[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.