_04202026-760

VILLAGE OF 1 2 3 KENILWORTH, IL 4 5 Village Board of Trustees 6 Meeting 7 April 20, 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 7:00 p.m. on 12 April 20, 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 Greg Jones Village Attorney 41 Donicio Silva Village Police Chief 42 Jordan Schmidt Management Analyst 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 Molly Burns Management Analyst 1 Donald Leicht Superintendent of Public Works 2 3 Others, signing in as displayed in Participant List: 4 5 L. Barhight Leslie Burke Byron Collins Ceciel Coolegem- Fosco Barbara Cornew Rene Daellenbach Vince Dina Ian Fisher Matt Foran Mike Goode Rick Gordan David Joyce Dorothy Karr Pam Katcha Jeanne Keiler Louis Keiler Greg Kirrish Kathy Kirrish Steven Lestrud Eileen Madigan Jim Maloney Bridie Maloney Ryan McDermott Eric Miller Patricia Naughton Maura O'Conner Paul O'Conner Duane O'Laughlin John P Katherine Palin Mary Popielewski Kylee Rader David Rader Alice Reed Jolie Schwartz Anna Simpson Lois Stanley Carl Stern Jennifer Swain Bill Tribe Vivian Vahlberg David Ward Rob Wiebking Marjie Zander Justin 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 – March 16, 2026 12 13 Hearing none, President Kaz then asked for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Trustee Lojkovic 14 so moved, and Trustee Gottschall 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 drawing attention to two proclamations listed in the Public Meeting Packet: 27 28 A. Proclamation – Arbor Day April 24, 2026 29 B. Proclamation – Compost Awareness Week May 3-9, 2026 30 31 She encouraged everyone to join the Village in observing these two events. Concluding her remarks, she 1 asked Mr. Michael Cottick of the Construction firm Bulley & Andrews, in their role as construction manager 2 for the ongoing Beach Improvement Project, to report on its progress. 3 4 C. Beach Improvement Project Update (Bulley and Andrews) 5 6 Mr. Cottick provided a brief update of the progress being made on the project. He highlighted that the 7 challenges faced by construction vendors due to inclement weather have pushed the project’s completion 8 date from early June to July 1, 2026. Acknowledging the anticipated beach opening day schedule, he went on 9 to describe plans being devised presently for a possible change to that opening schedule, or to allow the 10 Village to utilize a subset of the full beach facilities during this construction delay. He would be working with 11 Village staff to provide the Board with final drafts of these alternatives very soon. President Kaz took time to 12 address balancing the pent-up excitement for opening the newly improved beach facility with doing so before 13 beach attendees can be safely protected. The Board will be working to strike that balance intelligently and 14 she thanked Village residents for their patience as they do so. 15 16 Approval of Warrant List 17 18 Before President Kaz asked Trustee Gottschall to report on the Warrant List, she invited Management Analyst 19 Jordan Schmidt to report on this agenda item. Mr. Schmidt pointed out an error in the Warrant List regarding 20 payment to an Information Technology (I.T.) vendor. The payment was in the process of being corrected 21 without penalty to the Village and resulted in a reduced total for Class A warrant payments for the month. 22 Trustee Gottschall then highlighted Class B payments to be ratified as payroll related, and Class A warrant 23 payments to be approved for Lakefront Improvement Project (LIP) charges, employee medical insurance, and 24 for charges related to body-worn cameras by the Kenilworth Police Department. Trustees thanked Village 25 Manager Thake and Mr. Schmidt for catching the erroneous I.T. charge, clarified the nature of the camera 26 charge, and identified the source of charges related to the LIP. 27 28 Hearing no further comments from the Board, President Kaz asked for a motion to approve the warrants as 29 corrected. Trustee Vitu so moved, and Trustee Lojkovic seconded the motion to approve the Class A warrants 30 in the corrected amount of $965,877.82 and to ratify the Class B warrants in the amount of $126,718.10. 31 32 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 33 34 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 35 36 Opposed: None 37 38 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the warrants approved and 39 ratified. 40 41 Regular Scheduled Business 42 43 President Kaz then introduced Regular Scheduled Business beginning with Items for Consideration by 44 Omnibus Vote and reading them aloud as follows: 45 46 A. Items for Consideration by Omnibus Vote 47 1. Ordinance Declaring Certain Village Property as Surplus and Authorizing the Sale or 1 Disposal Thereof (IT Equipment) 2 3 2. Resolution Authorizing the Use of the Municipal Partnering Initiative (MPI) Contractual 4 Pricing Pursuant to Government Joint Purchasing Act, 30 ILCS 525/0.01, et. seq., with 5 Everlast Blacktop Inc. of Elgin, Illinois for the 2026 Warwick Road Curb Replacement Project 6 in the Estimated Amount of $32,000 7 8 3. Resolution Authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding Between the Village of 9 Kenilworth and the Cook County Sherrif’s Office 10 11 President Kaz then asked whether any Trustees would like to take any item out of Omnibus Consideration. 12 They did not. She then asked whether there were any questions from the Board about any of these three 13 items. Trustees clarified the hard drive status of IT Equipment being disposed of and the impact of Cook 14 County Sherrif’s Memorandum on the operations of the Kenilworth Police Department. 15 16 Mr. Schmidt responded to the former subject and Police Chief Silva to the latter subject to the Board’s 17 satisfaction. President Kaz then asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. 18 19 Hearing no further questions, President Kaz asked for a motion to authorize the resolutions as stated and 20 approve the ordinance. Trustee Gottschall so moved, and Trustee Hannus seconded the motion. 21 22 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 23 24 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 25 titled 26 Opposed: None 27 28 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the resolutions authorized 29 and the ordinance approved. 30 31 President Kaz then introduced agenda items for consideration by individual vote. 32 33 B. Items for Consideration by Individual Vote 34 4. Resolution Pledging to Join Cook County to Unite Against Hate 35 36 On the first item, President Kaz invited Barbara Cornew, District Director for Cook County Commissioner Scott 37 Britton to speak. Ms. Cornew thanked the Board for its consideration of joining Commissioner Britton’s 38 campaign entitled Cook County United Against Hate (the “Campaign”). She recounted her personal 39 experience and that of her husband as residents of Kenilworth as well as Commissioner Britton’s personal 40 history in the local area, citing how important it was to them all, hence underscoring her encouragement to 41 the Board to join the Campaign. She went on to describe the circumstances that led Commissioner Britton to 42 begin his effort, how support began and grew organically, the organizing principles and symbolism he initiated 43 to brand the Campaign, and the present collection of organizations that have agreed to join in support. She 44 listed the ways the campaign actively works to address the misunderstandings that often are the basis for 45 hateful behavior and highlighted the contributions being made by organizations supporting the Campaign. 1 She thanked the Board for presenting this resolution and encouraged them to approve it. President Kaz 2 thanked Ms. Cornew for her comments. Trustees clarified the expectations of the Village should the 3 resolution be passed. Ms. Cornew addressed them to the Board’s satisfaction. President Kaz asked if there 4 were any questions from the public. Resident Mike Goode suggested the resolution was unnecessary. 5 6 Hearing no further questions, President Kaz asked for a motion to approve the resolution. Trustee Hannus so 7 moved, and Trustee Lojkovic 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 resolution authorized 16 and thanked Ms. Cornew for all the work she devoted to supporting the resolution. She then asked Ms. 17 Cornew to pass along the Board’s appreciation for the initiative to Commissioner Britton. 18 19 President Kaz then turned to agenda item V.B.5 a.-c. stating that while each subset of the item (a.-c.) will be 20 considered separately, she would read them all aloud to establish context. After doing so, she invited 21 Management Analyst Molly Burns to present on item V.B.5 a. 22 23 5. Consideration of the Following Items Concerning the Green Bay Road Enhancement 24 Project: 25 a) Presentation, Discussion and Resolution Approving Project Priorities for the Green Bay 26 Road Enhancement Project 27 28 Ms. Burns reviewed work done by the Public Works Committee (PWC) of the Board in preparation for 29 considering this item. She presented the Green Bay Road Corridor Vision Statement adopted by the Village 30 Board in August or 2022, outlined the protocol followed to survey residents in an effort to update the Vision 31 Statement in 2026, compared the hierarchy of priorities established in 2022 with the newly identified 32 hierarchy of 2026, described the analysis of the differences and similarities that were presented to the PWC, 33 presented a ranking of priorities using both the 2022 and 2026 data and calculating the average of the total 34 ranking values, provided a newly revised list of priorities identified by the PWC designed to condense and 35 simplify both listing efforts, and expanded on the thought process followed by the PWC when creating the 36 newly revised list. President Kaz then opened the floor to comments from the Board. Trustees thanked Ms. 37 Burns for the presentation and expressed support for its’ findings. President Kaz then opened the floor for 38 comments from the public. Resident David Joyce asked the Board to consider the conversion of vacant Village 39 property on Green Bay Road to a park. President Kaz thanked Mr. Joyce for his comment but felt it was not 40 germane to the item before the Board and suggested having a discussion of his question privately. Resident 41 Lois Stanley felt the list was too broadly conceived and wanted to hear more specific details about how to 42 reach the goals presented by the priorities. President Kaz thanked Ms. Stanley and directed her attention to 43 upcoming agenda items designed to address her concerns. 44 45 Hearing no further questions, President Kaz asked for a motion to approve the resolution. Trustee Ransford so 1 moved, and Trustee Hannus 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 resolution approved. 10 11 President Kaz then turned to agenda item V.B.5.b. and asked Village Manager Thake to present on this item. 12 13 b) Resolution Authorizing a Bid Waiver and Execution of a Professional Services 14 Agreement with the Ciorba Group of Chicago, Illinois for Green Bay Road Design 15 Services for Phase I Engineering Study in the Amount not to Exceed of $432,000 16 17 Manager Thake began by relating the connection of this agenda item to the FY2026 budget goals related to 18 the ongoing Green Bay Road Enhancement Project (the “Project”). She then cited the recommendation of the 19 PWC formed at their March 19, 2026 meeting to engage Ciorba Group of Chicago to address the next step in 20 the process toward completing the Project. This would be to conduct the Phase I Engineering Study 21 presented in this resolution. She went on to list the reasons for authorizing a waiver from subjecting the work 22 to a competitive bidding process. They included Ciorba Group’s familiarity with the project, the successful 23 execution by Ciorba of prior assignments, the Village’s positive experience with Ciorba during completion of 24 the recent Streetscape Project, the successful collaboration by Ciorba with Teska Associates in past 25 assignments, extensive experience with Village staff, their proven experience with grant applications, and the 26 added cost associated with bringing a new vendor up to speed in the middle of this ongoing process. She 27 stated that staff plans to subject future phases of the project to competitive bid in order to comply with 28 requirements from potential outside sources of funding relief. President Kaz pointed out that the proposed 29 contract will require extensive support by Ciorba during the review and acceptance process among 30 stakeholders going forward. Trustees expanded on Ciorba’s experience with the Village of Winnetka and the 31 competitive pricing Ciorba quoted in their proposal. 32 33 President Kaz then opened the floor to questions from the public. Resident Lois Stanley expressed the belief 34 that completion of the project in question would result in a transfer of ownership of Green Bay Road from the 35 Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to the Village of Kenilworth and resident Eileen Madigan added 36 her concern that a transfer would be very expensive for the Village. Manager Thake and President Kaz 37 suggested that ownership transfer is not a given and any decision in that regard will be relegated to a time 38 when the project is much further along and undergone numerous public hearings. 39 40 Hearing no further questions, President Kaz asked for a motion to authorize the resolution. Trustee Gottschall 41 so moved, and Trustee Lojkovic seconded the motion. 42 43 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 44 45 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 46 1 Opposed: None 2 3 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the resolution approved. 4 5 President Kaz then turned to agenda item V.B.5.c. and asked Manager Thake to present on the item. As 6 7 c) Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Submittal of a Grant Application for the 8 Invest in Cook Grant Program for Phase II Design Engineering 9 10 Manager Thake reviewed recent conversations with Cook County officials indicating that the chances for 11 Grant Application success are strengthened when the long-term commitment to a project is demonstrated by 12 the passage of resolutions such as the one presented here. Without making a binding commitment to 13 complete Phase II, the Board can demonstrate its commitment to plans to do so by approving this resolution. 14 The response from Cook County could be to approve some portion, up to 50%, of the grant applied for as a 15 demonstration of good faith support. President Kaz asked the Board if they had any questions. There were 16 none. She then asked the public whether there were any questions. There were none. 17 18 Hearing no further comments, President Kaz asked for a motion to approve the resolution. Trustee Vitu so 19 moved, and Trustee Ransford seconded the motion. 20 21 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 22 23 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 24 25 Opposed: None 26 27 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the resolution approved 28 and the grant application submittal authorized and thanked Village staff for their work on this item. 29 30 Turning to the next agenda item, President Kaz read the following aloud: 31 32 6. Consideration of a Request for a Preliminary Plan for a Planned Unit Development and a 33 Certificate of Appropriateness at 515-519 Park Drive 34 35 Before engaging in Board consideration of this item, President Kaz thanked all those who submitted public 36 comment and then recited the order of business as follows: 37 38 1. A presentation by Mr. Michael Blue of Teska Associates to provide an overview of the Certificate of 39 Appropriateness (C.O.A.) application and Planned Unit Development (P.U.D) designation. 40 2. A presentation from the C.O.A. and P.U.D. Applicant. 41 3. Discussion among the members of the Board regarding the specific agenda item under consideration. 42 4. Open the Floor to Public Comment. 43 44 She then reviewed the discussion protocol that will be followed during public comment to provide time for 45 everyone who would like to speak in a respectful manner, focusing on new information, and maintaining 46 decorum. She then turned to Village Attorney Jones for comment. He emphasized that the agenda item 1 under consideration is only a step in the process to final approval. He recounted prior Board action of 2 remanding the C.O.A. and P.U.D application back to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the 3 Planning Commission (PC) for reconsideration in the areas of building height and contribution to the public 4 benefit. He characterized the discussion this evening as a review of that reconsideration. After the overview 5 provided by Michael Blue of Teska Associates, acting as Village Planner, comments by the applicant, 6 discussion among the Board, comments from representatives of ARC and PC, as well as public comment, the 7 Board may choose to direct staff to prepare findings to be presented in an ordinance approving the C.O.A. 8 P.U.D application at some future Board meeting. With that understanding, Attorney Jones invited Mr. 9 Michael Blue to begin his presentation. 10 11 Mr. Blue provided a summary of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D) and Certificate of Appropriateness (C.O.A) 12 review process which is required by the Village Zoning Code. He listed several public meetings held during FY 13 2025 and FY 2026 by the ARC, the PC, and the Village Board to follow that process. The steps taken at those 14 meetings were as follows: 15 16 1. Public Meeting at Architectural Review Commission to consider the Certificate of Appropriateness for 17 the project 18 2. ARC recommendation on the C.O.A forwarded to Plan Commission 19 3. Public Meeting at Plan Commission to consider granting Planned Unit Development status to the 20 applicant 21 4. PC forwards recommendation on P.U.D. along with ARC recommendation on C.O.A. to Village Board 22 5. Village Board holds Public Hearing on C.O.A. and P.U.D application. 23 6. Village Board Remands to ARC and PC specifically regarding building height and public benefit 24 7. ARC discussion on Village Board Remand 25 8. PC discussion on Village Board Remand 26 9. Village Board review of ARC and PC Remand discussions 27 28 He noted that the formal recommendations forwarded to the Village Board (listed as item #4 above) were to 29 deny the C.O.A. by the ARC and deny P.U.D. status by the PC. 30 31 Mr. Blue then recounted the history of proposal adjustments made by the applicant during the course of the 32 zoning code review process. The original proposal presented to the Village Board (listed as item #5 above) on 33 January 20, 2026 had the following aspects: 34 35 o 4-story mixed-use building 36 o Approx. 2,500 ft. of commercial space across 2 spaces 37 o 7 dwelling units (4th story penthouse – stepped back) 38 o Building extended from lot line to line 39 o 14 indoor garage parking spaces for residential units, accessed from alley 40 o Exceeded height limit with special use permit approval (40’) by 6’4” 41 42 After discussion, the Village Board voted to remand this proposal back to the ARC and the PC with the 43 following guidance: 44 45 o Evaluate possible design changes to mitigate the impact of height. This 1 could include, but is not limited to: 2 • Removing the penthouse 3 • Altering the setbacks for the fourth floor 4 • Eliminating the top floor 5 • Explore a maximum building height of 40’ 6 7 o Provide feedback on the potential public benefit the development 8 provides 9 10 At the ARC meeting to consider the Village Board’s remand guidance (listed as item#7 above), the applicant 11 submitted a revised proposal for consideration. A comparison of these two proposals is as follows: 12 13 Original Proposal (January 20,2026) Revised Proposal (March 3, 2026) Use • Retail on first floor • Residential on floors 2-3 • Penthouse 4th floor • 2 story residential “duplex condominiums” on first floor • Residential on floors 2-3 • Penthouse on fourth floor Height Four stories, 46’4” Four stories, 40’ Total Dwelling Units Seven Units Eight Units Retail Spaces Two retail spaces No retail component Parking spaces 14 parking spaces for condominium owners Same Zoning Relief Needed • Exceeded height limit (35’) by 11’4” • Exceeds height limit with special use permit approval (40’) by 6’4” • Planned Unit Development requirement for first floor retail space • Exceeds height limit with special use permit approval by 0’ 14 At the time, Mr. Blue invited representatives of the ARC and PC to comment on their respective responses to 15 this new information. Mr. John Pilant, Chairman of the Architectural Review Commission was invited to 16 address the meeting. He recounted the receipt of a revised proposal described above at the March 2, 2026 17 ARC meeting. He began by specifying that while the ARC would not normally comment on changes in 18 building usage (from providing retail space to eliminating retail space), it does opine on design guidelines. 19 Determining whether the building meets design guidelines requires knowing whether the building will be a 20 mixed use or all residential development, as different design elements would be required for each of those 21 approaches to meet the guidelines. Following the appropriate design guidelines for this new proposal the 22 ARC focused on three primary areas: architectural compatibility, scale and massing, and the relationship of 23 the proposed structure to its immediate surroundings. The commission found that the new proposal was 24 largely in line with the Village’s architectural style and saw a path to consensus regarding any elements of 25 concern. Height, scale and massing however, were deemed inconsistent with existing buildings along Park 26 Drive and the ARC recommended the applicant pursue changes to address these concerns. Site integration 27 and streetscape presence were also a concern as there is no adequate buffer between the proposed new 28 structure and nearby residential buildings. Taken in total, these concerns prompted the ARC to rule against 29 the granting of a C.O.A. for the new proposal. That concluded Mr. Pilant’s remarks. 30 1 Mr. Ian Fisher, representing the Plan Commission, was next to speak. Mr. Fisher identified competing 2 objectives in play when considering this proposal. On one hand, there are concerns about granting height 3 relief and the implications of setting a precedent that could complicate future deliberations. On the other 4 there is the capacity to grant height for projects such as this written in the Zoning Code for a reason. This 5 dilemma is heightened by the elimination of retail space in the revised proposal and the requirement of retail 6 space in structures asking for height relief. Another consideration was that the placement of a solely 7 residential structure in the Green Bay Road business corridor would not be aligned with stated goals for 8 development. Mr. Fisher characterized the Plan Commission’s present status as divided over providing a path 9 forward for the applicant to address these competing objectives. He characterized public comment as 10 unsupportive of the present proposal and without a clear path forward for the applicant as well. Mr. Fisher 11 then turned his attention to the subject of public benefit, which he believed centered around the benefits 12 that would be realized by avoiding less preferable alternatives. He cited frustration from some residents with 13 changes to the proposal over time. He expressed concern that there may be no path forward for the 14 applicant. While he expressed his reservations regarding a successful resolution of these many competing 15 interests, he also suggested that more could be done to fully test the range of alternatives available to the 16 applicant. As an example, the PC has not seen a fully articulated version of a zoning-compliant alternative and 17 whether and under what conditions it would be feasible. The PC would like more information before a final 18 determination is made regarding the P.U.D application. 19 20 Mr. Blue thanked Messrs. Pilant and Fisher for their comments and turned the discussion to a term used 21 during those comments. Specifically, to the meaning of a “by right” designation when speaking of zoning. “By 22 right” development refers to a property that complies fully with existing zoning laws, building codes, and land-23 use regulations, allowing it to proceed without requiring special approvals or variances. He sought to dispel 24 any concern that this sort of development would avoid legal review by the Village. To illustrate the layers of 25 legal compliance that come into place with applicants two proposals, Mr. Blue reviewed the zoning 26 regulations invoked and when: 27 28 Certificate of Appropriateness is required by Section 153.242 (A) (1) for: 29 o construction, alteration or repair of any building or structure in any non- 30 o residential district of the village... 31 o Requires an ARC review and Village Board Approval 32 33 Special Use are covered under Section 153.095 Section 153.095 for: 34 Permitted and Special Uses in B Business District: 35 o New buildings or structures with a floor area of 10,000 square feet or more 36 o Building height may be considered up to 40’ (35’ otherwise w/o SUP) 37 o Requires Public Hearing before the Plan Commission and Village Board Approval 38 39 Planned Unit Development are covered under Section 153.246.C for: 40 Planned Unit Developments / Requirements and Standards: 41 o PUD may deviate from strict conformance with the required density, dimension, area, bulk, 42 use, and other regulations applicable to the property upon which the PUD is located... 43 o Allows the Village to grant zoning relief in light of enhanced standards 44 o Relates to current plan in regard to 1st floor residential. 45 1 Mr. Blue concluded his remarks by offering a set of questions that illustrate what is before the Board for 2 consideration presently. There are: 3 1. Is a 40’ building appropriate for the site and do the proposed design elements adequately address 4 concerns related to the development’s impact on the surrounding area? Impacts that have been 5 noted through the review process include: 6 1. building height, 7 2. traffic congestion and safety, 8 3. noise, 9 4. property value impacts, 10 5. compatibility with B Business District uses 11 NOTE: A 40’ height is equal to what may be considered through a Special Use process 12 2. Is the requested relief to allow first floor residential in the B Business District to facilitate a 40’tall 13 building an appropriate trade-off to accommodate this development? 14 3. Is the proposed public benefit substantial enough to warrant approval of the requested zoning relief? 15 If not, what relief, if any, would? 16 17 This concluded Mr. Blue’s remarks. President Kaz then invited the C.O.A. and P.U.D. applicant, Mr. Michael 18 Freiburger of RED3Development LLC, to address the item. Mr. Freiburger thanked Mr. Blue for his 19 presentation, and the Village Board, Village staff, the Plan Commission, the Architectural Review Commission, 20 and Village residents for feedback on the various project configurations under consideration. After a brief 21 review of his review process experience, he declared that his interpretation of feedback was that building 22 height and massing were the most important objections from stakeholders. The revised proposal introduced 23 on March 3, 2026 to the ARC reduced building height to a maximum of 40 feet addressing these objections. A 24 consequent change to that reduction in height was the elimination of retail space in the proposal. Mr. 25 Freiburger then spent time illustrating the difference between how a structure might be technically measured 26 and how it is “experienced” by passers-by. He argued that design specifications were intentionally introduced 27 to present the experience of a building measuring only 33’ 2”. He added that a structure built “by code”, with 28 a maximum height of 35 feet, but without these design specifications would present a higher experience than 29 the revised proposal under consideration. He asked the Board to accept that the revised proposal is more in 30 line with the intent of the 35-foot limit written in the zoning code because it controls how the building is 31 experienced, not just how it’s measured. In summary, Mr. Freiburger listed the zoning relief he is asking for 32 with the March 3rd revised proposal as: 33 34 o A maximum height of 40 feet 35 o A P.U.D. without an allocation for retail space 36 37 He recounted the numerous iterations his staff produced before settling on the latest proposal. While there is 38 still a need for zoning relief, he pointed out how the revised proposal sufficiently addressed other stakeholder 39 feedback on: 40 41 o Traffic 42 o Parking 43 o Deliveries 44 o Congestion 45 o Safety 1 o General Concerns 2 3 Mr. Freiburger then introduced revisions to the March 3rd proposal in elevation, floor-to-floor height and 4 lobby space specifications. He spent time offering renderings of the building façade at different times of the 5 year and of the day and presented arguments for how the proposed structure blends well into the present 6 building stock of the Village. He then referred to a discussion with Plan Commission personnel regarding 7 public benefit and presented renderings of signage and structural contributions his firm would consider 8 making to the Village that would heighten the public benefit of his proposal. He and his associate Mr. Reed 9 Edwards also reiterated plans to address the alley along the east side of and north of the structure to enhance 10 the public benefit. Mr. Freiburger concluded his remarks by urging the Board to approve the C.O.A. and the 11 Preliminary Plan for the P.U.D. 12 13 President Kaz pointed out that during his presentation Mr. Freiburger contrasted his March 3rd revised 14 proposal with a project rendering that satisfied the zoning code (or “by code” in his words). The argument he 15 presented was that this “by code” rendering was less desirable than his revised proposal. She opined that it 16 was unlikely that his “by code” rendering would be acceptable to Village regulators based on the feedback on 17 bulk and setbacks that his earlier proposals had received to date, therefor undermining his comparison 18 argument. Mr. Freiburger countered that his “by code” rendering was very much in line with existing 19 structures in the Village. Trustees clarified the standard zoning code specifications and the distinction 20 between the term “by right” discussed by Mr. Blue earlier and “by code” introduced by Mr. Freiberger. There 21 appeared to be little. 22 23 President Kaz prefaced the commencement of Board discussion of the agenda item by suggesting the 24 discussion center around what has been done regarding the height of the structure, the removal of retail 25 space, and the degree of public benefit. She proposed that the Board begin with a discussion of the removal 26 of retail space. Trustees first clarified whether there was any discussion among the development group 27 around removing the fourth-floor penthouse and what options were available to the Village regarding the 28 developer’s contributions to public benefit. Mr. Freiburger and Mr. Edwards stated that eliminating the 29 fourth-floor penthouse would make the project unfeasible and that they were open to making whatever 30 contributions to public benefit have the highest impact. 31 32 Trustees began the discussion on the agenda item by expressing disappointment that retail space has been 33 eliminated from March 3rd’s revised proposal. They cited the loss of potential sales tax revenue, the need for a 34 variance on a residential property, the misalignment with resident feedback, limited public benefit, the 35 location of the property in the business district, and the limits on retail space options in the Village generally. 36 They also cited the current vacancy of the property, the weakening of retail space demand generally, the 37 recent demand for smaller retail spaces and admiration for the beauty of the proposed structure as reasons 38 to consider granting approval. Mr. Freiburger reserved comment on the feasibility of adding a reduced retail 39 space to the current proposal until he had time to consider it. Mr. Edwards argued that given a trade-off 40 between and retaining retail space and reducing height, the message communicated from Village regulators 41 was that height was more important resulting in the present configuration. He went on to argue that financial 42 feasibility constraints require a compromise. Trustees countered that they are unwilling to accept that there 43 is no option which includes a retail space component within the 40-foot height limit. 44 45 Trustees clarified the need to be concerned about setting a precedent for future Boards and when changes to 1 a proposal trigger the need to start the approval process all over. Attorney Jones and Manager Thake 2 addressed these concerns to the Board’s satisfaction. The discussion then turned to tax revenue flows and 3 the need to consider additional tax revenue as an argument supporting approval of the C.O.A. and P.U.D. 4 Trustees then engaged Attorney Jones to comment on instances where, as in this case, the ARC and PC have 5 recommended against approval of a C.O.A. and P.U.D. but the Board approved them anyway. He stated there 6 were no such prior instances regarding the C.O.A. and that this is the first consideration of a P.U.D. to come 7 before a Kenilworth Board. The discussion concluded with comments on the strong representation of 8 resident disapproval of the revised proposal. 9 10 After acknowledging a consensus among the Board that the lack of retail space allocation raised serious 11 objections to the approval, President Kaz recognized the difficulty for the Board to honor resident sentiment 12 within the many constraints of the zoning approval process. She recognized the efforts by the applicant to 13 address as many objections as possible by providing an ongoing stream of revisions to his original concept. 14 This has helped to demonstrate his good faith effort to satisfy the Board’s duty to serve the residents of 15 Kenilworth but also has challenged the decision-making process with its oft-evolving proposals. Nonetheless, 16 she suggested that the dedication to the decision-making process among stakeholders has proven fruitful and 17 encouraged everyone involved to persevere. Turning to another source of objection, she then asked the 18 Board to turn their discussion to the issue of building height. 19 20 Trustees offered opinions regarding the stated zoning code restrictions, their willingness to accept the five 21 additional feet allowed within the zoning code when considering a P.U.D. and acknowledged the height and 22 massing relief provided by the revised proposal design as described by Mr. Freiburger. They addressed a 23 question to Mr. Pilant of the ARC regarding the appropriateness of a fourth-floor penthouse in the design. 24 Speaking for himself, he agreed that the design changes to the frontal view of the structure addressed size 25 and massing concerns effectively. It was on the other three sides of the structure that the ARC continues to 26 have concerns in this area. He cited concerns around how the proposed structure blends with neighboring 27 buildings from these different perspectives. Trustees cited views from the Kenilworth train station and 28 neighboring two-story buildings and challenged the applicant’s claims that the structure will “experience” as a 29 building shorter than 40 feet. Mr. Freiburger suggested that the Board’s position appears to be that no 30 compromise need be made among conflicting code restrictions and he does not support that view. He 31 emphasized how much work he has done to come close satisfying all zoning restrictions but felt compromise 32 will inevitably be needed. President Kaz, citing the need to provide time for public comment, asked that the 33 Board shift its discussion to public benefit. 34 35 Mr. Blue offered that any discussion of public benefit will require a decision on the final structure design. He 36 went on to describe a dilemma for providing that final design which was the need to include retail in a 37 structure not taller than 40 feet. He noted the applicant’s claim that providing a design that conforms to 38 these restrictions is not financially feasible. Without a financially feasible final design, the discussion of public 39 benefit, in his estimation, was moot. Accepting Mr. Blue’s premise for the purposes of discussion, President 40 Kaz asked the Board to discuss whether they would accept a building height taller than 40 feet if it meant the 41 structure would include retail space. 42 43 Some Trustees expressed comfort with a taller building if it meant retaining retail space. There were concerns 44 about how much taller and the Board emphasized the need to see an actual proposal. Mr. Freiburger 45 suggested a financially feasible alternative with retail space would revolve around 45 feet in height. Some 1 trustees were unconvinced there was a need to go beyond the 40-foot limit and felt limiting decision options 2 to either having retail space at building height of more than 40 feet, or having building height limited to 40 3 feet and no retail space was unwise and felt the question of eliminating the fourth-floor penthouse altogether 4 was never properly addressed. President Kaz offered that a presentation made to the PC on April 7, 2026, by 5 the applicants confirmed that elimination of the fourth-floor penthouse would make the project financially 6 unfeasible. President Kaz then asked Mr. Blue to describe a path forward for the Board. Mr. Blue 7 underscored the dilemma regarding the inclusion of retail space and honoring zoning code height limits has 8 offered two possible outcomes: a financially feasible compromise proposal from the applicant which can 9 satisfy a majority of Board members, or an admission that there is no proposal that can include retail and 10 remain compliant with the Zoning code, thus ending any further deliberations on this matter. Trustees then 11 clarified the nature of the most recent PC deliberations regarding the revised proposal. No consensus was 12 reached. 13 14 President Kaz, after conferring with Attorney Jones, offered that consideration of this item by the Board 15 should be continued to next month’s Board meeting, and time should be devoted to registering public 16 comment on the item presently. She urged residents to limit their speaking time to three minutes and avoid 17 repeating comments that have already been registered with the Village and thus allowing as many voices and 18 fresh commentary to be heard as possible. 19 20 Resident Kathy Kirrish felt the Village should insist on a retail component from the applicants, that the 21 proposal should observe present zoning code height restrictions, and that the additional residential capacity 22 has insufficient infrastructure support. She urged the Board to invite other developers to submit proposals 23 that would satisfy these demands. 24 25 Resident Vivian Valberg expressed concern about the negative effect the proposed structure would have on 26 property values for households on Melrose Avenue and the limited likelihood of filling retail space once it 27 becomes available. 28 29 Resident David Ward offered that, given his experience as a professional photographer, an individual’s ability 30 to perceive differences in height at extended distances is highly limited. He felt concern about the height 31 variances of the proposed structure was thus overemphasized and should be reconsidered. He encouraged 32 the Board to instruct the developer to put his best proposal together that addresses Village desires without 33 concern for exceeding height restrictions in the zoning code. 34 35 Resident Rob Weibking supported the ARC and PD concerns about massing and scale of the proposed 36 structure. He felt the negative effect on existing structures and roadways behind the building outweighs any 37 perceived public benefit of granting zoning code relief. 38 39 Resident Bill Tribe did not support granting zoning relief for the proposed project and urged the Board to 40 resist approving the P.U.D. for any project without a high degree of support from all stakeholders. He did not 41 want the Board to set an ill-considered precedent for subsequent decisions. 42 43 Ms. Ceciel Coolgem-Fosco, a Kenilworth business owner located adjacent to the proposed project, expressed 1 concern about the impact of pending construction on her business activities and support for the addition of 2 retail space in the area. 3 4 Resident Lois Stanley felt the fourth-floor penthouse of the revised proposal should be eliminated, suggested 5 the developer redistribute any lost financial expectations to the remaining units in order to make it financially 6 feasible, and the side and rear designs be revised to reduce massing and scale. 7 8 Resident Mike Goode felt the Board should not grant zoning relief to the revised proposal and protect the 9 carefully preserved character of the Village. He did not believe adding retail space was as important as others 10 have suggested and cited infrastructure insufficiencies that frustrated interest from potential retail 11 businesses. He felt the revised proposal was oversized and would cause traffic and parking problems for 12 nearby residences. 13 14 Resident Eric Miller offered that he had 229 resident signatures opposing a 40-foot structure representing 176 15 households and presented a map depicting the distribution of signatories geographically within the Village. 16 He suggested there were more people to add to that total. He urged the Board to resist approving the C.O.A. 17 and the P.U.D. given this information. 18 19 Resident Patricia Naughton felt the oft-revised proposals from the developer made commenting on any one 20 version difficult. She recounted recent decisions by retail businesses to relocate to spaces in neighboring 21 communities that better supported their business activity. She felt this indicated deficiencies in infrastructure 22 such as parking made attracting and keeping retail activity in the Village difficult thus making an emphasis on 23 additional retail space Ill-advised. She also felt that demand for the proposed residential units could be 24 overestimated. She concluded her remarks suggesting the placement of residential units in a business district 25 could open the Village to committing safety violations. 26 27 Resident David Joyce urged the Board to accept the demonstrated level of public response to the revised 28 proposal as an indication of the public will being against approval. He felt regulators had not interpreted the 29 zoning code properly and emphasized the undesirability of the population density that the revised proposal 30 would produce. He concluded by reiterating his observation that property tax revenue produced by the 31 revised proposal would be directed to the Tax Increment Financing Fund created for the business district 32 rather than the Village at large. 33 34 Resident Alice Reed felt that potential retail businesses could be attracted to the newly constructed space the 35 revised proposal could provide. 36 37 Resident Greg Kirrish felt there could be retail interest in the existing structures if there was a more aggressive 38 attempt to promote it. He then cited the public sentiment portrayed by earlier commenters supports the 39 notion that Village residents oppose approving the proposed project. 40 41 President Kaz then turned to those attending the meeting virtually for their comments. 42 43 Resident Louis Keiler questioned whether the developer could negotiate concessions from the present 44 property owners of the site in question in order to improve the financial feasibility of a proposal that complied 45 with zoning code restrictions and suggested that a more aggressive effort to market the property could result 1 in expanding the choices available to the Village. 2 3 Resident Lydia Barhight wondered if the present water and sewer drainage available to the new structure 4 would be adequate. President Kaz responded that studies of this topic have been done and the revised 5 project would be adequately served. 6 7 Resident Marjie Zander argued that the revised proposal entails an unprecedented level of density for the size 8 of the property in question. She supported the ARC and PC efforts to address this officially in their denial of 9 the C.O.A. and the P.U.D. 10 11 President Kaz then declared the period for public comment to be over and asked the applicant if he would like 12 to respond. Mr. Freiberger asked to be given time to respond at a later date and the Board agreed. Mr. 13 Edwards inquired whether the revised proposal is the last iteration the Board would consider or could yet 14 another revision reflecting the evening’s discussion be pursued. President Kaz indicated that due to the lack 15 of consensus among the Board, more time is needed to answer that question. She praised the iterative 16 nature of the process and indicated that further discussion regarding the matter will be continued his evening 17 and that staff will reach out in the coming days as appropriate. 18 19 Hearing no further questions, President Kaz asked for a motion to continue consideration of this item until the 20 May 18, 2026, Board meeting. Trustee Gottschall so moved, and Trustee Vitu seconded the motion. 21 22 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 23 24 For: Ransford, Ottsen*, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 25 26 Opposed: None 27 *Trustee Ottsen experienced technical difficulties and could not verbally respond to the roll call 28 The roll call tally was five votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the item so continued. 29 30 Turning to the next agenda item, President Kaz read it aloud. 31 32 7. Action on the Following Items Pertaining to Water Service Lines: 33 a) Ordinance Approving an Amendment to Kenilworth Code of Ordinances Chapters 50 34 and 150 Concerning the Illinois Plumbing Code 35 36 She then asked Management Analyst Schmidt to report on the item. Mr. Schmidt reviewed the history of the 37 process followed by the Public Works Committee (PWC) in response to the State of Illinois Lead Service Line 38 Replacement and Notification Act 415 ILCS 5/17.12 (“ILSLRNA”), enacted in 2022, aimed at identifying and 39 replacing all lead service lines within the state by 2042. He described the process followed by the PWC over 40 the past year developing a strategy for the Village to achieve compliance and pursuing the steps necessary to 41 implement it. The item under consideration is another step in that process as it will amend the Village 42 Plumbing Code to facilitate the implementation of a cost-sharing arrangement to be entered into by the 43 Village and individual residents to make the appropriate changes to the water service delivery system that is 44 unique to each household. He elaborated on the cost-sharing plan, giving examples of various service delivery 45 configurations and how the proposed chapters to the Kenilworth Plumbing Code would come into play and 46 thereby illustrating the need for the amendment to the code. He concluded his remarks by outlining the steps 1 that would be taken subsequent to the approval, to implement the cost-sharing arrangement once the 2 ordinance is approved. Trustees clarified aspects of the cost-sharing program and opined on the difficulty of 3 predicting its impact on any one fiscal year between now and its completion. 4 5 b) Ordinance Establishing the Village of Kenilworth Lead Water Service Line Replacement 6 Cost-Sharing Program 7 8 President Kaz, acknowledging that the discussion of Agenda Item #7b was absorbed in the discussion of 9 Agenda Item #7a requested a motion to approve both ordinances together. Trustee Ransford so moved, and 10 Trustee Lojkovic seconded the motion. 11 12 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 13 14 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 15 16 Opposed: None 17 18 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the amendment approved 19 and the cost-sharing program established. 20 21 Report from Staff 22 A. Community Development 23 B. Finance 24 C. Police 25 Kenilworth Police Department (KPD) Chief Silva reported on his department’s efforts in the categories of 26 traffic safety, school security, and community engagement. He highlighted lower traffic activity but offsetting 27 activity in other areas kept the KPD fully engaged, and an unforeseen uptick in FOIA requests for the Q1 of FY 28 2026. He then took time to discuss recent auto theft activity in the Village, its cause, the likely perpetrators, 29 the potential aftermath, and the steps being taken by the KPD to address the problem. He concluded with 30 comments on recent community engagement and school safety activities. 31 D. Public Works 32 A. Legal Counsel 33 B. Village Manager 34 35 Business from the Public 36 37 President Kaz then asked whether there was any business from the public not included in the evening’s 38 agenda. There were none. 39 40 Adjourn 41 42 Having no further business, President Kaz asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Trustee Lojkovic so 43 moved, and Trustee Gottschall seconded the motion. 44 45 A roll call vote was taken as follows: 46 1 For: Ransford, Ottsen, Hannus, Gottschall, Lojkovic, Vitu 2 3 Opposed: None 4 5 The roll call tally was six votes in favor, and none opposed. President Kaz declared the meeting adjourned at 6 10:18 p.m. 7 8 9 10