_06152026-770

VILLAGE OF 1 2 3 KENILWORTH, IL 4 5 Village Board of Trustees 6 Meeting 7 June 15, 2026 8 9 Call to Order 10 11 President Kaz called to order the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kenilworth at 7:01 p.m. on 12 June 15, 2026. 13 14 Roll Call 15 16 President Kaz requested a roll call, and the results were as follows: 17 18 Trustees: 19 Trustee Tim Ransford Present 20 Trustee Christopher Ottsen Present (Remote, Voting*) 21 Trustee Amy Hannus Present 22 Trustee John Gottschall Present 23 Trustee Matthew Lojkovic Present 24 Trustee Joseph Vitu Present 25 President Cecily Kaz Present 26 27 *President Kaz indicated that she was in receipt of a request from Trustee Ottsen to attend the meeting 28 electronically in accordance with the Electronic Meeting Attendance Policy. As a quorum is physically present, 29 the Trustee will be authorized to attend electronically unless a motion is made and passed by a two-thirds 30 majority of those physically present to deny the request. Hearing no such motion, President Kaz deemed the 31 Trustee Present as a voting member. 32 33 A quorum was present in person. 34 35 Others Recorded as in Attendance: 36 37 Village Officials and Staff: 38 Michael Gagnon Village Clerk 39 Kathy Thake Village Manager 40 Heather McFarland Assistant to the Village Manager 41 Greg Jones Village Attorney 42 Donicio Silva Village Police Chief 43 V V I L L A G E O F V I L L A G E O F l l a g e o f Ryan Glew Police Commander 1 Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst 2 Molly Burns Management Analyst 3 Donald Leicht Superintendent of Public Works 4 5 Others, signing in as displayed in Participant List: 6 7 Jeanne Keiler Brenden Appel Kathleen Morley Eric Miller Kathy Kirrish Greg Kirrish Jan Fisher Dorothy Karr Deborah Walsh David Joyce Rich Gordon Reed Edwards Michael Frieberger Michael Blue Martha Trotter Ella Paul NLC JT Mohr Rob W Vivan Vahlberg Louis Keiler Mark LaBeau MF Anna Simpson Mary 1 Before proceeding with the meeting agenda, President Kaz asked Village Attorney Greg Jones to address the 2 Board. Mr. Jones pointed out that the official agenda for the meeting had two different dates listed for the 3 meeting. The incorrect date listed occurred prior to the release of the agenda making it obviously wrong. The 4 correct date for the meeting was listed in another prominent section of the agenda and complied with legal 5 stipulations for the timing of public notice, making it valid. 6 7 Approval of Minutes 8 9 President Kaz asked if there any questions or comments regarding the following minutes: 10 11 A. Village Board – May 18, 2026 12 13 Hearing none, President Kaz then asked for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Trustee Gottschall 14 so moved, and Trustee Lojkovic seconded the motion. 15 16 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 17 18 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 19 20 Opposed: None 21 22 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the minutes approved. 23 24 Village President’s Report 25 26 President Kaz began her report by announcing the Village’s plan for celebrating the 250th anniversary of 27 signing the Declaration of Independence also referred to as our Nation’s Birthday. There will be a celebration 28 prepared in collaboration with the Kenilworth Park District, the Kenilworth Historical Society, and Kenilworth 1 Troop 13 of the Boy Scouts of America. It will take place at the “Monday Food Truck” event located at 2 Kenilworth Assembly Hall, 410 Kenilworth Avenue, on the Monday prior to the July 4th weekend. She invited 3 everyone to attend what will be a patriotic celebration of this milestone date. 4 5 She then introduced Mr. Paul Ardizzoni and Mr. Michael Cottick from Bulley & Andrews, the construction 6 management firm engaged by the Village, to oversee the ongoing Lakefront Improvement Project. She 7 reiterated that pursuing the Village goal of completing the project safely delayed its date of completion and 8 then invited Mr. Ardizzoni and Cottick to update the Board regarding that date. Mr. Ardizzoni, the project 9 manager, discussed the status of the contractor contingency fund, contingency uses and savings, working days 10 lost due to weather and to uncovered existing conditions, and the use of overtime to make up for those lost 11 days. He went on to describe the expected status of the project on the rescheduled opening date of June 30, 12 2026. He provided graphical depictions of the overall logistic plan for opening a major portion of the project 13 on June 30th and continuing to work toward full completion after that date. He could not give an exact time 14 for that completion. He covered the logistic plans for entrance and egress from the beach, safety precautions 15 to be taken around areas still being completed, and what access and amenities will be fully available on the 16 June 30th date. He then presented photographs of present conditions from multiple points of view around the 17 project and concluded his remarks by asking if there were any questions from the Board. Trustees clarified 18 the material that will be used for the ramp structure to be installed noting that it will be subject to 19 deterioration from the weather elements. Mr. Cottick described a dense tropical hardwood called Kumaru 20 that will withstand these elements is being used. President Kaz clarified that the Kenilworth Sailing Club will 21 open on the beach on June 30th as well. Hearing no further discussion, President Kaz thanked Mr. Ardizzoni 22 and Cottick for their presentation. 23 24 President Kaz then asked Trustee Hannus, as Chair of the Zoning Code Working Group (ZCWG), to update the 25 Board on its progress. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with its work, Trustee Hannus began by reviewing 26 work progress from the beginning of this effort roughly one year ago. She then described the present status 27 as having reviewed the entire code and reached consensus on addressing obvious policy questions. However, 28 there were certain policy questions where consensus was not achieved. She described the ZCWG as 29 comprised of representatives Zoning Review Committee (ZRC), the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), 30 the Plan Commission (PC), along with representatives from Teska Associates who provide planning expertise 31 to the Village. She went on to describe the strategy the ZCWG embraced was to ask the Board of Trustees 32 (BOT) to provide guidance around these unresolved policy questions. A Committee of the Whole (COTW) 33 meeting of the BOT was held on June 2, 2026, to address the first of these questions. She described the policy 34 question as whether to combine the activities of the ARC and PC in the name of providing greater efficiency 35 when resolving zoning applications. After lengthy discussion, the BOT resolved that, while they endorsed the 36 idea of providing greater efficiency in the zoning application process, they did not want to combine the two 37 committees as an effort to foster it. She then itemized future policy questions to be resolved by the BOT as 38 Administrative Variations, allowing minor zoning decisions to be resolved apart from the formal committee 39 review process, and more direct attention to zoning regulations in the business district, whether there should 40 be special zoning stipulations or allowances made for this subsection of the Village. She indicated there 41 would be future COTW meetings to discuss these policy questions, delivery of a community newsletter 42 highlighting progress updates, and formal updates for the BOT. In the meantime, the ZCWG will continue to 43 update the Zoning Code as new policy consensus is reached. She noted that there will be ample opportunity 44 for public discussion of these changes such as a Public Hearing at a Plan Commission meeting scheduled in 1 September as well as subsequent meetings later in FY 2026. The culmination of the ZCWG effort will be a 2 presentation of fully vetted zoning code update recommendations to the BOT for final approval. 3 4 Approval of Warrant List 5 6 President Kaz then asked Trustee Gottschall to report on the Warrant List. Trustee Gottschall highlighted 7 Class B payments to be ratified as payroll related, and Class A warrant payments to be approved highlighting 8 payments to Bulley & Andrews for Lakefront Improvement Project services, Teska Associates for planning 9 services, and Management of America Consulting (MoAC) services. Trustees clarified the purpose of the 10 MoAC payment with Village Manager Thake. 11 12 Hearing no further comments from the Board, President Kaz asked for a motion to approve the warrants as 13 presented. Trustee Gottschall so moved, and Trustee Vitu seconded the motion to approve the Class A 14 warrants in the amount of $1,057,544.59 and to ratify the Class B warrants in the amount of $128,726.94. 15 16 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 17 18 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 19 20 Opposed: None 21 22 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the warrants approved and 23 ratified. 24 25 Regular Scheduled Business 26 27 President Kaz then turned Regular Scheduled Business by reading Items for Consideration by Omnibus Vote 28 aloud in their entirety. 29 30 A. Items for Consideration by Omnibus Vote 31 1. Ordinance Declaring Certain Village Property as Surplus and Authorizing the Sale or 32 Disposal Thereof (Police Equipment) 33 34 2. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Renewal of a Professional Services Agreement 35 with InterDev, LLC, of Roswell, Georgia for Information Technology Services 36 37 3. Resolution Ratifying Change Order Numbers 5 and 6 for Construction Manager at Risk 38 Services for the Water Plant Repurposing and Lakefront Improvements Project with Bulley 39 and Andrews, Inc., Chicago, Illinois to Increase the Contract Price by $157,686.75 for a 40 Guaranteed Maximum Price Value of $7,684,882.58 41 42 President Kaz then asked whether any Trustees would like to take any item out of Omnibus Consideration. 43 They did not. She then asked whether there were any questions from the Board about any of these items. 44 Trustees clarified the nature of work associated with Change Order Number 5 and 6 listed as Item #3. 45 Manager Thake addressed the inquiry to the Board’s satisfaction. Hearing no further questions from the 46 Board or the public, President Kaz asked for a motion to approve the resolutions as stated. Trustee Ransford 1 so moved, and Trustee Lojkovic seconded the motion. 2 3 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 4 5 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 6 7 Opposed: None 8 9 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the ordinance and 10 resolutions authorized and approved. 11 12 Turning to Items for Consideration by Individual Vote, President Kaz read the first item aloud. 13 14 B. Items for Consideration by Individual Vote 15 4. Acceptance of the Annual Financial Report for the Period January 1 through December 31, 16 2025 17 18 She then asked Martha Trotter, partner at Sikich LLC, and Principal on the annual audit of the Village’s 19 financial statement for FY 2025 to present on this item. She began by noting for the Board that their present 20 findings are in draft form because they have yet to receive audited figures from the State of Illinois Municipal 21 Retirement Fund (IMRF). Aside from any adjustments from the draft figures holding place for the audited 22 figures in the financial statements presently, Ms. Trotter was able to prepare her report on the Village’s 23 audited financial statements for FY 2025. She complimented Village staff on the timely, professional 24 responses to the many questions and examinations that Sikich asked and performed and announced that they 25 were prepared to offer a clean, unmodified opinion of the Village’s financial statements for FY 2025 which is 26 the highest opinion that can be rendered. She urged the Board to review the entire report but especially the 27 “Management Discussion and Analysis” section, prepared by the Village, which provides an executive 28 summary of the financial reports, additional context to the reported balances, analysis of significant 29 fluctuations in those balances, comparisons of current year balances to past year balances, and specific 30 information around changes in the balances. 31 32 She then provided commentary on the entity-wide financial balances on a full accrual basis, statements of net 33 position, and statements of activity. She went on to analyze the Village’s net position in terms of 34 governmental activities and business activities, to define the meaning of “full accrual basis of accounting” as 35 the guiding principle followed for the audit, the annual entity-wide reporting requirement, to identify the 36 instances when a “modified accrual basis of accounting” proved to be a more prudent approach to fund 37 accounting, and listed the similarities and differences in approach to governmental activity funds and business 38 activity funds. She then turned to an analysis of investment income performance across a number of funds 39 controlled by the Village, highlighted footnotes to the financial statements as being consistent with an 40 unqualified opinion, detailed required supplemental information that was included in the audit, noted the 41 lack of deficiencies or difficulties in preparing the audit, the addition of a management letter stating there 42 were no material weaknesses discovered while preparing the audit, and the filing of the debt compliance 43 report related to the Tax Increment Financing District and the Comptroller Annual Financial Report as 44 required by law. She then asked the Board if there were any questions. Trustees inquired regarding the 45 impact of recent Cook County property tax payment delays on financial reporting. Ms. Trotter explained the 1 protocol used in modified accrual accounting treatment that addresses events like delayed revenue receipts. 2 She did caution that the Village could experience pressure on its cash position that would need to be 3 responded to. Hearing no further questions from the Board, President Kaz recognized resident David Joyce 4 who inquired as to the status of the Tax Increment Financing District Fund. Ms. Trotter responded with the 5 present fund balance and characterized activity in the fund during FY 2025. President Kaz then asked for a 6 motion to accept the Annual Financial Report for the Period January 1 through December 31, 2025, as 7 presented. Trustee Gottschall so moved, and Trustee Hannus seconded the motion. 8 9 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 10 11 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 12 13 Opposed: None 14 15 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the Annual Financial 16 Report accepted. 17 18 President Kaz then read the next item on the agenda aloud: 19 20 5. Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Special Use Permit for a Preliminary 21 Planned Unit Development for RED3 Development LLC Concerning the Property Located at 22 515-519 Park Drive 23 24 Because this was an item continued from a number of prior meetings, President Kaz asked Mr. Michael Blue 25 of Teska Associates, in his role as Village Planning adviser, to speak to this update. Mr. Blue began by 26 recounting Board meetings held in January of 2026 to consider a Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal 27 that he characterized as including a 46-foot-tall building that included space on the ground floor for a retail 28 business concern. The Board continued their consideration of the item and remanded it back to the 29 Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and the Plan Commission (PC) for further review and comment over 30 the course of several weeks. Before the Board could complete its deliberations on the 46-foot-tall-with-retail-31 space proposal, the developer (RED3 Development LLC) presented a second proposal that conformed to 32 prevailing zoning code height guidance of 35 feet (the 35-foot-proposal) but without space devoted to retail 33 businesses on the first floor. Because both proposals were proposed as PUD’s, the Board was empowered to 34 grant relief from stated zoning guidelines in each case. He noted that the zoning code allowed a height 35 variation of an additional five feet (or 40 feet) if a proposal was considered as a “Special Use” but there was 36 no provision, other than granting a specific zoning code variance to the PUD proposal, to accommodate a 46-37 foot-tall structure. The 35-foot-tall-without-retail-space would also need a specific zoning code variance 38 allowable to a PUD proposal due to the absence of retail space on the first floor. He recommended that the 39 Board consider one proposal at a time with an eye toward providing guidance to the developer as to which 40 zoning variance, if any, might be granted. 41 42 President Kaz asked Mr. Blue to review the options available to the Board to propose refinements to either or 43 both proposals at this preliminary stage of the formal approval process in order to produce the strongest 44 version of either one for consideration at the final stages of the approval process. Mr. Blue recommended 45 that the Board consider attaching conditions to the PUD variance request that address whatever concerns the 46 Board might have. He used the insertion of “step-back” and “set-back” guidance as a condition for approving 47 the requested zoning code variance to address the concerns about the height of a specific PUD proposal as an 48 example. He suggested that conditions should reflect aspects covered generally by the zoning code and not 49 tailored too specifically to any one PUD proposal. Other examples of a condition could address parking 1 concerns or the contribution to the “public benefit” of a proposal. He encouraged the Board to consider 2 these and other conditions they might impose to address any concerns they have with a PUD proposal. He 3 then offered to answer any questions. Trustees clarified the impact of adding conditions to the review 4 process conducted by the ARC or the PC, the nature of a recommendation that should come from the Board 5 of Trustees in order to allow the ARC and PC to conduct a productive review, the likely responses the Board 6 might receive from the ARC and PC and how to respond to them, the status of each proposal in the multi-step 7 approval process, and the opportunities the Board has to build consensus among stakeholders in the process. 8 President Kaz then recommended the Board discuss the first proposal, the 46-foot-tall-building-with-retail-9 space until ready to vote for acceptance or rejection of that proposal. Depending on the outcome of that 10 vote, consideration of the 35-foot-building-without-retail-space may be undertaken. Discussion should 11 include concerns as well as conditions to address those concerns, questions for the developer, and the 12 inclusion of public comment before any vote would be taken. She then opened the floor to the Board for 13 discussion. 14 15 Trustees clarified that they could have concerns but cannot offer conditions that might address them, 16 expressed opinions regarding the 46-foot-tall-with-retail as a “non-starter” due to its request for a major 17 zoning variance and the presence of vocal resident opposition. Consensus was reached supporting that 18 position. 19 20 President Kaz then asked the Board to discuss the 35-foot-building-without-retail-space. Trustees expressed 21 positive personal opinions regarding this proposal but felt zoning variances should be guided by Village-wide 22 efforts to guide development like the Green Bay Road Corridor Improvement Vision Statement (GBRCVS). 23 They reasoned the absence of retail space in a development located in the central business district challenges 24 the guidance given by the GBRCVS, offered reasons for overriding this guidance and allowing an esthetically 25 pleasing proposal improve the location despite the lack of retail space in the plans, encouraged residents 26 attending the meeting to articulate their feelings for the proposal, offered opinions regarding the likelihood of 27 success for retail businesses at the location, offered opinions regarding conditions that might be suggested to 28 address Trustee concerns, recalled public input when developing the GBRCVS vision statement regarding the 29 importance of developing retail businesses, stated the danger of setting a misguided precedent for future 30 development, and recognized the need for flexibility when confronted with proposals. No obvious consensus 31 among the Board presented itself on the 35-foot-building-without-retail-space proposal. 32 33 President Kaz then opened the discussion to members of the public attending the meeting. She asked that 34 comments be concise presentations of new information in the interests of expanding public debate. Resident 35 David Joyce expressed opposition to the possibility of a Board vote on the 35-foot-tall-building-without-retail-36 space without more formal review by stakeholders like the ARC and PC. Resident Eric Miller reminded the 37 Board of resident petitions expressing opposition to a proposal, expressed concern about setting the wrong 38 precedent for future development, offered historical support for approaching variance proposals carefully, 39 and urged the Board to work with residents to reach the best response to a variance proposal. Trustees 40 questioned both resident Joyce and Miller regarding the need for retail space in the development. They 41 stated that regardless of how they felt about the lack of retail space, there were other concerns that needed 42 to be addressed. Trustees continued to discuss compliance with general height requirements, the zoning 43 code allowances for retail business structures such as lot-line-to-lot-line construction, and limitations for 44 residential structures such as height requirements and setbacks. President Kaz reminded the Board that a 45 potential vote tonight would be for preliminary approval of a proposal that would be sent to the ARC and PC 46 for review and comment before final approval would be voted upon. 47 48 Resident Jeane Keiler reminded the Board regarding public testimony that Kenilworth has a small enough 49 business district already and questioning the wisdom of reducing it further by allowing a new structure to be 50 built that has no space for retail businesses, urged the Board to take the review and comment of the ARC and 51 PC rejecting these proposals seriously and vote not to approve either of them, cited traffic-related 1 information she gathered invoking the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as grounds for the need to do an 2 extensive traffic study of the Green Bay Road Business Corridor, and opined on the impact of property tax 3 collections that benefit schools should school-aged children take up residence in the Tax Increment Financing 4 Zone in which the proposed PUDs would be located. Mr. Brendan Appel introduced himself as an attorney 5 representing 43 signatories (the group) of a petition opposing the approval of a PUD. He expressed his 6 admiration for the reputation Kenilworth maintains as a well-run Village. He referenced a letter sent to the 7 Village stating the groups concern that the review process of these PUD proposals was not being followed 8 properly. In their view, no vote to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Special Use Permit for a 9 Preliminary Planned Unit Development for RED3 Development LLC Concerning the Property Located at 515-10 519 Park Drive should be taken at the present meeting. Rather, because the 35-foot-tall-building-without-11 retail-space proposal has so materially changed from the 46-foot-tall-building-with-retail-space proposal, the 12 review process should return to stage of canvassing for public input. He felt it was important to the group 13 that they could discuss the proposed PUD directly with the developer. He suggested that a 35-foot-tall-14 building-without-retail-space proposal might gain stronger public support if all of the steps in the Village’s 15 formal review process of the 35-foot proposal were followed from that point. He expressed support for the 16 consensus view of the Board against approving the 46-foot-tall-building-with-retail-space proposal. Resident 17 18 Greg Kirrish expressed the view that the neighborhood desires retail space in a PUD without violating the 35-19 foot height limit. Resident Ian Fisher expressed his understanding of the difficulty of satisfying everyone’s 20 preferences within the confines of zoning code limitations. He recognized the consequences of making a 21 decision that will impact the Village for what will likely be decades. He urged the Board to consider what 22 information can be gleaned by the free market regarding development proposals for the site in question. To 23 date, no proposals have been made that satisfy all the preferences expressed during this present discussion. 24 He cautioned that the indication should be recognized that trade-offs among these preferences will need to 25 be made if a proposal is to be approved. He stated that continuing to reject proposals that fail to satisfy every 26 preference until the right one appears, is making a decision to accept the lack development progress in the 27 Village. He understands that rejection of the present development proposals is a justifiable possibility. But he 28 urged the Board to extend the decision to reject these proposals to include directions about what sort of 29 proposal could be approved. He opined that all stakeholders have the legitimate claim of promoting 30 Kenilworth’s best interests, but that may require everyone to accept that, given what the free market has told 31 us, there are likely to be trade-offs among their preferences to achieve it. Every possible decision will have 32 consequences, including not changing our standards until they are ultimately met. He urged stakeholders to 33 consider consequences seriously. 34 35 Resident Ella Paul expressed her support for having retail space without violating the 35-foot height 36 restriction. She felt the present PUD proposals were architecturally pleasing, that safety concerns in the alleys 37 along and behind the proposed PUD site were legitimate, and supported the Board’s effort to improve the 38 area. Resident Louis Keiler inquired whether there was any multi-unit residential building presently in 39 Kenilworth that does not have retail space on the ground floor. Should that be the case, the Board would be 40 setting a precedent by approving the 35-foot-tall-building-without-retail-space proposal. He then identified a 41 property already built in Kenilworth that had retail space on the first floor, residential on the higher floors, 42 and does not violate the 35-foot height restriction in the zoning code. He observed that, should the 35-foot-43 tall-building-without-retail-space be approved, the developer would be allowed to build a residential 44 structure while being held to the zoning code restrictions of one possessing retail space. These restrictions as 45 to building height and set-backs/step-backs are less restrictive. He pointed out the 519 Park Avenue property 46 site was originally residential and urged the Board to direct the developer to build a residential structure 47 subject to residential structure limitations in the zoning code. 48 49 Messrs. Michael Freiberger and Reed Edwards, representing the developer RED3 Development LLC, addressed 50 their research into the viability of retail space at the proposed PUD site. The location of the property was 51 rejected by multiple retail businesses because it was not located on Green Bay Road, which afforded a higher 1 level of visibility, and because of its proximity to residential properties that could cause a restriction of 2 business practices. Mr. Edwards reiterated their vision for a luxury residential structure that would improve 3 the area and cited the work they have done to respond to resident input by redesigning the 46-foot-tall-4 building-with-retail-space proposal. He recounted their efforts to compromise with the Village having 5 culminated in the 35-foot-tall-building-without-retail-space proposal. Mr. Freiberger read a statement sent to 6 the Board of Trustees dated June 15, 2026, reviewing the efforts made to work with the Village to present a 7 PUD proposal that is acceptable. He urged the Board to approve the 35-foot-tall-building-without-retail-space 8 as presented. This concluded their comments. 9 10 Hearing no further comments from the Board or the public, President Kaz asked if there were any issues to be 11 addressed before she called for a vote on the agenda item. Trustees clarified their options for discussing the 12 importance of retail space in the PUD, expressed concern regarding the lack of official process review and 13 comment from the ARC and PC regarding the 35-foot-tall-building-without-retail-space PUD to be voted on, 14 clarified input provided by Mr. Freiberger as to ARC and PC comments on a draft proposal similar to 35-foot 15 PUD being discussed, reviewed comments by ARC and PC representatives at the April 20, 2026 Board of 16 Trustees meeting regarding a PUD proposal without retail space, expressed support for the viability of retail 17 business at the proposed PUD site, reviewed the guidance provided by the GBRCVS, acknowledged the need 18 for development in the area, expressed appreciation of the RED3 Development’s efforts to work with the 19 Village, confirmed with the developer that they have no alternative PUD plans for a 35-foot PUD that includes 20 retail space, and asked Village Attorney Greg Jones to clarify where, in the official review process of the 35-21 foot PUD, the Board stands, what will a vote on the 35-foot proposal accomplish, and what will happen after 22 the vote is taken. Attorney Jones clarified the application before the Board is a preliminary planned unit 23 development. Approving this application before the Board presently would subject the proposed PUD to final 24 review by the ARC, the PC, and the BOT, which would also include an invitation for public comment, before 25 any construction of the PUD could commence. He noted that the Board could provide conditions for approval 26 on which the ARC and PC could comment during their final review. Approval of the agenda item would 27 initiate the preparation of an ordinance and “findings of fact” by Village staff related to the approved 28 preliminary proposal supporting final approval of the PUD application at a subsequent meeting. Trustees 29 clarified that should the agenda item be approved, the formal PUD approval process allows for inviting further 30 public comment on the preliminary PUD proposal that could be responded to before a final vote on the item 31 is taken. Attorney Jones then reiterated the intention to vote on approval for the 46-foot-tall-building-with-32 retail-space. Should that vote fail to approve, the Board would then consider the 35-foot-tall-building-33 without-retail-space proposal. Trustees verified that both proposals were attached to one application for 34 approval, the opportunities to add conditions to each, and the sequence of events in the formal PUD approval 35 process that will take place presently as well as subsequently. To answer questions from the Board regarding 36 the addition of conditions to a 35-foot proposal calling for the inclusion of retail space, Attorney Jones 37 suggested the developer be asked whether there is a design iteration he could produce that could meet them. 38 Mr. Freiberger and Mr. Edwards responded that there was none. 39 40 In an effort to move the process forward, President Kaz called for a motion regarding the 46-foot-tall-building-41 with-retail-space. Trustee Vitu moved that the Board deny approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness and a 42 Special Use Permit for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development for RED3 Development LLC Concerning the 43 Property Located at 515-519 Park Drive, consisting of a 46-foot-tall building with retail space provided. 44 45 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 46 47 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 48 49 Opposed: None 50 51 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the motion approved. 1 2 President Kaz then asked for a motion regarding the 35-foot-tall-building-without-retail-space. Trustee 3 Gottschall, after conferring with Attorney Jones, moved to direct Village staff to prepare an ordinance, along 4 with findings of fact supporting its approval, granting a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Special Use 5 Permit for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development for RED3 Development LLC Concerning the Property 6 Located at 515-519 Park Drive, consisting of a 35-foot-tall building without retail space provided. Trustee 7 Lojkovic seconded the motion. Trustee Ottsen then offered a condition for approval that there be space 8 made available for retail business on the first floor. It was determined that Trustee Gottschall and Trustee 9 Lojkovic would not consent to conditions to be added to their motion. 10 11 In response to that, Trustee Ottsen made a motion to add the condition that there be space made available 12 for retail business on the first floor to the motion made by Trustees Gottschall and Lojkovic. Trustee Hannus 13 seconded the motion. There was then a discussion among the Trustees regarding the use of conditions up to 14 taking a final vote to approve a PUD request. 15 16 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 17 18 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Vitu 19 20 Opposed: Gottschall, Lojkovic 21 22 The roll call was four votes in favor, and two opposed. President Kaz declared the motion approved thereby 23 adding a condition to the original motion made by Trustee Gottschall and seconded by Trustee Lojkovic. 24 Attorney Jones then asked the Board whether there were additional conditions to be added to the motion 25 made by Trustees Gotschall and Lojkovic. Trustees discussed the qualities of possible conditions that might be 26 added to the motion, the role of the ARC and the PC in the remaining steps of the formal review process, the 27 difference in impact on the remaining formal review process between “findings of fact” and adding conditions 28 to a motion, and what expectations are appropriate for the Board’s role in the formal review process. It was 29 determined that there are steps available in the continuing formal review process to influence the final form 30 of the proposal seeking final approval. It was decided to ask Trustees Gottschall and Lojkovic if he would 31 accept further conditions to the amended motion on the floor addressing building step-backs, building set-32 backs, and alleys associated with the proposed PUD. They consented to these additional conditions. 33 34 Trustees Gottschall and Lojkovic’s motion as amended to read as follows: Motion to direct Village staff to 35 prepare and ordinance and findings of fact supporting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness and a 36 Special Use Permit for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development for RED3 Development LLC Concerning the 37 Property Located at 515-519 Park Drive, consisting of a 35-foot-tall building with conditions for providing 38 retail space on the ground floor, addressing building step-backs, addressing building set-backs and alleys 39 associated with the project. 40 41 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 42 43 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Lojkovic, Vitu 44 45 Opposed: Gottschall, 46 47 The roll call was five votes in favor, and one opposed. President Kaz declared the motion approved. 48 49 President Kaz then turned to Reports from Staff and asked Police Chief Silva to begin. 1 2 Report from Staff 3 4 A. Community Development 5 B. Finance 6 C. Police 7 Chief Silva began by highlighting the safety and security achieved during the Village Memorial Day celebration 8 and the Sears School Graduation Parade. He then reported crimes involving identity theft and the theft of a 9 bicycle. Monthly statistical totals indicated a reduction in police activity. He commented on the success of 10 the Police Open House that took place during the Village’s annual Memorial Day festivities, updated the Board 11 on the ongoing effort to promote positive community relations and concluded his remarks by discussing 12 personnel changes. Hearing no questions, he concluded his report. 13 D. Public Works 14 Superintendent of Public Works Donald Leicht took the floor to commend the dedication of the DPW staff 15 during the recent occurrence of severe weather conditions which caused damage to the tree canopy, taxed 16 sewer infrastructure, and threatened power supplies. He felt the efficiency the staff displayed responding to 17 a number of unpredictable emergencies needed to be recognized. The personal sacrifices his staff made to 18 serve the Village were considerable. He went on to extol the close relationship the Village enjoys with 19 Kenilworth Park District personnel as well as the wisdom of engaging in winter tree trimming being borne out 20 by the limited damage to the tree canopy caused by the severe weather. 21 E. Legal Counsel 22 No formal report 23 F. Village Manager 24 No formal report 25 26 Business from the Public 27 28 President Kaz then asked whether there was any business from the public not included in the evening’s 29 agenda. There were none. 30 31 Adjourn 32 33 Having no further business, President Kaz asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Trustee Ransford so 34 moved, and Trustee Lojkovic seconded the motion. 35 36 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 37 38 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 39 40 Opposed: None 41 42 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the meeting adjourned at 43 10:02 p.m. 44