Agenda & Packet

The Village of Kenilworth is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the facilities are requested to contact the Village at 847- 251-1666 promptly to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. Notice of Special Meeting There will be a special meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Village Board on June 2, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at Village Hall, 419 Richmond Road; Kenilworth, IL. The public may attend in person or by utilizing the following link: TEAMS MEETING LINK If you do not have access to a computer, you may attend via telephone: +1 872-242-8055 Meeting ID: 556 609 371# Committee of the Whole Special Meeting Agenda June 2, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. I. Call to Order / Roll Call II. Presentation and Discussion A. Zoning Code Update: Development Review Commission Structure III. Business from the Public IV. Adjourn Village of 1 Request for Commission Action Agenda Item: II.A Staff Contact: Heather McFarland, Asst. to the Village Manager Jordan Schmidt, Management Analyst Michael Blue, Teska Associates Subject: Zoning Code Update: Development Review Commission Structure (Presentation & Discussion) Summary: The Village of Kenilworth began a comprehensive zoning code update at the beginning of 2025. Teska Associates has led the effort with policy direction from an ad-hoc workgroup comprised of current and former commissioners. One key policy question that surfaced during the workgroup’s review was whether modifications to commission structure were warranted. Consensus from the workgroup was not reached. It is recommended that the Village Board discuss the policy question and provide direction on the preferred path forward. Background: Teska Associates began a comprehensive review of the Village’s zoning code in early 2025. The review process has included staff and the ad-hoc Zoning Code Update Workgroup to evaluate key policy questions to guide future code amendments. One of the first set of changes the workgroup was asked to consider was whether changes to the Village’s development review commissions were warranted. The policy question emerged to identify efficiencies in the review process for residents, commissioners, staff and applicants. Other key policy questions that emerged, such as administrative variations, building height, and business district uses, will also be discussed at a future Committee of the Whole meeting. The Village has four commissions responsible for reviewing zoning and development applications: • Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA): Variations, code official appeals, and recommendations on non-business district requests for special use permits, map, and text amendments • Plan Commission (PC): Recommendations on Business District requests for variations, special use permits, text amendments, map amendments, and new subdivisions • Architectural Review Commission (ARC): Design review for public facing improvements in the Business District and non-residential uses in residential districts (i.e. Certificate of Appropriateness) • Building Review Commission (BRC): Demolition permit applications for all districts Certain zoning and development applications require review from multiple commissions given their distinct purviews. As an example, a new restaurant seeking outdoor seating and a sign for their business would have their project evaluated by the ARC, PC, and finally the Village Board. Considered By: Date: Committee of the Whole 06/02/26 Village of 2 The ARC’s focus would solely focus on the sign, while the PC’s focus would remain on potential adverse impacts of the outdoor use. Approval for both elements would rest with the Village Board after considering recommendations from the ARC and PC. This process allows each body to lean on their distinct expertise when evaluating the requests. Municipal Comparison Staff reviewed nearby communities’ commissions structures for comparison. The general structure of having planning, zoning, architectural and demolition reviews was consistent in other communities, however, the structure of the boards/commissions varied. Of the 14 communities staff reviewed, the majority (9) had appointed bodies that performed appearance reviews. In six of the 14 communities, a single commission was utilized to make recommendations on commercial developments. Two communities relied on administrative review of design standards. Recent conversations with Winnetka indicated interest in pursuing a similar approach through future code updates. The table below outlines the findings: Community ARC PC ZBA PC + ZBA PC Comm. Design Review Admin. Design Review Bannockburn X X X Deerfield X X X Glencoe X X X Highland Park X X X Highwood X X Lake Forest X X X Lincolnshire X X Lincolnwood X X Morton Grove X X Niles X X Northbrook X X X X Northfield X X X Wilmette X X X X (PUD Only) Winnetka X X X Zoning Code Update Over the past several years, the Village has received multiple applications that have required review by the PC and ARC. During these cases, commissioners felt it was difficult to complete a comprehensive review as certain elements were contingent on another commission’s feedback. The process has also created confusion with public meeting attendees. Members of the public have highlighted the challenge in attending numerous meetings for a specific project, and confusion over the correct meeting to express their support or concerns. Finally, applicants seeking zoning relief have expressed frustration with lengthy review processes. In Teska’s code review, they note that splitting duties can reduce familiarity with the process and past cases if requests are limited. Over the last five-year period, the PC and ARC averaged four meetings per year with a single agenda item at each meeting. Additional impacts also arise from the additional number of meetings applicants and the public attend, and confusion regarding each commission’s purview. To mitigate these impacts, Teska recommended the 3 Village consolidate the PC and the ARC and create an administrative approval process for compliant sign request. The Zoning Code Update Workgroup discussed Teska’s recommendation and was unable to find consensus. Concerns centered on the loss of the ARC’s technical expertise and capacity for the PC and staff to effectively apply design standards. To identify a path forward in line with community goals, it is recommended that the Village Board consider if a change to the development review process is warranted. If so, feedback on the preferred process change is requested. Commission Review Alternatives To aid with the Village Board’s review, several alternatives have been outlined below: Alternative #1 - Consolidation • PC absorbs ARC powers and duties • Eligible ARC members remain on PC o Group decreases in size through attrition • Administrative review of compliant signs and structural elements like awnings or light fixtures Alternative #2 - Hybrid • PC review includes design when paired with another zoning application (e.g. special use and façade improvement) • PC members to include design professionals, or similar • Smaller ARC with review limited to standalone Certificate of Appropriateness requests (e.g. signs and structural elements) Alternative #3 – Status Quo • No change Recommended Action: The Village Board should consider Teska’s recommendation to consolidate the ARC and PC and provide direction for future code amendments. Attachments: • Zoning Code Update Review Memo – Commission Structure • Legal Memo – Development Review Commissions and Procedures (2022) 4 Page | 2 Policy Questions 1. Recommending Bodies: The existing zoning code identifies the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Plan Commission and the Architectural Review Commission as the bodies which recommend and/or decide zoning requests. Currently, the code separates the authority to review / recommend / decide on applications by zoning district or whether there are multiple requests (special use). This splitting of duties can reduce familiarity with the process and past cases if requests are limited. Specifically for situations in which a Special Use or Planned Unit Development is under consideration, this also has the impact of requiring more meetings for applicants. We would recommend the Village streamline the approval processes as follows: REQUEST BODY ACTION FINAL ACTION APPEAL Appeal ZBA Decision ZBA County Circuit Court Variation – no Special Use ZBA Decision ZBA County Circuit Court Variation – for Special Use PC Recommendation Village Board Special Use PC Recommendation Village Board Map/Text Amendments PC Recommendation Village Board Planned Unit Development PC Recommendation Village Board Certificate of Appropriateness ARC Decision ARC Certificate of Appropriateness – for Special Uses (including PUD) ARC Recommendation Village Board 2. Commissions Structure: To further streamline approval processes for zoning requests, we recommend consolidation of the Plan Commission and the Architectural Review Commission. This would reduce the overall number of commissioners, increase familiarity with implementing the Village’s appearance plan and design guidelines, and enable the concurrent review of requests by a single body (special use, planned unit development). Consolidation of these bodies would reduce the overall number of meetings an applicant is required to attend. 3. Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) for Signs: Currently a COA is required for all permanent signs in any district. We recommend that the requirement for a COA be changed to apply only when a sign requires a variation and to modify the requirements as needed in the sign code to more clearly define requirements for signs related to materials, colors, orientation, etc. 4. Planned Unit Developments as a Special Use in more districts: Currently, the zoning code permits planned unit developments only within the B Business District. The process requires that applicants prepare a preliminary plan and show that it meets the standards and requirements for both PUDs and Special Uses. These applications are required to undergo review and consideration by the Architectural Review Commission, then the Plan Commission, and finally by the Village Board. 5 A Professional Corporation 140 South Dearborn Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 www.ancelglink.com Gregory W. Jones gjones@ancelglink.com (P) 312.604.9195 (F) 312.782.0943 CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON ● MOLINE M E M O R A N D U M To: Village of Kenilworth President Kaz and Board of Trustees CC: Patrick Brennan, Village Manager From: Gregory W. Jones Subject: Development Review Commissions and Procedures Date: August 10, 2022 This memorandum follows up on the Village Board’s recent discussion concerning the structure and duties of the Village commissions responsible for reviewing zoning and development applications. Below is an overview of the Village’s current commission structure, a discussion of the steps applicant s, staff, and the public must take to navigate the Village’s review process, and several options the Village can consider to increase productivity and efficiency during the application review process. I. Current Commission Structure Excluding the Village Board, t he Village Code currently designates 4 different commissions responsible for reviewing zoning and development applications: (1) the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”); (2) the Plan Commission (“ PC”); (3) the Architectural Review Commission (“ARC”); and (4) the Building Review Commission. Table 1 below provides an ove rview of each commission and their respective authority concerning zoning and development applications. TABLE 1: COMMISSION OVERVIEW Body Membership Authority Over Applications ZBA 7 members (no vacancies) a) Decide appeals from staff interpretations b) Decide zoning code variance applications c) Offer recommendation s to Village Board regarding special use permit applications in all zoning districts other than the B Business Zoning District (“B District”) d) Offer recommendations to Village Board regarding map amendment ( i.e., rezoning) and text amendment applications e) Hear other matters referred by the Village Board 6 ANCEL GLINK August 10, 2022 Page 2 CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON ● MOLINE PC 7 members (1 vacancy) a) Offer recommendation s to Village Board regarding special use permit applications in the B District b) Offer recommendation s to Village Board regarding subdivision applications c) Hear other matters referred by the Village Board ARC 7 members (3 vacancies) a) Decide certificate of appropriateness applications b) Offer recommendation to the Village Board on certificate of appropriateness applications associated with a special use permit request BRC 7 members (1 vacancy) Review demolition permit applications The Village’s current commission structure has created several challenges. First, we understand the Village has historically struggled to fill commission vacancies. The Village has benefitted from several long -serving commission members; however, the Vil lage should not expect each member to accept a lifetime appointment. Prolonged commission vacancies can make it difficult to hold meetings and conduct business, which, in turn, can slow the Village’s progress toward its economic development goals. The Village is not alone; many communities with smaller populations struggle with commission vacancy issues. This situation has been aggravated by recent changes to Statement of Economic Interest filing requirements . The State’s new filing requirements have generally had a cooling effect on willingness to serve. Second, several commissions meet infrequently. In some cases, a commission may meet only once or tw ice a year. Infrequent meetings are partially attributable to the narrow scope of authority some com missions have. This can make it difficult for a commission to build institutional knowledge and conduct meaningful and efficient meetings. It can also result in commission decisions or recommendations that fail to sufficiently focus on relevant review criteria. Commission decisions that rely on irrelevant factors provide the Village Board will less helpful guidance and, in some cases, could expose the Village to potential liability. Third, depending on the application, the commission review process ca n be fragmented. Certain aspects of an application for a single development are considered by one commission, while other portions of the same application are considered by a different commission. Reviewing applications in this manner can result in confl icting recommendations from different commissions. This provides less helpful guidance to the Village Board. It also requires the applicant, the public, and staff to spend significantly more time and resources on the application as it proceeds through a review process that involves numerous meetings with several commissions. This can serve as an impediment to the Village accomplishing its economic development goals and frustrate residents who aren’t familiar with each commission’s scope of review. 7 ANCEL GLINK August 10, 2022 Page 3 CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON ● MOLINE II. Application Review Process Generally, t he Village’s commission structure adequately handles development applications seeking a single form of relief. For example, a resident applying for a variance to reduce a setback to accommodate an addition to their home only needs to attend a hearing with the ZBA. Residents seeking to comment on the proposal would likewise only be required to attend a ZBA meeting. The commission review process is more complex and far less efficient for applications that involve multiple forms of relief. For example, the recent Assembly Hall application included requests for rezoning, a special use permit, and a subdivision. This resulted in the Village conducting 5 public meetings to consider this request – 1 PC meeting, 1 ZBA meeting, and 3 Village Board meetings. Had the applicant not agreed to consolidate its tentative subdivision plat and final subdivision plat approval requests, this application would have required 7 meetings. It’s worth noting this application – unlike many others – did not require ARC review. ARC involvement would have resulted in more meetings, time, and resources. The ARC regularly plays a role in the development application review process. The ARC is generally responsible for review ing the appearance of pr oposed buildings and structures and either (1) offering feedback and recommendations to the PC, the Village Board, or staff, or (2) deciding whether to issue a certificate of appropriateness. Recognizing most development proposals involve material exterio r changes to a building, the ARC commonly weighs in on development applications. The ARC’s role reviewing a development ’s aesthetics often overlaps with the PC or ZBA’s review of a special use permit application. In many communities, the commission considering a special use permit application concurrently evaluates the development’s aesthetics . The Village’s current process truncates the PC and ZBA’s aesthetic review by assigning that job to the ARC for consideration at a separate meeting. This process adds time and obligates additional resources. It’s worth noting the Village has been discussing its development review process for some time . As recently as 2019, the Village discussed the steps associated with its development review process and, at that time, prepared the attached summary detailing the 7 meetings that must be conducted before the Village can approved a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”). That 7- meeting process involved the ARC, the PC, and the Village Board each conducting multiple meetings. It also assumed each body would have sufficient information to make a decision at the meeting. Requests for additional information would result in more than 7 meetings. 8 ANCEL GLINK August 10, 2022 Page 4 CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON ● MOLINE III. Potential Commission Modifications Below is a list and discussion of several changes the Village can consider making to its commission structure and development review process . This list is not exhaustive . Instead, it’s intended to highlight some changes best designed to promote a meaningful and efficient development review process. 1. Subdivision Plat Referral. Currently, the Village Code requires the Village Board to refer a subdivision plat application to the PC for review. At the Village Board meeting where the referral is made, t he Village Board does not review the pl at or otherwise evaluate the merits of the application. The Board simply votes to allow the PC to perform that work. This step adds no apparent benefit to the review process and could be eliminated without compromising the Village’s legal authority to review subdivision applications. 2. PC and ARC Consolidation. Currently, the PC and the ARC perform analogous functions. The PC regularly reviews aesthetic variables when considering special use permit applications , despite the ARC having authority to do so. Vesting the PC with authority to discharge the ARC’s duties would (a) allow the PC to consider and discuss an entire application, including aesthetic components, at a single meeting; (b) increase the frequency of PC meetings, thus fostering institutional knowledge and stronger recommendations; and (c) provide a chance to increase the PC’s architectural experience and comfort level. The type of review currently provided by the ARC would continue to be provided; it would just be the PC’s responsibility to conduct that review. 3. Applications Involving Multiple Requests . Vesting the PC with the ARC’s responsibilities will reduce – but not eliminate – the need for applicants and the public to appear before numerous commissions to have an application heard. The Code would still require some applications appear before the PC and ZBA before proceeding to the Village Board. For example, a resident seeking approval of a special use permit in a residential zoning district and a subdivision still must be heard by the ZBA (who considers the special use permit) and the PC (who considers the subdivision). The Village could amend its code to vest one body – likely the PC – to hear and offer a recommendation on applications that involve multiple approval requests. This would encourage consistent decisions and recommendations on entire applications, instead of potentially conflicting decisions on discrete aspects of the project. Using the example above, subdivision approval may not be necessary if the special use permit is not also approved. 4. Delegate Sign Approval Authority . The Code currently requires the ARC to conduct a meeting to review and approve signs, even if the sign complies with the Code and does not require a variance. We understand the ARC routinely approves these signs. 9 ANCEL GLINK August 10, 2022 Page 5 CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● NAPERVILLE ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON ● MOLINE Authorizing staff to review and approve compliant signs would eliminate a procedural requirement that provides limited apparent benefit, but requires the applicant, st aff, and public to dedicate time and resources to navigate. 5. Eliminate Ex Officio Members . Currently, the ZBA chairperson serves as an ex officio member of the PC. The PC chairperson also serves on the ZBA. This arrangement can impose additional and s ignificant burdens on the chairpersons, including attending additional meetings and applying review standards that their commission or board may not normally consider. Replacing the ZBA and PC’s ex officio members with individuals appointed by the Village President and approved by the Village Board may reduce this burden and enhance the Village’s ability to recruit volunteers to serve on its boards and commissions. IV. Conclusion We look forward to discussing this Memo further with the Village Board at the August 15 Village Board meeting. 4883-6729-3741, v. 2 10