson were absent. Also, in attendance were Planning Manager Daniel Harper, Associate Planner Jordan Frahm, Community Development Director Jennifer Henaghan, and Acting Recording Secretary Laura Musgraves. Trustee Steve Symanski attended in the absence of Trustee Thompson. B. Public Comment There was no off-agenda public comment. C. Approval of Minutes The meeting Minutes of June 26, 2025, meeting of the Plan Commission was presented for approval. Chairman Loftus asked for any comments, revisions, or changes. Commissioner Wyant said he found information after the meeting that Village of Glen Ellyn residents did not vote in a majority to approve of the Glenbard West Addition referendum, and although the Village Board approved the variations for the project, the Village residents voted no. Wyant said the yes votes were 3,608 and the no votes were 3,786 and wanted this information added to the June meeting Minutes. Commissioner Cooper said he supported Wyant’s sentiments, but the Plan Commission cannot amend what was presented to the Village Board. Harper said that meeting Minutes must reflect the actual discussion, and we cannot change the substance of the discussion editorially. Chairman Loftus said we can state the fact that the public voted against the referendum in this meeting’s Minutes, but it cannot be added to the June meeting Minutes. Chairman Loftus said that a member of the public stated at the June meeting that the residents did not support the referendum, which is reflected in the Minutes. Commissioner Wyant agreed. Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other comments about the Minutes. Commissioner Wyant said at the June meeting, staff outlined four items for discussion 1 Page 3 of 23 about the Glenbard West Addition, but more questions emerged. Going forward, is the Plan Commission expected to address only the specific items presented? Chairman Loftus said the Plan Commission is asked to focus on specific items, not to rehash prior information. Commissioner Wyant asked, then, is the Plan Commission not able to address additional questions? Loftus answered no, but if it is new information, then yes. If it is old information already discussed at a prior meeting, we cannot address it. Commissioner Dawson commented it applies equally to members of the public when they come to meetings in cross-examination. Chairman Loftus said if the information that a member of the public wants to address in cross-examination is new, it is permissible, but if it rehashes information from a past meeting, then the cross-examination is not allowed. Chairman Loftus commented that the Plan Commission meeting Minutes have become more expansive and anyone who reads the Minutes would know of the Commission’s detailed discussions. He said this is sufficient to inform the public and for the Plan Commission to move forward. He asked if there were any other items to discuss. Commissioner Dawson referenced page 4 of the Minutes where it stated, “Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to declare a recess.” Commissioner Dawson said it is inaccurate and should be revised to say that Chairman Loftus sought a motion to go into recess followed by Loftus declaring a 10-minute recess. Commissioner Dawson cited page 5 of the Minutes regarding the motion to approve the Finding of Facts. He wanted the voting language to be revised to say that the vote was 6 to 1 with Commissioner Dawson in dissent. Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to approve the Minutes as amended. Daniel Harper summarized the proposed revisions for the June Minutes as follows: • Page 4 - include revised wording regarding the recess. • Page 5 - the vote passed 6 to 1, Commissioner Dawson in dissent. Commissioner Dawson said that Commissioner Wyant’s comments about the Minutes should be included. Chairman Loftus clarified that items discussed in a meeting can be included, but anything discussed after a meeting is hearsay. Commissioner Dawson made a motion to approve the June meeting Minutes as amended. Commissioner Kreuzer seconded. The motion carried; all voted in favor. D. New Business 1. Public Hearing, 680 Roosevelt Road, Special Use Permit for Outdoor Storage at Trader Joe’s. Associate Planner Frahm was sworn in. He said Trader Joe’s petition for Outdoor Storage began when they approached the Village to apply for a building permit to allow for the expansion awning on the east side of the building. In researching the existing condition of the awning, 2 Page 4 of 23 Village Staff discovered that the existing canopy was being used for outdoor storage. In researching past zoning actions on the property, Trader Joe’s was approved outdoor storage at the front of the store for merchandise display, and in 2016, the canopy on the east side of the store. Staff determined that a special use permit to allow the canopy expansion on the east side of the store would be required to allow the canopy to be used as outdoor storage by Trader Joe’s. Frahm showed a visual of the proposed plans which included a concrete pad screen, and on the other side of the lot, an unscreened area for “go back” items. “Go back” items are defined by Trader Joe’s as empty pallets and containers that must be loaded to go back to the distributor. Chairman Loftus asked about the screen. Frahm answered that Village code applies to trash dumpster screening. Building material must be the same as screening for trash receptacles and we cannot necessarily apply that to other outdoor storage. Chairman Loftus said he brought up that question because of recycling. Frahm explained that Trader Joe’s flattens cardboard boxes, and they are bundled and placed in the “go-back area”; these bundles go back to the distributor along with the empty pallets every day. Mr. Harper clarified that Village code addresses screens as they relate to containers, however, this is a Special Use Permit request. The Plan Commission can put conditions on the request and screening may be part of that. Chairman Loftus asked if the Trader Joe’s storage site will be permanent. Frahm said that go- back items are supposed to be picked up in the morning hours and cannot sit overnight. Commissioner Wyant asked if Trader Joe’s had a license agreement or a lease with the property owner. Chaiman Loftus said that is a question for the petitioner. Commissioner Kreuzer asked Frahm to describe the go-back items and what he saw on the site visit; Frahm answered. Commissioner Cooper asked what Trader Joe’s was going to store under the canopy. Frahm said it was a staging area and may include incidental cart storage. He deferred to the store manager to discuss further. Commissioner Cooper asked if there are other properties in Glen Ellyn that have similar go-back needs or a similar area. Harper said that the Jewel grocery store on Roosevelt Road has an approved storage area for carts on the west side of their building. Trash and other items are located behind the building to the south and are generally out of view of the right of way. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if the go-back area was structural. Frahm answered no, it is just a use of space in the paved parking area. Commissioner Kreuzer asked Frahm if the village had any issues with appearance. Frahm said the Village has no records of comments or complaints. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if fencing could be used so that neighbors wouldn’t have to see the back. Frahm said staff’s discussion with the property owners about fencing raised concerns about access. Also, space in the loading areas is limited so fencing the go-back area may not be feasible. 3 Page 5 of 23 Commissioner Kreuzer asked if a fence was needed between the neighbors on the east side. Frahm said that it backs into a natural area near a senior adult community, so he didn’t anticipate issues that would cause complaints for visual distaste. Commissioner Morrison asked about boundaries or markers that delineate the go-back area. Frahm answered that the SUP defines the boundaries, and his only experience was with Jewel having some outdoor displays that were spilling into the sidewalk. Jewel was out of compliance with their SUP, and it was remedied by Jewel making an amendment to their SUP. For any business that falls out of compliance with an SUP as written, staff would review it again. Commissioner Morrsion asked who chose the location of the go-back area to be separate from the canopy area. Frahm answered when staff was on site, that area was identified as being used for that purpose. Commissioner Arango suggested a line of demarcation to curb overflow and to avoid compliance issues. Frahm asked if it’s possible to require periodic inspections by Village staff. Harper answered yes, you can build that into the SUP, or you could amend the dimensions to be more specific. Chairman Loftus suggested painting a visual area, similar to a “no parking zone.” Commissioner Wyant commented that the question of a license agreement or a lease must be answered before we have further discussion. Representatives of the petitioner were sworn in: • James Cox, Property Owner’s Representative • Ali Bennouna, Store Manager The petitioners addressed the Plan Commission. James Cox said the space is utilized every morning to take the go-backs. This is scheduled between 5-10 a.m., and two trucks come in to take materials away. Commissioner Wyant asked Cox if he had an agreement with the landlord such as a lease or license agreement. Cox answered there is neither lease nor a license agreement. He said the business operators were concerned about fencing the go-back area because it would limit access by semi tractor trailers. Cox said he represents the shopping center, and Trader Joe’s works well with other tenants in the shopping center. He said if the Commission has an issue with a handshake agreement, he will bring the concerns to ownership. Chairman Loftus said that many projects come to the Plan Commission’s review without the knowledge of nor the blessing of the owners, which is why we suggest communication with property owners. Cox said that it would not be difficult to present anything to the owners. Commissioner Morrison asked about having the go-back area on the other side of the drive aisle. Ali Bennouna responded it was an area that was not used, and it became the space to put the go- backs. Chairman Loftus asked if the go-back space was against the side of the business, would it effect parking. Cox answered yes and said we can’t afford to lose parking spaces. 4 Page 6 of 23 Commissioner Pesce pointed out that parking involves 1 or 2 spaces, and the drawing does not accurately reflect the parking. He asked the petitioners if they were already utilizing the space. They answered yes. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if the owner would object to striping the area. Cox replied no. Commissioner Dawson asked if they planned to use the area for seasonal displays. Cox replied no, it’s just operational. All displays are at the front of the store. Commissioner Dawson brought up screening, pointing out that it can be negative and create an environment for hiding or nefarious activity. Cox said they have not considered screening because it is hard to manage a property that is screened off. Commissioner Cooper asked about storage areas. Bennouna explained that the area is for temporary use and will not be used for overnight storage. The go-back areas are cleared by early morning. The tenants have shipping agreements so that trucks don’t arrive at the same time. Chairman Loftus thanked the petitioners. He asked staff if they had received public comments, and Frahm answered there were none. Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other comments from the floor, or final questions for staff or for the petitioner. Commissioner Morrsion asked staff if they had any issues with the actual applicant not being at the meeting. Harper answered there were none. Commissioner Cooper motioned to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dawson seconded. All voted in favor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Morrison said she would like to add a condition that the go-back area be easily identified as an enforcement precaution and to prevent parking there. There was discussion about having a requirement regarding what may be stored in the back area, including consumables. Harper suggested the word “merchandise.” Commissioner Wyant suggested adding a condition that there be no storage of food products. Commissioner Kreuzer preferred the word “merchandise” to encompass anything that is sold. Commissioners Wyant and Kreuzer supported Commissioner Morrsion’s recommendation. Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to approve the Special Use Permit application as amended. Commissioner Kreuzer motioned. Commissioner Dawson seconded. The motion carried; all voted in favor. Chairman Loftus requested a motion on the Findings of Facts. Commissioner Pesce read the Finding of Facts and the three recommendations. The Commission voted in favor 5 to 1. Commissioner Morrsion had a question about changing a word and after it was clarified she changed her vote to yes. The motion carried with a vote of 6-0. 2. Public Hearing, 293 Roosevelt Road, Special Use Permit for Drive-In Commercial Facility at Chicken Salad Chick. 5 Page 7 of 23 Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Commissioner Dawson motioned; Commissioner Kreuzer seconded. All voted in favor. The public hearing was open. Frahm said the petitioner is Big Sky Construction and that owners of the Chicken Salad Chick franchise were present at the meeting. The former retail space at 293 Roosevelt Road was a dry cleaner and Ordinance 6090 (11-26-2012) stated that if it were to become a restaurant it would be required to have a traffic study. Frahm presented the commercial district and zoning district facts. The Plan Commission was supplied with the traffic study prior to the meeting, and Frahm summarized the findings and comparisons of the study with visual tables. Frahm reviewed the comparison tables for peak hours, dry cleaning vs. restaurant. The traffic study findings indicated minimal impact on the roadways and minimal drive-through stacking concerns. The site plan was displayed and Frahm pointed out that the drive-through traffic pattern created a cross-over of potential traffic. The study proposed a stop sign to mitigate that issue. The proposal included no structural changes to the building other than windows, changing the door, and signage. The Development Committee (including staff of Administration, Community Development, Police, Fire, and Public Works) reviewed the plan and recommended two stop signs to mitigate the cross-over traffic concerns. Frahm reviewed the parking conditions and number of parking spaces as outlined in Ord. 6090, which are all compliant with current tenants of the shopping center. Frahm concluded his presentation. Commissioner Dawson asked for clarification of the entrance to the drive-through, and that drivers must go through the parking lot to exit. Frahm confirmed. Commissioner Dawson asked about stacking in the drive-through and expressed concern about vehicles backing up onto Roosevelt Road. Harper reiterated the traffic study concluded that it would be very unlikely for that issue to occur. Commissioner Pesce asked if the drive-through is just one lane. Frahm said yes and reviewed the lane configuration on the visual. Chairman Loftus asked how many of the strip mall tenants would be affected by the drive- through. Frahm answered it only applies to the former dry-cleaning space. Chairman Loftus asked about the structural changes to doors and windows. Frahm explained that one door will be blocked off, and one door will be replaced with a window for drive-through service. Commissioner Arango asked about exits and entrances to the site and Harper answered. Arrango said if drivers are passing cars stacked in the drive-through lane to get back to Roosevelt Road, she was concerned with traffic coming in and going out. Frahm explained the fluidity of the traffic because drivers spend less time sitting in the queue because they are not waiting for food to be prepared. Frahm said Chicken Salad Chick does not anticipate overflow stacking and they do not experience it at their other locations. Harper suggested that if we were to anticipate such a large influx of customers with an additional 6-8 cars arriving at one time, drivers would have the option to exit the lane and exit through the 6 Page 8 of 23 western exit. Commissioner Kreuzer pointed out that space is adequately deep to handle more cars. Commissioner Cooper asked what the function of the second stop sign was. Harper answered to control the eastbound traffic, and concern about incoming traffic as drivers were exiting the drive-through. Chairman Loftus explained the traffic flow related to the second stop sign. Commissioner Kreuzer commented about the entrance flow from Roosevelt Road, saying that a left-hand turn is prohibited from the east side but there is no sign saying No Left Turn. Harper replied that that the egress/ingress construction of the exit (a concrete island) prevents a left turn, so it is not necessary. Commissioner Morrison commented that she didn’t think a No Left Turn sign was necessary. Commissioner Kreuzer said he was more concerned about people exiting in the ingress-only lane. Chairman Loftus said the onus for signage should be on the site planner and not on the applicant. Commissioner Wyant said the onus should be on the property owner. Commissioner Kreuzer agreed. Commissioner Pesce said other retailers have similar issues with the ingress/egress and the landlord shouldn’t have a problem with adding a sign. Chairman Loftus explained that staff suggested two stop signs to encourage safety and to mitigate traffic problems. He noted the applicant has acknowledged this and is agreeable to making it part of the application. Commissioner Dawson said the egress/ingress entrance should be clear to drivers, but he still doesn’t understand why the second stop sign was proposed. Frahm said the Development Committee’s discussion centered upon two vehicles meeting at the same time and the question would be who would have the right of way? The sign would make it clear that they should stop. Frahm reiterated that the traffic study recommended only one stop sign and the Plan Commission can decide either way. Commissioner Dawson said he was still confused. Harper said the suggestion to have second stop sign was because the traffic could conceivably cross at that one spot. Chairman Loftus asked about recorded accidents in that parking lot. Harper said there was none for the dry cleaner. Commissioner Pesce asked if garbage pick-up would have to go through the drive-through lane. Harper said that was not the case with the dry cleaner, and the restaurant would have to coordinate garbage pick-up to occur during non-business hours. Commissioner Morrsion asked if KLOA (the author of the traffic study) had any comments on the staff’s proposal to add a stop sign. Harper replied that KLOA was not consulted. Petitioners Kimberly and Garrett Seaman, Chicken Salad Chick franchisees and current owners of the location in Batavia, IL, were sworn in. Ms. Seaman gave a visual presentation of the proposal including minimal structural changes to the building and the garbage pick-up schedule. 7 Page 9 of 23 She showed tables comparing traffic stacking patterns during peak business hours, and their average drive-through wait time is 2-3 minutes. She described the restaurant as fast, casual, southern dining. One third of customers are drive-through, one third are dine-in, and one third are carry-out. They will have pre-order menu boards to help drive-through traffic move along. Chairman Loftus asked if the menu board will have audio. Ms. Seaman replied no, it will show the menu, how to order, and the customer will order at the next the board. Mr. Seaman said the restaurant will be open Monday through Saturday, and their peak business time is at lunch for take-out and delivery. Commissioner Arango asked about outdoor seating. The petitioner said possibly later, and the plans show two tables for outdoor seating. Harper clarified the tables appear in the building permit, not in the SUP application. Ms. Seaman continued her overview of the traffic facts and tables comparing drive-through times with other restaurants. Commissioner Arango asked about stacking cars near the pick-up window. Ms. Seaman replied that there is a parking area where they can ask customers to pull over to the side when needed, and their order will be brought out to them Commissioner Wyant commented that this is a healthy, high-quality food option that residents in Glen Ellyn are clamoring for and thanked the franchisees for their investment. Chairman Loftus thanked the petitioners and asked staff if any public comments had been received. Frahm said there were none. Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dawson moved; Commissioner Cooper seconded. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Morrison said she preferred to listen to experts and proposed to accept KLOA’s recommendation for only one stop sign. Commissioner Kreuzer liked the idea of fewer signs and would prefer to have striping or an arrow indicating no left turn onto Roosevelt Road. Commissioner Pesce commented that signage should be left to the discretion of the landlord. Commissioner Kreuzer said one stop sign was adequate signage, but there should be an arrow on the exit showing Right Turn Only. There was further discussion on signage. Commissioner Morrison pointed out that the owner is not here to answer the signage issue and it’s not fair to the petitioner to make this a requirement of SUP. Commissioner Wyant agreed. Chairman Loftus said the landlord had already approved the second stop sign, and that other businesses on Roosevelt Road who have the ingress/egress island do not have traffic problems with wrong turns. 8 Page 10 of 23 Commissioner Cooper agreed with Morrison about less signage; however he anticipated drivers coming into the parking lot in a hurry (such as Door Dash drivers) and not paying attention to drivers exiting the drive-through. Cooper said the second stop sign is needed. Commissioner Wyant said that’s a good point, but this strip-mall will have less traffic and there were no problems when Fresh Thyme market was a tenant. Commissioner Arango commented that drivers heading west on Roosevelt cannot turn in and the entrance is at the other end of the parking lot. Chairman Loftus agreed with Commissioner Cooper’s point about Door Dash drivers being in a hurry, but we can’t regulate bad drivers. He said he used the dry-cleaning facility for years and there were no issues. Chairman Loftus said if we’re going to put all these conditions on it, I would vote no. Commissioner Dawson said he agreed with Commissioner Morrison, and he thanked the petitioners for the quality of their application. He said he will vote yes either way, but he doesn’t recommend two stop signs. Commissioner Morrsion made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for the Chicken Salad Chick drive-through with a condition that the applicant be required to have one stop sign as proposed by the original traffic study. Seconded by Commissioner Dawson. The motion carried with a vote of 5 – 1. Commissioner Cooper motioned to the approve the Finding of Facts as presented. Second, by Commissioner Pesce. The motion carried with a vote of 5 – 1. E. Trustee Liaison’s Report Trustee Steve Szymanski addressed the Plan Commission. The Village Board recently approved the zoning referendum for the Glenbard West High School Addition and other projects such as replacing lead line water services. The Board is also reviewing the train station proposal and ways to reduce costs. Commissioner Wyant asked Szymanksi if he was aware of the votes on the high school referendum that he brought up earlier. Szymanski said he was not aware. Considering the new regulations for e-bikes and scooters, Commissioner Wyant asked if the police department had issued any violations. Szymanski said not to his knowledge, and our first job is to educate residents on the new rules. Commissioner Wyant suggested that the Village should examine headwear requirements. Szymanksi replied that even though the state of Illinois does not require helmets for bike riders, he agreed the Village Board should look further into it. Commissioner Cooper asked about road construction, specifically that the Village passed a referendum 25 years ago to improve roads with concrete instead of bituminous materials, but the Village does not seem to be using concrete. Szymanski did not know and said he would find out. Commissioner Pesce asked about the status of the demolition of the hotel properties on Taft Avenue. Jennifer Henaghan provided an update, saying that further demolition is on hold 9 Page 11 of 23 pending the results of an environmental assessment currently being conducted by DuPage County. Trustee Szymanski concluded his comments. Chairman Loftus noted that it was the end of Commissioner Dawson’s term, and he thanked him for his service to the Plan Commission. The Commission members applauded. Commissioner Dawson thanked Chairman Loftus for his comments and said he enjoyed his time with the Plan Commission. F. Staff Report Mr. Harper reported that MK Steakhouse may have a sign variation request on the August agenda of the Plan Commission, depending on timely receipt of the application. The Glen Ellyn Park District accepted all the Commission’s recommendations for Ackerman Park. The Park District recently applied for a demolition permit for the US Bank site. The Special Use Permit for Insula Aesthetics will be reviewed by the Village Board next week. Commissioner Pesce asked about the fall meeting schedule, as Plan Commission meetings were typically moved up one week due to holidays. Harper confirmed the November and December meeting dates. Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other comments or questions. Seeing none, Commissioner Arango motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Dawson seconded. The motion carried with a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. 10 Page 12 of 23  Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 10/23/2025 7:00 PM Commission Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Policy Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-855 # 2025-855) Review and Adoption of Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Plan Commission. Statement of the Issue: The Plan Commission does not currently have a document that formalizes rules and procedures for how the Commission should govern its meetings and public hearings. Village Attorney Paul Stephanides has drafted a document outlining rules and procedures for the Plan Commission to adopt and implement for its future business. Analysis: The Rules of Procedure to be considered and adopted by the Plan Commission shall govern the Commission's meetings and public hearings. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and adopt the Rules of Procedure for the Glen Ellyn Plan Commission. Attachments: 1. Plan Commission Rules Page 13 of 23  PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED ON _______________, 2025 Page 14 of 23 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1. The Rules of Procedure adopted herein (“Rules”) by the Plan Commission (“Commission”) shall govern the Commission’s meetings and public hearings. In the event any Rule herein conflicts with a requirement of state law, the Glen Ellyn Village Code, or Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (collectively referred to as “other requirement”), the other requirement shall govern and control. 1.2. These Rules are adopted as a supplement to the applicable provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Glen Ellyn Village Code (“Village Code”), the Glen Ellyn Zoning Code (“Zoning Code”), and any ordinances, resolutions, or rules adopted by the Village Board as they relate to the Commission. 1.3. These Rules are adopted pursuant to the authority granted by Section 2-4-4 (“Meetings”) of the Village Code. 2. MEMBERS AND DUTIES 2.1. The Commission Chair is appointed by the Village President with the advice and consent of the Board of Trustees. The Chair shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the Commission, shall administer oaths to witnesses or authorize the administration of oaths, and shall decide all points of order or procedure. 2.2. In case of the absence or disability of the Chair, an Acting Chair shall be nominated by the Commission and a motion shall be adopted to appoint the Acting Chair. The Acting Chair shall perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of the Chair. 2.3. Any Commission member who has a proprietary interest or other conflict of interest pursuant to Chapter 12 (“Ethics”) of Title 1 (“Administrative”) of the Village Code in any matter before the Commission shall not vote thereon and shall remove themself from any meeting or hearing at which said matter is under consideration. If more than a majority of Commission members remove themselves from a hearing, the Board shall refer the matter to the Village President and Board of Trustees for direction. 2.4. Any person appearing before the Commission is prohibited from communicating with the Commission’s members about matters before the Commission outside of Commission meetings. If a member receives such an “ex parte” communication, it must be made part of the public record by the member who received the communication. Failure to adhere to this Rule by any person appearing before the Commission may result in the member who received the ex parte communication having to recuse themselves from a hearing or result in the dismissal of an application. 3. MEETINGS 3.1. Regular Commission meetings shall be held on the fourth Thursday of every month at 7:00 P.M., or such other days and/or times as determined by the Commission, in the Galligan Board 2 Page 15 of 23 Room of the Civic Center or other noticed place, unless such day shall be a recognized holiday. Any regular meeting may be cancelled by the Commission if any case or matter is not ready to proceed, or if a quorum of the Commission is not available for a regular meeting. 3.2. A quorum for a meeting of the Commission shall consist of the physical presence of a majority of the Commission members then in office pursuant to Section 2-4-4(D) of the Village Code. Electronic attendance at a meeting shall be governed by the rules adopted by the Village President and Board of Trustees on September 22, 2025 pursuant to Ordinance No. 7222-VC, as amended. 3.3. All Commission meetings shall comply with the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. All Commission meetings shall be open to the public, and no official action shall be taken except during a public meeting. 3.4. The latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the Commission’s meetings except when in conflict with the Village Code or any applicable Village ordinances, rules adopted by the Village Board, these Rules, or State law. 3.5. The order of agenda items may be modified by the Chair with the consent of the Commission. 3.6. The Rules for Public Comment adopted by the Village President and Board of Trustees on September 22, 2025 (“Rules for Public Comment”) pursuant to Ordinance No. 7222-VC, as amended, shall govern the Commission. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1. Notice of public hearings shall be given in accordance with the Village Zoning Code and State law. 4.2. The Chair shall request a motion to open a public hearing which shall be voted upon by a voice vote. 4.3. Continuances: If a public hearing is to be continued, a motion to continue the hearing to a date certain shall be made which shall be voted upon by a voice vote. All continuances shall be to a date certain, and no further notice shall be required other than appearing on a subsequent agenda. One continuance shall be granted to a petitioner who has filed an application with the Village, if requested. Further continuances shall be at the Commission’s discretion. If after the presentation of the petitioner’s application, other interested parties wish to have the hearing continued so that they might prepare evidence or testimony of their own concerning or in response to the petitioner’s application, the Commission may grant a continuance pursuant to a motion voted upon by a voice vote. 4.4. At the conclusion of a public hearing, a motion to close the public hearing shall be made which shall be voted upon by a voice vote. 3 Page 16 of 23 4.5. A record of a public hearing must be maintained in the form of minutes. 4.6. The petitioner, or the petitioner’s authorized representative, must be present at the public hearing. Whenever a petitioner or the petitioner’s representative fails to appear, the Commission may choose to dismiss the application. Dismissal for a failure to appear is not a determination on the merits and shall not bar the filing of a new application. 4.7. Each person speaking at a public hearing shall be sworn in as a witness and shall identify themselves and provide their address. A speaker may choose to decline to provide their address. 4.8. Petitioners or objectors may present witnesses for direct questions. The Commission may limit the number of witnesses whose testimony is cumulative or not relevant to a matter before the Commission. 4.9. Cross-examination of witnesses shall be permitted, provided that the Chair may limit redundant questions and make other limitations based on relevancy. The examination of a witness shall not be used by a questioner to offer testimony or evidence of the questioner. 4.10. The Chair may require a preliminary statement of the nature of the evidence proposed to be elicited from a witness. 4.11. All questions or statements from the floor must be directed to the Chair. 4.12. Upon the close of a public hearing, the Commission shall deliberate on an application and shall vote to either recommend to the Village Board that an application be approved or denied by a majority vote of those members in attendance. The Commission must conduct its deliberations and vote in a public session. 4.13. Upon the adoption of a motion to either recommend approval or denial of an application, the Commission shall adopt written findings of fact and a recommendation based upon the Commission’s adopted motion by a majority vote of those members in attendance. 4.14. Commission members who are absent for one or more hearing sessions may vote on the Commission’s recommendation and the adoption of written findings of fact and recommendation if they affirm that they have either listened to the audio of the proceedings and reviewed the evidentiary materials or read the draft meeting minutes and reviewed the evidentiary materials. 4.15. If a petitioner wishes a court reporter to be present at a hearing, the petitioner must engage the court reporter at the petitioner’s cost. The Village shall audio record hearings. 5. AMENDMENT TO RULES 5.1. These Rules may be amended by a majority vote of Commission members then in office at any regular meeting of the Commission. 4 Page 17 of 23  Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 10/23/2025 7:00 PM Commission Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2025-860 # 2025-860) Public Hearing — Proposed Text Amendments to Title 10 (“Zoning Code”), Chapter 4 (“District Regulations”) of the Village’s Zoning Code Statement of the Issue: The Village of Glen Ellyn is proposing text amendments to Title 10 (“Zoning Code”), Chapter 4 (“District Regulations”) of the Village’s Zoning Code that would allow for a restaurant to be a permitted use in the C4 Office District and would make a drive-in commercial facility a special use in the C4 District. Analysis: The C4 District was established in the Village Zoning Code in 1974 as part of a newly adopted comprehensive zoning code. This update separated the former "O-C Office-Commercial District" into the distinct zoning districts of C1, C2, C3 Commercial Districts and the C4 District that we are familiar with in our current code, except for the C1 Commercial District that was removed from the zoning code in 2007. Per Section 10-3-1 of the zoning code, the intent of the C4 District is intended primarily to accommodate office buildings and civic and governmental structures in a mutually compatible environment. The current C4 District consists of approximately 70.74 acres in four clusters along the Roosevelt Road corridor. The westernmost cluster, identified as Area 1 on the attached zoning map, is located west of Main Street on the south side of Taft Avenue and consists of 10 parcels with seven (7) buildings that primarily serve as medical, real estate, and law offices. This area is identified as Development Opportunity area eight (8) in the Roosevelt Road - West Subarea Framework of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan (pg. 36). According to the comprehensive plan, "these sites represent dated or poorly laid out parcels that can be consolidated with adjacent properties to facilitate more intense redevelopment that is in line with the community's vision of Roosevelt Road as a vibrant commercial corridor." The parcel identified as Area 2 is located on the southeast corner of Taft Avenue and S. Park Boulevard and is one parcel (1) with one (1) building that serves medical, real estate, and law offices. The cluster identified as Area 3 consists of fourteen (14) parcels with twelve (12) buildings located at or near the intersection of IL Route 53 and Roosevelt Road. This cluster contains the most diverse number of uses, including the United States Post Office facility, a bank with drive-through ATM Page 18 of 23 service, a nonconforming restaurant (Danby's Station), a large fitness center, a nonconforming auto- repair facility, and medical, real estate, sales, and law offices. The easternmost parcel, identified as Area 4, contains the offices and operations facility of Nicor Gas Company. The site of Danby's Station is identified as Development Opportunity Area No. 12 in the Roosevelt Road - Central Sub- area framework of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan (pg. 37). Per the Comprehensive Plan, "Danby Café is in fair to poor condition and the site could use façade and site improvements" (pg. 35). This site has struggled to attract investors due to the nonconforming use of the property which prevents substantial modifications to the building or site. The Village is proposing a text amendment to the current permitted uses and special uses sections of the C4 District to include "Restaurant" as an allowed use and "Drive-in commercial facility" as a special use. The purpose of this proposed change is to offer greater diversity in the allowed uses of the C4 Office District. The demand for office space has diminished in the past five years as work from home technologies and company polices have allowed for greater employee flexibility in how and where they report for work. These economic changes have greatly reduced the market demand for office spaces and associated uses. Allowing restaurant uses in the C4 Office District would allow for an in-demand market use to utilize the existing non-conforming structures or retrofit underutilized properties to better serve the community. Village staff believes that adding restaurant uses in the C4 Office District would be compatible with all existing uses in the district. The use of "Restaurant and Eating Place" would be included as a permitted use in the C4 District. This use allows for outdoor seating on private property as an accessory so long as the outdoor seating complies with the provisions for outdoor dining located in section 10-5-15 of the Village Code. The use of a "Drive-in commercial facility" would be included as a special use in the C4 District. This use is only allowed as a special use in all commercial districts and will be subject to all requirements and reviews as a drive-in commercial facility in other commercial districts. The parking and loading requirements of the C4 District would also be amended to include parking requirements specific to restaurant uses as currently required in the C3 District. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Village staff is requesting a review and recommendation of approval of the proposed text amendment per 10-10-13 of the Village Code to include "Restaurant" as a permitted use and "Drive- in commercial facility" as a special use in the C4 Office District. Attachments: 1. DRAFT Text Amendment - Restaurants in C4 Zoning District 2. C4 Office District - Zoning Map Page 19 of 23 10-4-16. C4 Office District. (A) Permitted uses: 1. Bank or financial institution. 2. Blueprinting and photocopying establishment. 3. Business, medical or professional office. 4. Medical or dental clinic. 5. Office, general or professional: private, semiprivate or public. 6. Private school. 7. Research laboratory. 8. Restaurant and eating place, including outdoor seating on private property as an accessory use provided such outdoor seating complies with the provisions in section 10-5-15 of this title. 8.9. Sales and personal service facility within an office building, but limited to not more than 50 percent of the gross ground floor area of the building. 9.10. School, commercial or trade. 10.11. Studio for artist, photographer, sculptor or musician. 11.12. Television or radio broadcasting studio. 12.13. Antenna attachments to existing antenna towers, buildings or other structures which do not exceed the permitted height in the zoning district or the height established by a special use permit. 13.14. Health spa. All permitted uses must also comply with all applicable requirements contained in chapter 5, "Supplementary Regulations", of this title as well as all other pertinent regulations in this title. (B) Special uses: No enumerated special use shall be considered to be an accessory use to any other permitted or special use, and a separate permit shall be required for each separate special use. 1. Adult daycare center. 2. Automobile repair. 3. Church or temple. 4. Congregate housing for the elderly. 5. Daycare center. 6. Drive-in commercial facility. 6.7. Office planned development in accordance with the provisions of the "planned unit development regulations". 7.8. Outdoor merchandise, storage, promotional activities, or tents. 8.9. Printing and publishing establishment. 9.10. Public park and playground. 10.11. Public use. 11.12. Public utility and public service use. Page 1 of 3 Page 20 of 23  12.13. Sheltered care facility. 13.14. Television and radio tower, antenna support structure, church spire, belfry, monument, tank, water and fire tower, stage tower or scenery loft, cooling tower, ornamental tower, and spire, chimney, elevator bulkhead, conveyor and flagpole which exceed the maximum height. 14.15. Vehicle storage lot. 15.16. Warehouse. 16.17. Medical cannabis dispensary (in accordance with section 10-5-19 of this title). All special uses must also comply with all applicable requirements contained in chapter 5, "Supplementary Regulations", of this title, as well as all other pertinent regulations in this title. (C) Accessory building and uses: 1. Storage garage and parking lot. 2. Accessory buildings may be located in a rear yard but not occupy more than 30 percent of a rear yard. If within ten feet of a principal building, then it must observe the same side yard requirements for a principal building. If more than ten feet from a principal building, then it must be at least 60 feet from the front street line and three feet from both the side and rear yards. (D) Minimum yard and lot requirements: 1. Front yard: 40 feet in depth. The front ten feet shall be reserved for open space and be appropriately planted and landscaped. 2. Rear yard: 20 feet in depth. 3. Side yard: Ten feet for each side yard. A 20-foot side yard is required when the property adjoins or is across the alley from a residential district; such transitional yard shall be appropriately landscaped. 4. Lot area: 10,000 square feet. 5. Lot width: (a) Interior lot: 80 feet; (b) Corner lot: 100 feet. 6. Lot depth: 140 feet. (E) Maximum height: 1. Forty five feet, except that by special use a building may be erected to a height not exceeding 55 feet if the building is set back from each yard line at least two additional feet for each additional foot of building height above 45 feet. Churches and temples may, by special use permit, be erected to a height not exceeding 75 feet if such structure is set back from each yard line at least two additional feet for each additional foot of building height above 45 feet. 2. The height of a television or radio tower, antenna support structure, church spire, belfry, monument, tank, water and fire tower, stage tower or scenery loft, cooling tower, ornamental tower, and spire, chimney, elevator bulkhead, conveyor and flagpole shall be specified in the ordinance granting a special use permit. (F) Signs, fences and obstructions in yards: 1. Signs as per sign ordinance. 2. Screening required pursuant to subsection 10-5-13(L) of this title. Page 2 of 3 Page 21 of 23  3. See section 10-5-5, "Yards", of this title. (G) Parking and loading requirements: 1. No vehicle shall be parked within ten feet of the front property line, and such unobstructed ten foot setback shall be appropriately planted and landscaped. All parking areas shall be appropriately landscaped, and effectively screened from adjacent residential areas. 2. All buildings except those specified below: One space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. 3. Bank and office: One space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Broadcasting studio: One space for each three spectator seats, plus one space for each two employees. 5. Church: One space for each four seats in the main auditorium. 6. Commercial or trade school: One space for each two students, based on design capacity. 7. Eating or restaurant establishment: One space for each three seats provided in eating or drinking areas. 8. Medical and dental clinic: One space for each 200 square feet of the gross area used for clinic. 9. Printing and publishing: One space for each employee. 10. Private school: One space for each four students, based on design capacity. 11. Restaurant (drive-in and/or carryout where the restaurant has no inside seating): One space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. 12. Restaurant (sit down): One space for each three seats provided in eating or drinking areas. 11.13. Sales and services within office building: One space for each 600 square feet of gross floor area. 12.14. Sheltered care facility: One space for each 1,200 square feet of gross floor area. 13.15. Warehouse: Two spaces for each three employees. 14.16. Congregate housing: One space for each two bedrooms. 15.17. Additional off street parking and loading requirements are found in chapter 5, "Supplementary Regulations", of this title. (Ord. 3617, 5-8-1989, eff. 6-1-1989; amd. Ord. 4331, 12-18-1995; Ord. 4673, 12-14-1998, eff. 3-1-1999; Ord. 5035, 1-14-2002, eff. 3-1-2002; Ord. 5543, 1-22-2007; Ord. 5591, 7-23-2007; Ord. 5894, 10-25-2010; Ord. 6015, 3-26- 2012; Ord. 6208, 1-13-2014; Ord. 6228, 4-14-2014; Ord. 6303, 3-9- 2015; Ord. 6619, 8-27-2018) Page 3 of 3 Page 22 of 23  Zoning Map - C4 Office District Legend Zoning and Development Zoning CC: Community College District C3: Service Commercial District C4: Office District C5A: Central Business District (Retail Core) C5B: Central Business District (Service) C6: Commerical/Multi-Use Planned Development District Area 3 CR: Conservation/Recreation District R0: Single Family Residential District R1: Single Family Residential District R2: Single Family Residential District Area 4 R2B: Single Family Residential District R3: Multi-Family Residential District R4: Multi-Family Residential District Area 1 R5: Planned Residential District Area 2 0 0.5 1 Print Date: 10/6/2025 Notes mi Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 23 of 23