_08132026-130

1 VILLAGE OF 2 3 KENILWORTH, IL 4 5 Committee of the Whole Special Meeting 6 August 13, 2026 7 8 Call to Order 9 10 Village President Cecily Kaz called to order the special meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Board of 11 Trustees of the Village of Kenilworth (the “Committee”) at 5:01 p.m. on August 13, 2026. 12 13 Roll Call 14 15 President Kaz requested that the Clerk call the roll and the results were as follows: 16 17 Trustees: 18 Trustee Tim Ransford Absent (Arrived 5:05 pm) 19 Trustee Christopher Ottsen Present (Remote, Voting*) 20 Trustee Amy Hannus Present 21 Trustee John Gottschall Present 22 Trustee Matt Lojkovic Absent 23 Trustee Joseph Vitu Present 24 President Cecily Kaz Present 25 26 A quorum was present in person. 27 28 *President Kaz indicated that she was in receipt of a request from Trustee Ottsen to attend the meeting 29 electronically in accordance with the Electronic Meeting Attendance Policy. As a quorum is physically present, 30 the Trustee will be authorized to attend electronically unless a motion is made and passed by a two-thirds 31 majority of those physically present to deny the request. Hearing no such motion, President Kaz deemed the 32 Trustee Present as a voting member. 33 34 Others recorded as in attendance in person or via video conference: 35 Village Officials and Staff: 36 Michael Gagnon Village Clerk 37 Kathy Thake Village Manager 38 Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager 39 Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst 40 41 Others, signing in as displayed in Participant List: 42 Michael Blue 43 David Joyce 44 Kathy Routliffe 1 Eric Miller 2 Jeanne Keiler 3 Chad Emigolz 4 Chethan Shetty 5 Louis Keiler 6 Vivian Vahlberg 7 8 Presentation and Discussion 9 10 President Kaz introduced the discussion of the agenda item for the meeting, gave a brief synopsis of a prior 11 meeting of the Committee of the Whole on July 28, 2026 that addressed the item, outlined next steps to be 12 taken once the Zoning Code Update is completed, and invited Trustee Hannus, chair of the Zoning Code 13 Update Working Group to speak. Chair Hannus reminded the Committee that while there was substantial 14 progress on zoning code updates related to policy matters in the residential areas of the Village, there has not 15 been a consensus reached regarding policy matters related to the commercial areas of the Village, specifically 16 along the Green Bay Road Business Corridor. Topics discussed at the July 28th Committee regarding Business 17 District Bulk, Height, and Use Regulations are continuing to be discussed presently in an effort to allow the 18 Board of Trustees to provide guidance regarding the direction policy matters, as they relate to the zoning 19 code in the commercial areas of the Village, should take. With that, Chair Hannus introduced Mr. Michael 20 Blue of Teska Associates, acting as planning consultant to the Village, to present. 21 22 A. Zoning Code Update: Policy Discussion on Business District Bulk, Height, and Use Regulations 23 (continued from Committee of the Whole meeting of July 28, 2026) 24 25 Mr. Blue emphasized the importance of and the difficulty of reaching policy consensus on matters such as 26 Bulk, Height, and Use Regulations. He provided a review of the discussion on July 28th which focused on 27 permitted building height, examination of setback and stepback regulations on a case-by-case basis, and an 28 evaluation of development incentives that already exist in the Village. He then set goals for the present 29 meetings’ discussion as reviewing approaches to support the business district, gaining consensus on the role 30 of zoning in supporting those approaches, and balancing the zoning standards for building height, setback, 31 and stepbacks for structures on the Green Bay Road Business Corridor versus those west of the alley on Park 32 Drive. He took time to review planning efforts in the past that have made important contributions to the 33 present planning effort. They are: 34 35 2008 Comprehensive Plan 36 2013 Design Guidelines 37 2013 Streetscape Plan 38 2022 Green Bay Road Corridor Vision Statement 39 2023 Business District Building Survey 40 2023-2024 Code and Procedure Amendments to Support the 2022 Vision Statement 41 2025 Affordable Housing Plan Update 42 2025-Current Zoning Code Update 43 44 He provided an analysis of architecturally and historically important buildings in the Village, pointing out 45 differences in size, shape, and location and defined terms such as “mixed use” or “vertical mixed use” (multi-46 storied structure with some residential and some commercial uses of the space), “single use” (one story 47 structures with either residential or commercial use). He then invited Ms. Heather McFarland, Assistant to 48 the Village Manager, to speak regarding existing development programs the Village supports. Ms. McFarland 49 enumerated the following: 50 51 • TIF Assistance - Provides economic incentives that align with and advance the Village’s 1 redevelopment objectives 2 • Facade Grant Improvement Program - Cost-share program for exterior rehabilitation 3 • Streetscape Beautification: Landscaping Planters, Holiday Lights, etc. 4 • Building Survey: Guidance on where to focus preservation efforts 5 Demolition regulations reflect findings 6 7 Village Manager Thake then took the floor to expand on additional development programs that are in the 8 planning stages. They were: 9 10 • Upcoming: Green Bay Road Streetscape Enhancement Project (2031) 11 • Consider: Market Analysis and Feasibility Study, Green Bay Road Strategic Plan, 12 Interior Improvement Incentives 13 14 Hearing no further discussion of existing development programs, Mr. Blue then drew the Committee’s 15 attention to a revision of a chart first presented at the July 28th Committee meeting: 16 17 Standards Current Draft Update Revised Height 35’ or 3.5 Stories 40” w/ SUP 45” 4th Floor by PUD 35” West of Alley on Park Drive (height only varied by text amendment) 45’ Permitted 35” Permitted, West of Alley on Park Drive (height only waived by PUD) Yard Setbacks Measured from Lot Line Measured from Lot Line Front Yard None Required 0” Build to Line (unless parking provided) 0” Build to Line (unless parking provided) Side None Required Minimum 5” if Provided None Required Minimum 5” if Provided None Required Minimum 5” if Provided Rear None Required 10” Required As determined by SUP Building Stepbacks None Required Measured from Setback Line Measured from Setback Line Front Yard None Required 3rd Floor – 15” Required at distance determined through Special Use and/or Certificate of Appropriateness 4th Floor – 20” (by PUD) Rear None Required 3rd Floor – 10” 4th Floor – 20” (by PUD) Side None Required 4th Floor – 20” (by PUD) Additional Regulations Ground Floor Commercial Required 1st Floor Residential as SUP West of Alley on Park Drive 1st Floor Residential as SUP West of Alley on Park Drive Glossary 18 SUP: Special Use Permit PUD: Planned Unit Development 19 20 He urged the Committee to continue the discussion of what policy directives should be reflected in pending 21 zoning code revisions. The column on the right titled “Revised” is an attempt to provide guidance for that 22 discussion, shaped by the July 28th input, for the present meeting. Mr. Blue reviewed elements of the chart 23 explaining their relevance to policy guidance. He then turned specifically to the question of building height 24 and provided renderings of building facades reaching 35’,40’ and 45’ taking time to differentiate between the 1 discussion of building height from the discussion of number of stories a structure might have. He urged the 2 Board to include both the height in feet and the number of stories. Trustees clarified the focus of a height 3 and number of stories discussion when referring to the business district, the pursuit of encouraging both 4 development of new structures and redevelopment of existing structures, the pressures on developers to 5 provide commercial and residential spaces that have higher ceilings than in the past, the decisions regarding 6 height made by surrounding communities, the influence of surrounding commercial businesses on the 7 establishment of a new one, the pursuit or avoidance of “cavernous” commercial areas, the realistic 8 expectations the Village should have for its constrained commercial district, the need for thinking about 9 Green Bay Road Business Corridor development differently from the past, the limitations of the zoning code 10 for encouraging development and redevelopment, and the reasons for revitalization success realized by 11 neighboring communities. Mr. Blue related ongoing discussions in other communities around these same 12 topics and how they were dealt with and feedback from developers around the ceiling height of the first floor. 13 14 President Kaz then urged Mr. Blue to present on Business District Bulk Standards for Setbacks, provisions 15 regarding structure footprint limitations relative to property lines, and stepbacks, provisions regarding upper 16 floor footprint limitations relative to the floors below them. He reminded the Board that at the July 28th 17 meeting, it was determined that due to the limited lot sizes prevalent in the Village commercial district and 18 the minimum square footage suggested for attracting successful development, the decision around the 19 setbacks and stepbacks for any one development proposal would be made on a case-by-case basis, that there 20 would be a requirement for their consideration, and that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) would 21 opine on the best alternatives in either case. Trustees clarified the parameters of square footage proposals 22 under and over 10,000 square feet relative to the need for a Special Use Process, the application of setback 23 and stepback requirements relative to new construction versus existing structures, the need for a Certificate 24 of Appropriateness under any type of proposal, and the impact setback and stepback requirements might 25 have on the need to increase building height. 26 27 President Kaz then asked Mr. Blue to present his recommendation for how the revised zoning code would 28 address these situations. Mr. Blue contrasted the recommendations of the July 28th meeting, which gave 29 specific distances for stepbacks and setbacks, to a different approach which would have the code require 30 some defined stepback for any part of the structure above the second floor determined by the review 31 approval process, the input of the ARC, the recommendation of the Plan Commission (PC), and ultimately the 32 approval by the Village Board. Setbacks would be set 0’ from the lot line in the front, 5’ from the lot line on 33 the side (if provided), and rear yard setbacks would be considered as part of the Special Use Permitting (SUP) 34 process. Trustees clarified the stipulation of 5’ for a side yard. There were no further comments from the 35 trustees 36 37 Mr. Blue then turned to a discussion of Business District Uses as development extends further from the core 38 of business district activity. He opined that the further away from the core a business extends, the harder it is 39 to achieve commercial success. He suggested that idea should influence zoning code requirements for 40 properties west of the alley on north side of Park Drive. He proposed that the present requirement for 41 commercial space on the first floor of development in the business district be removed for properties located 42 there as they are further away from the core of the Green Bay Business Corridor. Trustees clarified the 43 treatment of townhome construction in the business district, the introduction of mixed use zoning for all of 44 Park Drive, the need for master planning in the area, defined the concept of “overlay district” to address the 45 transition from residential and commercial districts, the importance of avoiding an unplanned “hodge-podge” 46 of residential and commercial in the business district, and the qualities of businesses that have succeeded in 47 the business district. President Kaz asked whether there were any further comments from the Board on this 48 topic. There were none. 49 50 Mr. Blue then offered next steps that will be taken which included ongoing discussions with the Board of 1 Trustees seeking direction as the zoning code update continues, a report to the Board regarding the Zoning 2 Code Update Committee meeting on August 17th, Architectural Review Commission feedback on height, bulk 3 and sign review scheduled for September 2nd, and the Zoning Code Public Hearing at a Plan Commission 4 meeting to take place in the fall of 2026. Trustees clarified how the input generated from these Committee of 5 the Whole meetings will be communicated to the ARC and the PC as their meetings approach, the hierarchy of 6 importance among the policy directives discussed by the Board, the expectations associated with various 7 changes to the zoning code being proposed, the opportunities for stakeholder input in the present 8 development process, the importance of communicating the efforts by the Board, the ARC and the PC to 9 respond to resident desires for the business district, and the message residents have communicated regarding 10 their desires for the business district. The idea of approving the parts of the zoning code where there is 11 consensus and conducting further review of those parts where consensus has not been reached was 12 proposed. The portion of the zoning code addressing residential matters was deemed to have widespread 13 consensus around the changes needed. The sections of the code addressing commercial matters have not 14 reached such consensus. Trustees declared the need for gathering a higher level of input regarding zoning 15 revisions for the business district and clarified the concept of “spot zoning” or when a piece of property or 16 groups of property have special zoning laws applied to them that differ from the zoning laws applied to 17 properties around them, and why it is important to avoid its occurrence. Consensus was reached to proceed 18 with changes to the zoning code as they apply to residential considerations and to subject the sections of the 19 code addressing commercial matters to greater analysis and public input. President Kaz recounted future 20 activities that will impact the discussion of zoning code changes for the business district and that staff should 21 be directed to help the Board define the scope and timing for reaching consensus on commercial sections of 22 the zoning code among these events. Village Manager Thake suggested some time in Q1 or Q2 of FY 2027 as 23 a realistic timeline for reaching consensus, Q2-4 to conduct a market analysis and feasibility study, and to 24 integrate the data from that analysis into a strategic plan in FY 2028. Consensus was reached to separate the 25 two general areas of the zoning code, i.e. residential and commercial, approving changes to the residential 26 sections presently but subjecting the commercial sections to further review and analysis for approval 27 sometime in FY 2028. Hearing no further comments from the Board, President Kaz opened the floor for 28 comments from the public. 29 30 Resident Eric Miller did not agree with the proposals suggested by Mr. Blue and asked the Board to give 31 greater consideration to population density or the number of people living within a specific geographical area, 32 to open space within the business district to promote aesthetics, to supporting existing businesses in the 33 Village on par with attracting new ones, and to safety when determining setbacks in the rear of structures 34 and thereby place a firm number on setbacks rather than using a case-by-case method. Mr. Miller thanked 35 the Board for its attention and urged it to pursue more citizen input when making policy decisions. 36 37 Resident David Joyce recounted his attention to this issue and praised the ARC for its thoughtful approach to 38 discharging its mandate. He pointed to an ARC discussion around zoning changes and their impact on 39 property values which could stymie development rather than encourage it, a history of a zoning application 40 seeking a variance that was undeterred by violating existing zoning restrictions and was yet granted extensive 41 review suggesting there is no need to change height requirements in the zoning code, the limitations of basing 42 zoning changes on the recommendations of those affected most by them, the differing perspectives of 43 commercial property owners in the business district and residential property owners living nearby, and the 44 difficulty of anticipating what the code might face in years to come. President Kaz reminded Mr. Joyce of his 45 time limits for comment and he concluded his remarks. 46 47 Resident Jeanne Keiler thanked the Board for the time and effort it has put in on the zoning code update. She 48 recounted conversations with potential business owners who would have revitalized existing structures rather 49 than redeveloping the property. She felt the Village should market the possibilities for owner-owned 50 structures that will be rehabilitated rather than redeveloped and she urged the Board to encourage more of 1 that activity. 2 3 Resident Chad Emigolz thanked the Board for their efforts in encouraging business vitalization. He urged the 4 Board to use all the resources at its disposal when tackling complicated problems like revising the zoning 5 code. He felt the Board need not make some of the decisions it is discussing but should rather assemble the 6 facts surrounding the issue, present them to the residents of the Village, and let the policy decisions be made 7 collectively by citizen input. He felt the Board could ask for that help and residents would respond 8 enthusiastically. He went on to recount a personal analysis of the commercial desirability of a Kenilworth 9 property and cited higher property taxes and lower foot traffic for the Kenilworth property over a similar 10 property in Wilmette. He felt the discussion of building height was misguided because it will not overcome 11 simple economic analysis by the business owner. He agreed with the decision by the Board to postpone 12 changes to the commercial sections of the zoning code in order to solicit further resident input around policy 13 changes. 14 15 Resident Vivian Vahlberg concurred with the decision reached by the Board regarding consideration of 16 commercial sections of the zoning code. She felt further market analysis would enhance the final decision. 17 She urged that any market analysis should be widespread and in depth, and that input from developers 18 should be taken carefully and judiciously. She had particular concern about bulk in the rear of commercial 19 structures and felt setbacks are important to impose. 20 21 Business from the Public 22 23 President Kaz asked if there was any business from the public not on the agenda. There was none 24 25 Adjourn 26 27 With no further business, President Kaz asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Trustee Ransford offered 28 a motion to adjourn the meeting and Trustee Gottschall seconded the motion. 29 30 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 31 32 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Vitu 33 34 Opposed: None 35 36 With a vote of five in favor, none opposed, President Kaz declared the meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m. 37