Will County Gazette

Village of Homer Glen Plan Commission met Aug. 7.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

1. Call to Order.

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Hand.

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

3. Roll Call.

Members present: Commissioner Foley, Commissioners McGary, 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: Commissioner Mesaf

4. Approval of Amendments to the Agenda

None.

5. Approval of the Agenda

Not called because there were no changes to the agenda.

6. Minutes.

a) July 3, 2025: Commissioner Stanly made a motion to approve the minutes from July 3, 2025, which was seconded by Commissioner Marshall. A voice vote was taken, all were in favor, zero (0) opposed and the motion carried.

b) July 17, 2025: Commissioner Stanly made a motion to approve the minutes from July 17, 2025. A voice vote was taken, all were in favor, zero (0) opposed, and the motion carried.

7. Public Comment.

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

The secretary swore in all those present that wished to speak.

Chairman Hand provided instructions on the public hearing process.

8. New Business and Possible Action

a.) Case No. HG-2522-V, 15741 S. Bell Road – Grove Valley Center (Public Hearing): A request for approval of [1] a Variance to permit a multitenant sign with nine (9) tenant panels where no more than six (6) are permitted and [2] a Variance to increase the permitted sign face area for a multitenant sign from the permitted 120 to 146 square feet in the C-2 Local Business District at the common address 15741 S. Bell Road, Homer Glen, Illinois. (PINs: 16-05-13-300-026-0000)

Assistant Planner Kahn present the background on this case. The applicant, Integrity Sign, is the consultant for the Robert Vanderwoude, the owner of subject commercial property. They are proposing to construct a new multi-tenant monument sign that will replace the previous sign that was removed due to the Bell Road construction improvement project, at the Grove Valley Center.

Staff has not received any public comment on this case.

Assistant Planner Kahn discussed the slides she was presenting. She explained that the right of way is shown, and stated the proposed 12’ wide sign is shown, meeting setbacks and located outside of the clear vision triangle. They are exceeding the landscape requirements and will include 4 different plant species. All tenant panels need to list business names, not business services. The rendering shows dark panels with white letters. Of all of the tenants, one of the businesses is not in good standing with the Secretary of State. Staff is recommending that all businesses be registered with the Village and in good standing with the state. All signs, existing and new, require sign permits.

Assistant Planner Kahn discussed conformance with Village regulations for signs. The Ordinance allows for six (6) panels, the proposed marquee has nine (9) panels. Also, the Ordinance allows for 120 square feet for multitenant signs, and the proposed sign request is for 146 square feet. As a condition of the Variance, staff recommends that the Tuffy Auto Wall signs be removed as the business has ceased operations as of January 2, 2025. Blank panels that match the existing panels will be seated in the multi-tenant sign until a new business is in place.

She also presented recommended conditions for this variance: (1) staff recommends that all businesses listed on the ground sign be registered with the Village and Secretary of State, and be in good standing with the Secretary of State; (2) Staff recommends that the Tuffy Auto Wall signs (for a business no longer in operation as of January 2, 2025) be removed from the front and back façades of the structure and the façades be restored to original condition; and (3) staff recommends that the sign panel remain blank on the multitenant sign until a new tenant has a business license and is in good standing with the Secretary of State.

Assistant Planner Kahn provided some recommended discussion topics as well as recommended conditions to be included with the motion:

a. Sign Panel for “oil change” not permitted per code. Panel would have to be black, blank or the name of the business.

b. if all 9 tenant panels are not used by businesses within the plaza, they must be replaced with black panels.

c. Tuffy’s wall sign must be removed per code with the building façades restored. d. All businesses must be registered with the Village and in good standing with the Secretary of State.

Dana concluded her report.

Director Gruba added from the site visit, staff noticed that a landscape business is registered for this address (15741 S. Bell Road) that was originally registered as a home business under the old recording system. A landscaping truck and trailer were noticed inside the former Tuffy’s bays in the adjacent building with the address 15743 S. Bell Road. No landscaping materials were seen onsite or outside of the building. The business license, which may be for an office use inside, and the stored trucks inside the building does not technically violate the Code. The same owner of the plaza owns this business.

The Commissioners held a discussion, and discussed the wall signs.

There were questions about the wall signs. They were curious about where it says Mufflers Brakes and Shocks on the wall. Assistant Planner Kahn explained that after Tuffy’s moved out, it became “Roberts Mufflers and Brakes” is the new business with those other services, meaning “oil change”, should be removed. Staff added that the “Mufflers, Brakes and Shocks” sign for Tuffy remains on the front and back of the building.

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

Commissioner McGary made a motion to open the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Marshall. All were in favor, zero (0) opposed, the motion carried and the public hearing was opened.

The owner of the landscape business was present; he owns Roberts Tire and Auto and shut down Tuffy’s because they changed to Mavis and he didn’t want to be part of that. The landscaping trucks that were referenced are for plowing; they used to be parked in the back of the building. He doesn’t know if he is going to open up the Tuffy’s again. Tuffy’s and Roberts have been competing against each other since 1992. He owns both so it didn’t really matter, but they were run by different people. He used those bays for Roberts Tires while parts are being ordered. He added that he would like to put the business logo on the multitenant sign. He stated he doesn’t want to match the sign that was constructed further North on Bell. He said he goes by it many times a day, and he cannot tell what one of the businesses is listed on there. He feels that the logos or artwork for each of the businesses will look better.

Planner Udarbe contributed to the discussion stating the code regarding signs and the logos being allowed. They are permitted, and color limits doesn’t matter if it’s for branding. What is before us is regarding copy area. The variance is for six (6) to nine (9) panels for the businesses. The applicant asked if they changed to the logo, but it met the copy area, would that be okay. Staff stated that they should work through the code with their sign design people.

Chairman Hand is of the opinion that the sign with the logos looks better than what is being presented before them. The change tonight is for the sign from six (6) to nine (9) tenants, and then the copy area going from 120 to 146 square feet. The logos and sign design are not what is before the Commissioners.

Commissioner Marshall asked if there are size requirements. Staff explained that the zoning officer can determine the size based on legibility.

Commissioner McGary agreed with Chairman Hand about the sign looking better with the logos.

Planner Udarbe said our code would allow for the logos and multicolor, but the concern is that would have to measure the new proposed copy area, but she would be happy to look at any renderings after the public hearing.

No public comment.

No additional comment on the variances before them.

At the last minute, John Schneider approached, a resident, who spoke as a graphic designer, and said that some logos can be very intricate. The former sign was “like a bag of skittles”, in his opinion. The black sign with the white lettering is more visible and it’s much cleaner. He even added that the temporary blue sign is cleaner. He feels that the branding and logos should stay on the building, and the uniform sign is more sensible solution.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by Commissioner Stanly, seconded by Commissioner McGary. A voice vote was taken, all voting in favor, zero (0) opposed. The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to approve with conditions, of a Variance to permit a multitenant sign with nine (9) tenant panels where no more than six (6) are permitted for certain real property located in the C-2 Local Business Zoning District at the common address 15741 S. Bell Road, Homer Glen, Illinois, [HG-2522-V] subject to the following conditions:

a. Sign Panel for “oil change” not permitted per code. Panel would have to be black, blank or the name of the business.

b. if all 9 tenant panels are not used but businesses within the plaza, the must be replaced with black panels.

c. Tuffy’s wall sign must be removed per code and wall restored to original condition.

d. All businesses must be registered with the Village and in good standing with the Secretary of State.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner McGary. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, McGary, Marshall, Lyons, Stanly and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to recommend approval of a Variance to increase the permitted sign face area for a multitenant sign from the permitted 120 to 146 square feet for certain real property located in the C-2 Local Business Zoning District at the common address 15741 S Bell Road, Homer Glen, Illinois [HG-2522-V]. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanly. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Stanly, Lyons, Marshall, McGary and Chairman Hand all 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. This motion was seconded by Commissioner McGary. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, McGary, Marshall, Stanly, Lyons and Chairman Hand all voting in favor six (6) to zero (0). The motion passed unanimously and will go before the Village Board on August 27, 2025.

b) Case No. HG-2515-PUD, 14025 S. Bell Road – Chase Bank (Public Hearing): A request for approval of [1] a Major Change to a PUD with exceptions, [2] a Special Use for a drive-through use, [3] a Special Use for a 24-hour operation, and [4] Site Improvement Plans for certain real property located in the C-3 General Business District at 14025 S. Bell Road, Homer Glen, Illinois. (PINs: 16-05-01-301-026-0000)

Director Gruba presented the background of this case. He explained there was a workshop meeting and very few changes were recommended. Chase Bank is proposing to use the old Chili’s restaurant for a Chase Bank. There are four (4) entitlements that would be required: A major change to the existing PUD with exceptions, a Special Use for a drive through use, a Special use for 24- hour operations and site improvement plans.

The current footprint is 5,559 square feet and the proposed addition would add 192 square feet for a total of 5,751 square feet.

There was some public comment. On July 22, 2025, staff was contacted by a representative of Domino’s Pizza asking if the building would be subdivided into smaller retail spaces. Also, on August 1, 2025, staff was contacted by a resident who inquired if the building was still for sale.

The main changes to the plan were that the wall sign was removed on the south facing wall to comply with code and the wall sign on the ATM itself on the East side of the building was removed to comply with code. Other than that, there have not been any substantial changes.

Director Gruba discussed some of the site plan slides and presented the changes being proposed. There were nine (9) general proposed changes as part of the conversion from Chili’s to Chase Bank.

1) Altering the on-site traffic pattern

2) Adding the drive thru use for the 24-hour ATM

3) Adding a driveway connection to Graystone

4) Expanding the footprint of the building for the ATM by 192 square feet

5) Some architectural changes to the exterior

6) 6 large trees and multiple shrubs would be removed. Some new trees and shrubs would be planted.

7) Adding a sidewalk connection from the front of the building to the existing sidewalk along Bell Road.

8) Relocating the existing transformer and trash enclosure

9) Removing and replacing all existing light poles

Director Gruba discussed additional slides and described them to the public, which included the traffic and pedestrian circulation explaining it would be modified for bank use versus a restaurant. He indicated that the Fire Department completed their review and they didn’t have any concerns. He presented that there was a Photometric Plan and it was reviewed, and it does meet code with the exception of the lighting by the ATM machine, but that lighting meets state code/law and the Village lighting regulations would not apply in this instance.

He discussed the exceptions which started out as five (5) in all, but after discussion, it is down to only four (4).

1. Permit the continuance of undersized parking spaces of 9’ by 18’ is 9’ by 19’ is required. This situation was created by the County a long time ago. However, since the parking lot would be altered, the undersized parking spaces would require an exception as part of the Major Change to the PUD.

2. Permit the encroachment of 13 parking spaces within the required 25’ front yard, being the spaces along Bell Road.

3. Permit the encroachment of 13 parking spaces within the required 30’ front yard landscape setback, being the spaces along Bell Road.

4. The wall sign on the east façade is not permitted because it faces a residential district. He presented discussion topics for the Plan Commissioners and concluded presentation. Commissioner 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.

Applicant Jon Krissoff with Chase Bank introduced himself and stated that the Chase Bank branch within Jewel-Osco is one of the last in-store locations. They offer less services than they would in a stand-alone bank. They are excited to bring this here. He stated at the in-store location, people are doing more bank transfer, deposit, withdraw types of transactions. You don’t see a lot of business loan type banking at this type of branch, or opening new accounts. Chili’s was closing whether Chase Bank was coming or not. He stated they did not displace Chili’s. He stated that bringing Chase would bring an economic lift to the community. He said he would answer any questions.

For public comment, a resident named Joseph Martin approached and asked if there is a commitment from the bank and said he is concerned there will be another vacant bank. He added banks don’t bring in sales tax revenue. He would like to see another restaurant. He asked if the one in the store would close. Chairman Hand said that they believed that the property has not been sold to Chase Bank as of yet. He further added that Chase Bank is not intending to keep the branch and will close the Chase Bank location within Jewel-Osco. The resident asked if the Plan Commission and the Board do not approve it, does this matter come to a close and Chairman Hand indicated it was his understanding that they would not then be allowed to move in to that Chili’s space, if that were the case.

Bill Burke said his question was already answered, and stated that he wanted to know if the Jewel branch would close, in which case it would.

Resident and Trustee Reynders spoke to discuss the struggles with the operating within the Jewel branch, as a Chase customer. She stated it is always full and there isn’t any privacy. She doesn’t want to see the building remain vacant. A free-standing bank would be great; you can take care of your business this way. She added as a Village Trustee, she too wants to see that the Village is secure and she would like a revenue generating business, but she doesn’t want to see a vacant building. She stated that the Purple Onion has been vacant for five (5) years, and she believes the Chili’s has been vacant for over a year now and she said that vacancy brings struggle. She would prefer that something goes in there. We have tried to locate restaurants to fill that spot and we could not do it. To have a full, free-standing bank would be great. She feels it will be good for the community all the way around.

Commissioner Foley stated he agrees with Trustee Reynders. He said he doesn’t want to see it sit empty, he is a Chase customer, and he drives to Lockport to bank at a stand-alone bank.

Commissioner McGary stated that two (2) weeks ahead of Chilli’s closing, she was there at Chili’s, and it was already out there that the Chase was locked in on this property, and with that being out there, why would others express interest. She doesn’t feel we need another bank. She would have liked what could have gone in there, before it was locked in.

Commissioner Stanly agreed with Commissioner McGary. He explained we have 7 banks within walking distance of each other. If Chase is all we can get, then that is what it is. But he would prefer to see something else.

Commissioner Marshall said he struggles with this and feels we have moved into the on-line transactional period, and he is not understanding how another bank helps that purpose especially as that location is critical to our Village. He is concerned about our tax revenue dollars. He doesn’t see the financial gain for the Village, he sees customers moving from one location to another. He is challenged by approving this is a bank location. He said that Standard #4 had not been met for the Special Use Permit Findings of Fact. He does not see this as a gain for the Village over all.

Commissioner Lyons stated she would prefer an occupied building over a vacant building. We cannot force the owner to sell to anyone we prefer. She said that based on the workshop, they have been looking in the Village for a long time. Chase doesn’t want to leave the Village; they just want to leave the Jewel. She said Bell Road is like a “Bankers Row”. It doesn’t generate tax revenue like other options but a vacancy isn’t great. She noticed that the over growth was cleaned up. Regarding the East elevation, the Chase sign being not-illuminated facing the residential units would still need an exception as the code also states there cannot be a wall sign on a residential side.

Most of the businesses along Bell Road have wall signs there but they were in place prior to the MI Homes residential project. They were abutting commercial property at that time.

Commissioner McGary stated she wanted to be clear that she wasn’t implying that Chase should not have a stand-alone bank, but that particular property, she feels, would better service our community as a restaurant or something along that line.

Jon from Chase stated that they had looked for a long time, and they were looking for something that would work for them. That location was their target. He said they want to add more business to the Village.

Commissioner Hand asked if they looked at the empty banks at 143rd and Wolf Road. Jon with Chase said they like to have the anchor stores behind them, with the Home Depot and Meijer. The empty 1,300 square feet within the proposed Chase Bank would eventually be used by Chase Bank, not another tenant. But the use for the empty 1,300 square feet has not been determined at this time.

Commissioner Marshall asked about business-to-business growth and more mortgages being processed and asked Jon to provide more information as to how that would help the community. Jon stated they provide tools and loans to customers, that those loans get invested, and there is a multiplier effect, which provides an economic lift. That is how a retail bank makes money. They make projections on a pro-forma basis. He said there is other space around for more businesses to come near Menards.

Commissioner Hand stated that the community was surprised to see Chili’s close. He does have concern with letting it sit empty. The costs of opening restaurants are getting extreme. He said he did count banks in the area. We would not be adding a bank really, unless a new bank would like to occupy the Jewel area. He said in a perfect world, we would have retail or another restaurant. But an occupied building is better than a vacant building.

Lauren, the civil engineer approached, and she stated that they did bring the parking into compliance. The curbs were being replaced, and as part of the redevelopment, they will bring the stalls into compliance. The perimeter curb around the sight, but the curb and sidewalk around the building has been adjusted. With that update, there are only (3) exceptions now. Director Gruba confirmed that he overlooked that the parking stalls were in fact increased in size after the workshop meeting, from 9’x18’ to 9’x19’, and therefore complied with Code.

Director Gruba said that if any of the Commissioners were going to vote against the Major Change to the PUD or the other two special use permit requests, those Commissioners should state which Findings of Fact were not being met, per the Commissioner training. The Commissioners understood.

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

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

Commissioner Foley mad a motion to recommend approval with conditions of a Major Change to PUD with exceptions (a) Permit the encroachment of 13 parking spaces within the required 25-foot front yard; (b) Permit the encroachment of 13 parking spaced within the required thirty front yard landscape setback; and (c) Permit a wall sign on the east façade per the submitted plans, for certain real property located at 10425 S Bell Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marshall. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Lyons, McGary and Chairman Hand voting in favor, and Commissioners Marshall and Stanly voting in opposition citing item 4 from the PUD Findings of Fact. The motion carried in a four (4) to two (2) vote.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to recommend approval of a special use permit for a drive through use, for certain real property located at 14025 S Bell Road. Commissioner McGary seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, McGary, Marshall, Lyons and Chairman Hand all voting in favor, and Commissioner Stanly voting in opposition, citing item 4 from the PUD Findings of Fact. The motion carried in a five (5) to one (1) vote.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to recommend approval of a special use permit for 24-hour operation for certain real property located at 14025 S Bell Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Lyons, Marshall, McGary and Chairman Hand all voting in favor, and Commissioner Stanly voting in opposition citing item 4 from the PUD Findings of Fact. The motion carried in a five (5) to one (1) vote.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to recommend approval of Site Improvement Plans for certain real property located at 14025 S Bell Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McGary. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, McGary, Marshall, Lyons and Chairman Hand all voting in favor and Commissioner Stanly voting in opposition citing item 4 from the PUD Standards. The motion carried with a five (5) to one (1) vote.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to adopt the applicant’s findings as the findings of the Plan Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons. A roll call vote was taken with Commissioners Foley, Lyons, McGary, Marshall and Chairman Hand all voting in favor, and Commissioner Stanly voting in opposition citing item 4 from the PUD Standards. The motion carried with a five (5) to one (1) vote.

This item will go before the Board at a date to be determined.

9. Village Board and Committee Updates

Director Gruba discussed the Board’s action on previous cases that came before the Plan Commission.

Old Oak Park was completed, and the ribbon cutting is on August 13th, 2025. He discussed some other developments in the pipeline regarding two (2) Dunkin locations.

http://www.homerglenil.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_08072025-2977