Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Minutes 04/14/2026Village of Mount Prospect Meeting of the Committee of the Whole Tuesday, April 14, 2026 / 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hoefert called the Committee of the Whole meeting too rder at 6:11 p.m. in the Board Room at Village Hall, 50 S. Emerson St. ROLL CALL Members present upon roll call by the Village Clerk: Mayor Paul Hoefert, Trustee Vincent Dante, Trustee Beth DiPrima, Trustee Terri Gens, Trustee Bill Grossi, Trustee John Matuszak, Trustee Colleen Saccotelli Absent: None Mayor Hoefert noted a quorum was present. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Donna Diamond Resident • Inquired about information regarding native plantings discussions and when public participation opportunities might be available. Village Manager Michael Cassady responded, stating that this topic had been discussed at length at the previous Tuesday's board meeting and was held for a second reading. He noted that staff were still engaged in research and the item would not be coming forward the following week, encouraging residents to stay tuned for future discussions. Mayor Hoefert added that there had been substantial discussion at Coffee with Council on Saturday and acknowledged that many knowledgeable residents had shared valuable information with the Village. Mayor Hoefert stated he didn't believe this was currently major issue requiring immediate action and will likely require no future action, though staff would continue gathering information. JOINTWORKSHOP with the PLAN NINGAND ZONING COMMISSION - MP2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND DISCUSSION The Village Clerk called the roll for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Present were Chairman Donnolly and Commissioners Beatie, Costa, Fricano, Olsen, and Weir. Absent were Commissioners Szymczak and Rogers. Jason Shallcross, Director of Community and Economic Development, opened the presentation by emphasizing two key points: first, that all documents being presented were drafts intended for discussion and public input, and second, to address community concerns about the future land use map. He clarified that the Village has no history of expanding downtown into single- family neighborhoods or using eminent domain to acquire single-family homes for redevelopment. Mayor Hoefert reinforced these points, drawing on his 35 years of board experience. He stated that previous Boards had made definitive decisions not to expand into the residential ring surrounding downtown. He expressed confidence that redevelopment would occur outside residential areas. The Board expressed interest in removing residential areas from mixed -use designations. 4.1. Review and Discuss the DRAFT Vision, Goals and Objectives Prepared by Staff for the MP2040 Comprehensive Plan. Charlie Hogan, Development Planner, began his presentation with historical context, explaining the comprehensive plan as a vision document for the next 15-20 years. He emphasized the plan's flexibility and noted it was guidance rather than a binding zoning ordinance, using "should" versus "shall" language. Community Engagement Overview Mr. Hogan reported over 1,200 points of engagement throughout the planning process, including 665 in -person discussions, 565 survey responses, and over 2,000 website visits. The engagement included focus groups, visioning workshops, stakeholder interviews, and participation at various community events. A notable component was engagement with approximately 80 Prospect High School students who expressed desire for more parks, diverse businesses, and additional train lines. Key Community Takeaways The engagement revealed that 91 % of survey respondents were satisfied or highly satisfied with living in Mount Prospect, with strong ratings for parks, libraries, and emergency services. However, some residents expressed concerns about housing affordability, with 74% indicating they would walk more with better infrastructure. Downtown was identified as a clear asset, though other shopping areas and aging retail corridors were seen as needing investment. Vision Statement Mr. Hogan presented the draft vision statement emphasizing Mount Prospect as embodying "the very best of suburban living" with beautiful neighborhoods, vibrant commercial districts, abundant parks, and well-connected transportation. The vision includes sustainable practices, inclusive community facilities, and a strong local identity attracting unique businesses. Board comments: • Appreciates the current inclusive approach for all ages. • Supports the vision, noting it reflects the community's current state. • Suggested the communitywas becoming more "urban suburban" ratherthan purely suburban, given its proximityto Chicago and regional development patterns. Goals and Objectives Mr. Hogan outlined seven land use goals focusing on protecting neighborhoods first while directing growth to targeted areas like Randhurst Village, downtown, and major commercial corridors. Additional goals addressed walkable development patterns, economic vitality, sustainability, compatibility between different land uses, coordination with infrastructure decisions, and evaluation of annexation opportunities. Housingand neighborhood goals emphasized protecting established residential characterwhile addressing gaps for seniors wanting to age in place and younger households seeking entry- level ownership opportunities. The plan proposed targeting townhomes and smaller condos in specific areas, like Rand hurstVillage, ratherthan a blanket application across neighborhoods. Commercial and industrial goals covered downtown continuity, development of secondary activity centers, beautification efforts, corner store concepts, and industrial area improvements. The plan also addressed economic development through business diversification, branding and identity development, retention programs, and leveraging regional assets. Community facilities goals focused on infrastructure improvements, public safety, facilities reinvestment, and creating gathering spaces particularly foryouth. Transportation goals emphasized safety, multimodal connectivity, transit coordination, traffic operations, and emerging mobility technologies. Parks and environment goals addressed access gaps, facility reinvestment, natural amenities, destination programming, and environmental stewardship, including tree canopy preservation and stormwater management. Future Land Use Map Discussion Hogan explained the future land use map as guidance that does not change zoning or authorize redevelopment. Any actual land use changes would require full public review processes. The map designated areas as community residential (single-family homes), multifamily, high -density mixed use (downtown, Randhurst Village), corridor mixed use (along major roads), business industrial, and parks. Key map features included multiple neighborhood commercial intersections in northeast Mount Prospect for small-scale retail and offices, a high -density mixed -use designation for Randhurst Village to support its success, whether through entertainment or residential development, and downtown flexibility at the edges while maintaining the core's character. For the south side, a mixed -use corridor along Elmhurst Road would support car -oriented businesses and could include entertainment, medical facilities, hotels, offices, and possibly mid - rise residential buildings. A small, high -density mixed -use area between Elmhurst Road and Wall Street reflects successful recent development trends, while commercial -industrial zones maintain flexibility for different uses. Board Discussion • Trustee DiPrima raised detailed questions about development definitions, expressing discomfort with language about "zoning reforms" and preferring case -by- case flexibility rather than preemptive zoning changes. She emphasized the importance of preserving existing residential areas and suggested learning from the 2013 Lakota map's approach of identifying specific opportunity zones. • Trustee Gens requested more comprehensive data analysis including demographic trends, infrastructure assessments, and specific benchmarks for goals and objectives. She emphasized the need for connecting data analysis to proposed objectives and ensuring safety is addressed. • Trustee Saccotelli thanked the community for their input and participation throughout this process. Emphasized that the plan is a draft. She supports a balance between economic development and maintaining neighborhoods. She thanked staff for their commitment to these goals in the plan. • Trustee Dante emphasized neighborhood character and quality as the top priority. He supported expanding senior -oriented housing and revitalizing aging retail corridors while expressing concerns about corner store concepts potentially impacting the downtown grocery store. • Trustee Matuszak questioned details about senior housing levels, Randhurst Village ownership constraints, teen space concepts, and specificity in neighborhood investment goals. He strongly opposed any residential homes being targeted for redevelopment. • Trustee Grossi emphasized concentrating on Village -controlled improvements while being cautious about partnership expenses. He questioned transit assumptions given financial challenges facing public transportation and stressed the importance of maintaining single-family zoning protections. Director Shallcross answered questions from the Board. Public Comment: Several residents addressed the Board to express concerns about the Comprehensive Plan and process. They expressed concerns about communication failures, with many learning about the meeting less than 24 hours in advance through neighbor -to -neighbor contact rather than official Village notification. Several speakers criticized the process as inadequate for meaningful public participation and requested direct mailing for affected residents. Residents also provided input on various plan elements and requested better communication about development projects, suggestions for integrating renewable energy, concerns about traffic, and recommendations for preserving green space. Some speakers supported concepts like corner stores and walkable development, while others emphasized the need to slow growth and focus on sustainability. Adam Koszyk- Delivered extensive remarks criticizing the lack of public notification and the designation of his block in the draft future land use plan for high -density mixed -use. He argued this contradicted recent assurances from Village staff that no zoning changes were planned and threatened legal action over what he characterized as deliberate concealment of the planning process. (Clerk's note: Mr. Koszyksubmitted his written comment and written statement in opposition to the proposed future land use designation for the 200 block of South Wille Street. Both are available for viewing in the Clerk's office at Village Hall, 50 S. Emerson Street) • LindaWaycie- Supportforseniorand affordable housing through inclusionaryzoning ordinances • Jon Porcher • John Ward • Resident • ThanoTziforos • Charles Chen • Brenda Smith • Al Moreno • Nate DeVan • Veronica Trejo • Robin Jennings • MaryAnn Wilkinson • Resident • Martin Osinski • Resident Planningand Zoning Commission members provided supportive comments aboutthe planning process while acknowledging the map concerns. Director Shallcross acknowledged the Board's clear direction regarding residential areas and confirmed staff would revise the map accordingly. He explained that the February neighborhood meeting had addressed specific Saint Mark's property questions ratherthan the broader comprehensive plan, noting the distinction between immediate development plans and long- range land use guidance. The next steps include publishing revised vision, goals, objectives and future land use map based on the evening's feedback, conducting a public open house with the draft plan document, and proceeding through Planning and Zoning Commission and Village Board adoption processes. Mayor Hoefert called for a short recess at 9:00 pm. The meeting resumed at 9:07 p.m. Each Trustee addressed the residents' comments and concerns, and Mayor Hoefert delivered closing remarks. Mayor Hoefert announced that the remaining agenda items would be postponed to the April 21 st Committee of the Whole meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS 5.1. Review and Discussion of draft resolution in opposition to State Preemption of Local Zoning Authority (The BUILD Act HB 5626) No discussion - postponed to a future meeting. 5.2. Evaluation of Zoning Code Text Amendments to Promote Single -Family Residential Neighborhoods No discussion - postponed to a future meeting. 6.1. Assubmitted No report. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Gens announced a Human Services event scheduled for Fridayfrom 9:30 to 11:30 am at Village Hall, featuring organizations for seniors to connectwith and various resources. Trustee Grossi reminded residents that April 15th was the tax filing deadline and encouraged filing extensions if needed. ADJOURNMENT With no additional business to conduct, Mayor Hoefert asked for a motion to adjourn. Trustee Dante seconded by Trustee Gens,_motioned to adjourn the meeting. By unanimous voice vote, the April 14, 2026 Meeting of the Village Board of Trustees adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen M. Agoranos Village Clerk