_06022026-767

1 VILLAGE OF 2 3 KENILWORTH, IL 4 5 Committee of the Whole Special Meeting 6 June 2, 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 6:00 p.m. on June 2, 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 Present 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 Molly Burns Management Analyst 41 42 Others, signing in as displayed in Participant List: 43 44 David Joyce 1 Jeanne Keiler 2 Louis Keiler 3 Michael Blue 4 5 Presentation and Discussion 6 7 President Kaz reviewed the history to date of the ongoing effort to update the Village Zoning Code and asked 8 Ms. Heather McFarland to report on this item. 9 10 A. Zoning Code Update: Development Review Commission Structure 11 12 Ms. McFarland prepared the Board to hear a presentation by Mr. Michael Blue of Teska Associates who serves 13 as the Village Planner. He began by characterizing the updating of a zoning code as complicated and dense. 14 To address this situation planners have employed a method of separating those aspects that are easily 15 addressed, calling for obvious solutions, from those that are more nuanced requiring a definition of policy 16 preferences that can be hard to articulate. He stated that tonight’s presentation would address some of the 17 policy questions facing the Village as it updates its zoning code. He articulated three topics requiring policy 18 discussions to be covered during the meeting: 19 20 1. Development Review Commission Structure 21 2. Administrative Variations 22 3. B-Business District (Green Bay Road Building Height and Bulk, Park Drive Considerations) 23 24 Tonight’s meeting will be centered on item #1 leaving items #2&3 for discussion at a later date 25 26 Development Review Commission Structure 27 28 Mr. Blue described the existing development review process emphasizing the role played by the Architectural 29 Review Commission (ARC), the Plan Commission (PC), and finally the Board of Trustees (BOT). He illustrated 30 the many steps that are required to reach the stage of review by the ARC and PC, which both take place 31 before the BOT becomes involved. These steps include the submission of applications, staff review, public 32 and neighbor notices, and formal public hearings. The number and requirements of these steps can present 33 challenges to a Village seeking to encourage modernization through new development while preserving 34 historic standards for charm and sophistication so important to residents. Those challenges include an often-35 lengthy review process which adds expense to existing and new businesses and requires residents to attend 36 multiple meetings in order to share feedback. Another challenge is the differing purviews of multiple 37 commissions that can make it difficult to evaluate permit requests holistically, can confuse the residents 38 unfamiliar with the difference between a planning review and an architectural review, and can create a 39 stagnating process among the commissions with each waiting for the other to complete their review before 40 beginning their own. 41 42 Mr. Blue then turned to a comparison of approaches from communities neighboring Kenilworth which 43 included Bannockburn, Deerfield, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Lake Forest, Lincolnshire, Lincolnwood, 44 Morton Grove, Niles, Northbrook, Northfield, Wilmette, and Winnetka. Some of these communities used an 45 ARC but no PC, some used a PC but no ARC, some, like Kenilworth, used both. Because there is no discernable 46 pattern for “best practices for zoning review” to be found among this comparison, it becomes a policy 47 question for each village and town as to how they wish to pursue their zoning review process. 48 49 Mr. Blue then presented three alternatives for the BOT to consider as best reflecting their desire for robust 1 zoning review conducted in an efficient manner: 2 3 Alternative #1 – Consolidation: PC reviews Certificates of Appropriateness (CofA) for new 4 development or significant alterations and conducts administrative review of signs and structural 5 elements, thereby eliminating the need for an ARC. 6 Alternative #2 – Hybrid: PC reviews CofA requests when paired with zoning application. PC members 7 to include design professionals. Smaller ARC review limited to standalone CofA requests. 8 Alternative #3 – Status Quo: No change from the present review process utilizing a full ARC and PC. 9 10 Mr. Blue compared and contrasted these three alternatives and then concluded his remarks by reiterating 11 some of the logic behind bringing the idea of consolidating the PC and the ARC before the BOT for policy 12 definition: to provide greater efficiency in the zoning review process for the applicants and the community, 13 and to manage the present workload of ARC and PC in a way to provide more balance month-to-month 14 fostering a desirable rhythm to their deliberations. The concern for combining the two commissions includes 15 the loss of expertise, specifically found presently in the ARC, that can preserve the historic standards for 16 charm and sophistication mentioned earlier. He urged the Board to weigh the trade-offs of efficiency and 17 thoroughness and determine which alternative best serves the policy they wish to support. 18 19 Trustees offered comments regarding how many of the easier decisions were reached through the process 20 that took place during the months prior to this meeting. During that period consensus could not be reached, 21 however, on this policy, hence the need to bring it before the Board for a decision. They, along with Mr. Blue, 22 went on to discuss the present mission of the ARC and PC in the zoning process, the process followed by staff 23 to facilitate the process, the benefits of allowing both commissions to operate independently, the importance 24 of thoroughness, the desirability of efficiency, the suggestion of flipping the order of their involvement in the 25 process, the efficacy of comparing our process with those of neighboring communities, the qualities of zoning 26 requests that are best handled by either the ARC or the PC, the possibility of allowing staff to conduct 27 “administrative review’ of minor zoning requests, the wisdom of writing the zoning code to allow for greater 28 flexibility, overriding municipal ordinances that can affect zoning code processing, whether there are ways to 29 streamline the present process without restructuring the commission arrangement, the danger of allowing 30 politics to enter into the zoning code application approval process, the aspects of public interaction that can 31 subvert the approval process, tactics that applicants could employ to facilitate the process, the legal 32 complications of not following a structured review process, the need for sensitivity to stakeholders time 33 allotment for getting something approved, the importance of conducting a highly transparent consistent 34 process, and the history of past Board’s dependence on a thorough zoning application review and whether 35 changes would complicate the process for future Boards. A consensus was reached that the Board prefers 36 Alternative #3 – Maintaining the Status Quo. Hearing no further discussion from the Board, President Kaz 37 asked Mr. Blue whether he had enough feedback to understand the Board’s position on this policy question. 38 He said that he did and would begin a discussion of some of the suggestions for streamlining and facilitating 39 the Status Quo with Village Attorney Jones to vet any legal concerns before offering more defined suggestions 40 to the Board. President Kaz then opened the floor to any public comment on this discussion on this item. 41 42 Resident Jeanne Keiler supported the choice of Alternative #3. Her personal experience attending PC and ARC 43 meetings was that they resulted in satisfying the need for residents to feel heard about possible changes to 44 the Village, they offered independent research to support their positions, they demonstrated respect for 45 resident interests and worked diligently to be transparent and fair. She also agreed that flipping the order of 46 appearance for the ARC and the PC in the process was a good idea. Ms. Keiler asked whether an email could 47 be sent to residents regarding neighborhood meetings. Manager Thake and President Kaz pointed out the 48 multiple outlets where important information can be accessed and assured Ms. Keiler, they would help her 49 achieve that access. 50 1 Resident David Joyce agreed with the idea of flipping the order of appearance for the ARC and PC in the 2 approval process and cited public comment submitted by resident Marjie Zander outlining the same concept 3 and its potential benefits. He did not support streamlining the process. He felt the zoning code should be 4 observed and variances should be limited. He urged the Board to require that neighborhood meetings 5 regarding zoning applications be held within the Village of Kenilworth, preferably on Village-owned property. 6 7 Hearing no further public comment, President Kaz to Manager Thake who asked whether Mr. Blue could 8 summarize what the consensus was from the meeting. Mr. Blue stated that the Board preferred to keep the 9 present structure of the ARC and PC intact, that they meet separately, that the order of their participation be 10 flipped from the present protocol (ARC first, PC second) to the reverse, that Mr. Blue explore opportunities for 11 the ARC and the PC to hear presentations together in the name of efficiency without sacrificing the 12 thoroughness of review. He acknowledged his intention to review these possible opportunities with Village 13 Attorney Jones to avoid violating any State of Illinois Public Meeting regulations. He reiterated that the 14 zoning code should be seen as a set of expectations set out by the Village regarding development. 15 16 Business from the Public 17 18 President Kaz asked if there was any business from the public on items not on the agenda. There was none. 19 20 Adjourn 21 22 With no further business, President Kaz asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Trustee Ransford offered 23 a motion to adjourn the meeting and Trustee Hannus seconded the motion. 24 25 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 26 27 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Vitu 28 29 Opposed: None 30 31 With a vote of five in favor, none opposed, President Kaz declared the meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m. 32