Plan Commission

Agenda Village of Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, January 22, 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 December 11, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes D. New Business 1) Pre-Application - 750 Roosevelt Road — Dutch Bros Drive-Through Restaurant 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 27  Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 1/22/2026 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: 2026-32 # 2026-32) Review and Approval of the December 11, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Statement of the Issue: Review and Approval of the December 11, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Analysis: Review and Approval of the December 11, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: Review and Approval of the December 11, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: 1. Draft_Plan_Commission_12.11.25 Minutes Page 2 of 27  DRAFT MINUTES Glen Ellyn Plan Commission Meeting Thursday, Dec. 11, 2025, at 7:00 PM Glen Ellyn Civic Center Galligan Board Room A. Call to Order and Roll Call Chairperson Tim Loftus called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and explained the Plan Commission's function and operating procedure as an advisory body. He described the public hearing protocol including for public comment and announced that comments would be recorded. Roll was called. Chairperson Loftus, Plan Commissioners, Arango, Brown, Cooper, Wyant, Kreuzer, Pesce. Commissioners Dougherty and Morrison were absent. Also in attendance: Steve Thompson, Village Trustee, Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, Jennifer Henaghan, Community Development Director, and Laura Musgraves, Acting Recording Secretary. B. Public Comment (non-agenda items) There was no off-agenda audience comment. C. Approval of Minutes 1. Review and Approval of the November 13, 2025, Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Kreuzer moved to approve the minutes, Commissioner Arango seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote. D. New Business 1. Public Hearing: Sign Variations - 486 Pennsylvania Avenue, Maplewood Brewery & Distillery Commissioner Brown made a motion to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Sworn in Daniel Harper, Planning Manager, presented on the agenda item below: Mr. Harper provided background information regarding the new tenant at 486 Pennsylvania Avenue, Maplewood Brewery and Distillery, which will modify the space occupied by former tenant Two-Hound Red Brewery and Restaurant. The exterior modifications to the building were reviewed by the Architectural Appearance Commission and approved by the Village Board at their meeting on November 10, 2025. Mr. Harper gave an overview of the four (4) Sign Variations requested by the petitioner as follows: 1. A variation from Section 4-5-11(A) to allow five (5) signs for the establishment in lieu of the maximum of one (1) sign per establishment. 2. A variation from Section 4-5-6(C) to allow an awning valance sign to have a maximum height of ten inches (0’-10”) in lieu of the maximum allowed awning valance sign height of six inches (0’-6”). 3. A variation from Section 4-5-4(R)(3) to allow a freestanding sign to be setback six inches (0’-6”) from the property line in lieu of the minimum setback of five feet (5’-0”). 4. A variation from Section 4-5-4(R)(6) to allow the material of the support structure of the sign to not match the primary material of the front building façade. Regarding the wall signs, one wall sign located on the south wall of the building facing Pennsylvania Avenue has already been approved. The applicant is seeking additional wall signs located on the East and West walls of the building. On the West wall, the petitioner proposed a 9’ sign of painted acrylic letters to be lighted with either LED lighting behind it or can-lights located above it. Page 3 of 27 On the East wall sign, the petitioner proposed two options. Option 1 is a logo of Maplewood Brewery located in the center above the main entrance door, illuminated by existing can-lights. Option 2 is the whole word “Maplewood” spelled out in the same manner as the proposed West sign. Mr. Harper stated the proposed signs meet the existing code requirements for size of the signs, reiterating it is the number of signs that deviate from code and that is the variance being sought. Regarding the awning sign, Mr. Harper explained that the petitioner’s proposal does not meet the code requirements of a valance sign and their request is classified as an awning sign. Village Code allows for signs on valances that hang from an awning, but they are restricted to 6” of text height. The applicant proposes larger size, 10”, because of the larger valance. The fifth sign proposed is a free-standing monument sign in the southernmost island of the parking lot. The sign is 8 square feet on a metal pedestal and non-illuminated. Two variations are needed. One for the setback to be 6” from the property line in lieu of the minimum setback of 5 feet. The second variation is for a metal support structure instead of a masonry support structure. Per Code, freestanding signs must match the same material as the building, and the petitioner is seeking a different material (metal.) Their rationale is that they have experienced parking issues and they want to clarify that the parking belongs to Maplewood Brewery. In summary, the petitioner seeks four (4) signs through variations, as the first sign has already been approved. Commissioner Cooper asked if the building structure located at 478 Pennsylvania Avenue is a commercial structure. Mr. Harper answered yes. Chairman Loftus asked if the proposed repeated wording on the east side of the awning valence is allowed per Village Code. Mr. Harper answered that, in relation to the awning, it is not in number of words on the valence, but the height of the words that is the variation they are requesting. Mr. Harper clarified the sign dimensions. Commissioner Arango asked about the wording on the east side of the awning, and was that considered a valance? Mr. Harper answered yes. Commissioner Arango asked if it met with the code for size. Mr. Harper answered no, the proposed wording is 10” and the Code allowable size is 6” maximum. Commissioner Brown suggested that the landscape island where proposed monument sign would be made higher, and she thought it would be worth consideration by the petitioner. Commissioner Arango asked if the monument sign was lit. Mr. Harper answered no. Commissioner Pesce asked for clarification of the East and West signs. If they are painted acrylic on the wall and the petitioner is proposing to illuminate the sign with a LED light behind it, would the sign be painted on another material and affixed to the wall? Mr. Harper answered that if it was a painted sign, the same variations would be required. Chairperson Loftus asked about the proposed lighting of the West wall sign, would it include LED backlighting and can-light illumination from above? Mr. Harper answered no, it would be one or the other. Commissioner Arango asked if can-lighting on the proposed East sign already exists. Mr. Harper answered yes. Commissioner Pesce asked if the Commission was being asked to approve the two options presented, or to make a suggestion? Harper answered that whatever the Commission approves, they may put conditions on it such as the number of signs, the size of the signs, and the illumination requirements. Commissioner Brown asked about setting precedents for other downtown properties to request sign variations. Harper answered it is the Commission’s responsibility to make that determination. Subsequent cases would be subject to the same conditions in a matter by matter basis. Page 4 of 27 Sworn in: Adam Cieslak, representative of Maplewood Brewery & Distillery Mr. Cieslak addressed the Commission by thanking them for their consideration. He said the company was happy to entertain suggestions. The previous tenant of the property noted a lack of identity of the restaurant from the east and west sides of the building, and that was part of Maplewood’s rationale to appeal for more signage. Another issue raised by the previous tenant was the limited size of the parking lot and that it was often used for parking by surrounding businesses. Regarding the awning, the existing awning is weathered and tattered, so Maplewood wishes to replace it with a new, fresh awning that is tasteful in appearance. They are requesting a size variation to not only fit the dimensions the awning, but they also wish to provide identity to the restaurant. Maplewood’s intent is for the signage to fit the character and feel of Glen Ellyn. Chairman Loftus asked the Commission if they had any questions for the petitioner. Commissioner Wyant thanked Cieslak for choosing Glen Ellyn as the location of their new restaurant. He commented that Maplewood’s website marketing and branding focuses on the brewery and distillery aspects of the business, but it is not reflected in the signage requests. Cieslak answered that their initial business identity online focused on the distillery, but Maplewood has opened a successful lounge and restaurant in Chicago that is gaining attention. They want to embrace their identity in dining and not just be known as a brewery and distillery. He said that is the intent by using their logo in one of the sign proposals. Chairperson Loftus asked about dimensions of the sign lettering above the entrance door. Mr. Harper confirmed the allowable dimensions are 16 inches in height. Mr. Cieslak reiterated that Maplewood is amendable to using the Maplewood logo above the door instead of the name. Commissioner Cooper asked about the purpose of the monument sign. Is it to identify that the parking lot belongs to Maplewood? Cieslak answered yes. Chairperson Loftus asked if there are other signs in the parking lot such as “customers only” and towing notices. Mr. Harper answered that those signs do not count as signage according to Village Code. Mr. Cieslak said they want to make sure there is adequate parking for their customers. Commissioner Cooper said there is anecdotal information that customers don’t always identify the parking as belonging to Two Hound Red. If the petitioner is concerned about this and anticipating an influx of customers from out of town, he doesn’t think a monument sign is going to discourage people from parking there if they are not customers. Mr. Cieslak disagreed, saying there is already confusion about where to park and the restaurant isn’t open yet. Commissioner Arango asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Cieslak answered they are still working it out, but they are considering being open at brunch and lunch on weekends, possibly opening on weekdays starting at 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. Ideally, they would like to be open for lunch and coffee, then grow into that schedule. Chairman Loftus mentioned that, historically, two businesses Barone’s and Glen Oak Café had issues with a shared parking lot, and they managed it with chains blocking access points during peak traffic hours. He asked if this was by agreement with the Village and did staff have any knowledge of it. Mr. Harper said he could not speak to how Glen Oaks Café managed their parking. Commissioner Kreuzer asked Cieslak if they expected a lot of out-of-town visitors. Mr. Cieslak answered yes, from Chicago and from out of the state based on his experience at their Chicago location. Page 5 of 27 Chairman Loftus said he mentioned the chain issue as an alternative to managing parking issues instead of having a monument sign. He said parking is only a problem during times when the restaurant is open and an additional sign unnecessary. Commissioner Kreuzer said this restaurant may distinguish Glen Ellyn from other cities and we want to pull customers from other areas. Great branding and great signage are key to that goal, so he was supportive of the monument sign. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Cieslak if they would consider altering their business hours, as having regular hours may solve the parking problem. Mr. Cieslak answered he would have to discuss it with his partners. Their goal is to keep the branding consistent. He added that Maplewood plans to landscape the area of the proposed monument sign to make it more visually appealing. The Commission observed a scruffy concrete wall in the photo exhibit and asked staff who was responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Harper said he would have to check, but he believed it belonged to the property to the east. Mr. Cieslak made a point about the signs, saying Maplewood advocates for themselves and spends a lot of effort on making exteriors look good. The finished product will look better than the photoshopped exhibit. Regarding the monument sign area, they intend to kill the weeds and make a nice landscape. They do not wish to put up a sign that is an eyesore. Commissioner Arango asked about their landscape plans. Mr. Cieslak answered they wished to clear the weeds and perhaps plant hedges that look nice and have clean lines. Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Chairman Loftus asked staff if Community Development had received any emails or written comments from the public. Mr. Harper answered no. Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pesce motioned. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Cooper expressed concern about the monument sign because it is located on the edge of the property and he did not like the precedence of allowing monuments signs near the lot line. He thought the current confusion of people parking there is because there is no active business there now. Cooper said he is supportive of the business itself, but not the monument sign. He said he will vote to approve the other variations. Commissioner Kreuzer said he is in favor of all the variations. Maplewood is investing a lot in this venture, and we should support it. He added that he prefers Option 1 of the West sign proposal, which is can-lighting above the sign. He favored that option because it is consistent with the lighting of the other sign, and he did not like the idea of LED lighting with light emitting out. Commissioner Kreuzer said the petitioner is open to suggestions and if the Commission is being asked to make a condition on the variation, that would be his condition. He added he is not concerned about the variations because they are not ostentatious and the petitioner has shown the need for them. If they were lighted signs and bothersome to neighbors, he would be concerned about the number of signs requested but that is not the case. Commissioner Arango said she was agreeable to the number of signs. She said they are tasteful in appearance and with the expected traffic to the restaurant, the signs make sense. She said the proposal was well-thought out. Chairman Loftus said he disagreed with Commissioner Cooper on the condition, and he is okay with the monument sign. He said he agreed with Commissioner Kreuzer’s opinion of can-lighting the West sign, and overall agreeable to the variations they are requesting. Loftus added that the monument sign could be effective considering the shared parking problems between Glen Oak Café and Barone’s. Commissioner Brown thanked the petitioner for coming to Glen Ellyn. She was concerned about the monument sign because any business could make the same argument about parking problems. She suggested not having the monument sign, and if Maplewood decided they needed it, they could come back with a variation request later. Commissioner Pesce said he was excited about Maplewood and it will complement other restaurants. Although the proposed monument sign looked professional, he foresaw the location close to the street being an issue. He agreed with Krezuer’s can-light suggestion on the West sign. Page 6 of 27 Commissioner Cooper asked the Commission if they had an opinion of sign over the entrance being the logo or the name? Commissioner Kreuzer said the logo is aesthetically pleasing and Maplewood should go with that. Commissioner Arango agreed with Kreuzer. She shared her concern about setting a precedent by approving the monument sign variation, and Chairman Loftus said it is not a precedence. Any and each request for a variation must be considered on its own merits and it does not necessarily set a precedence. Commissioner Cooper said he preferred Option 1 over Option 2 for the West wall sign, but that should not be a condition of approval. Let Maplewood make the decision. Mr. Cooper said he did not think he had the votes to support omitting the monument sign, so he would amend his recommendation to omit it. Commissioner Kreuzer motioned to approve the petitioner’s request for all the sign variations, including the number of signs, with the one condition that the sign on the West side of the building have can-lighting and not LED lighting. Commissioner Wyant seconded. All voted in favor of the motion. Chairman Loftus requested a motion to accept the Finding of Facts document in the agenda materials. Commissioner Kreuzer motioned to accept with the conditions already agreed to. Commissioner Wyant seconded. All voted in favor of the motion. Chairperson Loftus requested a motion to recommend approval of the the variations, Commissioner Kreuzer made motion to approve the requested variations with the following condition: 1. The sign located on West side of the building be illuminated with can-lighting and not LED lighting. Commissioner Wyant seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote Yes (7) No (0). Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Commissioner Kruezer, Seconded by Commissioner Wyant, Motion passed by voice vote Yes (7), No (0). 2. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - 499 Anthony Street, Single-Family Detached Home. Commissioner Cooper made a motion to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Arango Sworn in Jordan Frahm, Associate Planner, presented on the agenda item below: Mr. Frahm presented an overview the Special Use Permit (SUP) application for 499 Anthony Steet. It is in the C5B residential district, and he showed the zoning area in a visual rendering. The petitioner wishes to convert a commercial portion of the single- family residence. Mr. Frahm reported that the building is currently occupied as the Mansio Center, a therapy office, located at the site that also includes an upper-story residential apartment unit. In order for the building to be used entirely as a single-family detached home, a Special Use Permit is required per Section 10-4-17-2 of the Village Zoning Code. There are no proposed exterior alterations to the building. Mr. Frahm stated that staff analysis of the property indicates that the lot is nonconforming due to the total area of the property and the building is nonconforming due to its rear yard setback. Per Section 10-4-17-2(D)5(e) of the Village Code, lots being used as a single-family detached home are required to have a minimum area of 8,712 square feet. 499 Anthony Street is 6,970 square feet in area per County records. Section 10-4-17-2(D)5(c) requires single-family detached residential use lots to have a minimum rear-yard setback of 30 feet (30'-0"). The existing rear yard setback for the principal structure at 499 Anthony Street is approximately eight feet (8'-0"). The applicant has acknowledged that upon the granting of the special use permit, the business signage would be removed and that professional activity would be limited to what is permissible for home occupations in the Village Code. The property has a driveway in the front yard of the property that is currently used as off-street parking for office and residential use. The property meets the required minimum of two (2) off- street parking spaces for residential use, but the property does not have a garage on the site. If, at some point in the future, the property owner wishes to construct a garage accessory structure or Page 7 of 27 addition to the home, the proposed garage will be required to be in conformance with either Sections 10-4-17-2 or 10-5-4 of the Village Code. The applicant describes the purpose of the change of use as to, "preserve and enhance the character of the property while maintaining its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and commercial district." Dr. Arute cites a reduction of traffic to the property, reduced density, and improved long-term maintenance and stewardship of the property has positive impacts of the proposal. No exterior structural changes are proposed, and the applicant maintains that any modifications will be consistent with the Village's building and zoning standards and receive all required permitting. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if the upper portion of the home (the commercial part being vacated) was going to be rented. Mr. Frahm answered it will be a single-family home, not a rental property. Chairman Loftus asked staff to clarify the requirements to run a business out of a home. Mr. Frahm explained the Home Occupation requirements. Chairman Loftus asked if we approve it as a single-family home, they can still run a business if it meets those requirements? Frahm answered yes. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if parking located to the west of 499 Anthony Street was public parking. Mr. Frahm answered yes. Commissioner Cooper asked if, historically, the building had been a single-family residence. Frahm answered yes that it had been in the past. In 2017, it was approved to have a business located on the first floor and a residence on the second floor. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if the Village ever considered the property for public parking. He asked if the owner could potentially sell the property as a residential property, have it demolished, and build a structure significantly bigger. Mr. Frahm answered it could not be bigger because of the lot coverage. Some dimensions would be limited to the useable area of the lot. They do have a considerable lot width, but it would require repositioning on the lot. Commissioner Kreuzer asked if it could be residential and allow for multi-family use. Frahm answered yes, but they would have to apply for a SUP. Commissioner Brown referenced an historical SUP in which a business on Duane Street was converted to residential and asked if the owners would be able to sell it unless this SUP was approved. Mr. Frahm answered they have the option to be residential with the SUP. Mr. Harper explained that the SUP would stay in effect unless the use changed after (a minimum of) 6 months in which case it converts back to the allowed uses in the zoning district. Commissioner Brown clarified that her question related to the owner listing it as residential and only living on the first floor of the house. Harper said that would be an ethical issue for the realtor to address. Chairman Loftus asked if there were other questions for staff. Commissioner Arango asked if we approved of the SUP as a residential property and because of the zoning, can they run a business? Mr. Frahm answered that Home Occupation businesses are permissible anywhere in the Village and not constrained by zoning. Commissioner Wyant asked about the usage of the neighboring public parking lot in staff’s estimation. Mr. Frahm answered that he had no traffic analysis. Wyant said parking is very busy there at weekends. Commissioner Brown added there is a parking lot close to the home and it is not available for public parking. Page 8 of 27 Chairman Loftus asked about public parking near the church. Mr. Harper googled the sign which read it was for permit-parking only. Commissioner Wyant said there is a need for parking in Downtown Glen Ellyn, and he thinks the best use of this space is not a single-family home. His concern is the overall future of land use in Glen Ellyn related to master planning, and less about what the petitioner is seeking. Chairman Loftus asked if there were any other questions for staff. There were none. The petitioners, David and Iryna Arute, were sworn in. Mr. Arute said it has been an honor to serve Glen Ellyn as a business, and we have decided to transition our business from the current location. We consider the house in Glen Ellyn as home, and we do not wish to move from Glen Ellyn. He said they do not wish to change the outside or do construction on it. The practice will be dissolved. Chairman Loftus asked if the Commission had questions for the petitioners. There were none. Chairman Loftus asked staff if Community Development received any public emails or written comments. Mr. Harper answered no. Chairman Loftus asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pesce motioned. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bromann-Brown. All voted in favor to close the public hearing. Chairman Loftus said he had no issues with the SUP request. Commissioner Pesce said because it’s an existing use and it goes along with the layout of Glen Ellyn; he would support the application. Commissioner Kreuzer said he didn’t have any concerns about development of the space and the limitations are there for future use. He had no issues with the application. Commissioner Brown said she agreed with Commissioner Kreuzer and it is difficult to buy a home in Glen Ellyn, so she supports this. Commissioner Kreuzer commented on the black-top pavement in the front yard and asked if there were expectations to change it. Mr. Frahm answered there are no restrictions on impervious surfaces in single-family homes. Chairman Loftus clarified that this question should have been directed to staff and not to the petitioner. Chairperson Loftus requested a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit, Commissioner Brown made motion to approve the requested special use permit. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion, and the motion passed by voice vote Yes (7) No (0). Motion to accept Findings of Fact by Commissioner Cooper, Seconded by Commissioner Pesce, Motion passed by voice vote Yes (7), No (0). E. Trustee Liaison’s Report Village Trustee Steve Thompson reported on the following items: • The Taft Avenue demolition was proceeding, and DuPage County recently approved demolition of the building on the east parcel. • Construction of Starbucks at 405 Roosevelt Road was proceeding. • The Village Board approved variations for parking requested by the Legacy Shops at 1184 Roosevelt Road. • The Village Board approved the Historical Preservation Commission’s Pilot Incentive Program. Page 9 of 27 Trustee Thompson welcomed questions. Commissioner Cooper commented that many merchants are selling goods outside of the store, and he was concerned about icy sidewalks and the safety of pedestrians. Of particular concern were merchants on Roosevelt Road and a large Christmas tree on the sidewalk near Pete’s Market. This led to a discussion of flashing lights, LED lights, and non-approved lighting in businesses along Roosevelt Road. Mr. Harper said vape shops, smoke shops, and some other shops are continually cited for these violations, but they eventually put up the lights again anyway. Commissioner Wyant asked if any modifications had been made regarding the Glenbard West High School Addition project. Thompson answered not that he was aware of and encouraged those who are interested in the project to attend District 41 Board meetings. Commissioner Brown asked if the construction office was permitted by the Village. Village Staff were unaware of a construction office being set-up. Commissioner Brown commented that there is limited parking in Glen Ellyn and the Village should support businesses in their efforts to alleviate problems. Trustee Thompson reminded the Commission that grant monies are available for businesses to spearhead projects and they may apply every three years. Trustee Thompson said he would like the Village Board to support higher fees for demolition projects in the Village, and there was a brief discussion of this. Trustee Thompson concluded his remarks. F. Chairman’s Report- None G. Staff Report MR. Harper reported that the Community Development Department recently requested RFPs for consultants to assist in updating the Village Zoning Code. The department’s selection was discussed with Village Manager, Mark Franz, and he agreed with the recommendation. The consultant will be announced in January, and the project will begin in February. Mr. Harper said the project will include focus groups, including input from the various Village Commissions. Chairman Loftus asked if this input will be conducted during regular meetings of the Plan Commission, and Mr. Harper answered and that it may require special meetings outside of regular PC meetings. Mr. Harper reported on the Village Board approval of the Legacy Shop’s parking variations, and a Village code amendment to allow restaurants in the C4 office district. He reported that the Architectural Appearance Commission approved exterior modifications to the property located at 505 Pennsylvania Avenue. Chairman Loftus asked if there would be agenda items for consideration by the Plan Commission at their January 2026 meeting. Mr. Harper said some projects were in development, but he could not say with certainty that documents would be ready for the Commission’s review in January. Mr. Harper said the public notification deadline is January 7, 2026, and if the required documents are received by the deadline the items would be pushed to the February Plan Commission meeting. H. Other Business - None Seeing no further discussion, Chairman Loftus requested a Motion to Adjourn. Commissioner Pesce motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cooper. All voted in favor of the motion. I. Adjourn 8:17PM Page 10 of 27  Glen Ellyn Plan Meeting 1/22/2026 7:00 PM Commission Department: Community Development 535 Duane Street Department Head: Jennifer Henaghan Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Category: Discussion Item Prepared By: Daniel Harper AGENDA ITEM (ID DOC ID: 2026-46 # 2026-46) Pre-Application - 750 Roosevelt Road — Dutch Bros Drive-Through Restaurant Statement of the Issue: The petitioner, Adam Firsel, representing Core Ventures LLC, requests a Pre-Application meeting to obtain informal feedback on concept plans and to discuss the redevelopment of the property at 750 Roosevelt Road to accommodate the construction of a new Dutch Bros Drive-Through Restaurant. Analysis: LOCATION: The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Roosevelt Road and Taylor Avenue, approximately 145 feet east of Roosevelt Road’s intersection with Nicoll Avenue. ZONING: The subject site is currently zoned C4 Office District. The surrounding zoning and land use are as follows: Land Use Zoning North: Pond C4 Office District South: Commercial C3 Service Commercial District West: Bank C4 Office District East: Office C4 Office District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2023 Comprehensive Plan recognizes this location as a "Potential Redevelopment Site" and states "Danby's Station Café is in fair to poor condition and the site could use façade and site improvements." (pg. 35) REVIEW PROCESS: In order to proceed with the project, the petitioner will need to receive approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a drive-through, Zoning Variations, Sign Variations, and Exterior Appearance. The Exterior Appearance will be reviewed by the Architectural Appearance Commission (AAC). PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing 3,831 square foot building, Danby’s Station Café, and the construction of a new one-story, 1,250 square Page 11 of 27 foot Dutch Bros Restaurant building with a drive-through. The project also calls for the redevelopment of the parking lot and undergrounding public utilities. More information about the project is provided below. 1. Special Use Permit. The petitioner is requesting approval of a special use permit to allow for a restaurant with drive-through facilities. The Village Board of Trustees passed a text amendment to C-4 Office Zoning District which allows restaurants and drive-through commercial facilities under a special use permit. 2. Potential Zoning Variations Section 10-4-16(D)(1) of the Village Code requires a front yard setback of 40 feet. The proposed concept plan shows a front yard setback of 36 feet. Section 10-5-5(C)(1) of the Village Code requires impervious surface setbacks of 6.75-feet based on the width of the lot. The proposed concept plan shows impervious surface setbacks of 3-feet. 3. Operations. According to the petitioner, the proposed restaurant would operate from 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM on weekdays and 5:00 AM to 12:00 AM on weekends. 4. Drive-Through. The Site Plan submitted by the petitioner shows the proposed 1,250 square foot building located in the southern portion of the property with a large two lane drive-through making use of the north of the site and wrapping around to the service window located on the north side of the building. The new drive-through contains two lanes for ordering, merging into one lane at the service area on the north side of the building. The Zoning Code requires five stacking spaces per drive-through lane for restaurants. The stacking shown on the Site Plan would fit approximately 25 cars, which meets the minimum number of 10 stacking spaces required for the two drive-through lanes proposed for ordering. There will be a one-way escape lane north of the merge lane of the drive-through, to allow internal circulation and an exit from the drive-through. A Special Use Permit is required for a drive-through in the C4 Zoning District. 5. Access/Circulation. Currently, access to the site is provided via a two-way drive on Roosevelt Road and cross access from the US Bank site and Nicoll Avenue. The petitioner plans to utilize the existing access points. The main Roosevelt Road access driveway will be restricted to a right- in/right-out only, and may need Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) approval for the location and design of the access driveway. Verification should be made of the cross access, potential easement, and agreement between the two lots to allow future traffic travel from/to Nicoll Avenue. As part of the special use permit application process, the petitioner will be required to submit a traffic study. 6. Parking. The proposed restaurant will be served by 17 parking stalls, including two accessible parking spaces north of the building entrance. There will be no interior seating for the restaurant. The site plan shows an outdoor patio that can be utilized by customers. The number of seats proposed for the patio has not been provided. Further review of the parking lot dimensions, size of stalls, width or drive aisles, flares, and turning radii will be done as part of the formal application process. 7. Landscaping and Lighting. As part of the Special Use Permit application review process, a Page 12 of 27 landscape plan and photometric plan will be required, and the project’s landscaping and lighting will be evaluated for compliance with the Village’s requirements. 8. Overhead Utilities. The petitioner has indicated that all the existing overhead utility lines located within the property limits will be buried as part of the project as required per village code. 9. Signage. The proposed sign package incorporates the Dutch Bros. corporate brand identity throughout, which consists of six (6) wall signs, one monument sign, three (3) traffic directional signs. Section 4-5-10 of the Village Code allows for a maximum of 2 signs per establishment, not exceeding 1 freestanding sign. A sign variation will most likely be requested to allow for a greater number of wall signs. Note: The Sign Code exempts directional signs and drive-through canopy information signs from calculating the total allowable number and size of signs on a zoning lot. 10. Stormwater. The proposed redevelopment of the site will not likely require any new stormwater detention or Post-Construction Best Management Practices (PCBMP) measures because the site is largely comprised of impervious surfaces today. However, the regulatory FEMA floodplain associated with the detention pond north of the site extends across the north half of the existing site. The proposed development calls for regrading the site to properly elevate the new building and parking lot above the floodplain as required. The developers are required to provide compensatory floodplain storage, and if they are relocating the floodplain storage to the northernmost portion of the site, a floodplain volume in the amount of 150% of the existing floodplain volume will need to be provided. Budget Impact: Contribution to Strategic Plan Action Requested: The Plan Commission is being asked to conduct a pre-application conference and provide comments that will assist the petitioner in preparing a formal application. In reviewing the project, the Plan Commission may wish to consider/provide feedback regarding the following: 1. If the Commission is supportive of the overall development concept. 2. If the Commission is supportive of the proposed special use permit. 3. Provide feedback on the number of parking stalls proposed on the lot. 4. Provide feedback on the general layout of the drive-through lanes. 5. Discuss and provide feedback regarding the anticipated zoning variation requests including: reduced building setback and reduced impervious setbacks. 6. Discuss and provide feedback regarding the anticipated sign variation requests. Page 13 of 27 7. Clarify any concerns. Attachments: 1. Cover Letter 2. Aerial Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Plat of Survey 5. Concept Plan 6. Preliminary Building Elevations 7. Ord No. 7241 Page 14 of 27 January 7th, 2026 Attn: Plan Commission Re: Plan Commission – 750 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL Applicant: Core Ventures, LLC Adam Firsel, its Manager 10 Parkway North Blvd, Suite 120 Deerfield, Illinois 60015 Property: 750 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL Tax Parcel: 05-14-423-038 Legal Description: THE EAST 35 FEET OF LOT 19, ALL OF LOTS 20, 21, 22 AND 23 IN BLOCK 13 IN ROOSEVELT GARDEN-HOMESITES, BEING A SUBDIVISION IN THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 13 AND IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 39 NORTH, RANGE 10, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MAY 5, 1921, AS DOCUMENT 148152, IN DU PAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Project Description: The proposed project involves the redevelopment of the Danby’s Station located at 750 Roosevelt Road in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. The existing building will be demolished and replaced with a new Dutch Bros Coffee building featuring dual drive-thru lanes, designed in accordance with the brand’s current national standards and operational model. The redevelopment will revitalize a highly visible site along Roosevelt Road, enhancing site circulation, access, landscaping, and overall aesthetics while activating an underutilized parcel with a high-quality national tenant. Construction is anticipated to commence following receipt of all required entitlements, with project delivery targeted for 2026 and full site completion shortly thereafter. Sincerely, Adam Firsel - Manager Core Ventures, LLC Page 15 of 27  Aerial Map - 750 Roosevelt Road Legend Subject Property 0 150 300 Print Date: 1/14/2026 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 16 of 27  Zoning Map - 750 Roosevelt Road Legend Zoning and Development Zoning C3: Service Commercial District C4: Office District C6: Commerical/Multi-Use Planned Development District Subject Property 0 150 300 Print Date: 1/14/2026 Notes ft Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground. Page 17 of 27  PROJECT NO.: NO. DATE REVISION WOOLPERT, INC. 1815 South Meyers Road DATE CALL BEFORE Suite 950 SCALE YOU DIG 1 of 1 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 DES. 800-892-0123 WARNING 630.424.9080 DR. FAX: 630.495.3731 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CKD. Page 18 of 27 Page 19 of 27  EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE - PROTOTYPICAL w/ CANOPY NOTE: GC TO PROVIDE 3"x2" SMOOTH DOWNSPOUTS AND ALL NECESSARY ADAPTORS AT AWNING AND CANOPY LOCATION; COLOR: BLDG DB DARK GRAY Material: Exterior Finish ID TAG MATERIAL MANUFACTURER MODEL REMARKS Zone ZONE 1 (BODY) FULL BED FACE BRICK ZONE 1 (BODY) COLOR: NIAGRA MIST 1J BRICK VENEER GENERAL SHALE BRICK SIZE: MODULAR INSTALL: RUNNING BOND PATTERN (2-1/4" H X 3-5/8"W X 7-5/8"L) "The name DUTCH BROS. and all associated logos, distinctive designs, content, information, and other materials featured, displayed, contained herein, and made available by Dutch Bros., including but not limited to, the "look and feel" of the establishments and products, all text, images, colors, configurations, graphics, designs, illustrations, photographs, and pictures (collectively, the "Materials") are owned by and/or licensed by DB Franchising USA, LLC FULL BED FACE BRICK ZONE 1 (BODY) COLOR: NIAGRA MIST 1K BRICK VENEER GENERAL SHALE BRICK SIZE: MODULAR INSTALL: SOLDIER COURSE (2-1/4" H X 3-5/8"W X 7-5/8"L) FULL BED FACE BRICK ZONE 1 (BODY) COLOR: NIAGRA MIST 1L BRICK VENEER GENERAL SHALE BRICK SIZE: MODULAR INSTALL: ROWLOCK SILL (2-1/4" H X 3-5/8"W X 7-5/8"L) ZONE 2 (TOWER) FIBER CEMENT ILLUMINATION, AWP 1818 W/ ZONE 2 (TOWER) 2C NICHIHA COLOR: BLDG DB BLUE SIDING FACTORY PANEL CORNERS ZONE 4 (FRAMED CANOPY) WESTERN STATES METAL 3 SIDES; COLOR: BLDG DB DARK ZONE 4 (FRAMED CANOPY) 4A FASCIA T-GROOVE, 10" ROOFING GRAY NATURAL NORTHWESTERN ZONE 4 (FRAMED CANOPY) 4B SOFFIT HEWN ELEMENTS 1x6, T&G, 1/8" REVEAL, SEALED SPRUCE PRE-FINISHED PARAPET PRE-FINISHED PARAPET PRE-FAB. METAL AWNING, BY OTHERS; PRE-FINISHED CAP FLASHING, CAP FLASHING, DOWNSPOUTS TO STORM DRAIN OR PARAPET CAP COLOR TO MATCH 2C COLOR TO MATCH 2C TRENCH DRAIN & DAYLIGHT FLASHING TO DRIVE AISLE MECHANICAL 5" PRE-FINISHED PARAPET 1J 1J BRICK MASONRY UNITS CAP FLASHING, VENEER PRE-FINISHED PARAPET SCREENED COLOR TO MATCH 1J CAP FLASHING BY PARAPET, LIGHTED SIGN, INSTALLED BY SIGN CONTRACTOR, LIGHTED SIGN, INSTALLED LIGHTED SIGN, COORD. W/ IT-18 BY SIGN CONTRACTOR, INSTALLED BY SIGN ELECTRICAL VERIFY FINAL LOCATION COORD. W/ ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, J-BOX AND BLOCKING W/ LOW VOLTAGE VENDOR J-BOX AND BLOCKING COORD. W/ REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS ELECTRICAL J-BOX AND BLOCKING NICHIHA SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS NICHIHA SYSTEM 2C CANOPY 2C FASCIA DOWNSPOUTS TO STORM 4A DRAIN OR TRENCH DRAIN & DAYLIGHT TO NEAREST LANDSCAPE PRE-FAB. PRE-FAB. METAL AWNINGS, 4B METAL AWNINGS, BY OTHERS CANOPY BY OTHERS SOFFIT AWNING DOWNSPOUTS, AWNING DOWNSPOUT, DAYLIGHT TO DRIVE AISLE DAYLIGHT TO DRIVE LIGHT FIXTURE, AISLE 8'-0" B.O. FIXTURES 6" STEEL PIPE BOLLARD W/ PLASTIC SLEEVES DB2550-A1 EXTERIOR DOORS, PAINTED PER PLAN 1J ROOF OVERFLOW 1J 1K 1L 1K STAINLESS STEEL 1J 1L 1K 1J 6" STEEL PIPE BOLLARD DOWNSPOUTS Dutch Bros Coffee - New Freestanding SERVICE TRAY CANOPY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY W/ PLASTIC SLEEVE BRICK BRICK BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY MASONRY MASONRY VENEER SOLDIER VENEER VENEER SOLDIER COLUMNS VENEER VENEER SOLDIER VENEER VENEER VENEER COURSE ROWLOCK SILL COURSE ROWLOCK SILL COURSE Project No: IL0402 4 LEFT ELEVATION - DRIVE-THRU WINDOW 3 REAR ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" and are protected by copyright, trademark, trade dress, patent, and/or other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws under the United States and foreign laws." For: Dutch Bros Coffee PRE-FINISHED PARAPET PRE-FINISHED PARAPET Store CAP FLASHING, CAP FLASHING, COLOR 1930 W. Rio Salado Parkway COLOR TO MATCH 2C TO MATCH 2C 1J 1J 1J MECHANICAL PRE-FINISHED PARAPET PRE-FINISHED PARAPET NICHIHA SYSTEM PRE-FINISHED PARAPET BRICK MASONRY UNITS CAP FLASHING CAP FLASHING, 2C CAP FLASHING VENEER SCREENED BY Tempe, AZ 85281 PARAPET LIGHTED SIGN, INSTALLED BY SIGN LIGHTED SIGN, LIGHTED SIGN, INSTALLED CONTRACTOR, INSTALLED BY SIGN CONTRACTOR, BY SIGN CONTRACTOR, COORD. W/ ELECTRICAL COORD. W/ ELECTRICAL J-BOX COORD.. W/ ELECTRICAL J-BOX AND BLOCKING REQUIREMENTS J-BOX AND BLOCKING AND BLOCKING REQUIREMENTS ADDRESS NUMBERS, REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED BY SIGN VENDOR; A1 PROTOTYPE 6/27/25 COORD. W/ AHJ REQUIREMENTS. NICHIHA SYSTEM PRE-FAB. METAL PROVIDE HIGH CONTRAST 2C AWNING, W/ BACKGROUND PRE-FAB. BY OTHERS XXXX CANOPY FASCIA ISSUED FOR REVIEW METAL AWNING, PRE-FAB. 4A BY OTHERS METAL AWNING, BY OTHERS 10.01.2025 L4 L4 4B 4B 1J LIGHT LIGHT FIXTURE, CANOPY SOFFIT CANOPY FIXTURE, REV: DATE: DESCRIPTION: AWNING CANOPY 8'-0" B.O. 1J DOWNSPOUT, SOFFIT COLUMNS 8'-0" B.O. FIXTURES, TYP. CANOPY COLUMNS DAYLIGHT TO FIXTURES DRIVE AISLE , TYP. DOWNSPOUTS TO STORM DRAIN OR DOWNSPOUTS TO TRENCH DRAIN & DAYLIGHT STORM DRAIN OR TO NEAREST LANDSCAPE 6" STEEL PIPE TRENCH DRAIN & BOLLARD DAYLIGHT TO SHEET NAME: W/ PLASTIC SLEEVE NEAREST LANDSCAPE BUILDING ELEVATIONS - ROOF OVERFLOW COLOR DOWNSPOUT 1J 1K 1L 1K 1J 1J 1L 1K 1J 1K 1J 1L 1K 1J DRAWN BY: CB CHECKED BY: EK BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY BRICK MASONRY VENEER VENEER SOLDIER VENEER VENEER SOLDIER VENEER VENEER VENEER VENEER SOLDIER VENEER VENEER SOLDIER MASONRY VENEER VENEER SOLDIER VENEER SHEET NUMBER: COURSE ROWLOCK SILL COURSE ROWLOCK SILL COURSE COURSE VENEER ROWLOCK SILL COURSE 2 RIGHT ELEVATION - WALK-UP WINDOW 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 FRONT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" A6.1 c 2025 DB Franchising USA, LLC Page 20 of 27 Page 21 of 27 Page 22 of 27 Page 23 of 27 Page 24 of 27 Page 25 of 27 Page 26 of 27 Page 27 of 27