Will County Gazette

Village of Homer Glen Plan Commission met July 17.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

1. Call to Order,

The meeting was called to order at 7:01pm by Chairman Hand.

2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Commissioner Mesaf.

3. Roll Call.

Members present: Commissioner Foley, Commissioners Mesaf, Commissioner Lyons, Chairman Hand, Commissioner Marshall and Commissioner Stanly.

Also present were Planning and Zoning Director Gruba, Planner Udarbe, Assistant Planner Kahn and Plan Commission Secretary Cassin.

Not present: Vice Chair McGary

4. Approval of Amendments to the Agenda

5. Minutes.

a) July 3, 2025 - These minutes have not been drafted but will be reviewed at the August 7, 2025 meeting

6. Public Comment.

Commissioner Hand asked if there was anyone that wanted to speak on anything that was not on the agenda.

An unnamed, unidentified resident who stated he lives on the back side of a variance that is on the agenda, spoke up about a case that is on the agenda, expressing a water concern. The Chair asked him to come back up when that case is being presented, but the resident walked out, stating he's good.

Chairman Hand asked that anyone wishing to speak, be sworn in. Plan Commission Secretary swore in all wishing to speak and confirmed they had signed in.

Chairman Hand provided instructions on the public hearing process.

7. New Business and Possible Action

a) Case No. HG-2514-V, 16554 S. Hidden Cove Court (Public Hearing): A request for a Variance to reduce the required north side yard building setback from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet and a Plat of Easement for certain real property located in the R-2 Single Family Residential District at 16554 S. Hidden Cove Court, Homer Glen, Illinois.

Director Gruba provided background on this case. This is in a subdivision called Hidden Cove, which consists of twelve (12) lots. He stated that lot number 9 is likely unbuildable, the lot we will be discussing is lot one (1), and then there are two (2) other empty lots remaining, which are lots three (3) and four (4). He stated the project is to construct a large ranch home, over 4,000 square feet. There is a request for one (1) variance on the north side, to reduce a side yard setback from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet. He stated that there is an existing conservation easement on approximately 55% of the property. As part of this project, the Village would like to do the work to install a detention pond within this conservation easement in order to alleviate existing high-water issues. In order to do that, a temporary construction easement is needed, that would last the duration of five (5) years. This will require a Plat of Easement to be placed over the conservation easement. This will help drainage in the entire area, and the applicant is agreeable to this.

Only one comment concerning a water issue was made, but nothing in writing to add to the record.

Director Gruba went over the content within the supplemental sheet and provided a visual of the conservation easement and an overlay showing the temporary construction easement. The future detention pond on this lot would help alleviate future flooding. All other setbacks are met but for the north side yard setback. There are 3 motions for consideration for this case. Director Gruba concluded his presentation.

Chairman Hand asked for a motion to open the public hearing.

Commissioner Stanly made a motion to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Lyons. All were in favor, zero (0) opposed, the motion carried.

The petitioner, Shawn O'Malley, approached and stated they were looking for just the one (1) variance for this lot, while other lots had more than one (1) variance. He stated that he also spoke to the property owner to the north and provided all the information on the project. There will be a good distance between the existing home to the north and the proposed home. The Village is taking approximately 2/3 of the lot for the detention pond. The applicant and the zoning department are working with the Village Engineer on getting all the information together.

Chairman Hand asked if this is taking the full conservation easement. Director Gruba said they have a rough sketch of where the pond would be, they don't have a final set of engineering drawings at this time. The applicant stated he took away from the meeting that the pond would occupy the majority of the easement. Director Gruba could not confirm that for certain. Chairman Hand confirmed that this pond would help drainage in the area, not just for this lot.

A resident, Matt Ebert, stated that his home is directly across the street from property under discussion. He expressed opposition to this project. He felt that the homes and area are changing from what he was thinking the plan for this subdivision would be. He said he is spending $50,000 a year in property taxes, it is supposed to be an upscale neighborhood and that the homes are getting smaller. It's not what he was told when he bought his lot. He feels that the proposed home would cheapen the neighborhood. He doesn't understand the flooding concern. He said he understands it is a 100-year flood issue for a neighboring subdivision. He feels the area's flooding issues are getting fixed at the expense of his subdivision.

Commissioner Stanly spoke about the detention area. He feels being able to do something with this lot is a good idea. Commissioner Marshall toured the property and he asked about the five (5) foot setback and what kind of barriers are planned since it seems we are looking to cram three (3) large homes in this little area. The applicant, responded that except for one area, there are 50 feet between the homes. He has large trees on the plan that will be in between the homes. There is a large cluster of large oak trees that will all remain. Mr. O'Malley said that proposed house on Lot 1 would be seven (7) figures and that it is toe-to-toe on the setbacks on all sides except for the north side. He is not trying to put a smaller home on the lot, he's building to fit that lot. It's not cheapening the neighborhood, he takes offense to that comment. He was asked about the setbacks. Mr. O'Malley said that per the covenants, he is meeting the size requirement. Side- load garages are required. The home is 3,213 square feet, and then there is the garage area. The total footprint is 4,576 square feet, with the garage. Originally, the covenants stated a minimum size is 3,500, but they had since been changed to a smaller size, somewhere along the line, but they are meeting the current covenants, per Mr. O'Malley.

Commissioner Lyons asked if there was a discussion about turning the footprint of the house to allow for more than a five (5) foot side setback. He explained the setback line on the rear and left side are built right up to with this home. Mr. O'Malley cannot turn the home. He is right up against the property easements. He is already touching on all the easement lines on all four (4) sides of the house, per Mr. O'Malley. He stated that in order to try to construct a home that fit the continuity of the neighborhood, and fit the setback lines, he worked to meet the parameters.

They discussed R-2 lots being larger, but because of this big conservation easement occupying so much of this parcel, the building setbacks are set to account for that conservation easement. He pointed out there is a similar variance on lot 11.

Commissioner Lyons rephrased her question, instead of going from twenty (20) foot setback to five (5) on one side, was there any consideration for maybe asking for a smaller footage variance on the west side. Mr. O'Malley replied that this lot is super odd, it goes up, and then it hooks to the left. He pushed the home all the way back to where the parcel begins to hook to the left, which at that point it is at the rear setback line. Commissioner Hand added to this discussion by stating that turning the home just makes the setback issue actually worse.

Chairman Hand suggested altering the design, and Mr. O'Malley said he could redesign it for a two (2) story, but it would not look as nice or sell for as much. Chairman Hand stated he is not agreeable to going down to a five (5) foot setback. If there were a fence there on that lot line, you could touch the house and the fence with both hands at the same time. He understands you cannot shrink the garage. Mr. O'Malley said this project started out with a client that didn't end up moving forward, and now with the requests being asked of him and the conservation easement, this will likely turn into a spec home. He cannot go smaller on the ranch because of the covenants. The covenants are 3,000 square feet or more for a ranch. The proposed home is 3,200 square feet, and he said taking five (5) feet out of this ranch will not work, and added it would have to become a two-story home.

Chairman Hand asked if there were any other questions, there were none from the Commissioners.

Mr. O'Malley asked what would come next. Chairman Hand said that they still need to vote on it. He added he also understands where the applicant is coming from and the challenges. He said that reducing to five (5) feet is tough, and they have approved ten (10) foot setback in the past. Chairman Hand asked if maybe a story and a half could work, Mr. O'Malley indicated he didn't know at that moment. Director Gruba reminded the Commission that this could be tabled to a future meeting and come back with new plans that sought less of a variance or, he could roll the dice with whatever Plan Commission recommendation is offered and proceed to the Board. The Commission asked if he is open to tabling it, the applicant was amenable to tabling until the August 21st meeting and adjusting to a ten (10) foot setback versus the five (5) foot setback.

A motion was made by Commissioner Stanly to keep the public hearing open and to table it until August 21, 2025. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Stanly, Lyons, Mesaf, Marshall, Foley and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero in favor of tabling this item.

A resident asked about the conservation easement for detention, and that will still need to approved by the HOA, and the answer to that is yes, the HOA will need to approve that.

b) Case No. HG-2521-V, 12258 W. Rambling Rd (Public Hearing): A request for [1] Variance to permit an inground pool and pool patio as an obstruction in a front yard; [2] a Variance to reduce the required front yard setback for the in-ground pool and patio from a non-dedicated right-of-way from eighty (80) feet to fifty three (53) feet, and; [3] a Variance to reduce the required side yard setback for the in-ground pool from twenty (20) feet to fourteen (14) feet for certain real property located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District at 12258 W. Rambling Rd, Homer Glen, Illinois.

Planner Udarbe provided the background details on this case. The applicants live at the subject property, that is located on a private, non-dedicated road. They are looking to put in an in- ground pool in the front yard, patio and a fence, which both require a variance.

For public comment, two letters of support were provided to staff.

Permitted obstructions are only permitted in rear yards, and require a special use permit in side yards. The Pool needs a front and side yard setback reduction and the patio needs a front setback. The applicant explained that the hardship has to do with the septic field on their property. It appears to be the side yard, but per the zoning code, it is considered a front yard. It is a wooded property. There is some utility easement cutting the yard in half in the back as well, which adds to the hardship. She concluded her presentation.

A motion to open the public hearing made by Commissioner Stanly, seconded by Commissioner Foley. A voice vote was taken with all in favor, and zero (0) opposed. The motion carried.

The applicant approached to explain they just wanted their daughter to have a swimming pool. He said he didn't realize the well, and the septic area, and how big all of that is. He said there is a subdivision behind them. His goal is not to remove any trees, and where they want to put the pool will be behind trees, a lot of grown so the pool will not jump out at you when you look at the house. They are not looking to put in a huge solid fence; they will put a see-through fence. They want to keep with the character of the subdivision. The lots in this area are very unique. There is a lot of tree coverage. The home was constructed in 1958. The residents of that street own the road, and they handle all the road maintenance, and repairs. This is their forever home, and they would like to have a pool for their daughter. There is a fence there currently around the back of the property that they intend to remove, and just put a nice new fence only enclosing the pool.

Commissioner Lyons asked about the neighbor to the west, right behind the applicant, she wondered if there were any other structures back there. He said they have a Florida room there, but it's not that visible because of the trees. They do not have any other structures, or sheds back there, per the applicant. He said if they didn't have a septic field and the put the pool in the back, those same neighbors would walk out their front door and look right at their pool. Commissioner Marshall asked about putting the pool on the opposite side of the house. The applicant said that there is some septic field there where the Commissioner is suggesting and then the utility easement that runs through the yard would be an issue there as well.

No other discussion. No public comment on this case.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Commissioner Foley, seconded by Commissioner Stanly. All were in favor, zero (0) opposed, the motion carried.

There are three (3) motions to consider for this case.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to recommend approval of a Variance to permit an inground pool and pool patio as an obstruction in a front yard for certain real property located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District at 12258 W Rambling Road, Homer Glen, Illinois (HG-2521-V]. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mesaf. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Mesaf, Lyons, Marshall, Stanly and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to approve a Variance to reduce the required front yard setback for the in-ground pool and patio from a non-dedicated right-of-way from eighty (80) feet to fifty-three (53) feet for certain real property located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District at 12258 W Rambling Road, Homer Glen, Illinois [HG-2521-V]. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanly. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Stanly, Marshall, Lyons, Mesaf and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to approve of a Variance to reduce the required side yard setback for the in-ground pool from twenty (20) feet to fourteen (14) feet for certain real property located in the R-2 Single-Family Residential Zoning District at 12258 W. Rambling Road, Homer Glen, Illinois [HG-2521-V]. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanly. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Stanly, Mesaf, Marshall, Lyons and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion passed unanimously.

Lastly, Commissioner Foley made a motion to adopt the applicant's findings as the findings of the Plan Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanly. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Stanly, Mesaf, Marshall, Lyons and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion passed unanimously.

This case will go before the Village Board on August 13, 2025.

c) Case No. HG-2520-V, 14322 S. Golden Oak Dr (Public Hearing): A request for [1] Variance to permit a multitenant sign with seven (7) tenant panels where no more than six (6) are permitted and [2] a Variance to permit a ground sign as an obstruction in the required clear vision triangular area for certain real property located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District at the common address 14322 S. Golden Oak Dr, Homer Glen, Illinois.

Planner Udarbe presented the facts of this case. The applicant that owns the property is proposing to construct a new, double faced, multi-tenant sign for the Fischer Plaza, and it will be visible from 143rd street.

One comment came from the public asking what the sign was for, the resident said that they were surprised they needed a variance for this type of project.

The height of the proposed sign is 15 feet, which meets code. All of the requirements are being met but the number of panels is one (1) more than what is allowed in the code, and it is encroaching on the clear vision. To fit the sign, one parking spot will be removed, but there is still enough parking. The current parking stalls do not meet the Village parking requirements and staff recommends that the parking lots are restriped for width and ADA parking. This building overlays two (2) parcels and staff also recommends that they consolidate the two (2) parcels so that this remedies some of the current nonconformances. Taylor concluded her presentation.

A motion was made to open the public hearing by Commissioner Stanly, seconded by Commissioner Lyons. All were in favor, zero (0) opposed, the motion carried.

The applicant stated that all he is looking to do is to put a sign up for the tenants. He would like to get all of the signs off the sloped roof. He has already made changes on the exterior of the building, he is trying to make it look like it belongs in the Village. He has received positive feedback. He did state that he would like to remove any roof signs from the building. He stated that making this plaza more appealing will help tax revenues. He said that this started out as a $12,000 project and it is now a $21,000 project. He said when you start talking merging pins, it means engineering to him, and that could add another $5,000 to the project. He just wants to put a sign up. He said that the parking lines are slanted so you pull in one end and drive through and out the other end. The base of the sign will be gray brick and will be landscaped. It will match the exterior of the building and the sign will be internally lit.

Chairman Hand asked about the clear vision and the sight lines. Staff explained that code requires a five (5) foot set back and this sign will encroach approximately two (2) feet into that setback.

Staff explained the landscape requirements around the base of the sign and explained the applicant is proposing to remove asphalt to accommodate and meet the landscape requirements, but will also lose one (1) parking stall in doing so. The parking requirements will still be met even with losing that space.

Commissioner Foley asked about making the restriping a part of the motion. Director Gruba stated it would be staff's recommendation to restripe at least the ADA spaces for sure. There are two (2) spaces. He suggested another condition could be to remove the pavement and add the landscape be installed per the landscape plans. The last condition could be the width of the existing parking spaces. The Village Engineer did go out and measure the current spaces, which were seven (7) feet wide, and they should be nine (9) feet wide. Widening the spaces will likely force another parking space loss but the requirement for parking would still be met. He added that making the spaces longer would encroach in the drive isle.

The applicant stated they just had the parking lot re-striped not very long ago. He indicated the ADA spot had the stripes and there is plenty of room. He added he did measure some of the parking spots and they were just under nine (9) feet. He said the one (1) ADA is shorter, but that's easy, there isn't anyone next to that spot when you pull in. It's clear. The one on the south side of the building can be easily corrected as there are currently five (5) spaces and he can move one over and make it a little bit bigger. As for the rest of them, it's an old building and he stated again he is just trying to put a sign up. He said he is asking for some leeway and he doesn't want to add another $10,000 to the project. Hewas agreeable to adjusting the striping for the ADA spots.

Chairman Hand clarified with the applicant that he would remove more than the actual footprint of the pavement removal. The applicant stated he would. Mr. Hand didn't understand the relevance of making the asphalt removal a part of the condition.

The applicant stated he will be removing 170 feet of asphalt to accommodate the sign, which will have a brick base up to a certain height to make it look classy, and then the sign. They will fill in around the base with dirt and plant flowers.

The Commissioners discussed the landscaping as a code requirement, and restriping the handicap spots would be a requirement.

There was discussion about the brightness of the sign, but our code doesn't address any internal sign lighting as it is not considered a luminaire.

No other discussion on this matter.

A motion to close the public hearing made by Commissioner Foley, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. All were in favor, zero (0) opposed. The motion carried.

Next, commissioner Foley made a motion to approve of a Variance to permit a multitenant sign with seven (7) tenant panels where no more than six (6) are permitted for certain real property located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District at the common address 14322 S. Golden Oak Dr. Homer Glen, Illinois [HG-2520-VJ. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Lyons, Mesaf, Stanly, Marshall and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion carried.

Commissioner Foley made another motion to recommend approval with conditions of a Variance to permit a ground sign as an obstruction in the required clear vision triangular area for certain real property located in the C-1 neighborhood commercial Zoning District at the common address 14322 S Golden Oak Dr. Homer Glen, Illinois [HG-2520-V], adding the Condition is to stripe two (2) handicap parking stalls per ADA requirements that are 11 feet wide with a five (5) foot loading space. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanly. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Stanly, Marshall, Mesaf, Lyons and Chairman Hand voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion passed unanimously.

Finally, Commissioner Foley made a motion to adopt the applicant's findings as the findings of the Plan Commission, which was seconded by Commissioner Stanly. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Stanly, Marshal, Lyons, Mesaf and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion passed unanimously.

This item will go before the Village Board on August 13, 2025.

d) Case No. HG-2515-PUD, 14025 S. Bell Road - Chase Bank (Workshop): A request for [1] a Major Change to the PUD with exceptions, [2] a Special Use for a drive- through use, [3] a Special Use 24-hour operation, and [4] Site Improvement Plans for certain real property located at 14025 S. Bell Road, Homer Glen, Illinois. (PIN: 16-05- 01-301-026-0000)

Director Gruba explained the request. No public comment has been received yet for this project, perhaps because the public hearing notices haven't been mailed to all property owners within 250' and a notice of public hearing has not been placed in the newspaper because this is a workshop, not a public hearing.

He presented the site plan and the (9) major changes: (a) Altering the on-site traffic circulation. Parking spaces would reduce from 101 to 49. (b) Adding a 24 hour drive through for the ATM. (c) Adding a new driveway connection from the subject property to Graystone Drive to the north near Discount Tire, (d) Expanding the footprint of the existing building by 161 square feet, (e) Changing the exterior architecture and materials, (f) Removing a considerable amount of existing plants which includes shrubs and six (6) large, mature trees, (g) Adding a sidewalk connection from the front of the building to the existing sidewalk along Bell Road, (h) Relocating the existing transformer and dumpster enclosure at the rear of the building and (i) Removing and replacing all of the existing light poles. This is an overview of all of the changes being proposed.

The Fire District will be able to navigate the parking lot with a fire truck per their review. Director Gruba presented the landscape removal plan.

The applicant did work with staff to maintain as many of the mature trees as possible. The gable roof above the main entrance would be replaced with a flat roof, per staff recommendation, they would keep the cultured stone veneer. The existing brown fiber cement panels would be replaced with ash-colored fiber cement panels. The wall proposed wall sconce lights would shine downward. All sides of the building as it would look were presented. The Photometric Plan complies with the Village's lighting regulations, with the exception of the lighting around the ATM. However, there is a state law that specifies minimum lighting levels around ATM's, but this minimum level exceeds the Village's lighting regulations. As such, a variance or exception to the PUD would be required for this lighting. Four (4) new wall signs were proposed. Staff recommend that Chase Bank remove the Chase name and logo from the directional signs and the applicant agreed to do so. The wall sign on the east façade that faces a residential zone district would not be illuminated, as required per code. A floor plan was provided, showing a large open and unused portion of the building and the applicant is present and will explain the purpose for this. A traffic memo was provided to staff which noted that the amount of traffic anticipated could be adequately supported by Bell Road and the internal drive aisles within Gooding's Grove.

Director Gruba stated that in case this Special Use for a Major PUD Change should not be granted, it should be based on at least one of the findings of fact, or standards for variances. This is not a public hearing tonight, but in the future, if there is any future vote, this should be kept in mind.

Applicant Jon Krissoff approached and explained that this is one of the last in-store banks (inside Jewel) and they have been looking to move to a stand-alone location and they have been closing down the in-store branches. Closing the branch in the Jewel would leave a big hole. The stand- alone banks do much better and that is why they are closing the in-store kind. People prefer the privacy of an office for discussions. He said that the traffic will be very predictable and will not be as busy as the Discount Tire across the way.

Commissioner Foley said that he likes the plan, and feels the Village needs this.

Commissioner Marshall asked a question about the traffic. He was trying to think about peak hours. The applicant said that banks are busy more during commuting hours, morning before work or after work. During the day there are the occasional appointments. Bank hours are likely going to be nine (9) to five (5) but they can double check that - all locations are not the same. It could be six (6) pm. They will check and get back to us.

The traffic study shows more traffic than the restaurant that was there. The bank land use in the manual overestimates the amount of traffic generated. This land use will not generate what is showing up on paper.

Chairman Hand asked if they had data for traffic inside the Jewel, wondering if this free-standing bank would double the current store traffic. The Chase team did not have that information.

The Commission discussed the scale of service in the Jewel Chase, which will be limited compared to what the free-standing locations offer.

The excess space inside the former Chili's building would be filled at a later time, or remain storage, it has not yet been determined. The store in Jewel would be closed and relocated to the free-standing building. They indicated they have been looking in the area for many years. Commissioner Stanly asked if they were aware that the location where the Arby's is now was a bank that sat vacant for a long time. The Chase representatives stated they were aware, but they felt they were too far out of the prime area and far from their competitors and therefore, not interested. They were happy to hear that this location opened up.

Chairman Hand said that the sentiment of the Village is that we need restaurants, and that it was a sad day for us when Chili's closed.

A full-service drive through will not be provided as they find they are not needed like before. ATM machines do so much now and for this location, they feel only 1 ATM machine will be needed. ATM's can now do what the tellers can do. They want people to come inside the bank, Chase likes the personal touch and for people to come inside. Fewer or no teller lines is becoming the norm. At some point they may discontinue and decommission drive throughs completely.

There will be a small overhanging roof over the drive up for the ATM.

Commissioner Marshall asked Director Gruba if the Economic Development Department has an opinion on this project at this location. Director Gruba said that the Economic Development Department believes that this may not be the highest and best use for this property, primarily because banks do not tend to generate synergy with other retail businesses and banks do not generate retail sales. Commissioner Marshall asked if any other parties were interested in the Chili's property, such as for retailers or a different restaurant. Director Gruba said that he wasn't sure. Commissioner Marshall said that they would be giving up a retail generating space and he doesn't know that it would be good for the community, in that respect. The applicant stated that the location in the Jewel doesn't see much "B2B" (Business to Business) work, but they feel that with the free-standing store, with Home Depot and Meijer anchors behind, they would see more B2B which would be good for more economic development.

Commissioner Foley asked why the vacant Purple Onion has not been picked up for a restaurant, and staff explained that that this building is located on 143 and not Bell Road and that the building has issues to be addressed.

Commissioner Hand stated the current condition of the former Chili's parking lot is in bad shape and the applicant said he would contact the holding company and let them know.

Director Gruba had the Commissioners go through the list of discussion topics one final time:

1) Overall use of the property for a bank: The Commission did not voice any further concerns.

2) The proposed drive-through use in this location: The Commission did not voice any further concerns.

3) The proposed 24-hour ATM use: The Commission did not voice any further concerns.

4) The removal of parking spaces. It was noted that the number of parking spaces would be reduced by about half and the Commission did not have any further concerns.

5) The changing of on-site traffic circulation, including the proposed new driveway access to Greystone Drive: The Commission noted that it would be preferable to add the additional entrance/exit in this location.

6) The removal of some existing trees and shrubs and planting new landscaping. No comments from the Commission.

7) Signage: The Commission noted that it would be preferable if the directional signs were internally illuminated, and agreed that the wall sign on the east elevation should not be illuminated. The applicant noted that Chase does not internally illuminate directional signs by trade. Rather, entrances would be illuminated by light poles so the internally lit signs are not necessary. The south facing wall sign would require a variance because it does not face a "public street or private circulation road". The existing ground sign would retrofitted for Chase Bank.

8) Changes to the existing light poles: No comments from the Commission.

Director Gruba said that it sounded like the Commission was not recommending any changes to the plans except maybe the wall sign on the south facade. Staff confirmed that there aren't any landscape requirements except for parking lot islands.

Commissioner Foley said he can see both sides of the argument for whether the building should be repurposed as a bank Instead of a retail space or a restaurant.

Planner Udarbe said her only concern is the loss of parking and if the use should ever change back to a restaurant, then the parking spaces would have to be reinstalled.

Staff will dig into whether the wall sign on the east façade facing the residential townhomes could be illuminated or not, or whether it would be allowed at all. One part of the code says that wall signs facing residential zone districts cannot be illuminated and another section states that wall signs can't face residential zone districts.

The next stop after this is a public hearing. If there are no major changes to the plan, it could be quick turned-around to bring this to August 7th public hearing.

Commissioner Lyons asked if a public hearing sign could be added on the back side of the property, not just the Bell Road sign, to maximize awareness of the public hearing.

8. Other Business

None.

9. Reports of Plan Commissioners and Staff.

Director Gruba didn't have any other business but he did introduce Dana Kahn who is fitting in well.

Planner Udarbe stated that we would have one more sign variance for the August meeting. No reports from the Commissioners.

All that were present indicated they would be in attendance for the next meeting on August 7, 2025.

10. Adjournment.

A motion was made to adjourn by Commissioner Stanly, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, A voice vote was taken with all in favor, zero (0) opposed and the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

http://www.homerglenil.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07172025-2969