[0:05] I think they already decided to do that. Okay.

[0:09] I was told. Good suggestion.

[0:13] Yeah, it's it's number number four.

[0:16] » [laughter]

[0:19] » And the thing we're going to talk about and uh

[0:23] the words I have to say.

[0:28] Yeah, so once you call the It has to be a roll call.

[0:37] Okay. Um 7:01

[0:41] Thank you. I call the plan Roselle Planning and

[0:45] Zoning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. Can I get a roll call?

[0:52] I'm Booth. Hi. Lydia Guante. Here. Dennis Johnny. Yeah.

[0:57] Jason Wertz. Terry Wallock.

[1:01] Here. A quorum is present.

[1:05] Can I get a motion to appoint Terry Wallock as chairman for tonight?

[1:10] Chairman pro tem. I move that motion. Second.

[1:14] Okay. All in favor? Hi. Hi. All opposed? Thank you. Um

[1:22] passed. Uh I would like to pro- to amend the prepared agenda tonight to

[1:28] consider PZ 26 1158 before PZ 26 1156.

[1:36] Can I get a motion? Okay. Thank you. All in favor? Hi. Hi.

[1:42] All The motion passes.

[1:46] We will start with

[1:51] approving the agenda. Approval of the amended agenda.

[1:58] Uh can I get a motion to approve the prepare uh the amended agenda? I'll move

[2:02] that. Second. I can Okay. Uh all in favor?

[2:07] I. Motion passes. Can I get a motion to approve the

[2:12] minutes from April 7th, 2026? I'll move that.

[2:17] Second. Second. Okay, thank you. All in favor?

[2:21] I.

[2:24] Okay. Consideration of petitions. The first

[2:27] item on today's agenda is PZ 26-11-58. Can I get a motion to open the public

[2:34] hearing for PZ 26-11-58?

[2:39] Second. I get a second. Okay.

[2:44] I'm moving.

[2:47] » [laughter] >> Okay, thank you. Who was the first? I'm

[2:49] sorry. I. Thank you.

[2:52] Second it was Brian? Yeah. Okay. Roll call, please. Ms. Johnny.

[2:58] Brian Boos. I. Jason Wertz. Yes. Chairman Wallach. I.

[3:14] Hi. So uh today's first case is PZ 11 uh PZ 26-11-58. We're not going for that

[3:23] far back in time. The property is 17 East Maple Avenue.

[3:28] That's a single-family home in the R2 single-family residence district. Um the

[3:33] petitioner is um wants to install a kind of awning or portico over um their front

[3:40] step. Um the the issue is it needs a variance or

[3:45] variation because the house, which was built in 1940, is set back about 24 ft

[3:54] from the front property line. Um the zoning

[3:57] the current zoning ordinance requires 30 ft back um

[4:01] for the zoning district and therefore any awning or portico would stick out

[4:06] about 9 ft into the um the setback um for an awning or portico uh typically 3

[4:14] ft encroachment into that front yard setback is allowed. So this is just kind

[4:18] of a case where the house was built before our current standards. It makes

[4:22] it impossible for the homeowner to meet the current standards regardless of the

[4:26] size of the awning or portico because even if

[4:29] it was the smallest awning in the world, it

[4:31] would still encroach into that required front yard setback. Um so in the packet

[4:36] there are um some pictures of what it will look like.

[4:41] Um again, the goal is to kind of cover that front stoop which sticks out about

[4:45] 4 ft. Um and then I know the homeowner wants

[4:49] to do this in conjunction with replacing some windows to do the project all at

[4:52] the same time. Um I will note that like several homes around there do have

[4:57] covered porches. Um also many of the other houses on that block and around

[5:03] there are also set back closer to the property line than that 30 required ft

[5:08] mostly about the same as the petitioner's home. Um and so it's not

[5:14] like this is a house that's far set forward compared to everything else. The

[5:18] awning would just be set forward a little bit more.

[5:20] Um Any questions? That concludes my report.

[5:26] Anybody have any questions for staff?

[5:34] Are there any members of the public who want to speak?

[5:46] So I'm uh currently a property owner, Wayne Damke.

[5:50] Um Village of Roselle, whatever. Yeah. Please uh Okay. I swear to tell the

[5:55] truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God, I do.

[6:00] Please state your name and address for the

[6:02] » Wayne Damke, 630 Oak Street, Roselle. However, I own some property in the

[6:06] location of this house on Maple. And you guys invited me to the party,

[6:10] and if anybody knows me, if I'm invited to a party, I come.

[6:14] So, thank you for inviting me. Um I I noticed um that that house having an

[6:19] awning in front would really be an enhancement to the property. It would be

[6:23] an enhancement to the area, and anything that, you know, enhances the area is is

[6:27] in my book a good thing for Roselle. Uh she couldn't move the house back 6 or

[6:32] 8 ft, you know, to make it happen. So, we're almost like almost have to

[6:36] say, well, this one can't be coded anymore, so what

[6:40] the heck? I mean, but it will look really nice, and uh I'm in total favor

[6:44] of it. I just wanted to come here and say that. Okay. Thank you, sir.

[6:48] Does anybody else in the audience wish to make a statement?

[6:55] Okay. Does the commission have any other

[6:58] questions or statements before we close the public hearing?

[7:02] Did the petitioner want to say anything?

[7:06] Is Does the petitioner want to say anything? No, I'm good.

[7:10] Okay, great. Um can I get a motion to close the public hearing?

[7:14] So moved. Can I get a second? Second. Okay, great. All right. Roll

[7:19] call, please. Ryan Boose. I. Nemish Johnny. I. Ter- uh

[7:25] Jason Wertz. Yes. Chairman Walock. I. Um the motion the public hearing is

[7:31] closed. Can I get a motion to approve the findings of fact for variance PZ

[7:35] 26-11-58? Move that motion.

[7:39] Second. Can I get a second?

[7:42] Second. Hey, roll call, please. That's okay.

[7:46] Uh Nemish Johnny. Hi. Ryan Boost. Hi. Jason Wertz.

[7:50] » Yes. Chairman Wallach. Hi. So, the variances are good. Can I get a

[7:55] motion to approve recommend approval to the village board for PZ 26 1158?

[8:02] So moved. Second.

[8:04] Great. Roll call, please. Uh Nemish Johnny. Hi. Ryan Boost. Hi.

[8:11] Jason Wertz. >> Yes. Chairman Wallach. Hi.

[8:14] The motion passes. Yay.

[8:18] It'll go to the board on

[8:22] May 26th. We'll email you guys. Can I change my vote?

[8:27] No, you can't change your vote.

[8:31] Why would you?

[8:34] Okay, so the second item on the agenda tonight is PZ 1156.

[8:40] Can I get a motion to open the public hearing for PZ 26 1156?

[8:46] So moved. Second. Roll call, please.

[8:50] Ryan Boost. Hi. Jason Wertz. >> Yes.

[8:53] Uh Lydia Glonsey. Hi. Uh Nemish Johnny. Hi. Chairman Wallach.

[8:59] Hi. Motion passes. Uh Karen, do you want to present?

[9:04] Yes. So, um we continued the public hearing

[9:09] until tonight about um amendments to the sign ordinance.

[9:13] Um Caitlin and I did a bunch more research and tonight I think we're just

[9:17] going to try and wrap up final recommendations for ground signs and

[9:22] wall signs. And then we were not able to complete research for temporary signs,

[9:27] so we'll bring that back to the June meeting. So, we will be having a June

[9:30] meeting. You can imagine what my PowerPoint title

[9:34] would be for the third meeting. Wait.

[9:38] Well, I think I think it should be revenge of the temporary signs.

[9:45] You know, that kind of sounds great. >> [laughter]

[9:51] » Um All right, so we did um more like

[9:55] comparison research to neighboring property or neighboring communities. Um

[10:01] and we also tried to think about other options that other than what we

[10:06] presented at the last meeting.

[10:11] Yes.

[10:14] Oh, and then I made some revisions to the code.

[10:17] Um There were I wanted to add something

[10:20] about prohibiting sign We already had a section about prohibiting signs on uh

[10:24] vehicles stating they have to be like licensed

[10:27] and operable. Um so I added semi-trailers, shipping

[10:31] containers, and storage units that those have to all be in

[10:35] have registration tags all in working order and just incidental to the

[10:39] business. So if you're like a contractor or something and you have a

[10:43] semi-trailer, you can use that you can have your business on it, but you can't

[10:46] just have a semi-trailer parked um to use for advertising.

[10:52] Um added some language about obstructing ingress and egress, ventilation,

[10:57] and other areas necessary for public safety. That's more for like

[11:01] enforcement, um but still very important. Um and then added some

[11:05] description about what types of um landscaping items would be uh suitable

[11:12] in the landscape area so that people don't just put random things.

[11:16] Shrubs, trees, perennials, grasses, other live ground cover.

[11:24] Um With there also wasn't a section about

[11:28] how to obtain a sign permit, so I added that. That was very important.

[11:33] Um and added some more maintenance language about maintaining signs um for

[11:37] code enforcement. And then right now there's some language in there

[11:41] internally illuminated signs must have an opaque background so that the text or

[11:46] the image or the means of communication are the illuminated portion of the sign.

[11:50] So like not having a busy background or something in the sign to make sure that

[11:54] it's clear that the sign is the sign.

[12:01] All right. So this chart is also in your packet.

[12:06] Um we had talked a lot about pole signs at

[12:10] our last meeting and whether or not to continue to allow them.

[12:15] Um something internally that we thought of was possibly making pylon signs a

[12:19] special use. Um so this is an additional step that

[12:23] would be um

[12:26] for a property owner to have a pole sign. However, it allows for

[12:30] case-by-case consideration of each business and each individual property.

[12:35] Um while also encouraging more monument signs where it's possible.

[12:40] Um and it seems somewhat consistent with other communities. Um everybody

[12:46] is either strictly prohibits pole signs or has something similar of requiring it

[12:52] as a special use in either certain districts or on certain streets.

[12:56] Um one thing that I appreciated was

[13:00] Bartlett has um the landscape base shall include a

[13:04] minimum of two conifers among the plant material. I would assume to make it more

[13:10] aesthetically like balanced with like a small pole with the sign on top. If you

[13:15] have like two like smaller arborvitae or something under the sign,

[13:21] it would balance it more. Um so these were this was our idea,

[13:27] hopefully a maybe a compromise of encouraging a more aesthetically

[13:32] pleasing type of sign in town, while also still allowing it for those

[13:37] properties like on Irving where we said it would be difficult for maybe a

[13:42] traditional monument sign to be located.

[13:49] Was the term pylon used last time or is that

[13:53] that that we everything was pole pole pole

[13:57] pole is what we just got stuck on. Yeah. In terms of

[13:59] » We use them inter-interchangeably. They're still like a it's the

[14:04] width of the structure is much more narrow than the sign itself.

[14:10] Just to be clear like when I'm picturing a pole sign, I'm picturing a pole and

[14:14] then the sign where I picture a pylon sign, it's a base all the way up.

[14:18] » Pylon is the sign. >> the sign. Yeah. Does this include both?

[14:23] So, they're they're using that they're calling that one a monument sign. Like

[14:27] they're calling that a different If the >> what you're thinking of. But I hear what

[14:32] you're saying. Yeah.

[14:35] Sure.

[14:38] I guess I'm having trouble picturing what you're picturing. Uh if if monument

[14:42] is I guess the the the word pylon to me

[14:48] sounds more like monument. And if we have monument covered then This would be

[14:52] a monument. This would be a pylon. Mhm. And then a pole is obviously

[14:57] Mhm.

[15:00] Good with >> guys know we're using pole and pylon

[15:03] interchangeably. Yes. Okay. Yes, because they're still much more narrow than the

[15:08] actual width of the sign. Okay. So, if if the sign itself is on

[15:16] the pole then by definition it's a monument sign. No, that's a pole sign.

[15:23] No, If if if the pole itself is the sign,

[15:27] it is a monument sign. If the There's a sign on top of the pole,

[15:32] it is a pole sign, a pylon sign. A monument is A monument sign is defined

[15:37] in the packet to say that it the sign on top is no less than 80% of the base.

[15:45] So, 100% of the base would be monument

[15:48] » Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

[15:51] » Okay. Okay. you and I are picturing as a pylon. It's a monument sign.

[15:54] » is a monument sign. Yeah. Okay. And restrict the special use for the pole

[15:59] signs to be specific to those where a monument sign or would obstruct a view

[16:06] versus somebody just coming in and having a preference

[16:10] of that. Cuz it's it's Irving specifically the

[16:14] Irving properties were the ones specifically where

[16:18] where there're older building, you know, awkward turnouts or whatever that they

[16:22] are, we're going to obstruct the views and the only thing that I can think of

[16:26] that would work in those scenarios would be the pole signs. Right.

[16:31] And landscaping at the bottom of that pole sign would

[16:34] not work either. Yeah. Yeah, I think that the landscaping, if

[16:39] it's already special use, I think the landscaping is is redundant. Yep. And

[16:43] then we would probably want them to sell us on a pole

[16:46] sign with All right, it's going to be landscaped appropriately or it fits

[16:51] this, you know, special exception.

[16:57] Okay. How does everyone else feel?

[17:02] Yeah, I don't think you should have it only for that reason, though. I think

[17:05] you should keep where it says like case-by-case consideration just because

[17:09] like what if there's no space? Like that also could be a

[17:13] a reason that they might need a pole sign.

[17:14] » Just straight special use? Yeah, I would I think so.

[17:19] That's my opinion. Yeah. Okay.

[17:24] Well, that was See.

[17:28] » [laughter] >> We talked about it enough last We

[17:30] digested it enough last time that wasn't the hard one.

[17:33] » [laughter] >> See what happens. Um and then design

[17:36] standards for ground signs, we came up with maybe some ideas of additional

[17:41] things that we could require. Um if it is going to be a pole sign,

[17:45] should we require more than one pole? Um I saw a code that requires the

[17:50] landscaping to extend at least 2 ft beyond the width of the sign structure,

[17:54] so it's like a wider like I think it's should

[17:59] » that part cuz what if they put tall things in a place where it's obstructed

[18:03] view? And that's the whole point of a pole sign. Okay.

[18:06] I don't know if that requiring the 2 ft width is

[18:10] safe if we're Mhm. Okay.

[18:13] Yeah, if a pole sign >> It's for all sign Any ground sign

[18:15] though, not just pole signs. Um

[18:20] having the supports um covered by some material that either complements the

[18:25] sign or the design of the principal building

[18:30] um and specifically requiring the concealment of bare metal.

[18:35] Any? None? All?

[18:42] I feel like you could rules lawyer that and just

[18:45] make it out of PVC or something. Mhm. I

[18:51] I don't know. I I the the whole like covering thing to me just seems

[18:57] a little too prescriptive maybe. Like if if

[19:02] I mean, I'm okay if we just want a special use signs in general and

[19:05] like it I mean, you bring your bring your sign, bring your landscaping plan,

[19:09] and like we'll look at it if if we believe it's that problematic.

[19:13] But like, the you know, putting bricks

[19:18] around it just because the building that they're renting happens to be bricks,

[19:21] like, that that that can add up in cost.

[19:25] Okay.

[19:29] Let's let uh

[19:33] the person proposing the sign propose what it looks like and we can look at it

[19:38] then. But they need some guidance and I think

[19:41] that guidance would require some landscaping plan to go with it.

[19:45] Also, landscaping will be required. >> Regardless.

[19:48] » Yes. That was just I saw one code required it to extend at least 2 ft

[19:53] beyond the width of the structure, so I put that in there as an option.

[19:57] Um but this is for all ground signs again, not just pole uh pole and

[20:01] monument signs.

[20:06] Well, and let and kind of first can be 2 ft tall.

[20:10] True. Little bonsai trees.

[20:15] Well, not bonsai. I know what you mean.

[20:18] So, I'm generally hearing we we don't really necessarily We don't need this

[20:23] many constraints. >> Okay. If it's already going to be

[20:26] special use for some of them.

[20:29] Okay.

[20:33] It's not like we're creating more areas where these kinds of signs are needed.

[20:38] Right. Yeah. Yeah. That's too much to the point.

[20:41] » and limited. Okay.

[20:44] Is there some monument signs?

[20:50] Actually, go back to the one just before, if you don't mind. Now, the one

[20:53] with the top left, number one, you'd consider that was zero landscaping, but

[20:58] that's decorative?

[21:02] Right. So, that would have like, in the new code, it would have to have

[21:05] landscaping. >> It'd have to and and and with the

[21:08] decorative. >> Yes.

[21:10] Well, not the decorative. >> Well, that's not required, but the

[21:12] decorative's not in lieu of the landscaping.

[21:15] No, there's nothing like that proposed. There's like a little strip of flowers

[21:20] around the bottom of it or something that would

[21:22] » Um I think it's equal to 50% of the area of the sign.

[21:27] Has to be landscaping.

[21:32] So, it's in proportion to the size of the sign.

[21:37] So, just for example with something like that, they're going to come in for some

[21:41] type of variance or special with number one cuz there's not enough land for any

[21:45] real landscaping around that.

[21:50] Possibly. Or they know up front and they design

[21:55] their parking that have one less space, use that.

[21:59] Or space in the Okay.

[22:05] Okay.

[22:08] These are some other ones that we found. That's the number one is what um

[22:18] the Chinese food place on Lake Street. I can't think of the name.

[22:21] Uh Five Spice? Yes, that's their sign from before it was Five Five Spice. So,

[22:26] now those brick pillars are painted black

[22:30] and they have like a small message board on the bottom and then it says Five

[22:33] Spice on top.

[22:40] More signs.

[22:43] You can keep going.

[22:47] But, nothing under the sign, not even little ornamental.

[22:57] So, a pole sign would still have to have landscaping. Any ground sign would be

[23:01] required to have landscaping.

[23:08] Yes, ma'am.

[23:11] If it's a pole sign, though, I don't know if it needs Yeah, I think

[23:14] landscaping. The whole point is to get it up and out of the way and visibility.

[23:17] So, like maybe we wouldn't want stuff at the

[23:20] bottom. Nothing up.

[23:23] Well, it's coming in for a special use anyways for the pole sign, but I don't

[23:27] know that it can I think the whole point is to avoid the ground obstruction.

[23:32] If we're going to approve of ground sign if we're going to approve a pole sign,

[23:36] it's to avoid Yeah, we'll just visual obstruction and just reducing the

[23:40] constraints is Okay. If if it's special use, I don't think we need to add stuff.

[23:47] I'm a fan of grass anyway, so like extra landscaping sometimes looks tacky or

[23:52] awful and it's harder to maintain. Mhm.

[23:58] All right. Our favorite

[24:02] thing to talk about after temporary signs.

[24:05] Wall signs. So, we did some more research about box signs.

[24:10] Um Caitlin talked to a local reputable sign manufacturer

[24:16] um to discuss like what the true cost implications are to better understand

[24:23] that because I know that's what we talked about a lot last time.

[24:27] Um Caitlin, if you want to go to the next one.

[24:32] So, obviously like one one two three and five are

[24:38] the cheapest type of box sign because it's just like a polycarbonate

[24:44] panel that they insert they print on it and then insert into an already existing

[24:49] thing. Um the wing hang one is slightly more

[24:53] expensive because it's actually like 3D it's pressed.

[24:57] Um so like if you look closely, it does have a little bit of dimension to it. So

[25:01] that would be your like second least expensive

[25:05] box sign type.

[25:10] Um and then Eiffel Waffle is a um

[25:17] I think they called it like a punch through sign. It's in the It was in my

[25:20] memo. But again, all these are less expensive than individual channel

[25:24] letters. Individual channel letters typically do cost more because each

[25:30] letter is generally a sign. Um

[25:34] so depending on how big your sign is, like how many letters, it can be either

[25:40] comparative or way more expensive. Um

[25:45] and then I think there was another slide, Kaylyn.

[25:49] One more.

[25:53] These are some more examples of ones where they're like the punch through.

[25:58] Um the Dreamy Nails and Pops, those are

[26:02] both like the letters themselves are

[26:06] lit and the background isn't. I wish we had pictures at night, but I didn't

[26:11] think to do that. Um but they're so they're like kind of a box sign, but not

[26:15] really. Um so I think there are different

[26:19] options. That works with the same setup of like an existing box that you're

[26:23] re-facing the front, you can have the the letters only as with your other code

[26:28] that you want that that'll be the only piece that lights up.

[26:30] » Mhm.

[26:37] So we can prohibit box signs, we can do nothing about box

[26:42] signs and just leave it as it is, or if we want to encourage

[26:48] some sort of dimensional or punch through design, that's kind of what

[26:52] staff is recommending, but again, we're

[26:56] doing this process to get everybody's feedback. That's where I was at with it

[27:01] mentally. It was the what you want in terms of the signs

[27:04] being the letters lit versus the background lit going forward on any box

[27:09] sign. I don't know that

[27:13] There's certain types of retail from what I understand. The research we're

[27:16] doing in the conversation last week, the box sign already exists. Mhm. They're

[27:20] already there. They're going to continue to be there.

[27:23] So, if we're going to

[27:26] if we're going to put restrictions on it, then I say it's just restrictions on

[27:29] how you want the signs to look, and that's where the letters light up versus

[27:32] the sign itself.

[27:36] Is the glow one that's pictured up there? Is that a box sign

[27:39] technically, or does that also have just like backlighting just for the

[27:43] I think it's backlighting just for the letters.

[27:46] Would that Sorry, would that be classified as a box sign?

[27:51] It's like in the shape of a box, but it's not like lighted.

[27:55] To me, when I think of box signs personally, I'm thinking the ones that

[27:59] are on like the Bellagio Center where it's just like a plastic panel.

[28:03] A slide Um where like any of these other

[28:08] options, I think I personally would prefer over just like the plain panel

[28:13] ones because it I think it does add visual interest to the sign. I think it

[28:18] looks a little bit nicer, and that's me personally and also sort of

[28:23] professionally, but also I understand that we don't want to

[28:27] increase cost for new businesses. However, you know,

[28:31] what's the standard that we want to put in place for everybody

[28:36] moving forward. What is like the cost difference between say like this the

[28:40] standard slide in piece of plastic versus something nicer like that Polti

[28:44] Group one where it's still a box sign like

[28:48] Cuz I mean, if we're talking like $500, like opening a new business, that's not

[28:52] a huge, huge cost. Whereas, like if it's $3,000 more, that can be more

[28:56] substantial. Kaelin, do you remember what they said?

[29:00] I just mean like I just mean the difference of the two.

[29:04] Yeah. >> So, I was having a really hard time

[29:06] getting a straight answer on the exact cost difference, because the answer I

[29:10] got was that it kind of depends on the design of the sign. That one that says

[29:15] Pulty Group is an example of instead of the polycarbonate box sign, it's

[29:20] aluminum. Um the answer I got was that was kind of

[29:23] the next step up, so it is more expensive than the polycarbonate

[29:29] slide-in situation. Um but it is probably not as expensive

[29:34] as a channel letter sign um sign still. So, the channel letter sign, the reason

[29:39] I couldn't get this is would be a I asked if there was like a percentage

[29:43] more expensive, is he said it really depends just on how many letters there

[29:46] are. And I think it's the same for some of these with the punch-through and

[29:50] stuff. Like, they have to do whatever machining

[29:54] and manufacturing they have to do to do that. So, obviously, like that's a

[29:57] little bit more complicated than printing on a piece of plastic. Yeah.

[30:03] But, yeah, and there's just not really though a satisfying answer about how

[30:07] much more expensive, unfortunately. It's just that those are kind of the tiers.

[30:19] I think if we're looking at putting boundaries on these things, we got to

[30:22] think of kind of the lowest quality of signs that are going to exist today, and

[30:26] how we want to see the next life cycle of those, cuz they could be up for

[30:29] another 10, 15, 30 years. Who knows? Um

[30:35] So, I think it's more about how to what How can we improve the panels that get

[30:40] put in there going forward on those where

[30:44] there's a lot of new construction. I don't I can't imagine more most new

[30:46] construction is going to put up box signs to begin with. Right.

[30:50] So, it's about the existing inventory that's there. So,

[30:54] I'm I I would be pleased if it was just more

[30:59] of a consistent sign with the translucent letters versus the backing

[31:03] being lit and that became more consistent.

[31:06] I don't know if it's important that it's um

[31:12] if it's got dimensional to it or not. I'm open to other opinions.

[31:18] So, you're what you're describing is just like the plain poly

[31:23] carbonate sort of slide in. That's what you're looking for. Well, if we went

[31:26] back a couple Kayla like to the Dunkin' Donuts, Doctor

[31:31] Dogs type stuff, right? Here, that's this is fine. Okay. Uh so,

[31:38] if these boxes exist and these boxes are going to get repurposed going forward,

[31:44] we could require what would be an an an the next level up in terms of the slide

[31:50] in cuz they're not going to change out the box and so that they would be

[31:54] textured translucent letters and it would look more modern.

[31:59] Can we require that? Mhm. None of the other surrounding

[32:04] communities specify the style, though. It's either permitted, permitted,

[32:08] permitted or prohibited.

[32:14] What what do you mean by the the style? Style being you know, the box sign

[32:18] versus Uh the kind of what you're describing in the type of Even if it's a

[32:22] slide in, you can't have the poly carbonate, you have to have raised.

[32:27] Yeah, I I I think we either we're fine with box signs or we're not fine with

[32:32] box signs or we're fine grandfathering box signs, we're not fine with new box

[32:38] signs. Like we talked last time about new constructions, maybe you can't have

[32:42] box signs. And that seemed like something that we

[32:44] were kind of leaning toward and then it was, all right, if they're redoing the

[32:48] building, you know, what do we do then? So, what we could do is

[32:55] not allow them for new buildings.

[33:00] And then, in order to begin phasing them out,

[33:04] if the electrical needs to be changed out, you could require Like if

[33:09] something, instead of just like switching out the panels would continue

[33:14] to be fine, but if some sort of electrical component within the box sign

[33:18] itself fails and needs to be replaced, then you just have to replace.

[33:23] Well, I think the issue is if there's a if there's a plaza with seven of these

[33:28] and Yeah, you one go. >> replace one, but you don't replace the

[33:31] other six. Like that almost looks sillier. Okay. So,

[33:35] if if we just say, all right, you're grandfathered in,

[33:40] great, but everything new build needs to be

[33:46] So, what if you do get a property owner who decides to just like phase them out

[33:50] one by one? If that That's a good point.

[33:55] Normally, it's not not a problem but if this is something

[33:59] they would choose Yeah.

[34:02] Yeah, but um property owners also have to sign off on the sign. Some property

[34:06] owners require you to use a certain style. They don't want to give up the

[34:11] convenience of the box for the next tenant.

[34:14] I think that's the case for um the shopping center where Lake Street Pub is

[34:19] and Famous Beverages. I think that's kind of

[34:22] what they're doing is the boxes are there, so that's what you're going to

[34:26] use. Yeah. It's It's a huge expense and it could It's either on the tenant or

[34:30] it's on the landlord and and, you know, in those types of centers, neither of

[34:34] them there's not a lot of margin in those

[34:36] deals. So, I I would I think it's a very all things

[34:42] considered, it's it's inexpensive for us to restrict the

[34:46] panel that goes back into those going forward

[34:50] versus the whole new box. I think uh excluding it for new construction, which

[34:54] is new construction's going to do that itself anyways,

[34:58] but if we exclude it for new construction,

[35:00] and all the panels on these start to improve over the years because the boxes

[35:05] are not going away, I think that's a step in the right direction.

[35:10] Can we go to the next slide, please? It's not restricting the retail

[35:13] business. It's not encumbering on the landlord.

[35:18] I just think that like restricting them totally, cuz even on the next slide,

[35:22] too, but like this car wash at MLK, just the way they designed it, you can tell

[35:26] it's newer, you can tell it's more modern. The way they designed it already

[35:30] looks better than some of the other ones that were pictured, even though they

[35:34] might also have been raised. Even though it's the same design, so I

[35:38] just feel like new stuff is already going to look better.

[35:42] And it's hard to like restrict it because A, even on the next slide where

[35:46] it's we were talking about that glow one,

[35:49] we didn't have a definition for that type of sign. So, that's tough, too. We

[35:53] would really have to like define what it is, what it looks like. Is it just a

[35:58] slide in? Does it include a slide in with raised letters?

[36:02] It's I agree with you.

[36:05] I and I think my purpose is, you know, it's the winging sign, but with a the

[36:10] back is not translucent, the letters are translucent. The the car wash at MLK,

[36:17] great example, you know, because I think that's what the panel in the box sign is

[36:20] going to look like going forward, and the letters are going to be translucent,

[36:23] not the backing. And then that way it stays consistent

[36:26] with the other signs going forward, which we got and would look better in

[36:31] general cuz they're newer and the construction's different than the box

[36:33] sign. But at least in that sign, the all the all the the retail box signs that

[36:38] exist today would just take that leap forward

[36:42] cosmetically and

[36:45] eventually maybe redevelopment takes place or somebody comes in and wants to

[36:48] improve the property. But you know, if you look at some of the

[36:52] retail buildings up on Nerge that struggled to get another retail actually

[36:56] in and they're getting karate places and daycares and you know, church groups

[37:01] they're not going to pay for the the greater sign. It's another encumbrance

[37:05] to get in a deal done. So

[37:10] again, the business that comes in that is really important about the signage,

[37:12] they're probably not going to those properties that we're really trying to

[37:15] improve at the moment. So I think if the panels

[37:20] have the raised lettering and translucent letters and all the

[37:24] definitions we're supposed to use for those, I think that's what I'm

[37:27] recommending.

[37:32] And outlawed for new, restricted for new construction.

[37:37] That makes sense. So then wouldn't you want to do this

[37:40] too? What was in the packet where it says whenever a non-conforming sign has

[37:44] been discontinued for a period of six consecutive months

[37:47] and then it says some more, then it would have to be

[37:51] like re- redone or replaced. So would that fall on the new tenant or the owner

[37:56] if it was like an abandoned or not abandoned, but just like a closed

[37:59] business?

[38:02] I think my purpose to that from reading that last time would been to

[38:08] the places where the panel exists, the panel exists.

[38:12] So we >> The box, I'm sorry, the the box exists.

[38:16] So you'd want to maybe take that part out of the proposed sign code.

[38:20] Cuz if it's non- right now like some one of the proposed messaging says, if it's

[38:24] non-conforming, which would be a box sign, if we decided, right? Well,

[38:30] no. So, like, the panel itself would have to be, right? Cuz we're still

[38:34] talking about allowing box signs. But, requiring an opaque background and

[38:40] raised lettering. Okay. Okay. So, they would not be able to just like resurface

[38:44] an existing panel. Okay, I was thinking we were Yes.

[38:48] » Okay. I understood what you were saying

[38:50] though. I was like, oh crap, yeah. Well, no. In in in that same context though,

[38:56] that would be on a one-off sign. If one sign was 100% of the signage on the

[38:59] building, like, I could see why we would imply that. Now, if a center has six

[39:04] signs and one of them is out of commission for

[39:07] 6 months, I don't know that that applies to that a multi-tenant

[39:12] signage building. You're you're not going to Now, that

[39:16] one's not obsolete because it was out or vacant for 6 months or whatever the case

[39:20] was, because you still have five more at that building. So, it would be the whole

[39:23] building. >> It would be the whole building or

[39:27] you could say, you know, if you use that same language, if, you know, 60% or more

[39:31] of the signage was available it was down for a period of 6 months or more, then

[39:37] the whole thing would then be required to be updated to code. Okay. Um but I

[39:43] again, I think it would be a silly restriction to have one sign

[39:47] of five or six signs be out and now the whole building is out of out of

[39:51] compliance. Yeah. And that's what it says is

[39:56] um if 50% of an individual, like, a

[40:02] multi-tenant building is remodeled with replacement signs, you have to do the

[40:06] rest of them. You can't just have

[40:10] Let's say you have a 10 tenants, you can't have

[40:14] five new signs and five old signs. You have to replace all of them.

[40:25] I think that's fair if it stays consistent.

[40:32] Okay. Anything else? I think that was it, right, Caitlin?

[40:46] I think the code current like the current code says the raceways have to

[40:49] match the wall like the wall, so it's blends in more. So, like

[40:55] Salon Raybelle blends in with and not Corrados. I think

[41:01] that's what it currently says. Is that something what we want to continue or do

[41:05] we care? Well, Manji's Dogs doesn't But then that

[41:09] looks good. Yeah, I'm good. It would have looked better if it

[41:14] matched. I I I I I can't even read the Corrados

[41:17] from over here because the the white raceway and the yellow lines are

[41:22] Is that in Roselle? Very bright color. >> Yeah.

[41:26] Uh it's next to Salon De Bella. Oh, LaGree. Oh, okay.

[41:32] Yeah, I I I I kind of like the raceway like the raceway should fade into the

[41:36] background because it's just supposed to be the thing it

[41:39] hangs on. It's not supposed to be an additional decorative piece.

[41:43] It's not the sign. Exactly.

[41:47] Right. Yeah.

[41:56] Okay. I think that was it.

[42:02] So, we will write up

[42:07] these sections and bring them next time and then also

[42:10] temporary sign stuff. Okay.

[42:16] Yay. Uh we have to

[42:21] Continue. >> Are there any members of the public who

[42:23] wish to speak at this hearing? Okay.

[42:28] Can I get a motion to continue the public

[42:32] hearing PZ 26-11-56 to the June 2nd, 2026 Planning and

[42:38] Zoning Commission? I'll make that. Second.

[42:41] I have a first. Jason Wertz? Yes. Brian Boos? Hi. Leda

[42:46] Glante? Hi. Namish Johnny? Hi. Chairman Wallach? Hi.

[42:51] Is there any old business?

[42:55] Nope. Is there any new business?

[42:58] We have a meeting next month. Yes.

[43:02] Uh is there a motion to adjourn the meeting

[43:05] at uh 7:43?

[43:10] Move. Second.

[43:13] All in favor? Hi. Hi. Adjourned. Wonderful.

[43:19] Thank you, guys. What's the June meeting? What?

[43:22] The June 2nd.

[43:27] Yes.

Planning & Zoning Commission - May 5, 2026

Transcript