Planning and Zoning Commission

Village of Mount Prospect Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 50 S. Emerson St. Mount Prospect, IL 60056 December 11, 2025 Village Hall - 3rd Floor Board Room 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1. PZ-26-25 / 17 S Maple Street / CU: Setback Reduction, VARs: Increases to Accessory Structure Size and Height, Lot Coverage, Accessory Structure in Easement 2.2. PZ-20-25 / 810 South I Oka Avenue / CU: Setback Reduction 2.3. PZ-23-25 / 1699 Wall St 550-Q / CU: Massage Therapy 2.4. PZ-25-25 / 1728 E Kensington Rd / CU: Massage Therapy 3. NEW BUSINESS 3.1. PZ-15-25 / 605 W. Golf Road / Final Plat of Subdivision and CU: Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development / Village Board Final 4. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD 5. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 847|392-6000, EXTENSION 5307 Page 1 of 66  1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-26-25 Hearing Date: November 13, 2025 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 17 S. Maple Street PETITIONER: Mitch Kenoe PUBLICATION DATE: October 29, 2025 REQUEST: Conditional use to reduce the minimum rear yard setback and variations to permit an increase to the maximum accessory structure height, maximum accessory structure size, maximum lot coverage, and to allow an accessory structure to be located within an easement. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Walter Szymczak Richard Rogers Fay Costa MEMBERS ABSENT: Ewa Weir Donald Olsen Michael Fricano STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Hogan – Development Planner Jason Shallcross – Director of Community & Economic Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Mitch Kenoe, Petitioner/Property Owner Tom Karlov, Resident and Neighbor 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 October 23, 2025. The minutes were approved 4-0 (Commissioner Costa arrived after the approval of the meeting minutes). Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 2 of 66  2 Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-26-25, 17 S. Maple Street, a request for conditional use approval to reduce the rear yard setback and variations to allow increases to accessory structure height, size, and lot coverage, as well as a variation to permit an accessory structure to be located within an easement. Director Shallcross presented the existing nonconforming shed (constructed by a previous homeowner) at the rear of the property and the requested zoning relief for the conversion of an existing shed into an art studio with a porch addition, including: • A variation from Section 14.306(A)(3)(a) to permit an increase to the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure in a residential district from 10 feet to 10.67 feet. (+6.7% PZ Final) • A variation from Section 14.306(B)(1)(b) to permit an increase to the maximum size requirement of an accessory structure from 157 square feet to 323 square feet. (+205.7% VB Final) • A variation from Section 14.306(B)(2)(c) to permit an accessory structure to be constructed within an easement in perpetuity. (VB Final) • A variation from Section 14.1005(C)(1) to permit an increase to the maximum lot coverage requirement from 50% to 56.2%. (+12.3% PZ Final) • A conditional use permit to reduce the minimum rear yard setback for accessory structures from 3 feet (3’-0”) to 2 inches (0’-2”) for the construction of an accessory structure. (-94.4% VB Final) Director Shallcross presented a slide providing compliance with the bulk regulations of the R-a district. out that the existing lot coverage already exceeds what is permitted. Director Shallcross noted that staff reviewed ADA Title II considerations and acknowledged the medical documentation submitted showing the therapeutic benefit of the structure for the petitioner’s daughter. Director Shallcross clarified that while the interior conversion of the shed could be permitted as a reasonable accommodation, the porch addition requires zoning approval because it is considered new construction. A condition of the permit required that the shed would need to de-convert the shed into an art studio or completely demolish the shed. Director Shallcross further explained that no letters of objection were received from applicable utility companies regarding the structure’s location beneath overhead utility lines, provided that no further expansion occurs. Director Shallcross concluded his presentation with staff’s recommendation approving of the conditional use and variations as a reasonable accommodation but did not support allowing the structure to remain beyond the sale of the home. Recommended conditions included: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 3 of 66  3 Director Shallcross concluded that staff finds that the proposed conditional use and variations satisfy the criteria for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act but did not support allowing the structure to remain beyond the sale of the home. Director Shallcross requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: “Motion to: 1. Approve a variation from Section 14.306(A)(3)(a) to permit an increase to the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure in a residential district from 10 feet to 10.67 feet. 2. Approve a variation from Section 14.1005(C)(1) to permit an increase to the maximum lot coverage requirement from 50% to 56.2%, subject to the following condition: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a French drain, or other acceptable means of providing the required storage/infiltration for the area exceeding allowable lot coverage, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 3. Recommend approval of a conditional use to reduce the minimum rear side yard setback applicable to accessory structures from three feet (3’-0”) to zero feet two inches (0’-2”) for the construction of an accessory structure at 17 S Maple Street, Case No. PZ-26-25, subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional use for the reduced rear yard setback for accessory structures shall apply to the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition only and shall not apply to any other principal or accessory structure; b. The improvements shall be in strict conformance with the plat of survey attached as Exhibit B of the staff report; c. The art/play studio shall be used only for personal, non-commercial purposes consistent with the Make-A-Wish Foundation request and satisfy Village Home Occupation regulations; and d. The art/play studio including the porch/patio addition shall be restored to its original nonconforming shed use or shall be demolished in its entirety prior to the Village’s issuance of a transfer stamp for any future sale or conveyance of the property. 4. Recommend approval of a variation from Section 14.306(B)(1)(b) to permit an increase to the maximum size requirement of an accessory structure from 157 square feet to 323 SF. 5. Recommend approval of a variation from Section 14.306(B)(2)(c) to permit an accessory structure to be constructed within an easement, subject to the following condition: a. The Petitioner shall obtain written approval from all applicable utility providers authorizing the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition to Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 4 of 66  4 remain in its proposed location and shall comply with any conditions or requirements imposed by the utility companies. 6. Recommend approval of a statement to the Village Board that, recognizing that certain zoning requests in the application are Planning and Zoning Commission final and others merely recommendations, the Village Board review the application as a whole, feeling free to modify or rescind any aspects of the application that are Planning and Zoning Commission final where it deems it in the best interest of the Village.” Director Shallcross highlighted the inclusion of the sixth condition that would allow the Village Board to modify or rescind any of the zoning requests that were already approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Director Shallcross stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision on the request for increased accessory structure size and lot coverage, and the Village Board’s decision is final for the remaining requests. Chairman Donnelly asked what would happen if the Planning and Zoning Commission would deny the requests under the authority of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Director Shallcross stated that all zoning requests that are Planning and Zoning Commission final, if denied by the Commission, would be appealable to the Village Board, and an appeal would need to be filed within five days of the denial. Director Shallcross also reviewed the conditions of approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a French drain, or other acceptable means of providing the required storage/infiltration for the area exceeding allowable lot coverage, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 2. The conditional use for the reduced rear yard setback for accessory structures shall apply to the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition only and shall not apply to any other principal or accessory structure; 3. The improvements shall be in strict conformance with the plat of survey attached as Exhibit B of the staff report; 4. The art/play studio shall be used only for personal, non-commercial purposes consistent with the Make-A-Wish Foundation request and satisfy Village Home Occupation regulations; and 5. The art/play studio, including the porch/patio addition shall be restored to its original nonconforming shed use or shall be demolished in its entirety prior to the Village’s issuance of a transfer stamp for any future sale or conveyance of the property. 6. The Petitioner shall obtain written approval from all applicable utility providers authorizing the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition to remain in its proposed location and shall comply with any conditions or requirements imposed by the utility companies. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 5 of 66  5 Chairman Donnelly stated that the shed was constructed without a permit, and the lot coverage was not checked when the shed was built. Director Shallcross confirmed that the shed is an illegal nonconforming structure. Vice Chairman Beattie expressed confusion how the zoning requests were related to the disability of the petitioner’s daughter. Director Shallcross stated that the Petitioner provided a letter from a medical professional overseeing the treatment of the Petitioner’s daughter documenting the disability and the use of the shed as beneficial for therapeutic purposes. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Donnelly closed the public hearing and swore in the petitioner, Mitch Kenoe, 17 S. Maple Street. Mr. Kenoe described the project as part of a Make-A-Wish Foundation experience for his daughter, who suffers from chronic medical conditions including Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and a brain anomaly requiring ongoing therapies. Mr. Kenoe stated that the art/play studio provides a therapeutic, calming environment that helps her decompress after treatments. Mr. Kenoe explained that the Make-A-Wish funding has already been used for wiring, insulation, and interior improvements, making reconstruction infeasible. Mr. Kenoe stated that he is willing to install the French drain and comply with all required conditions. Mr. Kenoe requested consideration for allowing the structure to remain beyond the sale of the home, noting the structure’s compatibility with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Beattie asked the Petitioner what the connection between the Petitioner’s daughter’s medical conditions and the improvements being requested. Mr. Kenoe explained that the accommodation is intended to address his daughter’s significant emotional and psychological trauma related to her medical care. Mr. Kenoe noted that although his daughter currently has no physical limitations due to ongoing treatment, she has experienced severe medical events, including two anaphylactic reactions in the past year, and continues to undergo frequent medical interventions. The proposed improvements are intended to provide a safe, calming space to help manage her anxiety associated with these ongoing medical needs. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner to clarify why the existing non-permitted shed must remain to accommodate his daughter’s needs, and he questioned what alternatives were considered to provide a code-compliant space within the backyard and why those options were not pursued instead of relying on a structure that does not meet Village requirements. Chairman Donnelly asked if the Make-A-Wish foundation provide the money to provide a shed, a legal shed, on the property for her. Mr. Kenoe responded that no alternative structure was pursued because the family has already invested their available funds into the temporary conversion of the existing shed, as previously described by Director Shallcross. Mr. Kenoe explained that the only remaining grant funds are Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 6 of 66  6 designated specifically for the hardscape patio shown in the renderings, which would provide accessible connection to the structure. Chairman Donnelly asked Mr. Kenoe whether a building permit had been obtained prior to undertaking the temporary conversion of the shed. Mr. Kenoe confirmed that the permit for the temporary work was secured with the Village before the conversion was completed. Commissioner Rogers asked whether the structure was constructed on a slab-on-grade foundation and if the Petitioner was aware that, should utility work be required in the area, the entire structure might need to be removed. Mr. Kenoe confirmed that he is aware of the potential risk associated with the structure’s location beneath the utility lines and stated that he had spoken with all three utility providers, who indicated they had no objections given the circumstances. Chairman Donnelly also noted that it was noted in the staff report that the Petitioner is aware and there are letters from the utility companies stating that they do not have any concerns with the structure there. Chairman Donnelly noted additional concerns regarding the property’s lot coverage and potential drainage impacts. Chairman Donnelly explained that the concrete structure is located within an area where several properties drain toward the rear yards. Chairman Donnelly stated that this presents a technical concern for the Commission’s consideration. Vice Chairman Beattie asked the Petitioner if the porch addition was a necessity or if the shed conversion would be sufficient to fill the therapeutic needs of the Petitioner’s daughter. Mr. Kenoe replied that the removal of the porch addition could be a consideration and concession that could be made. Chairman Donnelly noted that while staff’s recommendation already includes a condition requiring the removal or restoration of the structure prior to the sale of the property, he would be supportive of a condition clarifying that the structure must be demolished to bring the lot back into conformance. Chairman Donnelly stated that this approach would allow the petitioner to maintain use of the art/play studio during their occupancy but would require its removal once the property is sold, ensuring the site ultimately complies with zoning regulations related to lot coverage and drainage. Mr. Kenoe stated that he preferred a condition that would allow the structure to remain on the property in perpetuity, provided its use remained non-habitable. He emphasized that the shed pre-dated his ownership by decades and that its improvement into an art/play studio has enhanced the property and surrounding neighborhood. Chairman Donnelly responded that typically, non-permitted accessory structures would be required to be removed to restore compliance but acknowledged the unique accessibility circumstances presented by the petitioner. Vice Chairman Beattie agreed, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 7 of 66  7 stating that while the request is understandable given the needs of the petitioner’s daughter, the relief should remain tied to those needs rather than run with the land. Vice Chairman Beattie noted that the intent of the accommodation is not to increase the property’s resale value, but to address an accessibility-related necessity. Mr. Kenoe asked whether the structure could remain and simply be reverted to a shed use upon sale of the property. Vice Chairman Beattie and Chairman Donnelly explained that full removal would likely be necessary to restore compliance with lot coverage and drainage requirements. Mr. Kenoe then asked for clarification that the Commission would consider approval contingent on the removal of the structure upon sale of the home, to which Chairman Donnelly indicated leaning towards that direction. Director Shallcross clarified that staff’s recommended condition already specifies that the art/play studio and porch/patio addition must either be restored to its original non- conforming shed use or demolished in its entirety prior to the Village’s issuance of a transfer stamp. Director Shallcross advised that, should the Commission wish to modify the condition to require demolition only, that modification should be explicitly included in the motion to approve. Vice Chairman Beattie noted that the petitioner faced a unique situation, having inherited a non-compliant structure not of his own doing. Vice Chairman Beattie suggested that, rather than maintaining a structure that required multiple variances, it might be preferable to construct a compliant alternative elsewhere on the lot. Mr. Kenoe responded that the structure was already fully improved with insulation, drywall, and windows, and that the work was completed through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Mr. Kenoe stated that numerous options had been considered but this project best met his family’s needs given their circumstances and health limitations. Mr. Kenoe added that Make-A-Wish had already funded and completed the work, and that the improvements were completed with the Village’s knowledge. Chairman Donnelly invited the public to speak. Tom Karlov, 300 E. Evergreen Avenue, spoke in support of the petition. Mr. Karlov stated that he has known the petitioner’s family for approximately five years and noted that both Mr. Kenoe’s wife and daughter have serious health conditions. Mr. Karlov explained that the community previously organized fundraisers, including the “June Bug Fund,” to assist the family. Mr. Karlov stated that the shed has existed for decades and was improved through the Make-A-Wish Foundation to provide a space where the petitioner’s wife and daughter could spend time together. Mr. Karlov described the structure as well-built and compatible with the neighborhood and expressed his full support for allowing it to remain. Mr. Karlov and Chairman Donnelly discussed neighborhood drainage, with Mr. Karlov stating that he was not aware of any current flooding or drainage issues in the area. Mr. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 8 of 66  8 Karlov emphasized that the shed has existed for decades, is well built, and complements the historic character of the neighborhood. Mr. Karlov expressed his hope that the structure could continue to remain and provide a space for the petitioner’s wife and daughter to spend time together. Commissioner Costa inquired about the height of the structure and its proximity to the ComEd utility lines, asking whether the utility’s approval was permanent or time limited. Vice Chairman noted that utility representatives had confirmed the structure’s placement within the easement and their need for continued access. Director Shallcross added that all utility providers, including ComEd, had approved the plans as submitted—specifically prohibiting any future expansion but allowing the existing structure and porch to remain. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Donnelly closed the public hearing. Chairman Donnelly stated that the goal should be to eventually bring the property back into full zoning compliance, noting that while the family may remain in the home for many years, the Village cannot predict how future commissions might view the nonconforming structure. Chairman Donnelly supported allowing continued use during the current ownership but requiring demolition prior to resale to ensure long-term compliance. Director Shallcross confirmed that a future property owner could petition to amend the ordinance and request that the condition be modified or removed at a later date but emphasized that the current approval should require removal prior to issuance of a transfer stamp. Director Shallcross advised against imposing any fixed time limit, recommending that the transfer-stamp condition remain as the most enforceable mechanism. Chairman Donnelly summarized that the intent is to allow the existing use for the benefit of the current family, while ensuring the property returns to compliance once the home is sold—consistent with how the Village has handled past accessibility-related accommodations. Director Shallcross clarified that the current discussion concerned only whether the property must be restored to compliance upon sale, not the separate issue of the porch addition. Director Shallcross explained that the proposed modification would remove the option for the petitioner to restore the structure to a nonconforming shed and instead require full removal prior to the sale of the property. Vice Chairman Beattie confirmed that the intent was to strike the phrase “restored to its original nonconforming shed use” from the staff-recommended condition, thereby requiring demolition of the structure to bring the lot back into compliance. Chairman Donnelly reiterated that the condition would ensure conformance at resale while allowing the family to continue use of the structure during their occupancy. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 9 of 66  9 Vice Chairman Beattie asked whether a condition should be added to prohibit the structure from being made habitable or equipped with plumbing. Director Shallcross responded that such use is already prohibited by the zoning code and that any conversion to a living space would constitute a violation of other zoning code regulations. The Commission agreed that no additional conditions were necessary. Chairman Donnelly then asked whether there were any concerns regarding the proposed porch addition. Director Shallcross noted that the porch would extend seven feet from the south side of the existing shed, continuing the existing two-inch setback from the rear property line and maintaining the nonconforming condition. A straw vote was taken regarding modification of staff’s recommended transfer-stamp condition. By a vote of 3–2, the Planning and Zoning Commission supported requiring complete demolition of the accessory structure upon the future sale of the subject property, removing the option to restore the structure to a storage shed. Chairman Donnelly acknowledged that while the porch and associated coverage increase are not ideal, he supported the modification given the accessibility-related purpose of the request and the condition requiring drainage improvements to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Beattie made a motion and Commissioner Szymczak seconded the motion to approve the requests as listed in the staff report, but amending a condition, and summarized here: 1. Approve a variation from Section 14.306(A)(3)(a) to permit an increase to the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure in a residential district from 10 feet to 10.67 feet. 2. Approve a variation from Section 14.1005(C)(1) to permit an increase to the maximum lot coverage requirement from 50% to 56.2%, subject to the following condition: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a French drain, or other acceptable means of providing the required storage/infiltration for the area exceeding allowable lot coverage, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 3. Recommend approval of a conditional use to reduce the minimum rear side yard setback applicable to accessory structures from three feet (3’-0”) to zero feet two inches (0’-2”) for the construction of an accessory structure at 17 S Maple Street, Case No. PZ-26-25, subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional use for the reduced rear yard setback for accessory structures shall apply to the art/play studio including the porch/patio Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 10 of 66  10 addition only and shall not apply to any other principal or accessory structure; b. The improvements shall be in strict conformance with the plat of survey attached as Exhibit B of the staff report; c. The art/play studio shall be used only for personal, non-commercial purposes consistent with the Make-A-Wish Foundation request and satisfy Village Home Occupation regulations; and d. The art/play studio, including the porch/patio addition, shall be demolished in its entirety prior to the Village’s issuance of a transfer stamp for any future sale or conveyance of the property. 4. Recommend approval of a variation from Section 14.306(B)(1)(b) to permit an increase to the maximum size requirement of an accessory structure from 157 square feet to 323 SF. 5. Recommend approval of a variation from Section 14.306(B)(2)(c) to permit an accessory structure to be constructed within an easement, subject to the following condition: a. The Petitioner shall obtain written approval from all applicable utility providers authorizing the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition to remain in its proposed location and shall comply with any conditions or requirements imposed by the utility companies. 6. Recommend approval of a statement to the Village Board that, recognizing that certain zoning requests in the application are Planning and Zoning Commission final and others merely recommendations, the Village Board review the application as a whole, feeling free to modify or rescind any aspects of the application that are Planning and Zoning Commission final where it deems it in the best interest of the Village. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Beattie, Costa, Donnelly NAYS: Rogers The Planning and Zoning Commission gave a positive recommendation (4-1) for the next Village Board meeting to be held on December 2, 2025. After hearing three more items of new business, Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Szymczak, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 PM. Ann Choi, Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Page 11 of 66  1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-20-25 Hearing Date: November 13, 2025 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 810 S. I Oka Ave PETITIONER: Tom Sirant PUBLICATION DATE: October 29, 2025 REQUEST: Conditional use to reduce the minimum interior (north) side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 6.5 feet to accommodate a pergola attached to the single-family residence at 810 S I Oka Avenue. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Walter Szymczak Richard Rogers Fay Costa MEMBERS ABSENT: Ewa Weir Donald Olsen Michael Fricano STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Hogan – Development Planner Jason Shallcross – Director of Community & Economic Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Tom Sirant, Petitioner/Property Owner Chessa Sirant, Property Owner 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 October 23, 2025. The minutes were approved 4-0 (Commissioner Costa arrived after the approval of the meeting minutes). After hearing the first item of new business, Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-20-25, a request by the property owner for conditional use approval to reduce the minimum interior (north) Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-20-25 Page 12 of 66  2 side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 6.5 feet to accommodate a pergola attached to the single-family residence at 810 S I Oka Avenue. Staff Presentation Mr. Hogan summarized the background of the request. He explained that a building permit was issued in 2024 for a 46'-8" x 14'-3" attached pergola, which, because it is physically connected to the principal structure, is regulated by principal-structure setbacks rather than accessory- structure standards. Under R-1 zoning, the required north side yard setback is 7.5 feet. Upon final inspection in spring 2025, staff determined that the pergola had been built 6.5 feet from the property line, encroaching 1 foot into the required setback. Mr. Hogan explained that the petitioner was advised either to relocate the structure or to pursue retroactive zoning relief through a conditional use request. The petitioner is seeking the latter in order to retain the pergola as constructed. Mr. Hogan provided an overview of zoning compliance and bulk regulations for the R-1 District, noting that the proposal involves no changes to lot coverage, front yard, rear yard, or exterior side yard setbacks. Only the interior (north) side yard is affected. Mr. Hogan also summarized the property history, noting that the lot is bordered entirely by R-1 zoning and that improvements over time have been typical of single-family residences. He stated that the setback encroachment occurred despite the originally issued permit and that conditional use relief is the appropriate remedy under Section 14.604 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows limited setback reductions as a conditional use. Public Comment Mr. Hogan reported that: • One letter of support was submitted by the owner of 808 S I Oka Avenue, the most directly affected neighboring property to the north. • One letter of opposition was received from another nearby resident expressing concern regarding potential precedent; staff clarified that all conditional uses are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Standards & Findings Mr. Hogan presented staff’s findings. Staff determined that the 1-foot setback reduction is a minor deviation that will not create adverse impacts on adjacent properties, public safety, or neighborhood character. The most affected neighbor expressed written support, and the request is consistent with Village plans encouraging reasonable residential reinvestment. Staff noted that the conditional use conforms to applicable standards. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-20-25 Page 13 of 66  3 In conclusion, Mr. Hogan stated that staff finds that the proposed setback reduction satisfies the criteria for a conditional use. Mr. Hogan requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: “Motion to approve: 1. A conditional use to reduce the minimum interior side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 6.5 feet for the construction of a pergola at 810 South I Oka Avenue, Case No. PZ-20-25, subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional use for the reduced interior side yard setback shall apply only to the pergola and shall not apply to any other elements of a principal or accessory structure; b. The improvements shall be in strict conformance with the plat of survey attached as Exhibit B in the staff report; Mr. Hogan stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision on the requests is final. Discussion After Mr. Hogan concluded his presentation, commissioners asked several questions. Chairman Donnelly asked for clarification on the details of the permit process that resulted in the non-conformity. Director Shallcross explained how the project was not built to the specification outlined in the permit, which lead to the encroachment. Commissioner Beattie asked how the pergola is connected to the structure of the house. Staff explained that it is connected into the roof structure, but the petitioner could explain the specific construction process. Commissioner Costa asked what would be involved in bringing the structure into conformance with the code. Director Shallcross explained that architectural and other work that would need to be completed and stated that the petitioner was requesting relief because the they believed the cost would be too high. Commissioner Beattie asked for more information on the permit process which staff explained. Chairman Donnelly asked if the setback reduction would only apply to the pergola or if it applies to other parts of the structure. Director Shallcross clarified that the condition as written would only apply to the pergola. Chairman Donnelly then called up the petitioner. After swearing them in, he asked how the non- conformance came to be and the petitioner explained that it was an honest mistake. Several commissioners expressed concern that the non-conformance created by the conditional use request would exist “forever” or would eventually be modified to create a three-season room or Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-20-25 Page 14 of 66  4 full addition. The petitioner stated that was not their intention and staff clarified that as the motion is written, that would only be possible through a new conditional use request. With no further questions, Commissioner Donnelly closed the hearing and called for a motion to approve the conditional use request subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Beattie made a motion that was seconded by Commissioner Szymczak. Hearing no further discussion, the Chairman requested a roll call: UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Beattie, Rogers, Costa, Donnelly, NAYS: none The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request (5-0). After hearing two more items of new business, Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Szymczak, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 PM. Charlie Hogan, Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-20-25 Page 15 of 66  1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-23-25 Hearing Date: November 13, 2025 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1699 Wall Street Suite 550-Q PETITIONER: Sharon LMT S&M LLC PUBLICATION DATE: October 29, 2025 REQUEST: Conditional use approval to operate a massage therapy establishment at the subject property. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Fay Costa Richard Rogers Walter Szymczak MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Fricano Donald Olsen Ewa Weir STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Hogan – Development Planner Jason Shallcross – Director of Community and Economic Development INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 23, 2025. The minutes were approved 3-0 with Commissioner Rogers and Commission Costa abstaining from the vote. After hearing two items of new business, Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-23-25, 1699 Wall Street Suite 550-Q, a request for a conditional use to operate a massage therapy establishment at the subject property. Mr. Hogan introduced the subject property, a seven-story multi-tenant office building with a mixture of professional office uses. He reported that the petitioner formerly operated a massage therapy establishment (“A Plus Massages”) at the subject property from 2016 to 2022, but she closed the business in 2022. Mr. Hogan explained that the petitioner would like to re-establish her massage therapy business at the subject property. Mr. Hogan noted that massage therapy businesses require a new conditional use approval when there is a change of location or a change of ownership, or when the use is discontinued for 120 days. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-23-25 Page 16 of 66  2 Mr. Hogan explained that the business will occupy a 120-square foot suite at the subject property. Shared bathrooms are located on the same floor and are accessible with a door code provided to clients by the petitioner. The petitioner wrote in her application that she strives to give her clients a better quality of life through the use of therapies to ease pain and promote overall wellness. Mr. Hogan reported that services outlined in the proposal include stretching, deep tissue, and Swedish massage. He stated that the petitioner will be the sole practitioner, with proposed hours of operation Monday through Wednesday, 11:00AM to 6:00PM. Mr. Hogan reported that no changes are proposed for the interior or exterior of the building. Mr. Hogan stated that the subject property is zoned B-3 Community Shopping District and the site has adequate parking. He noted that the proposed business is by appointment only and the petitioner will be the sole practitioner. Mr. Hogan confirmed that the petitioner submitted a business license application and a massage therapy addendum according to the requirements of Village Code Chapter 11, Article 7 for Massage Establishments. Mr. Hogan concluded that staff finds that the proposed conditional use meets the applicable standards contained in the Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance. He requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: “A conditional use to operate a massage therapy establishment at 1699 Wall Street Suite 550-Q, subject to the following conditions: 1. Any massage therapist employed at the business establishment shall hold a valid massage therapist license with the State of Illinois; 2. Compliance with all applicable development, fire, building, and other Village Codes and regulations; and 3. A new conditional use approval shall be required for: a. A change of ownership involving 50% or more of the officers or partners; b. A change in legal entity; or c. A change in location.” Mr. Hogan stated that the Village Board’s decision is final for this case. Seeing no questions from the Commissioners, Chairman Donnelly invited the petitioner to the stand. Chairman Donnelly swore in the petitioner, Sharon Autman of Sharon LMT S&M LLC, 1699 Wall Street 550-Q, Mount Prospect. Chairman Donnelly asked the petitioner to provide a brief description of their case. Ms. Autman stated that she moved back from Georgia in 2023, and has many clients in the area from the previous business she owned. Since the business will be in the same location, she thought she could just re-apply for a business license but realized she had to go through the zoning process, which she has never done before. Ms. Autman explained that she is asking for permission to work in the same building she was in before, but this time she has no employees. She used to have employees, but covid disrupted the business. Ms. Autman stated she didn’t have enough help to keep the business running so she packed up and moved to Georgia, and then came back. She reiterated that she is asking for permission to do what she loves to do. Ms. Autman explained that Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-23-25 Page 17 of 66  3 has a good rapport with the Village, was a member of the chambers, and was involved in the community. She stated that she recently moved to Westchester from Woodridge, Illinois. Ms. Autman asked for permission to do what she loves to do and do it respectfully. Commissioner Beattie asked if she was moving into the same suite as before. Ms. Autman replied that it is not the same suite, but it is the same building. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion to approve the conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Beattie made a motion and Commissioner Szymczak seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Beattie, Rogers, Costa, Donnelly NAYS: None The Planning and Zoning Commission gave a positive recommendation (5-0) to the Village Board for the December 2, 2025 meeting. After hearing one more item of new business, Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak and the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 PM. Antonia Lalagos, Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-23-25 Page 18 of 66  1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-25-25 Hearing Date: November 13, 2025 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1728 East Kensington Road PETITIONER: Terry Hilton LLC PUBLICATION DATE: October 29, 2025 REQUEST: Conditional use approval to operate a massage therapy establishment at the subject property. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Fay Costa Richard Rogers Walter Szymczak MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Fricano Donald Olsen Ewa Weir STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Hogan – Development Planner Jason Shallcross – Director of Community and Economic Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Miguel A Hernandez Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 23, 2025. The minutes were approved 3-0 with Commissioner Rogers and Commission Costa abstaining from the vote. After hearing three items of new business, Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-25-25, 1728 East Kensington Road, a change of ownership for an existing massage therapy establishment at the subject property. Mr. Hogan introduced the subject property, a single-story multi-tenant commercial building with a mixture of restaurant, retail, childcare, professional office, and personal service establishments. He reported that the tenant space has been a massage therapy establishment since 2012, and prior it was used as a dentist office. Mr. Hogan explained that the petitioners propose to operate a 1,240 square foot massage establishment at the subject property, and intend to use the existing layout of the business and the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-25-25 Page 19 of 66  2 existing sign. The application stated that the business will provide high-quality therapeutic massage services that promote relaxation, healing, and overall wellbeing. Services outlined in the proposal include Swedish massage, deep tissue massage, hot stone therapy, aromatherapy, reflexology, and couples massage. Mr. Hogan explained that there will be one full-time massage therapist to start, with potential to hire up to three more employees in the future. He noted that the proposed hours of operation are Monday through Sunday 10:00AM to 10:00PM. Mr. Hogan reported that clients are seen by appointment or walk-in, with up to seven appointments per day, each appointment lasting 60 to 90 minutes with 15 to 30 minutes between sessions for preparation and sanitation. Mr. Hogan confirmed that the petitioner submitted a business license application and a massage therapy addendum according to the requirements of Village Code Chapter 11, Article 7 for Massage Establishments. He reported that the addendums indicate the petitioners have been employed at massage establishments in Schaumburg, St Charles, Frankfort, and Orland Park, Illinois. Mr. Hogan stated that the subject property is a shopping center between 30,000 and 150,000 square feet, which requires 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Restaurant tenants are calculated separately. He reported that the parking lot is striped with 206 parking stalls, including 7 accessible parking stalls. Mr. Hogan confirmed that the minimum parking requirement for the existing and proposed uses are met. Mr. Hogan concluded that staff finds that the proposed conditional use meets the applicable standards contained in the Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance. He requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: “A conditional use to operate a massage therapy establishment at 1728 East Kensington Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Any massage therapist employed at the business establishment shall hold a valid massage therapist license with the State of Illinois; 2. Compliance with all applicable development, fire, building, and other Village Codes and regulations; and 3. A new conditional use approval shall be required for: a. A change of ownership involving 50% or more of the officers or partners; b. A change in legal entity; or c. A change in location.” Mr. Hogan stated that the Village Board’s decision is final for this case. Seeing no questions from the Commissioners, Chairman Donnelly invited the petitioner to the stand. Chairman Donnelly swore in the petitioners, Mu Chun Li and Shuxin Jian of Terry Hilton LLC, 1728 East Kensington Road, Mount Prospect, and Miguel A Hernandez, of Orland Park. Chairman Donnelly asked the petitioner to provide a brief description of their case. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-25-25 Page 20 of 66  3 Mr. Hernandez explained that he knows the petitioners and is assisting them with the process. He explained that the petitioners had previously worked at the subject location and when the opportunity arose to buy the business, they purchased it from the prior owner and now have to go through the process of establishing the use. Mr. Hernandez stated that they mailed the legal notice and one envelope was returned. He shared that the petitioners have over 15 years of massage experience between them and confirmed that Ms. Li owns another establishment in Schaumburg and Ms. Jian owns another establishment in Orland Park. Mr. Hernandez reported that the petitioners recently acquired a business in Arlington Heights and that they wish to continue growing their business in Mount Prospect. Commissioner Rogers and Commissioner Beattie asked if the petitioners understood the conditions of approval. Mr. Hernandez replied that the petitioners completed the application and translated everything. He noted that Ms. Jian’s husband speaks English and helped them too. Mr. Hernandez stated that Ms. Jian’s husband could not attend the meeting so he offered to come instead. Earlier in the day he asked the petitioners to read over everything before the meeting to ensure they understood. Mr. Hernandez reiterated that as former employees of the business, both of them had longtime customers and that was why thought this would be a good opportunity. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion to approve the conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Costa made a motion and Commissioner Szymczak seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Beattie, Rogers, Costa, Donnelly NAYS: None The Planning and Zoning Commission gave a positive recommendation (5-0) to the Village Board for the December 2, 2025 meeting. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak and the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 PM. Antonia Lalagos, Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – November 13, 2025 PZ-25-25 Page 21 of 66  Item Cover Page Subject PZ-15-25 / 605 W. Golf Road / Final Plat of Subdivision and CU: Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development / Village Board Final Meeting December 11, 2025 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Fiscal Impact (Y/N) N Dollar Amount Budget Source Category NEW BUSINESS Type Action Item Information The “Petitioner” (Jason Doland of Doland Engineering, LLC, on behalf of the property owner, Trinity United Methodist Church) is seeking a final plat of subdivision and conditional use approval for a preliminary and final planned unit development to subdivide the church property, a single R-1 zoned lot into six (6) R-1 zoned lots located at 605 W. Golf Road (“Subject Property”). The Village Board has final authority over the final plat of subdivision and the conditional use for a preliminary and final planned unit development. The proposal meets the requirements and standards of the Village Code, and Village Staff (“Staff”) is supportive of the requests. Discussion Background: The Subject Property was annexed into the Village in 1959 and is located on the south side of West Golf Road, east of Linneman Road. The Subject Property contains an existing church with associated improvements, is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence, and is bordered by the R-1 Single Family Residential District to the north and west, the R-X Single Family Residential District to the south, and B-3 Planned Unit Development properties (an office building and a daycare) to the east. Permit records indicate that various improvements have been made since the church’s construction in the 1960s, including interior and exterior remodeling work, signage, electrical, plumbing, fire suppression, roof, fencing, flatwork, and parking lot. Proposal: The Petitioner is proposing to create six residentially-zoned lots of record from one parcel. The Petitioner also seeks conditional use approval for a preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD). The various elements of the proposal are outlined below. Final Plat of Subdivision: The final plat of subdivision proposes the subdivision of a single R- 1 zoned lot into six (6) R-1 zoned lots. Lots 1 through 4 are intended for the development of single-family residential homes, Lot 5 will remain as the church lot, and “Outlot A” is a separate lot designated for stormwater volume control and detention for Lots 1 through 4 and Page 22 of 66 for accepting discharge from the detention storage on Lot 5. Parking for the Existing Church: A total of 112 parking spaces (106 standard and 6 accessible), are proposed with the new site plan configuration for the church lot (Lot 5). Based on a Membership Audit for the last three years (2022-2024) provided by the church’s pastor, the church’s highest recorded attendance is 150 worshipers, including online attendance. Per the zoning code, one parking space is required for every 3 worshipers, resulting in a parking requirement of 50 parking spaces. The parking provision of 112 parking spaces exceeds the Village’s parking requirement of 50 parking spaces. Stormwater Management: The existing Trinity United Methodist site drains west towards Linneman Road through a small detention pond installed as part of a previous addition. Both the existing detention storage and outlet for the church property drainage are accounted for in the design of the new subdivision. In addition, per Sections 15.401.A and 15.402.B of the Village Code, stormwater detention is required for the homes built as part of the subdivision. The stormwater runoff for the subdivision (the four residential lots plus Outlot A) would be captured by a storm sewer system around the perimeter of the lots and directed toward underground storage chambers in Outlot A. The small detention pond(s) on the church property would be relocated to the open ground between the parking lot and Outlot A. The discharge from the church detention pond(s) passes through the detention chambers for the residential lots; the combined flow from the church and Outlot A detention facilities discharges through a restrictor, controlling and slowing flow to an existing storm sewer in Linneman Road. While the impervious area to be created by the new residential lots will increase stormwater runoff, this additional runoff will be stored in the detention chambers such that the flow to the existing storm sewers will actually be reduced below the existing runoff rates from the undeveloped property. Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development: Outlot A does not meet the following subdivision standards under Section 15.305 and the bulk regulations required by Section 14.905. Section 15.305.B.4 requires that all lots shall have frontage on a public street. Outlot A is landlocked and does not have frontage on a public street. Section 15.305.B.6 requires that the depth to width ratio shall not exceed two and one-half to one (2.5:1) for all lots. The depth to width ratio for Outlot A is 10.35:1 and exceeds the requirement. Section 14.905 requires a minimum lot width of 65 feet. The lot width proposed for Outlot A is only 26 feet. Section 14.905 requires a minimum lot area of 8,125 square feet. The lot area proposed for Outlot A is only 7,001 square feet. Due to several deviations from the zoning code and subdivision standards that are required as highlighted in Table 1 and Table 2 in the staff report, the Petitioner is seeking conditional use approval for a planned unit development. The planned unit development will be conditioned so that the building elevations of the future homes that will be developed on Lots 1 through 4 will not be identical or monotonous. As part of the approval, staff recommends that a Homeowners Association (HOA) be created for Lots 1 through 5, encompassing Outlot A, for the required stormwater management of the entire proposed subdivision. A condition of approval has been added to ensure that the HOA document will be drafted for the Village’s review and approval prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Lots 1 through 4. Long-Range Planning: The Existing and Future Land Use Maps in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan designate the Subject Property as Institutional. Primary uses within this category include governmental, educational, religious, and senior housing facilities. The proposed development maintains a substantial portion of the site for institutional use while Page 23 of 66 introducing four new single-family residential lots along Linneman Road. These homes will complement the established single-family character of the surrounding neighborhood. Overall, the proposed development will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation. Public Comments: As of this writing, staff has not received any public comments. Alternatives A. Approval of the following motions: 1. A final plat of subdivision titled “Trinity Church Resubdivision” prepared by Doland Engineering, LLC, and bearing the latest revision date of September 9, 2025, attached as Exhibit B in the staff report; and 2. A conditional use for a preliminary and final Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of six R-1 zoned lots including four lots (Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4) that are intended for the development of four separate single-family detached residential homes, one lot (Lot 5) that will remain as the church lot, and one lot (Outlot A) that is a separate lot designated for stormwater volume control and detention for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and for accepting discharge from the detention storage on Lot 5, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. B. Action at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff Recommendation Approval of the following motions: 1. A final plat of subdivision titled “Trinity Church Resubdivision” prepared by Doland Engineering, LLC, and bearing the latest revision date of September 9, 2025, attached as Exhibit B in the staff report; and 2. A conditional use for a preliminary and final Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of six R-1 zoned lots including four lots (Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4) that are intended for the development of four separate single-family detached residential homes, one lot (Lot 5) that will remain as the church lot, and one lot (Outlot A) that is a separate lot designated for stormwater volume control and detention for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and for accepting discharge from the detention storage on Lot 5, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Attachments 1. PZ-15-25 Staff Report 2. PZ-15-25 Administrative Content_Redacted 3. PZ-15-25 Final Plat of Subdivision 4. PZ-15-25 Plans 5. PZ-15-25 Membership Audit Page 24 of 66 Page 25 of 66 Page 26 of 66 Page 27 of 66 Page 28 of 66 Page 29 of 66 Page 30 of 66 Page 31 of 66 Page 32 of 66 Page 33 of 66 Page 34 of 66 Page 35 of 66 Page 36 of 66 Page 37 of 66 Page 38 of 66 Page 39 of 66 Page 40 of 66 Page 41 of 66 Page 42 of 66 Page 43 of 66 Page 44 of 66  605 W Golf Road – PUD Conditional Use Responses 12/02/25 Page 2 of 5 Response: The surrounding R-1 residential zoning district area is fully developed at this time only having the possibility of potential tear-downs and rebuilding of any existing homes, which would in all likelihood be larger in size. d. That adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or will be provided; Response: Public utilities currently exist along Linneman Road, which will be tapped into for potable water, sanitary and storm sewer use, as well as gas, electric and cable systems for the four (4) proposed homes. The existing church’s sewer and water utilities will be relocated within proposed utility easements. The four (4) proposed home driveways will have direct access to Linneman Road. Stormwater Management facilities meeting Village and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District requirements have been incorporated into the site improvements engineering design. e. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; Response: The additional traffic from the four (4) new driveways that will be added to the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume is insignificant and has little to no effect on the Linneman Road traffic volume or congestion. The church access will remain off of Golf Road. f. That the proposed conditional use is not contrary to the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village; Response: The Comprehensive Plan of the Village shows the area to be in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, and the proposed subdivision meets this objective. g. That the conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified pursuant to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; Response: The proposed PUD meets with the Village requirements for the type of use proposed under this subdivision, except for the requested variations needed and necessary for Village compliance in order to improve and construct the proposed four (4) new homes. 14.504(A): General Standards: 1. Except as modified by and approved in the final planned unit development plan, the proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is located. Response: The proposed PUD meets with the Village requirements for the type of use proposed under this subdivision and complies with the Village regulations of the residential district.in which it is located. Page 45 of 66  605 W Golf Road – PUD Conditional Use Responses 12/02/25 Page 3 of 5 2. The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan of the Village for the area containing the subject site. Response: The proposed single family residential subdivision use of the land (site) is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan of the Village. 3. The proposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. Response: The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to ensure that land uses are consistent, compliant and are in harmony with the adjacent and surrounding area. The four (4) new proposed single family homes are of the same type of housing that surround three (3) sides of the proposed subdivision. The proposed property improvements will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The streets have been designed to avoid: a. Inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development; Response: Linneman Road is an existing north/south paved street which each of the four (4) new driveways having a safe and convenient ingress and egress for access. b. Traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin the planned unit development; Response: There are no new streets proposed with this subdivision as all four (4) homes will each have one driveway as access to Linneman Road, there will not be any congestion created, or existing conditions compounded and made worse by these four (4) proposed homes. c. An excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development; Response: The estimated population, at 4 persons per home is 16 people, which will have very little impact on any of the public facilities as this would have been considered within the residential zoning aspect of the area. 14.504(C): Standards For Planned Unit Developments With Other Exceptions: The Village Board may approve planned unit developments which do not comply with the requirements of the underlying zoning district’s regulations governing lot area, lot width, bulk regulations, parking and sign regulations, or which require modification of the subdivision design standards when such approval is necessary to achieve the objectives of the proposed planned unit development, but only when the Board finds such exceptions are consistent with the following standards: 1. Any reduction in the requirements of this chapter is in the public interest. Response: Outlot “A” is created for the sole purpose of providing underground stormwater management (that currently does not exist) of which the ownership and maintenance will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association that is to be created as part of the subdivision plat and documents. Section 15.305(B)(4) requires frontage on a public street. Outlot “A” does not have frontage on a public street, Page 46 of 66  605 W Golf Road – PUD Conditional Use Responses 12/02/25 Page 4 of 5 however; access for any required maintenance is provided by means of the proposed public utility easements located along the property lines of the four (4) lots. Section 15.305(B)(6) requires a lot depth to width ratio of not more than 2.5:1 and the ratio of Outlot “A” 10.35:1 which exceeds this requirement but does accomplish the goal of providing the area necessary to install the underground stormwater management system for the subdivision. Section 14.905 requires a minimum lot width of 65 feet for Outlot “A” which has a width of only 26 feet, but; as stated earlier, accomplishes the intended goal for the area needed for the stormwater management system. Section 14.905 requires that Outlot “A” have a minimum lot area of 8,125 square feet which Outlot “A” is deficient by 1,124 square feet or 7,001 square feet provided under the proposed lot dimensions. The constraint conditions placed upon the design are unique to the proposed subdivision in order to meet the Village requirements but do not generally effect the area or its residents. Village staff believes that seeking a PUD for the subdivision would be an appropriate method in order to satisfy the requirements imposed on the design. 2. The proposed exceptions would not adversely impact the value or use of any other property. Response: Other properties values and use in the area would not be adversely affected with the additional four (4) homes. 3. Such exceptions are solely for the purpose of promoting better development which will be beneficial to the residents or occupants of the planned unit development as well as those of the surrounding properties. Response: The proposed homes will fit into and fill in the single family residential area nicely and should add to the surrounding property values. 4. In residential planned unit developments, the maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre shall not exceed forty eight (48) units per acre for developments incorporating senior housing or assisted living facilities. Response: The homes are designed for single family living and are not built solely for senior citizens or assisted living conditions, however it could be that some family member having these characteristics might be living within the home, particularly with the aging population. 5. All buildings are to be located within the planned unit development in such a way as to dissipate any adverse impact on adjoining buildings and shall not invade the privacy of the occupants of such buildings and shall conform to the following: a. The front, side or rear yard setbacks on the perimeter of the development shall not be less than that required in the abutting zoning district(s) or the zoning district underlying the subject site, whichever is greater. Response: The setbacks meet the Village Zoning requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. b. All transitional yards and transitional landscape yards of the underlying zoning district are complied with. Page 47 of 66  605 W Golf Road – PUD Conditional Use Responses 12/02/25 Page 5 of 5 Response: All transitional yards and transitional landscape yards of the R-1 Zoning district are met and comply with the Village requirements. c. If required transitional yards and transitional landscape yards are not adequate to protect the privacy and enjoyment of the property adjacent to the property to the development, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend either or both of the following requirements: (1) All structures located on the perimeter of the planned unit development must be set back by a distance sufficient to protect the privacy and amenity of adjacent existing uses; (2) All structures located along the entire perimeter of the planned unit development must be permanently screened with sightproof screening in a manner which is sufficient to protect the privacy and amenity of the adjacent uses. d. The area of open space provided in a planned unit development shall be at least that required in the underlying zoning district. Response: The proposed homes are within the limits of the building setbacks within the R-1 Zoning District leaving the lot with single family residential yards as open space. I trust that this addresses the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Standards required for approval of the Subdivision Plat and intended single family residential use. Sincerely, Jason R. Doland, P.E., P.L.S. Page 48 of 66 Page 49 of 66 Trinity United Methodist Church Parcel Legal Description LOT A IN TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH SUBDIVISION, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THAT PART OF THE EAST 7.38 CHAINS OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING SOUTH OF THE ORIGINAL CENTER LINE OF SEEGERS ROAD (EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF LYING NORTH OF THE PRESENT SOUTH LINE OF GOLF ROAD AND EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF CHURCH ROAD 2.34 CHAINS; THENCE EAST 2.64 CHAINS; THENCE NORTH 3.10 CHAINS TO THE CENTERLINE OF SEEGERS ROAD; THENCE SOUTHWEST ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 2.78 CHAINS TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING AS MEASURED ON THE EAST AND WEST LINES THEREOF, THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER) CONTAINING 4.50 ACRES MORE OR LESS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MAY 12, 1971 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 21477051, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Page 50 of 66 Page 51 of 66 ENGINEERING PLAN FOR TRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 605 WEST GOLF ROAD MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS C1 COVER SHEET C2 PLAT OF SURVEY C3 EXISTING CONDITIONS / DEMOLITION PLAN C4 PROPOSED SITE PLAN C5 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN C6 PROPOSED GRADING PLAN C7 PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL PLAN C8 STANDARD DETAILS C9 STANDARD DETAILS C10 MWRD GENERAL NOTES C11 EXHIBIT R Page 52 of 66 Page 53 of 66 Page 54 of 66 Page 55 of 66  REQUIRED (AC-FT) PROVIDED (AC-FT) VOLUME CONTROL 0.021 0.024 DETENTION 0.227 0.227 Page 56 of 66 Page 57 of 66 Page 58 of 66 Page 59 of 66 Page 60 of 66 Page 61 of 66 MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES The Owner of the Development, with facilities as shown on this exhibit (Exhibit R), shall assume responsibility for the following perpetual maintenance activities: 1. GENERAL Regular inspections and routine maintenance of general areas shall be performed on a monthly or as-needed basis. Specific items of concern include: -- Litter and debris shall be controlled -- Landscaped areas shall be maintained with regular mowing and restored with appropriate seeding/vegetation as necessary -- Accumulated sediment shall be disposed of properly, along with any wastes generated during maintenance operations -- Pavement shall be swept, vacuumed and/or washed on a regular basis 2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES All components of the stormwater management facilities shall be checked monthly and maintained as necessary to ensure proper performance. It is critical that all inflows and outflows to the detention facility are clean and performing as designed. In addition, the design volume of the detention facility shall also be maintained. Inspections for the following specific items should be conducted monthly. VEGETATED AREAS -- Regular mowing to control vegetation -- Need for planting, reseeding or sodding. -- All vegetation must be maintained per the approved planting plan OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE -- Inspect restrictor and remove debris if clogged or discharge reduced -- Remove accumulated sediment at outlet -- Scour and erosion at outlet, repair as needed -- Any ice damage to outlet of pipe, repair if necessary ACCESS FOR MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT -- Remove any obstructions placed in maintenance access locations DETENTION VOLUME -- Inspect all stormwater detention facilities to ensure that the constructed volume for detention is maintained. No sediment, topsoil, debris or other dumping into the facility shall be allowed. 3. VOLUME CONTROL FACILITY Routine inspections and maintenance of volume control facilities shall be performed by the Owner on a yearly basis. Specific items of concern include: -- Facility shall be inspected yearly to verify the system is functioning properly. -- Accumulated sediment from surface shall be vacuumed out and disposed of properly 4. STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM The Owner shall perform monthly inspections of all components of the stormwater collection system. The monthly inspection shall include the following specific areas of concern: STORM INLETS/MANHOLES -- Remove accumulated leaves and other debris from grates -- Reset covers/lids on as-needed basis -- Remove accumulated sediment from structure bottom STORM SEWERS/CULVERTS -- Visually inspect pipes, make repairs as necessary -- Storm sewers shall be checked for siltation deposits at inlets, outlets, and within the conduit, clean out as necessary -- Replant and reseed landscape areas as required OVERLAND FLOW ROUTES -- Annual visual inspections shall be performed that verify the design capacity of the overland flow routes is maintained. The slope and cross-section area shall be verified during construction. -- Remove any obstructions that have been placed in the drainage path -- Regular landscape maintenance care to control vegetation and replanting as required 5. VEGETATED AREAS -- Need for planting or sodding, as required. 6. SEWER CONSTRUCTION -- Perform structure inspections once every year, make repairs as necessary -- Perform sewer inspections one a year, make repairs as necessary -- Remove any obstructions that may impede maintenance equipment access PROJECT ADDRESS: 605 W. GOLF ROAD, MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS TOTAL CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP: 4.5 ACRES OR LEASED LANDS DEVELOPMENT AREA: 0.99 ACRES CONSERVATION AREA/DEED RESTRICTED AREA: 0.00 ACRES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REQUIRED (AC-FT) PROVIDED (AC-FT) VOLUME CONTROL 0.021 0.024 DEPRESSIONAL STORAGE (LOT 5) 0.088 0.11 DETENTION (LOTS 1-4) 0.227 0.227 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXIST. STORM SEWER EXIST. SANITARY SEWER EXIST. WATER MAIN PROP. STORM SEWER Page 62 of 66 Page 63 of 66 Page 64 of 66 Page 65 of 66 Page 66 of 66