Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/2026 PZ-16-26 / Mount Prospect Plaza (990-1145 Mt. Prospect Plaza, 940-950 E. Rand Road, 1200-1220 E. Central Road, 802 E Rand Road) / Preliminary & Final PUD, Preliminary & Final Plat1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-16-26 Hearing Date: October 8, 2026 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 990-1145 Mt. Prospect Plaza, 940-950 E. Rand Road, 1200-1220 E. Central Road, 802 E Rand Road (otherwise known as Mount Prospect Plaza) PETITIONER/ PROPERTY OWNER: LBX Mount Prospect TH LLC PUBLICATION DATE: September 23, 2026 REQUEST: Conditional use approval for or a preliminary and final planned unit development, a preliminary and final plat of subdivision, and other relief from the Village of Mount Prospect Village Code as may be required for this project MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Walter Szymczak Ewa Weir Michael Fricano Fay Costa MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Olsen Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Choi— Senior Development Planner Antonia Lalagos— SeniorDevelopmentPlanner INTERESTED PARTIES: Brendan Penny, MPS Law Mike Allison, COO and Head of Asset Management for LBX Mount Prospect TH LLC Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on September 24, 2026. The minutes were approved 5-0 with Commissioner Costa abstaining. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 After hearing one item of New Business, Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-16-26, Mount Prospect Plaza (990-1145 Mt. Prospect Plaza, 940-950 E. Rand Road, 1200-1220 E. Central Road and 802 E. Rand Road), a conditional use request for a preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD) and for a preliminary and final plat of subdivision. The Village Board will serve as the final authority for the requests. Staff Presentation Ms. Choi presented the request of LBX Mount Prospect TH LLC, the Petitioner and property owner of the Mount Prospect Plaza shopping center. Ms. Choi stated that the shopping center is located in the B-3 Community Shopping District and contains the principal shopping center building and several freestanding outlot buildings. Ms. Choi explained that the property was annexed into the Village in 1958 and that the current application was prompted by a proposed additional freestanding building for a potential drive -through -only coffee shop. Ms. Choi reviewed the prior PUD approval granted in 2014, which included two proposed outlot buildings, a drive -through conditional use, and relief permitting approximately 86% Lot coverage. Ms. Choi explained that the approved outlot development did not proceed, building permits were not issued, and the prior PUD approvals lapsed before the current owner acquired the shopping center in July 2022. Ms. Choi explained that the new PUD would formalize the existing shopping center as a unified development containing multiple principal structures and provide a framework for future development. Ms. Choi displayed a county parcel identification map and explained that the property contains several tax -divided parcels that have not been established as separate legal lots of record. The proposed plat would create five lots, designated Lots 1 A through 1 E. Ms. Choi explained that Lot 1Awould contain the main shopping center building; Lot 1 B would contain the existing freestanding multi -tenant commercial building; Lot 1 C would accommodate a potential future drive -through coffee shop; and Lots 1 D and 1 E would contain the existing Lakeside Bank and U.S. Bank buildings, respectively. Ms. Choi stated that existing recorded reciprocal easement and access agreements involving Walmart and Walgreens provide cross -parking and vehicular access rights. Ms. Choi explained that staff determined the existing recorded agreements adequately address the necessary cross -access and shared -parking rights, subject to a condition requiring those rights to remain in effect for the duration of the PUD. Ms. Choi described the requested PUD exceptions. The existing Lakeside Bank building on proposed Lot 1 D would require relief from the B-3 rear yard setback requirement, reducing the required setback from 20 feet to 15.76 feet because the proposed rear lot line would be Located closer to the existing building. The Petitioner also requested recognition of the shopping center's existing 87% lot coverage, exceeding the B-3 maximum of 75%. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 V Ms. Choi explained that staff requested enhancements to the existing shopping center Landscaping. In response, the Petitioner proposed approximately 48 new deciduous and ornamental trees, 189 deciduous shrubs, 143 evergreen shrubs, and 74 perennial and groundcover plantings. Ms. Choi reviewed color -coded landscape plans and site photographs showing existing landscaping, proposed trees and shrubs, and constrained areas along Rand Road, Central Road, North Westgate Road, and the shopping center perimeter. Ms. Choi identified landscaping exceptions requested due to the established configuration of the site, including reduced perimeter landscaping along North Westgate Road, fewer required shade trees along Westgate Road, retention of the existing number of landscape islands, a reduction in landscape island shade trees from 251 to 114, relief from certain Rand Road tree and shrub requirements, and retention of existing foundation landscaping conditions. Ms. Choi noted that some landscaped areas along Central Road are within public property or right-of-way rather than the shopping center property. Ms. Choi stated that the recently adopted Mount Prospect 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the site Corridor Mixed Use and that the proposal is consistent with the land use designation. Ms. Choi reported receipt of one letter of support from a nearby business (Mattress Firm) expressing appreciation for continued investment in the shopping center and the potential benefit to the surrounding commercial area and Village tax base. Staff Recommendation Ms. Choi concluded that staff found the requests consistent with applicable Village standards and recommended approval of the following motion: "To adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of: 1. "A Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision titled "Mount Prospect Plaza", consisting of two (2) sheets, prepared by Blew Surveying, and bearing the latest revision date of 07/22/2026. 2. "A conditional use for a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: a. Development of the site in substantial conformance with the approved development plans which consist of the following: i. "PUD Site Plan", consisting of one (1) sheet, prepared by Blew Surveying and dated 08/19/2026, attached as Exhibit C; and ii. "Landscape Plan", consisting of thirteen (13) sheets, prepared by Kimley-Horn and bearing the latest revision date of 07/10/2026, excerpts of which are attached as Exhibit D. b. Cross -parking and cross -access rights for all lots within the PUD shall be maintained pursuant to the Easement with Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Affecting Land recorded as Document No. 90474272 ("WaLmart CCRs") and the Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded as Document No. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 4 17194391138 ("REA"), as applicable. Such rights shall remain in effect for the duration of the PUD and shall not be terminated, amended, or otherwise modified in a manner that would result in noncompliance with the approved PUD or eliminate required cross -parking or cross -access among the lots within the PUD subdivision. c. Outlot Development Schedule. For purposes of Section 14.504(F) of the Village Code, no specific construction schedule shall apply to the newly created outlot, as no specific development or construction project for the outlot is approved as part of this Planned Unit Development. The establishment and recording of the Final Plat of Subdivision and Final Planned Unit Development shall constitute implementation of the Planned Unit Development. The absence of construction upon the outlot shall not, standing alone, constitute grounds for revocation of the Planned Unit Development pursuant to Section 14.504(F). Any future development of the outlot shall remain subject to all applicable Village approvals and regulations in effect at the time of development. d. Future Development of Outlot. Future development of the newly created outlot shall be considered a minor amendment to the Planned Unit Development, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development, provided that the proposed development is generally consistent with the approved Planned Unit Development and utilizes architecture, building materials, colors, massing, landscaping, and site design that are complementary to and compatible with the shopping center. Approval asa minor amendment shall not waive or supersede any otherwise applicable requirement for conditional use approval, variation, or other zoning relief under the Village Code. Any use requiring conditional use approval shall remain subject to the applicable public hearing and Village Board approval requirements. e. Except for the relief granted by the planned unit development, compliance with all applicable development, fire, building, and other Village Codes and regulations is required. Ms. Choi concluded by noting that the Village Board would make the final decision on the request. Commission Questions for Staff and Discussion Vice Chairman Beattie asked why setback and lot coverage exceptions were being considered when no final development plan for the potential coffee shop was before the Commission. Ms. Choi clarified that the 87% lot coverage reflected existing site conditions and that the 15.76-foot rear yard setback concerned the existing Lakeside Bank building, not the future coffee shop. Ms. Choi confirmed that the future outlot application had not advanced to a public hearing and would be reviewed separately. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 5 Commissioner Weir expressed concern that future development along Rand Road should create a more welcoming street frontage and pedestrian environment rather than presenting building backs or expansive parking areas toward the roadway. Commissioner Weir discussed opportunities for additional green space, landscaped islands, and improved stormwater and landscape conditions. Ms. Choi explained that the current PUD was intended to recognize the existing shopping center and that new construction would be evaluated under applicable code requirements and any necessary zoning relief at the time of a future application. Chairman Donnelly and Vice Chairman Beattie asked how five separate legal lots could remain subject to one PUD and how the PUD would regulate future changes by different lot owners. Ms. Choi explained that a PUD may encompass multiple lots and owners and cited Randhurst Village as an example ofa multi -lot planned unit development. Ms. Choi explained that changes to buildings, site design, and uses would be reviewed under the PUD ordinance and the Village Code, with amendments required when the applicable thresholds were met. Senior Development Planner, Ms. Lalagos, cited Lake Center Plaza as another example of a development consisting of multiple separately developed parcels that remain subject to an overarching planned unit development. Chairman Donnelly questioned whether the proposed lot boundaries could be adjusted to eliminate the existing setback issue. Chairman Donnelly also asked whether the proposed Landscaping was intended to replace trees required under the previously approved PUD. Ms. Choi clarified that the previous PUD had expired and its landscaping requirements were no longer enforceable. The proposed landscape plan would establish the new requirements for the property. Ms. Choi also deferred the question of the proposed lot boundary for Lot 1Dtothe Petitioner. Commissioner Costa asked whether the Commission could require enhanced landscaping in exchange for the requested landscape exceptions, including larger trees or native species. Ms. Choi explained that the Commission could recommend additional conditions as part of the conditional use request. Vice Chairman Beattie asked whether the proposed Landscaping would be enforceable if described as voluntary. Ms. Choi responded that the Landscape plan would be incorporated into the PUD approval and subject to Village inspection and enforcement. Chairman Donnelly questioned whether the excess parking on the site could be reduced to provide additional landscaped areas and lower the overall lot coverage. The Commission discussed the possibility of converting parking stalls to landscape islands and whether future redevelopment could incrementally reduce impervious surface coverage. Commissioner Weir asked whether a building demolished and reconstructed on an individual outlot would be required to meet the zoning standards then in effect. Ms. Choi explained that a substantial redevelopment would likely require a PUD amendment, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 allowing staff and the Commission to evaluate the proposal and seek improved compliance. The Commission discussed the distinction between relief granted for the overall PUD and development standards that would apply to a new or substantially modified building. Chairman Donnelly asked whether future tenants with higher parking demands could occupy existing spaces without additional review. Ms. Choi and the Petitioner's attorney explained that uses creating a parking deficiency or requiring conditional use approval would be subject to further Village review and, when necessary, amendment of the PUD. Ms. Choi stated that the existing cross -parking agreements would continue to apply. The Commission discussed the difference between a minor and major PUD amendment. Ms. Choi explained that the proposed condition for Lot 1 C would permit certain compatible future site development to be reviewed administratively as a minor amendment, but would not waive a separately required conditional use, variation, or other approval. The Commission discussed the ability to review landscaping, parking, site design, and building setbacks as part of any future application. Commission Questions for the Petitioner Chairman Donnelly swore in the Petitioner and members of the project team: • Mike Allison, COO and Head of Asset Management for LBX Mount Prospect TH LLC (Petitioner), 940 E. Rand Road, Mount Prospect IL; and • Brendan Penny, Meltzer, Purtill and Stelle Law, 1450 American Lane, Suite 1900, Schaumburg, IL (Attorney for the Petitioner). The Petitioner's attorney, Mr. Penny, described the request as an effort to formalize the existing site configuration, establish legal lots corresponding more closely to long-standing tax parcels and ground lease areas, and create an outlot for a potential coffee shop tenant. Mr. Penny explained that existing separate parcel identification numbers (PINs) were established for tax purposes and are not considered separate legal lots of record. Mr. Penny stated that the proposed subdivision would resolve a complicated history of tax divisions, easements, and individual site approvals. Mr. Penny explained that existing Lease boundaries and tenant arrangements limit flexibility to alter certain lot lines or common areas without renegotiating these existing agreements. Chairman Donnelly asked why the Lakeside Bank lot line could not simply be adjusted to eliminate the rear yard setback exception. Mr. Penny explained that the proposed lot lines were intended to correspond to the existing leased land and that changes could require amendments to underlying lease agreements. Mr. Penny explained that the proposed lot boundaries were established to match the existing PINs and ground lease agreements. Because the property was historically divided into separate tax parcels rather than legally subdivided, expanding the bank's proposed lot boundaries would complicate the existing ground leases; therefore, the proposed Lot 1 D was configured to align with the existing Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 parcel boundaries and ground lease. Mr. Penny also discussed the potential transfer of the bank property and the benefit of establishing a separately identifiable legal lot. Chairman Donnelly expressed concerns regarding the proposed subdivision into five separate lots of record and whether each lot would independently comply with Village requirements for parking, landscaping, and signage. Vice Chairman Beattie questioned how the Village would maintain consistent development standards across separately owned lots within the overarching PUD. Ms. Choi clarified that individual lots would only be subject to restrictions if they are established in the PUD ordinance, including signage requirements. Ms. Choi and Chairman Donnelly indicated that the existing buildings in Mount Prospect Plaza had already received the necessary Village approvals regarding the existing signage. Mr. Penny explained that the PUD ordinance would continue to govern the property and that future changes inconsistent with approved plans or development standards would require review and, as applicable, a PUD amendment. Commissioner Weir sought clarification regarding how the proposed PUD exceptions would apply to the five individual lots, in the event of future redevelopment. Commissioner Weir questioned whether the relief granted for existing conditions, including setbacks and Lot coverage, could be limited to the existing buildings, with any future demolition and reconstruction triggering compliance with current zoning code requirements. Ms. Choi indicated it was possible to add a condition to limit the relief to the existing buildings. Mr. Penny explained that the proposed PUD would function as a comprehensive ordinance governing the entire shopping center, rather than establishing separate development standards for each individual lot. Mr. Penny clarified that the PUD would not exempt future development from applicable zoning code requirements unless specific exceptions were expressly granted. Any future development requiring site plan approval, conditional use approval, or additional zoning relief would remain subject to Village review and approval, including any applicable conditions. Commissioner Weir reiterated the concern that the exceptions granted under the PUD should not automatically extend to replacement buildings constructed following demolition of existing structures. Mr. Penny cautioned that requiring individual parcels to revert to current zoning standards upon redevelopment could create complications for the overall PUD, particularly because certain exceptions, such as lot coverage, apply collectively to the entire shopping center. Mr. Penny explained that modifying or terminating those exceptions on a parcel -by -parcel basis could create a domino effect, potentially affecting the compliance of other parcels and complicating future redevelopment. Mr. Penny emphasized that maintaining the overarching PUD would provide continuity for the shopping center while preserving the Village's authority to review and regulate future development proposals. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 Chairman Donnelly expressed concern that future development of the proposed outlot could affect the overall PUD's compliance with parking, lot coverage, and other zoning requirements. Chairman Donnelly questioned whether construction of new building would require the entire shopping center to be brought into compliance with current zoning code standards. Ms. Choi clarified that future development of Lot 1 C would require a separate conditional use application for the proposed drive -through establishment, including an evaluation of parking and overall lot coverage. Ms. Choi explained that the proposed PUD conditions would allow development of the outlot to be considered a minor PUD amendment, subject to the discretion of the Director of Community Development, rather than automatically requiring a major PUD amendment. However, the conditional use request would still require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the Village Board. Vice Chairman Beattie sought confirmation that future development of an individual lot would remain subject to the overall standards and restrictions established by the PUD, in addition to any applicable zoning requirements. Ms. Choi and Mr. Penny confirmed that future development would need to comply with the approved PUD and that any proposed deviations would require the appropriate Village approvals. Chairman Donnelly remained concerned about the potential consequences of subdividing the shopping center into five separately owned lots, particularly if a future tenant proposed a use requiring more parking than the existing use. Chairman Donnelly cited the possibility of LA Fitness being replaced by a use with substantially higher parking requirements and questioned how such a change would affect the overall shopping center's parking compliance. Mr. Penny explained that all individual lots, regardless of ownership, would remain subject to the overarching PUD ordinance and existing recorded reciprocal parking and access agreements. Mr. Penny clarified that a future property owner or tenant could not independently establish a use that would cause the shopping center to become noncompliant with the approved PUD. If a proposed change in use resulted in parking demand exceeding the approved parking capacity, an amendment to the PUD would be required, subject to Village review and approval. Mr. Penny further explained that the existing cross -parking and access obligations would remain binding on future property owners and could not be eliminated without addressing the applicable agreements and PUD requirements. Vice Chairman Beattie observed that the PUD would be self-governing and establish development limitations for prospective purchasers and tenants, as any proposed use or redevelopment would need to comply with both the existing PUD restrictions and applicable zoning requirements. Vice Chairman Beattie noted that prospective purchasers would therefore need to evaluate whether an intended use could operate within the established development standards or whether additional approvals would be necessary. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 Mr. Penny agreed and emphasized that the PUD would provide a coordinated regulatory framework for the shopping center. Mr. Penny asserted that rather than maintaining multiple independent conditional use approvals for individual buildings, the PUD ordinance would consolidate the applicable development standards and subsequent amendments into a single governing document. Mr. Penny explained that this approach would allow the Village to track and regulate changes to the shopping center over time while ensuring that individual properties remained subject to the overall development requirements, regardless of whether the lots were separately owned or leased. Chairman Donnelly reiterated concerns regarding the complexity of administering the PUD across multiple separately owned lots and the potential for future tenant changes to affect parking, landscaping, and other development requirements. Vice Chairman Beattie suggested that the established PUD restrictions could also provide a degree of predictability by encouraging prospective purchasers and tenants to pursue uses that fit within the existing development standards. Mr. Penny concluded that the proposed subdivision and PUD would not allow future property owners or tenants to circumvent the Village's zoning code. Mr. Penny emphasized that any proposed use resulting in noncompliance with the PUD, including a use requiring additional parking beyond the shopping center's available capacity, would require an amendment and further Village approval. Mr. Penny stated that the overarching PUD would provide both flexibility and regulatory oversight while preserving the Village's authority to evaluate future development and changes in use. Commissioner Weir sought clarification regarding the proposed PUD and subdivision, noting that Lots 1A, 1 B, 1 D, and 1 E contain existing improvements, while Lot 1 C is intended for future development. Commissioner Weir suggested requiring future redevelopment of the improved lots to return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. Ms. Choi clarified that the request was to establish a new PUD and that the setback exception for Lot 1Dwould apply to the existing Lakeside Bank building. Chairman Donnelly expressed concern that the setback exception for Lot 1 D could create conflicts with future redevelopment of adjacent Lot 1A, if the existing access drive were to be modified. Mr. Allison explained that the internal access drive was protected by a recorded reciprocal access easement. Commissioner Weir further questioned whether future redevelopment would be required to comply with the development standards established by the PUD. Mr. Penny confirmed that any development inconsistent with the approved PUD would require an amendment and additional Village approval. Ms. Choi explained that the proposed site plan would become the approved PUD site plan and that substantial changes, including demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings, would require a major PUD amendment. However, the initial development of Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 10 vacant Lot 1 C could qualify as a minor PUD amendment, subject to the discretion of the Director of Community Development, provided the development substantially conformed to the approved PUD. The proposed drive -through use would still require separate conditional use approval. Chairman Donnelly questioned whether the minor amendment provision would also apply to future redevelopment of Lot 1C. Ms. Choi clarified that the provision was intended for the initial development and that subsequent redevelopment would Likely require a major PUD amendment. Mr. Penny emphasized that the approved PUD would govern future development and that substantial deviations would require Village approval. Chairman Donnelly cautioned that a future use on Lot 1 C not requiring conditional use approval could potentially proceed through the minor amendment process without returning to the Commission. Commissioner Weir sought clarification regarding the setback requirements for Lot 1 C. Mr. Penny explained that the proposed lot boundaries were established in coordination with the prospective developer to accommodate a building that would comply with the applicable setbacks. Any deviations would require additional zoning relief. Chairman Donnelly expressed concern regarding the limited landscaping along Rand Road, particularly near the existing bank, and suggested converting excess parking spaces into landscaped areas to improve the appearance of the shopping center. Commissioner Weir questioned whether portions of the existing parking areas could be converted to green space. Mr. Penny explained that the proposed landscaping was concentrated in areas with sufficient room for healthy tree growth and that additional plantings could negatively affect existing trees. Mr. Penny further noted that certain parking areas were protected by recorded reciprocal parking and access agreements with Walmart and Walgreens, limiting opportunities to remove parking spaces. Chairman Donnelly questioned the landscaping requirements for vacant Lot 1 C and expressed concern that a future development not requiring conditional use approval could potentially proceed administratively without Commission review. Ms. Choi explained that perimeter landscaping requirements would apply to Lot 1 C and that the proposed development would not automatically receive relief from those requirements. Mr. Penny confirmed that the prospective developer had prepared preliminary plans, although the detailed landscaping proposal was part ofa separate application. Commissioner Weir questioned whether Lot 1Cwould benefit from the landscaping and lot coverage exceptions proposed for the overall PUD. Ms. Choi clarified that Lot 1 C would be evaluated as a separate development and would be required to comply with applicable Landscaping standards unless additional relief was requested. Chairman Donnelly also questioned whether future tenant changes on the other lots would require Commission approval. Ms. Choi explained that permitted uses generally would not require additional Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 11 approval unless parking deficiencies or other zoning issues arose, while conditional uses would remain subject to the applicable approval process. Ms. Choi confirmed that the existing reciprocal parking agreements would remain in effect for future tenants. Chairman Donnelly requested clarification regarding the proposed 87% lot coverage exception compared to the zoning code's maximum of 75%. Ms. Choi explained that the 87% exception would apply to the overall PUD and run with the land. Ms. Lalagos clarified that substantial redevelopment, such as demolition and replacement of the principal shopping center buildings, would constitute a major alteration of the concept or intent that it would trigger a major amendment, and at that time the Village could reevaluate the approved lot coverage and require greater compliance with current standards or consider a new request for relief. Commissioner Weir suggested adding conditions requiring future redevelopment or demolition of existing buildings to comply with current zoning code requirements for setbacks, landscaping, and lot coverage, rather than automatically retaining the exceptions granted under the proposed PUD. Chairman Donnelly supported this approach, emphasizing that redevelopment should provide opportunities to bring individual lots into greater compliance with Village standards. Mr. Penny cautioned that requiring individual lots to revert to current zoning standards upon redevelopment could undermine the flexibility and comprehensive nature of the PUD. Mr. Penny explained that the PUD was intended to regulate the shopping center as a whole, rather than treating each lot independently, and that imposing automatic compliance requirements could complicate future redevelopment and property management. Chairman Donnelly emphasized the importance of improving landscaping throughout the shopping center, particularly along major roadways, and suggested that excess parking spaces could be converted into landscaped areas. Chairman Donnelly acknowledged that full compliance with current standards might not always be feasible but indicated a willingness to consider reasonable exceptions if future redevelopment demonstrated meaningful improvements. Chairman Donnelly reiterated that substantial redevelopment, such as replacing an existing building, should trigger a review of the applicable zoning exceptions. Mr. Penny clarified that substantial changes to an individual lot would require a major PUD amendment, subject to Village review and approval; however, the amendment would modify the overarching PUD rather than establish an independent set of zoning approvals for that lot. Any additional exceptions not authorized under the existing PUD would need to be requested through the amendment process. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 12 Chairman Donnelly continued to question the relationship between the proposed subdivision and the overarching PUD, particularly why setback relief was necessary for the existing Lakeside Bank building when no adjacent building currently created a separation issue. Vice Chairman Beattie noted that the setback exception was necessary because the proposed lot line would create a nonconforming setback for the existing building. Mr. Penny explained that the proposed 87% lot coverage exception would apply collectively to all five lots rather than individually and that any future development increasing the overall lot coverage beyond 87% would require an amendment to the PUD. Mr. Penny further clarified that the proposed lot boundaries were designed to reflect existing tax parcels and ground lease agreements, particularly for Lakeside Bank, rather than alter the existing development configuration. Chairman Donnelly observed that the subdivision would formalize the existing parcel boundaries and facilitate separate ownership while creating the need for certain zoning exceptions. Mr. Penny explained that the subdivision was primarily intended to formalize existing lease agreements and tax arrangements and noted that certain property transfers may already be permitted under exceptions to the Illinois Plat Act. Chairman Donnelly subsequently asked whether Village staff supported the proposed subdivision and PUD, and Ms. Choi confirmed that staff recommended approval. The Commission continued discussing how future redevelopment of the shopping center could provide opportunities to improve compliance with current zoning requirements. Commissioner Weir questioned what standards would apply if an existing building were demolished and redeveloped, particularly regarding lot coverage, stormwater management, and landscaping. Commissioner Weir emphasized that requiring the entire shopping center to meet current standards following redevelopment of a single lot would be unreasonable but suggested that redevelopment should trigger an opportunity to improve conditions on the affected property. Ms. Choi explained that the proposed PUD would allow the existing 87% lot coverage to remain in effect, even following redevelopment. However, substantial redevelopment requiring a major PUD amendment would provide the Village an opportunity to request greater compliance with the zoning code's 75% maximum lot coverage requirement. Ms. Choi indicated that a condition could potentially be incorporated requiring future redevelopment to achieve greater compliance with applicable zoning standards, subject to review by the Village Attorney. Commissioner Fricano questioned whether the current PUD approval process presented the best opportunity to reduce the shopping center's lot coverage from 87% toward the 75% maximum permitted by the zoning code, rather than relying on future redevelopment of individual lots to achieve incremental improvements. Commissioner Fricano expressed concern that once the existing conditions were formally approved, it could be difficult to Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 13 require meaningful reductions in lot coverage through future redevelopment proposals. Vice Chairman Beattie explained that redevelopment of an individual outlot would have a relatively minor impact on overall lot coverage and that achieving 75% could require substantial change on the largest lot. Commissioner Costa suggested adding a condition requiring all proposed trees and shrubs to be native species as a means of enhancing the landscaping plan and offsetting the requested reductions in landscaping requirements. Commissioner Costa acknowledged the limited space available for additional plantings and the difficulties associated with removing parking spaces due to existing agreements. Ms. Choi confirmed that such a condition could be included in the PUD approval, and Commissioner Costa asked Chairman Donnelly when the condition could be formally proposed. Chairman Donnelly questioned whether the proposed 87% lot coverage exception would remain in effect indefinitely or whether future demolition and redevelopment would require greater compliance with the zoning code's 75% maximum. Ms. Choi explained that exceptions granted through a commercial PUD generally run with the land unless specific conditions provide otherwise. Mr. Penny clarified that there is a distinction between an individual variation and a PUD with an exception and that full compliance with the 75% lot coverage requirement would be extremely difficultwhen only one outlot is redeveloped. Commissioner Costa suggested that lot coverage could be reduced incrementally as individual outlots undergo redevelopment, rather than requiring the entire shopping center to achieve 75% compliance at once. Commissioner Fricano agreed and questioned whether the Commission should consider requiring a modest reduction in lot coverage as part of the current PUD approval, potentially through the removal of excess parking spaces and installation of additional landscaping. Mr. Allison explained that existing reciprocal easement agreements and tenant leases significantly restrict the property owner's ability to modify common parking areas. Mr. Allison noted that the proposed development of Lot 1 C required consent from Ross to eliminate approximately 53 parking spaces, even though the shopping center would continue to comply with the applicable parking requirements. Mr. Allison emphasized that obtaining tenant consent required negotiations and concessions and that similar approvals could not be guaranteed for future parking modifications. Vice Chairman Beattie questioned why the property owner could not independently convert parking spaces into landscaped islands despite owning the underlying property. Mr. Allison explained that the lease agreements grant tenants certain rights over the common areas, including restrictions on modifications without tenant consent. Mr. Allison further clarified that the Ross lease specifically prohibits alterations to common areas without approval. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 14 Commissioner Fricano reiterated that converting approximately 20 parking spaces into landscaped areas could provide a reasonable opportunity to reduce lot coverage and improve the shopping center's appearance. Mr. Allison explained that the suggested parking area near Lakeside Bank was subject to a ground lease, under which the property owner retained ownership of the land but did not control the improvements. Vice Chairman Beattie observed that the shopping center appeared to have sufficient parking capacity to accommodate additional landscaping but acknowledged that implementing such improvements would require coordination with the affected tenants and compliance with existing agreements. Mr. Allison confirmed that any proposed changes would need to comply with the reciprocal easement agreement (REA) and that amendments to the agreement would require approval from multiple parties. Chairman Donnelly recalled a similar situation at Randhurst Village, where existing parking rights held by Carson Pirie Scott initially prevented modifications to a perimeter roadway during the development of the movie theater. Chairman Donnelly noted that the roadway improvements were eventually accomplished but emphasized the challenges associated with modifying established parking agreements. Commissioner Weir acknowledged the substantial improvements made to Mount Prospect Plaza over the years, particularly the reduction in vacancies and revitalization of the shopping center. Commissioner Weir questioned what requirements would apply if the principal shopping center building on Lot 1Awere demolished and substantially redeveloped and emphasized the importance of establishing appropriate development standards to ensure that future redevelopment would provide opportunities to reduce impervious surface coverage and improve the property for the benefit of the community. Ms. Choi explained that substantial redevelopment of Lot 1Awould provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with considerable discretion in reviewing the proposed development. Ms. Choi indicated that Village staff would encourage future redevelopment to achieve greater compliance with the zoning code in effect at that time. Chairman Donnelly expressed continued concerns regarding the proposed subdivision, noting the complexity of applying different zoning requirements and exceptions to five individual lots within a single PUD. Chairman Donnelly questioned whether the PUD could be approved without subdividing the property. Mr. Allison explained that the proposed subdivision would facilitate potential future ownership changes, including the possible sale of the Lakeside Bank property. Mr. Allison noted that Lakeside Bank's continued occupancy was contingent upon the ability to purchase the property and further explained that the subdivision would help clarify existing property boundaries and address outdated easements. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 15 Ms. Choi confirmed that the subdivision process involved extensive coordination between Village staff and the Petitioner's engineers to identify and eliminate obsolete or unnecessary easements. Commissioner Weir questioned whether the Petitioner intended to sell the proposed outlots. Mr. Allison explained that future sales were possible and that the proposed subdivision would establish clear property boundaries while maintaining applicable development restrictions. Vice Chairman Beattie asked about the benefits of subdividing the property beyond facilitating potential sales. Mr. Allison explained that creating separate lots would also simplify real estate tax administration and reconciliation for tenants, particularly those occupying the multi -tenant outlot building. Chairman Donnelly questioned whether subdivision was necessary to facilitate future property sales. Mr. Penny clarified that certain property transactions may qualify for exceptions under the Illinois Plat Act and therefore may not require subdivision approval. However, Mr. Penny emphasized that the applicability of such exceptions would depend on the specific circumstances of a future transaction. Commissioner Fricano questioned whether the proposed PUD and subdivision would be affected if the prospective coffee shop tenant ultimately decided not to proceed with the development of Lot 1 C. Mr. Penny confirmed that the PUD and subdivision could proceed independently of the proposed coffee shop. Mr. Penny explained that the proposed condition allowing certain changes to be considered minor PUD amendments was intended to facilitate subsequent development review without reopening the entire PUD approval. Mr. Allison added that subdivision approval was a contingency of the prospective tenant's lease. Public Comment There was no one from the public to address the case. Ms. Choi previously stated that staff received one public comment letter from a nearby business, Mattress Firm, expressing support for the project. The business noted that continued investment and redevelopment of Mount Prospect Plaza would benefit the Village and surrounding commercial area, encourage future development, and help strengthen the Village's tax base. Motion and Commission Discussion Commissioner Costa requested an additional condition requiring all newly proposed trees and shrubs to be native species. Chairman Donnelly and the Commission expressed support for the condition, and Ms. Choi confirmed that the condition would be incorporated into the PUD recommendation. Commissioner Weir proposed a second condition, subject to Village Attorney review, addressing the development requirements applicable to future redevelopment involving the demolition or partial demolition of existing buildings. Commissioner Weir emphasized Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 16 the importance of establishing standards that would encourage greater compliance with the zoning code when substantial redevelopment occurs. Ms. Choi summarized the proposed condition as requiring future redevelopment to approach compliance with the zoning code in effect at that time, subject to Village Attorney review. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed support for including the additional condition. Chairman Donnelly closed the public hearing and requested a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use for the preliminary and final Planned Unit Development, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report and the following two additional conditions: 1. All newly proposed trees and shrubs shall be native species. 2. Subject to Village Attorney review, future redevelopment involving demolition or partial demolition of existing buildings shall seek greater compliance with the zoning code in effect at the time of redevelopment. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion and Commissioner Szymczak seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Weir, Beattie, Fricano, Costa, Donnelly NAYS: None The Planning and Zoning Commission gave a positive recommendation (6-0) of the conditional use for the preliminary and final Planned Unit Development to the Village Board for the October 20, 2026 meeting. Chairman Donnelly subsequently requested a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat of subdivision titled "Mount Prospect Plaza", creating five lots of record. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion and Commissioner Szymczak seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Weir, Beattie, Fricano, Costa, Donnelly NAYS: None The Commission voted unanimously 6-0 gave a positive recommendation (6-0) for the preliminary and final plat of subdivision titled "Mount Prospect Plaza" to the Village Board for the October 20, 2026 meeting. Ms. Choi advised that the case was scheduled for Village Board consideration on October 20, 2026, with a second reading scheduled for November 4, 2026. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26 17 After hearing no additional items of New Business or Citizens Wishing To Be Heard, Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fricano, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:18 PM. Ann Choi, Senior Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — October 8, 2026 PZ-16-26